text
stringlengths 47
469k
| meta
dict | domain
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
---
abstract: |
We calculate the non–adiabatic contributions to the free energy of metals due to the electron–phonon interaction at intermediate temperatures, $0 \leqslant
k_{B} T < \epsilon_{F}$ for four different nearly free electron metals, Na, K, Al, and Pb. We calculate its value for $T = 0$ which has not been calculated before and we study its low–temperature behavior.
LA-UR-04-8709
author:
- 'N. Bock'
- 'D. Coffey'
- 'Duane C. Wallace'
bibliography:
- 'Paper.bib'
title: ' Non–Adiabatic Contributions to the Free Energy from the Electron–Phonon Interaction for Na, K, Al, and Pb '
---
Introduction
==============
For many practical applications one needs accurate values of thermodynamic properties of solids and liquids both at low pressures, where direct measurements are available, and in regions of temperature and pressure where data are absent. This requires a model Hamiltonian for the system which gives accurate results for the Helmholtz free energy. For a metal crystal the free energy consists of three contributions,
$$\begin{aligned}
F & = & \Phi_{0} (V) + F_{E} (V, T) + F_{I} (V, T)
\nonumber \\
& = & \Phi_{0} (V) + F_{el} (V, T) + F_{ep} (V, T)
\nonumber \\
\label{eq_free_energy}
& & \mbox{} + F_{ph} (V, T) + F_{anh} (V, T).\end{aligned}$$
$\Phi_{0} (V)$, the static lattice potential, represents the total energy when the ions are located at lattice sites and the electrons are in their ground state. $F_{I} (V, T)$ is the free energy from ion vibrations, and $F_{E} (V, T)$ is the free energy associated with thermal excitation of electrons from their ground state. $F_{I} (V, T)$ is the dominant temperature contribution. It consists of the quasi–harmonic phonon contribution, $F_{ph} (V, T)$, plus the small anharmonic term $F_{anh} (V, T)$ which expresses phonon–phonon interactions. $F_{E} (V, T)$ consists of $F_{el} (V, T)$ representing the thermal excitation of independent electrons, plus $F_{ep} (V, T)$, the contribution from interactions between electronic excitations and phonons.
In this paper we determine the magnitude and temperature dependence of the non–adiabatic contributions to the free energy from the electron–phonon interaction for different metals and compare with previous treatments.
Our calculations are done for a constant density $\rho$ to eliminate concern for the density dependence of phonon frequencies and electron–phonon interaction matrix elements. The density is that at the temperature $T_{\rho}$, where the phonon frequencies are measured. The melting temperature at this density is higher than the customary zero–pressure melting temperature. Our calculations cover the range from $T = 0$ to above $T_{m}$.
The paper is organized as follows: In section \[sec\_ep\_free\_energy\] we will introduce the expressions used for the electron–phonon part of the free energy. In section \[sec\_results\] our results are presented with a more detailed discussion of the numerical methods used.
Electron–Phonon Free Energy {#sec_ep_free_energy}
=============================
Analytic Form of the Free Energy
----------------------------------
Let us briefly discuss the physical origin of the contributions to $F_{ep}$, and show in the process that our formulation is free of double–counting errors. In electronic structure theory we calculate the electronic ground state energy with static nuclei, as a function of the nuclear positions, $\left\{ \vec{r}_{K}
\right\} = \vec{r}_{K = 1, \cdots, N}$. This energy is the ground state adiabatic potential $\Phi \left( \left\{ \vec{r}_{K} \right\} \right)$, which is resolved into $\Phi_{0} + \Phi_{ph} + \Phi_{anh}$, and which together with the nuclear kinetic energy gives the free energy contribution $\Phi_{0} + F_{ph} +
F_{anh}$ in eq. (\[eq\_free\_energy\]). We next do the same calculation for the excited electronic states, labeled $n = 1, 2, \cdots$ of the energy $E_{n}
\left( \left\{ \vec{r}_{K} \right\} \right)$ with static nuclei. Here only the *excitation* energies $E_{n} - \Phi$ are considered since $\Phi$ is already included in the nuclear motion contributions. Excited electronic states with nuclei at the crystal lattice sites are calculated in electronic structure theory, and their energy levels are expressed in the electronic density of states, which provides the free energy contribution $F_{el}$ in eq. (\[eq\_free\_energy\]). Next the thermally averaged vibrational contributions to the excited energies $E_{n} - \Phi$ are calculated, and these contributions yield the adiabatic part $F^{ad}$ of the electron–phonon free energy, eq. (\[eq\_F\_ad\]). Finally the non–adiabatic correction to all the electronic energy levels, ground and excited states alike, is calculated by allowing the nuclear motion to mix the electronic states. This produces the terms $F_{1}^{na}
+ F_{2}^{na}$, eqs. (\[eq\_F\_1\_na\]) and (\[eq\_F\_2\_na\]). The non–adiabatic part can formally be attributed to the terms in the trace of the partition function in which the nuclear kinetic energy operator operates on the electronic wavefunctions. A detailed discussion of the resolution of the crystal Hamiltonian, and the corresponding free energy contributions may be found in @Wallace_02:SPCL Secs. 4 and 18 and pp. 91 – 94.
While this theory is valid for metals in general, an approximation is available from which we can calculate $F_{ep}$ from previously calibrated models for the nearly–free electron metals. This is pseudopotential perturbation theory, which starts from free electrons in zeroth order, and treats the screened electron–ion interaction (the pseudopotential) as a perturbation. Electronic bandstructure effects then arise in standard perturbation theory. The electron–phonon theory becomes a double perturbation expansion, in the pseudopotential and in the displacement of nuclei from equilibrium. But the displacement expansion converts to a pseudopotential expansion, and the leading contributions to $F_{ep}$ are all of second order in the pseudopotential. The derivation may be found in [@Wallace_02:SPCL Sec. 18].
The electron–phonon contribution is written as a sum over the three terms mentioned in the previous paragraph. They are
$$\label{eq_F_ep}
F_{ep} = F^{ad} + F_{1}^{na} + F_{2}^{na},$$
where the single contributions are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_F_ad}
\frac{F^{ad}}{N} & = & \sum_{\vec{p} \vec{k} \vec{Q} \lambda}
\frac{\hbar^{2}}{N^{2} M}
\frac{n_{\vec{k} \lambda} + \frac{1}{2}}{\hbar \omega_{\vec{k} \lambda}}
\left( f_{\vec{p}} - g_{\vec{p}} \right)
\left\{
\frac{\left[ \left( \vec{k} + \vec{Q} \right) \cdot
\hat{\eta}_{\vec{k} \lambda} \right]^{2}
\left[ U \left( \vec{k} + \vec{Q} \right) \right]^{2} }
{\epsilon_{\vec{p}} - \epsilon_{\vec{p} + \vec{k} + \vec{Q}}}
-
\frac{\left[ \vec{Q} \cdot \hat{\eta}_{\vec{k} \lambda} \right]^{2}
\left[ U \left( \vec{Q} \right) \right]^{2} }
{\epsilon_{\vec{p}} - \epsilon_{\vec{p} + \vec{Q}}}
\right\} \\
\label{eq_F_1_na}
\frac{F_{1}^{na}}{N} & = & \sum_{\vec{p} \vec{k} \vec{Q} \lambda}
\frac{\hbar^{2}}{N^{2} M}
\hbar \omega_{\vec{k} \lambda}
\left( n_{\vec{k} \lambda} + \frac{1}{2} \right)
\frac{f_{\vec{p}}}{\epsilon_{\vec{p}} - \epsilon_{\vec{p} + \vec{k} + \vec{Q}}}
\frac{\left[ \left( \vec{k} + \vec{Q} \right) \cdot
\hat{\eta}_{\vec{k} \lambda} \right]^{2}
\left[ U \left( \vec{k} + \vec{Q} \right) \right]^{2}}
{\left[ \epsilon_{\vec{p}} - \epsilon_{\vec{p} + \vec{k} + \vec{Q}} \right]^{2}
- \left[ \hbar \omega_{\vec{k} \lambda} \right]^{2}} \\
\label{eq_F_2_na}
\frac{F_{2}^{na}}{N} & = & \sum_{\vec{p} \vec{k} \vec{Q} \lambda}
\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2 N^{2} M}
f_{\vec{p}} \left( 1 - f_{\vec{p} + \vec{k} + \vec{Q}} \right)
\frac{\left[ \left( \vec{k} + \vec{Q} \right) \cdot
\hat{\eta}_{\vec{k} \lambda} \right]^{2}
\left[ U \left( \vec{k} + \vec{Q} \right) \right]^{2}}
{\left[ \epsilon_{\vec{p}} - \epsilon_{\vec{p} + \vec{k} + \vec{Q}} \right]^{2}
- \left[ \hbar \omega_{\vec{k} \lambda} \right]^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Here and in the following we will calculate and quote our results as per atom. $f_{\vec{p}}$ is the Fermi–Dirac distribution function at finite temperature and $g_{\vec{p}}$ is the same at $T = 0$. $n_{\vec{k} \lambda}$ is the Bose–Einstein distribution function at finite temperature and $\hat{\eta}_{\vec{k} \lambda}$ is the polarization vector of the phonon branch $\lambda$ for wave vector $\vec{k}$ which is inside the Brillouin zone. $\vec{Q}$ is a reciprocal lattice vector and $\omega_{\vec{k} \lambda}$ is the frequency of a phonon mode. $U (\vec{k} + \vec{Q})$ is the Fourier transform of the pseudopotential for momentum transfer $\vec{k} + \vec{Q}$. In our calculations we use two models for the pseudopotential, the Harrison and the Ashcroft models, which are screened by exchange and electron–electron interactions (detailed forms are given in @Wallace_72:TOC [pp. 312]). The pseudopotential parameters are listed in Table \[table\_pseudopotential\_parameters\]. $\epsilon_{\vec{p}}$ is the electron energy measured relative to the Fermi energy.
In the above formulas, every term is of second order in $U (q)$. The appearance of free electron energies in the denominators results from the use of perturbation theory. The pseudopotential modification of the electron wavefunctions gives rise to the last term in braces in eq. (\[eq\_F\_ad\]). An alternate derivation, by means of Matsubara frequencies, is outlined in the appendix.
This is the form of the electron–phonon contribution to the free energy originally calculated by @Eliashberg_60_JETP who studied the electron–phonon interaction in the superconducting state. It is known that the non–adiabatic contribution dominates the adiabatic one at low temperature [@Allen_78] and we will focus on $F_{1,2}^{na}$ in this paper. $F^{ad}$ will be examined in a future publication.
\[sec\_analytic\_temp\_dependence\] Analytic temperature dependences
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From eqs. (\[eq\_F\_1\_na\]) and (\[eq\_F\_2\_na\]) we estimate the low–$T$ dependence of the two non–adiabatic contributions with the leading order terms of a Sommerfeld expansion [@Ashcroft_76:SSP pp. 45]. This is certainly accurate for nearly free electron metals which have smooth density of states around the Fermi surface, but is less certain for transition metals and actinides because their electronic density of states tends to fluctuate strongly around the Fermi surface which makes power series expansions around $\epsilon_{F}$ less accurate.
### $F_{1}^{na}$
In order to analyze the first non–adiabatic contribution we rewrite the Fermi–Dirac factor as follows:
$$\label{eq_f}
f_{\vec{p}} = g_{\vec{p}} + \left( f_{\vec{p}} - g_{\vec{p}} \right).$$
At high temperatures we can expand the other temperature dependent factor
$$\label{eq_n_plus_half}
\hbar \omega \left( n_{\vec{k}} + \frac{1}{2} \right)
=
\hbar \omega
\left\{ \frac{1}{\beta \hbar \omega}
+ \frac{\beta \hbar \omega}{12}
+ \frac{\left( \beta \hbar \omega \right)^{3}}{720}
+ \cdots
\right\}$$
in powers of $T$ and get a linear $T$ dependence in leading order. At low temperature, the factor eq. (\[eq\_n\_plus\_half\]) will go over to a constant and we find that the temperature dependence of the ground state part of $F_{1}^{na}$ given by the first term in eq. (\[eq\_f\]) will be given by
$$\label{eq_T_dependence}
F_{1}^{na} = \left\{
\begin{tabular}{l}
const. at $T = 0$ \\
$k T$ at high $T$
\end{tabular}
\right.$$
The contribution from the term in parentheses in eq. (\[eq\_f\]) is restricted in phase space to a small volume around the Fermi surface, whereas the ground state contribution is restricted only to $p < p_{F}$. Since the $\left(
f_{\vec{p}} - g_{\vec{p}} \right)$ contribution has much less phase space than the $g_{\vec{p}}$ contribution, the ground state contribution will dominate at all temperatures and we will not see any additional temperature dependence beyond eq. (\[eq\_T\_dependence\]).
Considering the factor $\hbar \omega / \left( \epsilon_{\vec{p}} -
\epsilon_{\vec{p'}} \right)$ in $F_{1}^{na}$ we expect this contribution to be of order $\hbar \Braket{\omega} / \epsilon_{F}$ smaller than $F_{2}^{na}$ and we will be able to neglect it. We calculated $F_{1}^{na}$ for Na to verify these estimates and present it in section \[sec\_results\].
### $F_{2}^{na}$
Taking a closer look at the integrand of the second non–adiabatic contribution we notice that all factors but one are positive for all points in the integration region. Only the energy difference in the denominator can have different signs depending on the momenta $\vec{p}$ and $\vec{p'} = \vec{p} +
\vec{k} + \vec{Q}$. We estimate its sign by dividing the integration phase space into two regions
$$\left| \Delta \epsilon \right| = \left| \epsilon_{\vec{p}} - \epsilon_{\vec{p'}} \right|
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
< \hbar \omega \mbox{\hspace{0.5cm}(Region 1)} \\
> \hbar \omega \mbox{\hspace{0.5cm}(Region 2)}
\end{array}
\right.$$
At zero temperature due to the Fermi–Dirac factor, $f_{\vec{p}} \left( 1 -
f_{\vec{p'}} \right)$, the width of the phase space for Region 1 is twice the phonon energy, $2 \hbar \omega$, in energy around the Fermi surface and very small compared to Region 2 which extends everywhere outside Region 1. $F_{2}^{na} (T = 0)$ will therefore be positive. Increasing temperature will widen the phase space for Region 1 because of the softening of the Fermi surface and will increase its negative contribution to the total but will leave the contribution from Region 2 mostly unaffected. The overall effect will be to reduce the magnitude of $F_{2}^{na}$, the more so with increasing temperature but we expect $F_{2}^{na}$ to remain positive.
From a Sommerfeld expansion of the Fermi–Dirac factor for small temperatures we estimate the low–temperature dependence of $F_{2}^{na}$ to be given by
$$\label{eq_2_na_T_dependence}
F_{2}^{na} = C_{2} + A_{2} T^{2} + \cdots$$
Previous work on the electron–phonon contribution to the free energy focused on calculating the specific heat and missed the factor $C_{2}$ which we will calculate in section \[sec\_results\]. An extensive survey of the theoretical calculations is given by Grimvall [@Grimvall_76 Tables III–VI]. We will also calculate the factor $A_{2}$ and compare with experiment and previous estimates for different materials.
As has been shown by previous authors, the low temperature specific heat of normal metals has a $T^{3} \ln T$ contribution which comes from electron–electron interaction, both those induced by phonons and those due to the Coulomb interaction. Coffey and Pethick [@Coffey_Pethick_88] and Danino and Overhauser [@Danino_Overhauser_82] for instance derived this contribution for a Debye model. We are using an Einstein model in our calculations of the non–adiabatic parts and can not pick up the $T^{3} \ln T$ term since it depends on the existence of acoustic phonon modes. It is known however that this contribution is small compared to the others and we will not calculate it.
Results {#sec_results}
=========
Einstein Approximation
------------------------
In this section we want to study the two non–adiabatic contributions using an Einstein model. We will try to answer two main questions: Will we get the correct temperature dependence from such a simplified model? How accurate will our results be?
The details of the phonon model enter the single contributions through the factor
$$\left[ \left( \vec{k} + \vec{Q} \right)
\cdot \hat{\eta}_{\vec{k} \lambda} \right]^{2}$$
in the integrands and through their explicit dependence on the phonon frequencies, $\omega_{\vec{k} \lambda}$. The former contains details of the phonon spectrum in terms of the polarization vectors of the phonon branches and turns out to have a fairly weak effect on the integral, whereas the effect of the latter can be very strong for acoustic phonon branches. When $\vec{k}$ goes to zero at the zone center [^1] the phonon frequencies of acoustic branches vanish. If the integrand plus volume factors of $k^{2}$ is well–behaved and finite for $\omega_{\vec{k} \lambda} \rightarrow 0$ we can expect to be able to approximate the integral using a suitably chosen Einstein mode. If the integrand plus volume factors diverges for vanishing $\omega_{\vec{k} \lambda}$ the details of the phonon spectrum will be important and we can not expect to be able to approximate the full phonon spectrum with a single frequency. There might be a situation of course in which a single phonon frequency will result in the correct temperature dependence, but without calculating the integral using a realistic phonon dispersion we have no way of knowing what that single frequency should be.
Both non–adiabatic contributions, $F_{1,2}^{na}$, have the factor
$$\frac{1}
{
\left[ \epsilon_{\vec{p}}
- \epsilon_{\vec{p} + \vec{k} + \vec{Q}} \right]^{2}
- \left[ \hbar \omega_{\vec{k} \lambda} \right]^{2}
},$$
in common. At the zone center this turns into
$$\frac{1}
{
\left[ \epsilon_{\vec{p}}
- \epsilon_{\vec{p} + \vec{k} + \vec{Q}} \right]^{2}
}$$
which is well behaved [^2]. The additional factor
$$\lim_{\omega_{\vec{k} \lambda} \rightarrow 0}
\hbar \omega_{\vec{k} \lambda}
\left( n_{\vec{k} \lambda} + \frac{1}{2} \right)
=
k_{B} T$$
in $F_{1}^{na}$ is also well behaved at the $\Gamma$ point. We conclude that a single phonon frequency will reproduce $F_{1,2}^{na}$ with the correct temperature dependence. We also expect it to be accurate and we will quantify this last statement later in this paper.
Figs. \[fig\_set\_03\] and \[fig\_set\_04\] show the non–adiabatic contributions for an Einstein model at $T$ = 200 K. Our a priori estimate for the Einstein frequency is $\omega_{E} = \Braket{ \omega }$, where $\Braket{
\omega }$ is the average over the Brillouin zone. For reference we included our estimates for the average phonon frequency in the graphs and in Table \[table\_material\_constants\]. As expected, the frequency dependence is very weak and we can neglect it.
Numerical Techniques {#sec_numerical_techniques}
----------------------
The two sums over the electron and phonon momenta, $\sum_{\vec{p}}$ and $\sum_{\vec{k} \vec{Q}}$, are over all of reciprocal space. Assuming a large sample size we therefore have the option to convert one or both of these sums into integrals, using the well known relationship
$$\sum_{\vec{p}}
=
\frac{ N V_{A} }{ \left( 2 \pi \right)^{3} }
\int d^{3} p,$$
where $N$ is the number of ions in the sample, and $V_{A}$ the volume per ion. In general, due to the completeness of the phonon eigenvectors in 3 dimensional space,
$$\label{eq_mode_sum}
\sum_{\lambda} \left[ \left( \vec{k} + \vec{Q} \right)
\cdot \hat{\eta}_{\vec{k} \lambda} \right]^{2}
=
\left| \vec{k} + \vec{Q} \right|^{2}.$$
In an Einstein model the sum over phonon branches can be performed outside the integral since the only factors that depend on the branch index, $\lambda$, are contained in eq. (\[eq\_mode\_sum\]). This means that the integrand does not depend on the crystal structure. If we combine the double sum $\sum_{\vec{k}
\vec{Q}}$ with $\sum_{\vec{p'}}$ where $\vec{p'} = \vec{p} + \vec{k} + \vec{Q}$ we can replace both sums, $\sum_{\vec{p} \vec{p'}}$, in the two non–adiabatic contributions with integrals without loss of generality. Eqs. (\[eq\_F\_1\_na\]) and (\[eq\_F\_2\_na\]) can then be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_F_1_na_einstein}
\frac{F_{1}^{na}}{N} & = &
\frac{ V_{A}^{2} }{ \left( 2 \pi \right)^{6} }
\,\,
\mathcal{P}
\int d\vec{p}
\int d\vec{p'}
\,\,
\frac{\hbar^{2}}{M}
\hbar \omega_{E}
\left( n_{E} + \frac{1}{2} \right)
\frac{f_{\vec{p}}}{\epsilon_{\vec{p}} - \epsilon_{\vec{p'}}}
\frac{\left| \vec{p'} - \vec{p} \right|^{2}
\left[ U \left( \vec{p'} - \vec{p} \right) \right]^{2}}
{\left[ \epsilon_{\vec{p}} - \epsilon_{\vec{p'}} \right]^{2}
- \left[ \hbar \omega_{E} \right]^{2}} \\
\label{eq_F_2_na_einstein}
\frac{F_{2}^{na}}{N} & = &
\frac{ V_{A}^{2} }{ \left( 2 \pi \right)^{6} }
\,\,
\mathcal{P}
\int d\vec{p}
\int d\vec{p'}
\,\,
\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2 M}
f_{\vec{p}} \left( 1 - f_{\vec{p'}} \right)
\frac{\left| \vec{p'} - \vec{p} \right|^{2}
\left[ U \left( \vec{p} - \vec{p'} \right) \right]^{2}}
{\left[ \epsilon_{\vec{p}} - \epsilon_{\vec{p'}} \right]^{2}
- \left[ \hbar \omega_{E} \right]^{2}},\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{P}$ stands for the principal part. We would like to mention that neither one of the two non–adiabatic contributions has any obvious upper limits for the integration on $\vec{p'}$ and we need to make sure that we understand the convergence behavior of their integrands for large $\left| \vec{p'}
\right|$. The pseudopotential, $U (\vec{q})$, converges as $q^{-2}$ for large $q$ and we conclude that the second non–adiabatic contribution, $F_{2}^{na}$, converges as $(p')^{-4}$. Due to the additional factor of $1/\left( \epsilon_{p} -
\epsilon_{p'} \right)$ in $F_{1}^{na}$, the first non–adiabatic contribution converges as $(p')^{-6}$. We can therefore expect good convergence behavior for the two non–adiabatic contributions in terms of the integration over $\vec{p'} = \vec{p} + \vec{k} + \vec{Q}$. Fig. \[fig\_set\_27\] shows this nicely. $p_{\mathrm{max}}$ is the upper integration limit of $p'$.
The 6–dimensional integration of eqs. (\[eq\_F\_1\_na\_einstein\]) and (\[eq\_F\_2\_na\_einstein\]) was done using the VEGAS method [@Lepage_80:VEGAS; @Press_NRC_88]. We took special care to ensure convergence around the divergent poles of the integrands when calculating the principal part. This was done by first reducing the poles from second to first order and then removing the divergence by subtracting a suitably chosen function from the integrand and integrating its pole by hand. This effectively smoothed the integrand sufficiently so that our VEGAS calculation converged much more rapidly. It also improved the reliability of the VEGAS error estimate and therefore the accuracy of our calculation. Since we are using spherical coordinates, this procedure has the advantage that we can very efficiently limit the integration region around the Fermi surface by using appropriate integration limits. It is also simpler to implement than a tetrahedron method in which the Brillouin zone is divided into tetrahedra which are then summed up.
Non–Adiabatic Contribution to $F_{ep}$ for different materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
We calculated $F_{1}^{na}$ for Na and $F_{2}^{na}$ for Na, K, Al, and Pb. Table \[table\_material\_constants\] shows the material specific constants used in our calculations.
Na K Al Pb
--------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
structure bcc bcc fcc fcc
$T_{\rho}$ \[K\] 90 9 80 80
$\rho$ \[g cm${}^{-3}$\] 1.005 0.904 2.731 11.55
$\left< \hbar \omega \right>$ \[meV\] 10.53 6.42 25.79 5.90
a \[Å\] 4.23 5.24 4.05 4.95
$p_{F}$ \[Å${}^{-1}$\] 0.92 0.74 1.75 1.57
$\epsilon_{F}$ \[eV\] 3.24 2.11 11.66 9.45
$T_{melt}$ \[K\] 407 368 1234 722
: \[table\_material\_constants\] Material constants
Na K Al Pb
---------------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------------------
Reference [@Wallace_72:TOC p. 406] [@Wallace_72:TOC p. 406] [@Wallace_72:TOC p. 415] [@Parks_Superconductivity_69 p. 502]
$Z$ 1 1 3 4
$\xi$ 1.81 1.77 1.90 1.81
$\hat{\rho}$ \[$a_{B}$\] 0.50 0.69 0.24 —
$\hat{\beta}$ \[Ry $a_{B}^{3}$\] 37 66 47.5 —
$\bar{\rho}$ \[$a_{B}$\] — — 1.117 1.12
: \[table\_pseudopotential\_parameters\] The pseudopotential parameters. Parameters for the Harrison model are $\hat{\rho}$ and $\hat{\beta}$, while the single parameter for the Ashcroft model is $\bar{\rho}$.
Figs. \[fig\_set\_06\] and \[fig\_set\_05\] show our results for Na using a single phonon mode at $\hbar \omega_{E} = 10.53$ meV for $F_{1,2}^{na}$. $F_{1}^{na}$ exhibits linear temperature dependence for higher temperatures and even at temperatures as low as 50 K we hardly see deviations from linear behavior. This confirms our previous estimate of this contribution’s temperature dependence based on a phase space argument. In section \[sec\_analytic\_temp\_dependence\] we had argued that when we rewrite the Fermi–Dirac distribution factor in eq. (\[eq\_F\_1\_na\_einstein\]) as eq. (\[eq\_f\]) we expect the $g_{\vec{p}}$–factor to be dominant due to its much larger phase space. Since $g_{\vec{p}}$ is not temperature dependent, the only temperature dependent factor is the phonon distribution which is linear at high temperatures. As we had argued in the same section also, the magnitude of $F_{1}^{na}$ is much smaller than the magnitude of $F_{2}^{na}$. Based on this magnitude difference we will neglect $F_{1}^{na}$ from this point onward.
Fig. \[fig\_set\_05\] shows $F_{2}^{na}$ and as expected this contribution is positive all throughout the temperature regime shown. Starting from $T = 0$ the curve has negative curvature but quickly switches to positive curvature and never crosses zero even at high temperatures. From the inset in Fig. \[fig\_set\_05\] we get the values of $C_{2}$ and $A_{2}$ listed in Table \[table\_results\].
Fig. \[fig\_set\_09\] shows our result for $F_{2}^{na}$ for K. The magnitude of the $F_{2}^{na}$ contribution is smaller by about a factor of 3 compared to Na. The difference is presumably largely due to the difference in $\epsilon_{F}$ which affects the size of the pseudopotential $U (q)$. Since the ratio of Fermi energies is about 3/2 and the pseudopotential enters the free energy squared, we get about a factor of 2 difference between the two materials just based on this term.
The pseudopotentials for Al are shown in Fig. \[fig\_pseudopotential\_Al\]. Between zero and $q / (2 p_{F}) \approx 1$ the two models are identical. Between $1 \lesssim q / (2 p_{F}) \lesssim 4$ the Harrison model is larger than the Ashcroft model and for $q / (2 p_{F}) \gtrsim 4$ both models slowly approach zero. Fig. \[fig\_set\_21\] shows our results for Al which we calculated for these two pseudopotential models. $F_{2}^{na}$ using an Ashcroft pseudopotential model is shifted by about 0.05 meV to lower energies compared to the Harrison model. The qualitative temperature dependence is not affected. The difference between the two models in terms of their convergence to zero for large $q$ therefore does not appear to be relevant in affecting the temperature dependence of $F_{2}^{na}$. The difference in magnitude for intermediate $q$ does enter the overall magnitude of $F_{2}^{na}$ and makes a difference of about 20 - 30%. The inset Fig. \[fig\_set\_21\] shows a fit using eq. \[eq\_2\_na\_T\_dependence\], and the results for $C_{2}$ and $A_{2}$ are listed in Table \[table\_results\].
Fig. \[fig\_set\_13\] shows our results for Pb. In Fig. \[fig\_set\_29\] we show the entropy calculated from the free energy and compare our result with earlier results by @Grimvall_EPI_81 [Fig. 5.19]. Our results are scaled with an Einstein temperature of $\Braket{ \hbar \omega } = 5.9 \mbox { meV} = 68.5 \mbox
{ K}$. We find very good agreement with Grimvall’s results. Grimvall calculated the total entropy, i.e. $S_{Grimvall} = S^{ad} + S_{1}^{na} + S_{2}^{na}$ for Pb up to $T = 1.4 \,\, T_{E}$. Up to this temperature, our purely non–adiabatic entropy, $S_{2}^{na}$, agrees very nicely with his results [^3]. The adiabatic contribution remains small compared to the non–adiabatic up to much higher temperatures. We shall address this in a future publication.
Na K Al Pb
-- ---------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
(Harrison) 2.270 0.8543 32.09 —
(Ashcroft) — — 27.04 6.839
(expt. [^4]) -0.10 -0.13 -0.19 -0.86
[@Wallace_72:TOC Table 27] -0.14 -0.14 -0.30 —
(ppt [^5]) -0.10 -0.12 -0.24 -0.91
(Harrison) -0.0878 -0.0889 -0.1316 —
(Ashcroft) — — -0.1285 -0.6039
: \[table\_results\] $F_{2}^{na} (T = 0)$ and curvatures at low–$T$ (Units: $C_{2}$ \[$10^{-8}$ eV/atom\], $A_{2}$ \[$10^{-5}$ eV/atom K${}^{2}$\])
Conclusions
=============
A thorough analysis of the first non–adiabatic term, $F_{1}^{na}$, reveals a ground state contribution, $\propto g_{\vec{p}}$, and a contribution due to excited electronic states, $\propto \left( f_{\vec{p}} - g_{\vec{p}} \right)$, cf. eq. (\[eq\_f\]). We find that the ground state term, since it’s temperature dependence is determined by the phonon factor alone, leads to a $T$–dependence of $F_{1}^{na}$ as given in eq. (\[eq\_T\_dependence\]). Electronic excitations above the ground state, the $\left( f_{\vec{p}} - g_{\vec{p}} \right)$ term, will lead to a temperature dependence which is determined by the leading terms in a Sommerfeld expansion and give a $T^{2}$–dependence at low temperatures for $F_{1}^{na}$. Using a phase space argument we found that the ground state term will dominate the temperature dependence and essentially determine it. The contribution from the excited electronic states to the temperature dependence will be much smaller than the ground state contribution and not visible in our calculations. We also expect the magnitude of $F_{1}^{na}$ to be $\propto \left(
\Braket{\hbar \omega} / \epsilon_{F} \right) F_{2}^{na}$ and hence negligible compared to $F_{2}^{na}$. Our numerical results confirm our suspicions, cf. Fig. \[fig\_set\_06\]. The calculated temperature dependence is linear, i.e. the ground state term dominates the temperature dependence of $F_{1}^{na}$. The absolute magnitude of $F_{1}^{na}$ is by about three orders of magnitude smaller than what we find for $F_{2}^{na}$ and we find that we can neglect this contribution.
The more complicated dependence of the Fermi–Dirac factor does not allow us to split $f_{\vec{p}} \left( 1 - f_{\vec{p'}} \right)$ into parts as in eq. (\[eq\_f\]), and the low–temperature dependence of $F_{2}^{na}$ is determined by the leading terms in a Sommerfeld expansion. The $T$–dependence therefore is given by eq. (\[eq\_2\_na\_T\_dependence\]). Studying the sign of the single factors in $F_{2}^{na}$ we find that this contribution is positive for all temperatures. Starting from a non–zero constant at $T = 0$ the magnitude slowly approaches zero as the temperature increases. Our numerical results confirm this analysis, cf. Fig. \[fig\_set\_05\]. The constant $C_{2}$ is the non–adiabatic correction to the adiabatic ground state energy [@Wallace_02:SPCL], $\Phi_{0} (V)$. In general $C_{2} \ll \Phi_{0}$ and is negligible. The curvature $A_{2}$ represents the leading electron–phonon correction to the low–temperature free energy and specific heat. The latter can be written as
$$C = \frac{\pi^{2}}{3} N_{bs}
k_{B}^{2}
\left( 1 + \lambda \right) T,$$
where the electronic density of states given by bandstructure alone, $N_{bs}$, comes from $\mathcal{H}_{el}$ and is corrected by the electron–phonon interaction with the factor $\lambda$. This factor is measurable in experiments and can get quite large for certain metals. In the case of lead for instance, $\lambda \approx 1.2$. We calculated the constant $C_{2}$ and the curvature $A_{2}$ for all four metals we studied and our results are listed in Table \[table\_results\]. In addition to our results we also included results from experiment and from previous theoretical studies. Our results agree fairly well with the other numbers. It should be pointed out that while $F_{2}^{na}$ is important for low temperatures, it is negligible at high–$T$. Comparing the entropy from the non–adiabatic contribution with the electronic contribution for instance, the ratio $S_{2}^{na} / S_{el}$ while important at low temperatures, becomes negligible for $T / T_{E} \gtrsim 1$.
Our results in Table \[table\_results\] indicate variations in the different theoretical calculations. But regardless of the details of the theoretical description, they show the ability of the theory to calculate the experimental results. Since we are working within the Einstein approximation, they also provide confirmation of our previous assumption that the Einstein model will give us the correct temperature dependence and accurate results.
\[appendix\_calculation\_details\] Technical Details regarding the calculation
================================================================================
We used a diagrammatic technique to calculate the electron–phonon contribution eq. (\[eq\_F\_ep\]). To leading order in the interaction however this approach is completely equivalent to a standard perturbation theory approach taken by Wallace for instance [@Wallace_72:TOC Section 25]. We used a linked cluster expansion, given by
$$\label{eq_starting_Hamiltonian}
\Omega - \Omega_{0} =
\frac{1}{2 \beta} \int_{0}^{1} \frac{ d\eta }{ \eta }
\sum_{\vec{k} \sigma} \sum_{i k_{n}} \Sigma^{\eta} (\vec{k} \sigma, i k_{n})
\mathcal{G}^{\eta} (\vec{k} \sigma, i k_{n}),$$
where the self–energy and Green’s function implicitly depend on the coupling constant [@Fetter_71:Quantum_Theory_of_Many--Particle_Systems], $\eta$. Since we are using a plane wave basis and a free electron dispersion, we need to include the zeroth order term in $\mathcal{H}_{ep}$. The electron self energy, $\Sigma (\vec{k}, i k_{n})$, includes diagrams of the form
$$\includegraphics*[width=8cm]{diagram_1}$$
in n${}^{th}$ order. We therefore do not consider these terms in $\mathcal{H}_{ep}$. We do need to correct our plane wave basis and include terms of the form
$$\includegraphics*[width=8cm]{diagram_2}$$
This can be achieved in regular perturbation theory by correcting the wave function to first order and then calculating the diagonal matrix elements in first order. Eq. (25.17) of @Wallace_72:TOC corresponds to this kind of diagram. The first term in (25.21) therefore is given by
$$\includegraphics*[width=8cm]{diagram_3}$$
[^1]: We remind the reader that $\vec{k}$ is restricted to the Brillouin zone.
[^2]: We are working with a parabolic band and at $\Gamma$–points with $\vec{Q} \neq 0$ the electronic energies $\epsilon_{\vec{p}} \neq \epsilon_{\vec{p} + \vec{Q}}$.
[^3]: To remind the reader we would like to note that as pointed out previously, the first non–adiabatic contribution, $F_{1}^{na}$, and consequently its related entropy, $S_{1}^{na}$, is negligible compared to the other two contributions.
[^4]: $A_{2}$ is calculated from experiment using low–temperature specific heat data. From eq. (\[eq\_2\_na\_T\_dependence\]) we find $C_{ep} = - 2 A_{2} T$. At low $T$, $C_{expt} = \Gamma_{expt} T$ and $C_{th} = \Gamma_{bs} \left( 1 + \lambda \right) T$. Our $C_{ep} = \lambda
\, \Gamma_{bs} \, T$ and we find $A_{2} = -\frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma_{expt}
- \Gamma_{bs} \right)$. $\Gamma_{expt}$ taken from @Kittel_96:ISSP [Table on p. 157]. The analysis was done by @Allen_87 [Table I and eq. (6)].
[^5]: $A_{2}$ is calculated from pseudopotential perturbation theory, and given by $A_{2} = -\frac{1}{2} \Gamma_{bs} \lambda$. $\lambda$ is taken from the data collection of @Grimvall_76 [Tables III, IV, and V].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Although manipulation and bribery have been extensively studied under weighted voting, there has been almost no work done on election control under weighted voting. This is unfortunate, since weighted voting appears in many important natural settings. In this paper, we study the complexity of controlling the outcome of weighted elections through adding and deleting voters. We obtain polynomial-time algorithms, NP-completeness results, and for many NP-complete cases, approximation algorithms. In particular, for scoring rules we completely characterize the complexity of weighted voter control. Our work shows that for quite a few important cases, either polynomial-time exact algorithms or polynomial-time approximation algorithms exist.'
author:
- |
Piotr Faliszewski\
AGH University of Science and Technology\
Krakow, Poland\
- |
Edith Hemaspaandra\
Rochester Institute of Technology\
Rochester, NY, USA
- |
Lane A. Hemaspaandra\
University of Rochester\
Rochester, NY, USA
bibliography:
- 'gry-sp3ijcai.bib'
date: 'May 4, 2013'
title: Weighted Electoral Control
---
Introduction
============
In many real-world election systems the voters come with weights. Examples range from stockholder elections weighted by shares, to the US Electoral College, to the often-used example of the Nassau County Board of Supervisors, to (in effect) any parliamentary system in which the parties typically vote as blocks, to Sweden’s system of wealth-weighted voting instituted in 1866 (and no longer used) where “the wealthiest members of the rural communities received as many as 5,000 votes” and “in 10 percent of the districts the weighted votes of just three voters could be decisive” [@con:b-chapter:sweden].
So it is not surprising that in the study of manipulative attacks on elections, weighted voting has been given great attention. For bribery and manipulation, two of the three most studied types of manipulative attacks on elections, study of the case of weighted voters has been extensively conducted. Yet for the remaining one of the three most studied types of attacks on elections, so-called control attacks, almost no attention has been given to the case of weighted voting; to the best of our knowledge, the only time this issue has been previously raised is in two M.S./Ph.D. theses [@rus:t:borda; @lin:thesis:elections]. This lack of attention is troubling, since the key types of control attacks, such as adding and deleting voters, certainly do occur in many weighted elections.
We study the complexity in weighted elections of arguably the most important types of control—adding and deleting voters—for various election systems. We focus on scoring rules, families of scoring rules, and (weak)Condorcet-consistent rules. Control by deleting (adding) voters asks whether in a given election a given candidate can be made to win by deleting (adding) at most a certain number of the voters (at most a certain number of the members of the pool of potential additional voters). These control types model issues that are found in many electoral settings, ranging from human to electronic. They are (abstractions of) issues often faced by people seeking to steer an election, such as experts doing campaign management, and deciding for example which $k$ people to offer rides to the polls.
Control was introduced (without weights) in 1992 in the seminal paper by Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick [@bar-tov-tri:j:control]. Control has been the subject of much attention since. That attention, and the present paper, are part of the line of work, started by Bartholdi, Orlin, Tovey, and Trick [@bar-tov-tri:j:manipulating; @bar-oli:j:polsci:strategic-voting; @bar-tov-tri:j:control], that seeks to determine for which types of manipulative attacks on elections the attacker’s task requires just polynomial-time computation. For a more detailed discussion of this line of work, we point the reader to the related work section at the end of the paper and to the surveys [@fal-hem-hem-rot:b:richer; @fal-hem-hem:j:cacm-survey; @bra-con-end:b:comsoc].
Our main results are as follows (see Section \[ss:conclusions\] for tables summarizing our results). First, in Section \[ss:scoring-protocols\] we provide a detailed study of the complexity of voter control under scoring protocols, for the case of fixed numbers of candidates. We show that both constructive control by adding voters and constructive control by deleting voters are in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ for $t$-approval (and so this also covers plurality and $t'$-veto[^1]) and are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete otherwise. It is interesting to compare this result to an analogous theorem regarding weighted coalitional manipulation: There are cases where the complexities of voter control and manipulation are the same (e.g., for plurality or for Borda) but there are also cases where voter control is easier ($t$-approval for $t \geq
2$, for elections with more than $t$ candidates). Is it ever possible that weighted voter control is harder than weighted voting manipulation? We show that weighted voter control is ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard for (weak)Condorcet-consistent rules with at least three candidates. Since weighted coalitional manipulation for the 3-candidate Llull system is in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ [@fal-hem-sch:c:copeland-ties-matter], together with the fact that Llull is weakCondorcet-consistent, this implies that there is a setting where weighted voter control is harder than weighted coalitional manipulation.
In Sections \[ss:t-approval\] and \[ss:approx\] we focus on the complexity of weighted voter control under $t$-approval and $t$-veto, for the case of unbounded numbers of candidates. At the start of Section \[ss:t-approval\], we will explain why these are the most interesting cases. In Section \[ss:t-approval\] we resolve six problems left open by Lin [@lin:thesis:elections]. We establish the complexity of weighted control by adding voters for $2$-approval, $2$-veto, and $3$-approval, and of weighted control by deleting voters for $2$-approval, $2$-veto, and $3$-veto. In Section \[ss:approx\], we give polynomial-time approximation algorithms for weighted voter control under $t$-approval and $t$-veto. Our algorithms seek to minimize the number of voters that are added or deleted.
We believe that the complexity of weighted voter control, and more generally the complexity of attacks on weighted elections, is an important and interesting research direction that deserves much further study. In particular, our research suggests that it is worthwhile to seek $f(\cdot)$-approximation results for weighted elections problems and that doing so can lead to interesting algorithms.
Preliminaries
=============
We assume that the reader is familiar with the basic notions of computational complexity theory and the theory of algorithms. Below we provide relevant definitions and conventions regarding elections, election rules, and control in elections. We also review some ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete problems that we use in our reductions.
### Elections {#elections .unnumbered}
We take an election to be a pair $E = (C,V)$, where $C$ is a set of candidates and $V$ is a collection of voters. Each voter has a preference order over the set $C$. A *preference order* is a total, linear order that ranks the candidates from the most preferred one to the least preferred one. For example, if $C =
\{a,b,c\}$ and some voter likes $a$ best, then $b$, and then $c$, then his or her preference order is $a > b > c$. In weighted elections, each voter $v$ also has a positive integer weight $\omega(v)$. A voter of weight $\omega(v)$ is treated by the election system as $\omega(v)$ unweighted voters. Given two collections of voters, $V$ and $W$, we write $V+W$ to denote their concatenation.
### Election Rules {#election-rules .unnumbered}
An election rule (or voting rule) is a function $R$ that given an election $E = (C,V)$ returns a subset $R(E) \subseteq C$, namely those candidates that are said to win the election. An $m$-candidate scoring rule is defined through a nonincreasing vector $\alpha = (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m)$ of nonnegative integers. For each voter $v$, each candidate $c$ receives $\alpha_{{{{{\mathit{pos}}}}}(v,c)}$ points, where ${{{{\mathit{pos}}}}}(v,c)$ is the position of $c$ in $v$’s preference order. The candidates with the maximum total score are the winners. Given an election $E$ and a voting rule $R$ that assigns scores to the candidates, we write ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}_E(c)$ to denote $c$’s total score in $E$ under $R$. The voting rule used will always be clear from context. Many election rules are defined through families of scoring rules, with one scoring vector for each possible number of candidates. For example:
1. Plurality rule uses vectors of the form $(1,0, \ldots, 0)$.
2. $t$-approval uses vectors $(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m)$, where $\alpha_i = 1$ for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, t\}$, and $\alpha_i = 0$ for $i > t$. By $t$-veto we mean the system that for $m$ candidates uses the $(m-t)$-approval scoring vector. For $m$-candidate $t$-approval and $t$-veto systems we will often treat each vote as a 0/1 $m$-dimensional approval vector that indicates which candidates receive points from the vote. Naturally, such a vector contains exactly $t$ ones for $t$-approval and exactly $t$ zeroes for $t$-veto.[^2]
3. Borda’s rule uses vectors of the form $(m-1, m-2, \ldots, 0)$, where $m$ is the number of candidates.
Given an election $E = (C,V)$, a candidate $c$ is a (weak) Condorcet winner if for every other candidate $d \in C -\{c\}$ it holds that more than half (at least half) of the voters prefer $c$ to $d$. Note that it is possible that there is no (weak) Condorcet winner in a given election. We say that a rule $R$ is Condorcet-consistent if whenever there is a Condorcet winner he or she is the sole winner elected under $R$. Analogously, a rule is weakCondorcet-consistent if it elects exactly the weak Condorcet winners whenever they exist. Every weakCondorcet-consistent system is Condorcet-consistent, but the converse does not always hold.
There are many Condorcet-consistent rules. We will briefly touch upon the Copeland family of rules and the Maximin rule. For a given election $E = (C,V)$ and two distinct candidates $c, d \in C$, we let $N_E(c,d)$ be the number of voters that prefer $c$ to $d$. Let $\alpha$ be a rational number, $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$. Under Copeland$^\alpha$ the score of candidate $c \in C$ is defined as: $$\| \{ d \in C-\{c\} \mid N_E(c,d) > N_E(d,c) \} \| + \alpha \| \{ d
\in C-\{c\} \mid N_E(c,d) = N_E(d,c) \} \|,$$ and under Maximin the score of candidate $c\in C$ is defined as $\min_{d \in C-\{c\}}N_E(c,d)$. The candidates with the highest score are winners. Llull is another name for Copeland$^1$. Clearly, Llull and Maximin are weakCondorcet-consistent.
### Electoral Control {#electoral-control .unnumbered}
We focus on constructive control by adding/deleting voters in weighted elections. However, there are also other standard types of control studied in the literature (e.g., control by adding/deleting candidates and various forms of partitioning of candidates and voters; we point the reader to Section \[sec:related-work\] for a discussion of related work).
\[def:wcc\] Let $R$ be a voting rule. In both weighted constructive control by adding voters under rule $R$ ($R$-WCCAV) and weighted constructive control by deleting voters under rule $R$ ($R$-WCCDV), our input contains a set of candidates $C$, a collection of weighted voters $V$ (sometimes referred to as the registered voters) with preferences over $C$, a preferred candidate $p \in C$, and a nonnegative integer $k$. In $R$-WCCAV we also have an additional collection $W$ of weighted voters (sometimes referred to as the unregistered voters) with preferences over $C$. In these problems we ask the following questions:
1. [$R$]{}-WCCAV: Is there a subcollection $W'\!$ of $W$, of at most $k$ voters, such that $p \in R(C,\,V{+}W')$?
2. [$R$]{}-WCCDV: Is there a subcollection $V'\!$ of $V$, of at most $k$ voters, such that $p \in R(C,\,V{-}V')$?
Although in this paper we focus primarily on constructive control, Section \[ss:scoring-protocols\] makes some comments about the so-called destructive variants of control problems. Given a voting rule $R$, weighted destructive control by adding voters under rule $R$ ($R$-WDCAV) and weighted destructive control by deleting voters under rule $R$ ($R$-WDCDV) are defined analogously to their constructive variants, with the only difference being that the goal is to ensure that the distinguished candidate $p$ is not a winner.
Note that in the above definitions the parameter $k$ defines the number of voters that can be added/deleted, and not the total weight of the voters that can be added/deleted. This is a standard approach when modeling strategic behavior in weighted elections. For example, in the study of “$R$-weighted-bribery” [@fal-hem-hem:j:bribery], bribing each weighted voter has unit cost regardless of the voter’s weight.
We will consider approximation algorithms for WCCAV and WCCDV under $t$-approval and $t$-veto. When doing so, we will assume that input instances do not contain the integer $k$. Rather, the goal is simply to find (when success is possible at all) as small as possible a collection of voters to add/delete such that $p$ is a winner of the resulting election. For a positive integer $h$, an $h$-approximation algorithm for WCCAV/WCCDV is an algorithm that (when success is possible at all) always finds a solution that adds/deletes at most $h$ times as many voters as an optimal action does. The notion of an $f(\cdot)$-approximation algorithm for WCCAV/WCCDV is defined analogously, where the argument to $f$ is some variable related to the problem or instance. And the meaning of ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(f(\cdot))$-approximation algorithms will be similarly clear from context. It is natural to worry about how the above seemingly incomplete definitions interact with the possibility that success might be impossible regardless of how many votes one adds/deletes. However, for $t$-approval WCCDV and $t$-veto WCCDV (and indeed, for any scoring rule), it is always possible to ensure that $p$ is a winner, for example by deleting all the voters. For $t$-approval WCCAV and $t$-veto WCCAV, it is possible to ensure $p$’s victory through adding voters if and only if $p$ is a winner after we add all the unregistered voters that approve of $p$. These observations make it particularly easy to discuss and study approximation algorithms for $t$-approval and for $t$-veto, because we can always easily check whether there is some solution. For voting rules that don’t have this easy-checking property, such an analysis might be much more complicated. (The reader may wish to compare our work with Brelsford et al.’s attempt at framing a general election-problem approximation framework [@bre-fal-hem-sch-sch:c:approximating-elections].)
In this paper we do not consider candidate-control cases (such as weighted constructive control by adding candidates and weighted constructive control by deleting candidates, WCCAC and WCCDC). The reason is that for a bounded number of candidates, when winner determination in the given weighted election system is in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ it holds that both WCCAC and WCCDC are in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ by brute-force search. On the other hand, if the number of candidates is not bounded then candidate control is already ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard for plurality (and $t$-approval and $t$-veto, in both the constructive setting and the destructive setting) even without weights [@bar-tov-tri:j:control; @hem-hem-rot:j:destructive-control; @elk-fal-sli:j:cloning; @lin:thesis:elections]. Furthermore, many results for candidate control under Condorcet-consistent rules can be claimed in the weighted setting. For example, for the Maximin rule and for the Copeland family of rules, hardness results translate immediately, and it is straightforward to see that the existing polynomial-time algorithms for the unweighted cases also work for the weighted cases [@fal-hem-hem:j:multimode].
### Weighted Coalitional Manipulation {#weighted-coalitional-manipulation .unnumbered}
One of our goals is to compare the complexity of weighted voter control with the complexity of weighted coalitional manipulation (WCM). WCM is similar to WCCAV in that we also add voters, but it differs in that (a) we have to add exactly a given number of voters, and (b) we can pick the preference orders of the added voters. It is quite interesting to see how the differences in these problems’ definitions affect their complexities.
Let $R$ be a voting rule. In $R$-WCM we are given a weighted election $(C,V)$, a preferred candidate $p \in C$, and a sequence $k_1, \ldots, k_n$ of positive integers. We ask whether it is possible to construct a collection $W = (w_1, \ldots, w_n)$ of $n$ voters such that for each $i$, $1 \leq i \leq n$, $\omega(w_i) = k_i$, and $p$ is a winner of the $R$ election $(C,\,V{+}W)$. The voters in $W\!$ are called manipulators.
### Computational Complexity {#computational-complexity .unnumbered}
In our ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hardness proofs we use reductions from the following ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete problems.
An instance of Partition consists of a sequence $(k_1, \ldots, k_t)$ of positive integers whose sum is even. We ask whether there is a set $I \subseteq \{1, \ldots, t\}$ such that $\sum_{i \in I}k_i = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^t k_i$.
In the proof of Theorem \[t:avdv-scoring-protocols\] we will use the following restricted version of Partition, where we have greater control over the numbers involved in the problem.
An instance of Partition$\,'\!$ consists of a sequence $(k_1, \ldots,
k_t)$ of positive integers, whose sum is even, such that (a) $t$ is an even number, and (b) for each $k_i$, $1 \leq i \leq t$, it holds that $k_i \geq
\frac{1}{t+1}\sum_{j=1}^t k_j$. We ask whether there is a set $I
\subseteq \{1, \ldots, t\}$ of cardinality $\frac{t}{2}$ such that $\sum_{i \in I}k_i = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^t k_i$.
Showing the ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-completeness of this problem is a standard exercise. (In particular, the ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-completeness of a variant of this problem is established as [@fal-hem-hem:j:bribery Lemma 2.3]; the same approach can be used to show the ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-completeness of Partition$'$.) Our remaining hardness proofs are based on reductions from a restricted version of the well-known Exact-Cover-By-3-Sets problem. This restricted version is still NP-complete [@gar-joh:b:int].
\[def:x3c\] An instance of X3C$\,'\!$ consists of a set $B =
\{b_1, \ldots, b_{3t}\}$ and a family ${{{\mathcal{S}}}}=
\{S_1,\allowbreak \ldots, S_n\}$ of $3$-element subsets of $B$ such that every element of $B$ occurs in at least one and in at most three sets in ${\cal S}$. We ask whether ${\cal S}$ contains an exact cover for $B$, i.e., whether there exist $t$ sets in ${\cal S}$ whose union is $B$.
Results
=======
We now present our results. In Section \[ss:scoring-protocols\] we focus on fixed numbers of candidates in scoring protocols and (weak)Condorcet-consistent rules. Then in Sections \[ss:t-approval\] and \[ss:approx\] we consider case of an unbounded number of candidates, for $t$-approval and $t$-veto.
Scoring Protocols and Manipulation Versus Control {#ss:scoring-protocols}
-------------------------------------------------
It is well-known that weighted manipulation of scoring protocols is always hard, unless the scoring protocol is in effect plurality or triviality [@hem-hem:j:dichotomy]. In contrast, weighted voter control is easy for $m$-candidate $t$-approval.
\[t:t-approval-in-P\] For all $m$ and $t$, WCCAV and WCCDV for $m$-candidate $t$-approval are in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$.
Let $(C, V, W, p, k)$ be an instance of WCCAV for $m$-candidate $t$-approval. We can assume that we add only voters who approve of $p$. We can also assume that we add the heaviest voters with a particular set of approvals, i.e., if we add $\ell$ voters approving $p, c_1, \ldots, c_{t - 1}$, we can assume that we added the $\ell$ heaviest voters approving $p, c_1, \ldots, c_{t - 1}$. Since there are only ${m-1 \choose t-1}$—which is a constant—different sets of approvals to consider, it suffices to try all sequences of nonnegative integers $k_1, \ldots, k_{m-1 \choose t-1}$ whose sum is at most $k$, and for each such sequence to check whether adding the heaviest $k_i$ voters of the $i$th approval collection makes $p$ a winner.
The same argument works for WCCDV. Here, we delete only voters that do not approve of $p$, and again we delete the heaviest voters for each approval collection.
One might think that the argument above works for any scoring protocol, but this is not the case. For example, consider the 3-candidate Borda instance where $V$ consists of one weight-1 voter $b
> p > a$ and $W$ consists of a weight-2 and a weight-1 voter with preference order $a > p > b$. Then adding the weight-1 voter makes $p$ a winner, but adding the weight-2 voter does not. And, in fact, we have the following result.[^3]
\[t:bounded-borda\] WCCAV and WCCDV for Borda are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete. This result holds even when restricted to a fixed number $m \geq 3$ of candidates.
We reduce from Partition. Given a sequence $k_1, \ldots, k_t$ of positive integers that sum to $2K$, construct an election with one registered voter of weight $K$ voting $b > p > a > \cdots$, and $t$ unregistered voters with weights $k_1, \ldots, k_t$ voting $a > p > b > \cdots$. Set the addition limit to $t$. It is easy to see that for $p$ to become a winner, $b$’s score (relative to $p$) needs to go down by at least $K$, while $a$’s score (relative to $p$) should not go up by more than $K$. It follows that $k_1, \ldots, k_t$ has a partition if and only if $p$ can be made a winner.
We use the same construction for the deleting voters case. Now, all voters are registered and the deletion limit is $t$. Since we can’t delete all voters, and since our goal is to make $p$ a winner, we can’t delete the one voter voting $b > p > a > \cdots$. The rest of the argument is identical to the adding voters case.
Interestingly, it is possible to extend the above proof to work for all scoring protocols other than $t$-approval (the main idea stays the same, but the technical details are more involved). And so, regarding the complexity of WCCAV and WCCDV for scoring protocols with a fixed number of candidates, the cases of Theorem \[t:t-approval-in-P\] are the only P cases (assuming P $\neq$ NP).
\[t:avdv-scoring-protocols\] For each scoring protocol $(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m)$, if there exists an $i$, $1 < i < m$, such that $\alpha_1 > \alpha_i >
\alpha_m$, then WCCAV and WCCDV for $(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m)$ are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete.
Let $\alpha = (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m)$ be a scoring protocol such that there is an $i$ such that $\alpha_1 > \alpha_i >
\alpha_m$. Let $x$ be the third largest value in the set $\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m\}$. We will show that WCCAV and WCCDV are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete for scoring protocol $\beta = (\beta_1, \ldots,
\beta_m) = (\alpha_1 - x, \ldots, \alpha_m-x)$. While formally we have defined scoring protocols to contain only nonnegative values, using $\beta$ simplifies our construction and does not affect the correctness of the proof. To further simplify notation, given some candidates $x_1, \ldots,
x_\ell$, by $F[ x_1 = \beta_{i_1}, x_2 = \beta_{i_2}, \ldots, x_\ell
= \beta_{i_\ell}]$ we mean a fixed preference order that ensures, under $\beta$, that each $x_j$, $1 \leq j \leq \ell$, is ranked at a position that gives $\beta_{i_j}$ points. (The candidates not mentioned in the $F[\ldots]$ notation are ranked arbitrarily.) We let $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$, and $\gamma_3$ be the three highest values in the set $\{ \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_m\}$. Clearly, $\beta_1 = \gamma_1 > \gamma_2 > \gamma_3 = 0$.
We give a reduction from Partition to $\beta$-WCCAV (the membership of $\beta$-WCCAV in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$ is clear); let $(k_1, \ldots, k_t)$ be an instance of Partition, i.e., a sequence of positive integers that sum to $2K$. We form an election $E = (C,V)$ where $C =
\{p,a,b,c_4, \ldots, c_m\}$ and where the collection $V$ contains the following three groups of voters (for the WCCAV part of the proof below, we set $T=1$; for the WCCDV part of the proof we will use the same construction but with a larger value of $T$):
1. A group of $T$ voters, each with weight $K$ and preference order $F[b =
\gamma_1, a = \gamma_2, p = 0]$.
2. A group of $T$ voters, each with weight $K$ and preference order $F[p =
\gamma_1, b = \gamma_2, a = 0]$.
3. For each $c_i \in C$, there are $6$ collections of $2T$ voters, one collection for each permutation $(x,y,z)$ of $(p,a,b)$; the voters in each collection have weight $K$ and preference order $F[x = \beta_1, y = \beta_2, z = \beta_3, c_i =
\beta_m]$.
Let $M$ be the number of points that each of $a$, $b$, and $p$ receive from the third group of voters (each of these candidates receives the same number of points from these voters). For each $c_i
\in C$ and each $x \in \{p,a,b\}$, $x$ receives at least $4TK\gamma_1$ points more than $c_i$ from the voters in the third group (in each vote in the third group, $x$ receives at least as many points as $c_i$, and there are two collections of $2T$ voters where $x$ receives $\gamma_1$ points and $c_i$ receives $\gamma_m
\leq 0$ points). Thus it holds that our candidates have the following scores:
1. $p$ has $M + TK\gamma_1$ points,
2. $a$ has $M + TK\gamma_2$ points,
3. $b$ has $M + TK(\gamma_1+\gamma_2)$ points, and
4. each candidate $c_i \in C$ has at most $M - 2TK\gamma_1$ points.
As a result, $b$ is the unique winner. There are $t$ unregistered voters with weights $Tk_1, \ldots, Tk_t$, each with preference order $F = [a = \gamma_1, p = \gamma_2, b = 0]$. We set the addition limit to be $t$. It is clear that irrespective of which voters are added, none of the candidates in $\{c_4, \ldots, c_m\}$ becomes a winner.
If there is a subcollection of $(k_1, \ldots, k_t)$ that sums to $K$, then adding corresponding unregistered voters to the election ensures that all three of $p$, $a$, and $b$ are winners. On the other hand, assume that there are unregistered voters of total weight $TL$, whose addition to the election ensures that $p$ is among the winners. For $p$ to have score at least as high as $b$, we must have that $L \geq K$. However, for $a$ not to have score higher than $p$, it must be that $L \leq K$. This means that $L = K$. Thus it is possible to ensure that $p$ is a winner of the election by adding at most $t$ unregistered voters if and only if there is a subcollection of $(k_1, \ldots, k_t)$ that sums to $K$. And, completing the proof, we note that the reduction can be carried out in polynomial time.
Let us now move on to the case of WCCDV. We will use the same construction, but with the following modifications:
1. Our reduction is now from Partition$'$. Thus without loss of generality we can assume that $t$ is an even number and that for each $i$, $1 \leq i
\leq t$, it holds that $k_i \geq \frac{1}{1+t}2K$.
2. We set $T = \left \lceil
\frac{t}{2}(t+1)\frac{\gamma_1}{\gamma_1-\gamma_2}\right\rceil+1$ (the reasons for this choice of $T$ will become apparent in the course of the proof; intuitively it is convenient to think of $T$ as of a large value that, nonetheless, is polynomially bounded with respect to $t$).
3. We include the unregistered voters as “the fourth group of voters.”
4. We set the deletion limit to $\frac{t}{2}$.
By the same reasoning as in the WCCAV case, it is easy to see that if there is a size-$\frac{t}{2}$ subcollection of $k_1, \ldots,
k_t$ that sums to $K$, then deleting the corresponding voters ensures that $p$ is among the winners (together with $a$ and $b$). We now show that if there is a way to delete up to $\frac{t}{2}$ voters to ensure that $p$ is among the winners, then the deleted voters must come from the fourth group, must have total weight $K$, and there must be exactly $\frac{t}{2}$ of them. For the sake of contradiction, let us assume that it is possible to ensure $p$’s victory by deleting up to $\frac{t}{2}$ voters, of whom fewer than $\frac{t}{2}$ come from the fourth group. Let $s$ be the number of deleted voters from the fourth group ($s < \frac{t}{2}$) and let $x$ be a real number such that $xTK$ is their total weight. We have that $xTK$ is at most: $$xTK \leq 2TK - \frac{t - s}{1+t}(2TK) \leq 2TK\left(1 -
\frac{\frac{t}{2}+1}{1+t}\right) = TK\frac{t}{1+t}.$$ That is, we have $0 \leq x \leq \frac{t}{1+t}$. Prior to deleting any voters, $a$ has $TK(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)$ points more than $p$. After deleting the $s$ voters from the fourth group, this difference decreases to $TK(1-x)(\gamma_1 - \gamma_2)$. If we additionally delete up to $\frac{t}{2}$ voters from the first three groups of voters, each with weight $K$, then the difference between the scores of $a$ and $p$ decreases, at most, to the following value (note that in each deleted vote both $a$ and $p$ are ranked at positions where they receive $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$ or $0$ points): $$TK(1-x)(\gamma_1 - \gamma_2) -\frac{t}{2}K\gamma_1 \geq
TK\frac{1}{t+1}(\gamma_1-\gamma_2) - \frac{t}{2}K\gamma_1 =
K\left(\frac{T(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)}{t+1} -
\frac{\frac{t}{2}(t+1)\gamma_1}{t+1}\right) > 0.$$ The final inequality follows by our choice of $T$. The above calculation shows that if there is a way to ensure $p$’s victory by deleting up to $\frac{t}{2}$ voters then it requires deleting exactly $\frac{t}{2}$ voters from the fourth group. The same reasoning as in the case of WCCAV shows that these $\frac{t}{2}$ deleted voters must correspond to a size-$\frac{t}{2}$ subcollection of $(k_1, \ldots, k_t)$ that sums to $K$.
As a side comment, we mention that WDCAV and WDCDV for scoring protocols (that is, the destructive variants of WCCAV and WCCDV) have simple polynomial-time algorithms: It suffices to loop through all candidates $c$, $c \neq p$, and greedily add/delete voters to boost the score of $c$ relative to $p$ as much as possible.
Combining Theorems \[t:t-approval-in-P\] and \[t:avdv-scoring-protocols\], we obtain the following corollary, which we contrast with an analogous result for WCM [@hem-hem:j:dichotomy].
For each scoring protocol $(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m)$ the problems WCCAV and WCCDV are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete if $\| \{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m\}\| \geq 3$ and are in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ otherwise.
For each scoring protocols $(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m)$, $m \geq
2$, WCM is ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete if $\alpha_2 > \alpha_m$ and is in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}\!$ otherwise.
We see that for scoring protocols with a fixed number $m$ of candidates, either WCM is harder than WCCAV and WCCDV (for the case of $t$-approval with $2 \leq t < m$), or the complexity of WCM, WCCAV, and WCCDV is the same (${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$-membership for plurality and triviality, and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-completeness for the remaining cases). For other voting rules, it is also possible that WCM is easier than WCCAV and WCCDV.
\[t:bounded-weakcondorcet\] For every weakCondorcet-consistent election system and for every Condorcet-consistent election system, WCCAV and WCCDV are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard. This result holds even when restricted to a fixed number $m \geq 3$ of candidates.
To show that WCCAV is ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard, we reduce from Partition. Given a sequence $k_1, \ldots, k_t$ of positive integers that sum to $2K$, construct an election with two registered voters, one voter with weight 1 voting $p > a > b > \cdots$ and one voter with weight $2K$ voting $b > p > a > \cdots$, and $t$ unregistered voters with weights $2k_1, \ldots, 2k_t$ voting $a > p > b > \cdots$. Set the addition limit to $t$. Suppose we add unregistered voters to the election with a total vote weight equal to $2L$.
- If $L < K$, then $b$ is the Condorcet winner, and thus the unique winner of the election.
- If $L > K$, then $a$ is the Condorcet winner, and thus the unique winner of the election.
- If $L = K$, then $p$ is the Condorcet winner, and thus the unique winner of the election.
The WCCDV case uses the same construction. Now, all voters are registered and the deletion limit is $t$. Since we can delete at most $t$ of our $t+2$ voters, and since our goal is to make $p$ a winner, we can’t delete the sole voter voting $b > p > a$, since then $a$ would be the Condorcet winner. The rest of the argument is similar to the adding voters case.
Let Condorcet be the election system whose winner set is exactly the set of Condorcet winners. Let weakCondorcet be the election system whose winner set is exactly the set of weak Condorcet winners.
For Condorcet and weakCondorcet, WCM is in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}\!$ and WCCAV and WCCDV are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete. This result holds even when restricted to a fixed number $m \geq 3$ of candidates.
It is immediate that WCM for Condorcet and weakCondorcet are in P. To see if we have a “yes”-instance of WCM, it suffices to check whether letting all the manipulators rank $p$ (the preferred candidate) first and ranking all the remaining candidates in some arbitrary order ensures $p$’s victory. ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-completeness of WCCAV and WCCDV follows directly from Theorem \[t:bounded-weakcondorcet\].
Condorcet and weakCondorcet do not always have winners. For those who prefer their voting systems to always have at least one winner, we note that WCM for $3$-candidate Llull is in P [@fal-hem-sch:c:copeland-ties-matter].
\[cor:llull\] For 3-candidate Llull, WCM is in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}\!$ and WCCAV and WCCDV are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete.
The main results of this section are also presented in Table \[tab:bounded\] of Section \[ss:conclusions\].
-Approval and -Veto with an Unbounded Number of Candidates {#ss:t-approval}
----------------------------------------------------------
Let us now look at the cases of $t$-approval and $t$-veto rules, for an unbounded number of candidates. The reason we focus on these is that these are the most interesting families of scoring protocols whose complexity has not already been resolved in the previous section. The reason we say that is that Theorem \[t:avdv-scoring-protocols\] shows that whenever we have at least three distinct values in a scoring vector, we have NP-completeness. And so any family that at even one number of candidates has three distinct values in its scoring vector is NP-hard for WCCAV and WCCDV. Thus the really interesting cases are indeed $t$-approval and $t$-veto.
Our starting point here is the work of Lin [@lin:thesis:elections], which showed that for $t \geq 4$, WCCAV for $t$-approval and WCCDV for $t$-veto are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete, and that for $t \geq 3$, WCCDV for $t$-approval and WCCAV for $t$-veto are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete. These results hold even for the unweighted case. It is also known that the remaining unweighted cases are in P [@bar-tov-tri:j:control; @lin:thesis:elections] and that WCCAV and WCCDV for plurality and veto are in P [@lin:thesis:elections]. In this section, we look at and solve the remaining open cases, WCCAV for $2$-approval, $3$-approval, and $2$-veto, and WCCDV for $2$-approval, $2$-veto, and $3$-veto. We start by showing that $2$-approval-WCCAV is in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$.
\[t:WCCAV-2approval-in-P\] WCCAV for 2-approval is in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$.
We claim that Algorithm \[alg:2approval-wccav\] solves $2$-approval-WCCAV in polynomial time. (In this algorithm and the proof of correctness, whenever we speak of the $r$ heaviest voters in voter set $X$, we mean the $\min(r,\|X\|)$ heaviest voters in $X$.)
Delete from $W$ all voters that do not approve of $p$.\
It is easy to see that we never reject incorrectly in the repeat-until, assuming that we don’t incorrectly delete voters from $W$. It is also easy to see that if we add $r$ voters approving $\{p,c\}$, we may assume that we add the $r$ heaviest voters approving $\{p,c\}$ (this is also crucial in the proof of Theorem \[t:t-approval-in-P\]), and so we never delete voters incorrectly in the second for loop in the repeat-until.
If we get through the repeat-until without rejecting, and we have fewer than $k$ voters left in $W$, then adding all of $W$ is the best we can do (since all voters in $W$ approve $p$).
Finally, if we get through the repeat-until, and we have at least $k$ voters left in $W$, then adding the $k$ heaviest voters from $W$ will make $p$ a winner. Why? Let $c$ be a candidate in $C - \{p\}$. Let $r$ be the number of voters from $W$ that are added and that approve of $c$. Since we made it through the repeat-until, we know that \[the sum of the weights of the $k$ heaviest voters in $W$ that do not approve of $c$\] is at least $s_c$. We will show that after adding the voters, $score(c) - score(p) \leq 0$, which implies that $p$ is a winner. If $r = 0$, $score(c) - score(p)$ = $s_c$ - \[the sum of the weights of the $k$ heaviest voters in $W$\] $\leq 0$. If $r > 0$, then \[the sum of the weights of the $k-r$ heaviest voters in $W$ that do not approve of $c$\] is at least $s_c$ (for otherwise we would have at most $r - 1$ voters approving $c$ left in $W$). And so $score(c) - score(p)$ = $s_c$ - \[the sum of the weights of the $k-r$ heaviest voters in $W$ that do not approve of $c$\] $\leq 0$.
\[t:2-veto\] WCCDV for 2-veto is in ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$.
Instead of proving this theorem directly, we show a more general relation between the complexity of $t$-approval/$t$-veto WCCAV and WCCDV.
\[thm:reduction\] For each fixed $t$, it holds that $t$-veto-WCCDV ($t$-approval-WCCDV) polynomial-time many-one reduces to $t$-approval-WCCAV ($t$-veto-WCCAV).
We first give a reduction from $t$-veto-WCCDV to $t$-approval-WCCAV. The idea is that deleting a $t$-veto vote $v$ from $t$-veto election $(C,V)$ is equivalent, in terms of net effect on the scores, to adding a $t$-approval vote $v'$ to this election, where $v'$ approves exactly of the $t$ candidates that $v$ disapproves of. The problem with this approach is that we are to reduce $t$-veto-WCCDV to $t$-*approval*-WCCAV and thus we have to show how to implement $t$-veto scores with $t$-approval votes.
Let $(C,V,p,k)$ be an instance of $t$-veto-WCCDV, where $V =
(v_1, \ldots, v_n)$. Let $m = \|C\|$. Let $\omega_{\max}$ be the highest weight of a vote in $V$. We set $D$ to be a set of up to $t-1$ new candidates, such that $\|C\|+\|D\|$ is a multiple of $t$. We set $V_0$ to be a collection of $\frac{\|C\|+\|D\|}{t}$ $t$-approval votes, where each vote has weight $\omega_{\max}$ and each candidate in $C \cup D$ is approved in exactly one of the votes. For each vote $v_i$ in $V$ we create a set $C_i = \{c_i^1, \ldots, c_i^{(t-1)(m-t)}\}$ of candidates and we create a collection of voters $V_i = (v_i^1, \ldots, v^{m-t}_i)$. Each voter $v_i^j$, $1
\leq j \leq m-t$, has weight $\omega(v_i)$ and approves of the $j$th candidate approved by $v$ and of the $t-1$ candidates $c_i^{(j-1)(t-1)+1}, \ldots,
c_i^{j(t-1)}$.
We form an election $E' = (C',V')$, where $C' = C \cup D \cup
\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}C_i$ and $V' = V_0 + V_1 + \cdots + V_n$. For each candidate $c$, let $s_c$ be $c$’s $t$-veto score in $(C,V)$; it is easy to see that $c$’s $t$-approval score in $E'$ is $\omega_{\max}+s_c$. Furthermore, each candidate $c \in C' - C$ has $t$-approval score at most $\omega_{\max}$ in $E'$.
We form an instance $(C',V',W,p,k)$ of $t$-approval-WCCAV, where $W
= (w_1, \ldots, w_n)$, and for each $i$, $1 \leq i \leq n$, $\omega(w_i) = \omega(v_i)$, and $w_i$ approves exactly of those candidates that $v_i$ disapproves of. It is easy to see that adding voter $w_i$ to $t$-approval election $(C',V')$ has the same net effect on the scores of the candidates in $C$ as does deleting $v_i$ from $t$-veto election $(C,V)$.
Let us now give a reduction from $t$-approval-WCCDV to $t$-veto-WCCAV. The idea is the same as in the previous reduction; the main part of the proof is to show how to implement $t$-approval scores with $t$-veto votes. Let $(C,V,p,k)$ be an instance of $t$-approval-WCCDV, where $V = (v_1, \ldots, v_n)$. Let $m = \|C\|$ and let $\omega_{\max}$ be the highest weight of a vote in $V$. We set $D$ to be a set of candidates such that $t \leq \|D\| \leq 2t-1$ and $\|C\| +
\|D\| = s\cdot t$ for some integer $s$, $s \geq 3$ (note that for our setting to not be trivial it must be that $m > t$). We set $V_0$ to be a collection of $4n(s-2)$ votes, each with weight $\omega_{\max}$; each candidate from $C$ is approved in all these votes whereas each candidate from $D$ is disapproved in at least half of them (since $t \leq \|D\| \leq 2t-1$, it is easy to construct such votes). For each vote $v_i$ in $V$, we create a collection $V_i$ of $(s-1)$ votes satisfying the following requirements: (a) each candidate approved in $v_i$ is also approved in each of the votes in $V_i$, and (b) each candidate not approved in $v_i$, is approved in exactly $(s-2)$ votes in $V_i$. (Such votes are easy to construct: We always place the top $t$ candidates from $v_i$ in the top $t$ positions of the vote; for the remaining positions, in the first vote we place the candidates in some arbitrary, easily computable order, and in each following vote we shift these candidates cyclically by $t$ positions with respect to the previous vote.) Each vote in $V_i$ has weight $\omega(v_i)$.
We form an election $E' = (C', V')$, where $C' = C \cup D$ and $V' =
V_0 + V_1 + \cdots + V_n$. For each candidate $c$, let $s_c$ be $c$’s $t$-approval score in $(C,V)$; it is easy to see that $c$’s $t$-veto score in $E'$ is $4n(s-2)\omega_{\max} + (s-2)(\sum_{i=1}^n\omega(v_i)) +
s_c$. Furthermore, each candidate from $D$ has $t$-veto score at most $3n(s-2)\omega_{\max}$ in $E'$.
We form an instance $(C',V', W, p, k)$ of $t$-veto-WCCAV, where $W =
(w_1, \ldots, w_n)$, and for each $i$, $1 \leq i \leq n$, $\omega(w_i) = \omega(v_i)$, and $w_i$ disapproves of exactly those candidates that $v_i$ approves of. It is easy to see that adding voter $w_i$ to $t$-veto election $(C',V')$ has the same net effect on the scores of candidates in $C$ as deleting voter $v_i$ from $t$-approval election $(C,V)$ has. Furthermore, since each candidate in $D$ has at least $n\omega_{\max}$ fewer points than each candidate in $C$, the fact that adding $w_i$ increases scores of candidates in $D$ does not affect the correctness of our reduction.
All other remaining cases (WCCDV for 2-approval, WCCAV for 3-approval, WCCAV for 2-veto, and WCCDV for 3-veto) are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete. Interestingly, in contrast to many other ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete weighted election problems, we need only a very limited set of weights to make the reductions work.
\[t:hardness\] WCCAV for 2-veto and 3-approval and WCCDV for 2-approval and 3-veto are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete.
Membership in NP is immediate, so it suffices to prove NP-hardness. We will first give the proof for WCCDV for 2-approval. By Theorem \[thm:reduction\] this also immediately gives the result for WCCAV for 2-veto. We will reduce from X3C$'$ from Definition \[def:x3c\]. Let $B = \{b_1, ..., b_{3t}\}$ and let ${\cal S} = \{S_1, ..., S_n\}$ be a family of 3-element subsets of $B$ such that every element of $B$ occurs in at least one and in at most three sets in ${\cal S}$. We construct the following instance $(C,V,p,k)$ of WCCDV for 2-approval. We set $C = \{p\} \cup \{b_j \ | \ 1 \leq j \leq 3t\}
\cup \{s_i, s'_i \ | \ 1 \leq i \leq n\}
\cup \{d_0, d_1, \ldots, d_{3t}\}$ ($d_0, d_1, \ldots, d_{3t}$ are dummy candidates that are used for padding). For $1 \leq j \leq 3t$, let $\ell_j$ be the number of sets in ${\cal S}$ that contain $b_j$. Note that $1 \leq \ell_j \leq 3$. $V$ consists of the following voters:
-------------- ------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
weight preference order
2 $s_i > s_{i\phantom{_1}}' > \cdots$
1 $s_i > b_{i_1} > \cdots$
1 $s_i > b_{i_2} > \cdots$
1 $s'_i > b_{i_3} > \cdots$
2 $p\phantom{_i} > d_{0} > \cdots$
$3 - \ell_j$ $b_j > d_j > \cdots$ for all $1 \leq j \leq 3t$ such that $\ell_j < 3$.
-------------- ------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
Note that ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}(s_i) = 4$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}(s'_i) = 3$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}(b_j) = 3$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}(p) = 2$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}(d_j) \leq 2$. We set $k = n + 2t$ and we claim that ${\cal S}$ contains an exact cover if and only if $p$ can become a winner after deleting at most $n + 2t$ voters.
$(\Rightarrow)$: Delete the $(n-t)$ weight-2 voters corresponding to the sets not in the cover and delete the $3t$ weight-1 voters corresponding to the sets in the cover. Then the score of $p$ does not change, the score of each $s_i$ decreases by 2, the score of each $s'_i$ decreases by at least 1, and the score of each $b_j$ decreases by 1. So, $p$ is a winner.
$(\Leftarrow)$: We need to delete $3t$ voters to decrease the score of every $b_j$ voter by 1. After deleting these $3t$ voters, there are at most $t$ values of $i$, $1 \leq i \leq n$, such that the score of $s_i$ and the score of $s'_i$ are at most 2.
If there are exactly $t$ values of $i$, $1 \leq i \leq n$, such that the score of $s_i$ and the score of $s'_i$ are at most 2, then these $t$ values of $i$ correspond to a cover. If there are less than $t$ values of $i$, $1 \leq i \leq n$, such that the score of $s_i$ and the score of $s'_i$ are at most 2, then the remaining voters that are deleted, and there are at most $n-t$ of them, need to decrease the score of $s_i$ and/or $s'_i$ for more than $n-t$ values of $i$, $1 \leq i \leq n$. But that is not possible, since there is no voter that approves of both $s_i$ or $s'_i$ and $s_{j}$ or $s'_j$ for $i \neq j$.
Note that this construction uses only weights 1 and 2. In fact, we can establish NP-completeness for WCCDV for 2-approval for every set of allowed weights of size at least two (note that if the set of weights has size one, the problem is in P, since this is in essence the unweighted case [@lin:thesis:elections]). Since the reductions of Theorem \[thm:reduction\] do not change the set of voter weights, we have the same result for WCCAV for 2-veto.
So, suppose our weight set contains $w_1$ and $w_2$, $w_2 > w_1 > 0$. We modify the construction above as follows. We keep the same set of candidates and we change the voters as follows.
----------------- -------- ------------------------------------- -----------------------------
\# weight preference order
1 $w_2$ $s_i > s_{i\phantom{_1}}' > \cdots$
1 $w_1$ $s_i > b_{i_1} > \cdots$
1 $w_1$ $s_i > b_{i_2} > \cdots$
1 $w_1$ $s'_i > b_{i_3} > \cdots$
2 $w_1$ $p\phantom{_i'} > d_0 > \cdots$ if $w_2 \leq 2w_1$
1 $w_2$ $p\phantom{_i'} > d_0 > \cdots$ if $w_2 > 2w_1$
$\ell - \ell_j$ $w_1$ $b_j > d_j > \cdots$ for all $1 \leq j \leq 3t$.
----------------- -------- ------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Here, $\ell$ is the smallest integer such that $\ell w_1 > \max(2w_1, w_2)$. Note that $\ell \geq 3$ and so $\ell - \ell_j$ is never negative. Note that ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}(s_i) = w_2 + 2w_1$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}(s'_i) = w_2 + w_1$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}(b_j) = \ell w_1$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}(p) = \max(2w_1,w_2)$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}(d_j) \leq \max(2w_1,w_2)$. The same argument as above shows that ${\cal S}$ contains an exact cover if and only if $p$ can become a winner after deleting at most $n + 2t$ voters.
We now turn to the proof for WCCDV for 3-veto. Our construction will use only weights 1 and 3. Since the reductions of Theorem \[thm:reduction\] do not change the set of voter weights, weights 1 and 3 also suffice to get NP-completeness for WCCAV for 3-approval. Given the instance of X3C$'$ described above, we construct the following instance $(C,V,p,k)$ of WCCDV for 3-veto. We set $C = \{p\} \cup B \cup \{s_i \ | \ 1 \leq i \leq n\} \cup \{r,d, d' \}$ ($d$ and $d'$ are dummy candidates that are used for padding) and $V$ consists of the following voters:
--------------- -------- --------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
\# weight preference order
1 3 $\cdots > p > s_i\phantom{'} > r\phantom{_{i_1}}$
1 1 $\cdots > p > s_i\phantom{'} > b_{i_1}$
1 1 $\cdots > p > s_i\phantom{'} > b_{i_2}$
1 1 $\cdots > p > s_i\phantom{'} > b_{i_3}$
$3n-3t$ 1 $\cdots > d > d'\phantom{_i} > r\phantom{_{i_1}}$
$3n-3$ 1 $\cdots > d > d'\phantom{_i} > s_{i\phantom{_1}}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n$
$3n+1-\ell_j$ 1 $\cdots > d > d'\phantom{_i} > b_{j\phantom{_1}}$ for all $1 \leq j \leq 3t$.
--------------- -------- --------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
It is more convenient to count the number of vetoes for each candidate than to count the number of approvals. Note that ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(s_i) = 3n+3$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(b_j) = 3n+1$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(r) = 6n-3t$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(p) = 6n$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(d) = {\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(d') \geq 3n$. We claim that ${\cal S}$ contains an exact cover if and only if $p$ can become a winner (i.e., have a lowest number of vetoes) after deleting at most $n + 2t$ voters.
$(\Rightarrow)$: Delete the $(n-t)$ weight-3 voters corresponding to the sets not in the cover and delete the $3t$ weight-1 voters that veto $p$ and that correspond to the sets in the cover. Then ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(s_i) = {\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(b_j) = {\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(r) = {\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(p) = 3n$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(d) = {\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(d') \geq 3n$. So, $p$ is a winner.
$(\Leftarrow)$: We can assume that we delete only voters that veto $p$. Suppose we delete $k_1$ weight-1 voters and $k_2$ weight-3 voters, $k_1 + k_2 \leq n + 2t$. After this deletion, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(p) = 6n - k_1 - 3k_2$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(r) = 6n - 3t - 3k_2$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(b_j) \leq 3n+1$. In order for $p$ to be a winner, we need ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(p) \leq {\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(r)$. This implies that $k_1 \geq 3t$. We also need ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(p) - {\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(b_j) \leq 0$. Since ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(p) - {\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(b_j) \geq 6n - k_1 - 3k_2 - (3n + 1) \geq
6n - (n+2t-k_2) - 3k_2 - 3n - 1 = 2n - 2t - 2k_2 - 1$, it follows that $k_2 \geq n-t$. So we delete $3t$ weight-1 votes and $n-t$ weight-3 votes, and after deleting these voters ${\ensuremath{\mathit{vetoes}}}(p) = 3n$. In order for $p$ to be a winner, we can delete at most one veto for each $b_j$ and at most three vetoes for each $s_i$. This implies that the set of deleted weight-1 voters corresponds to a cover.
Approximation and Greedy Algorithms {#ss:approx}
-----------------------------------
When problems are computationally difficult, such as being NP-complete, it is natural to wonder whether good polynomial-time approximation algorithms exist. So, motivated by the NP-completeness results discussed earlier in this paper for most cases of WCCAV/WCCDV for $t$-approval and $t$-veto, this section studies greedy and other approximation algorithms for those problems. (Recall that WCCAV is NP-complete for $t$-approval, $t \geq 3$, and for $t$-veto, $t \geq
2$, and WCCDV is NP-complete for $t$-approval, $t \geq 2$, and for $t$-veto, $t \geq 3$.) Although we are primarily interested in constructing good approximation algorithms, we are also interested in cases where particular greedy strategies can be shown to fail to provide good approximation algorithms, as doing so helps one eliminate such approaches from consideration and sheds light on the approach’s limits of applicability. First, we will establish a connection to the weighted multicover problem, and we will use it to obtain approximation results. Then we will obtain an approximation algorithm that will work by direct action on our problem. Table \[tab:approx\] in Section \[ss:conclusions\] summarizes our results on approximation algorithms for $t$-approval/$t$-veto WCCAV/WCCDV.
### A Weighted Multicover Approach
Let us first consider the extent to which known algorithms for the Set-Cover family of problems apply to our setting. Specifically, we will use the following multicover problem.
An instance of Weighted Multicover (WMC) consists of a set $B = \{b_1, \ldots, b_m\}$, a sequence $r = (r_1, \ldots, r_m)$ of nonnegative integers (covering requirements), a collection ${{{\mathcal{S}}}}=
(S_1, \ldots, S_n)$ of subsets of $B$, and a sequence $\omega =
(\omega_1, \ldots, \omega_n)$ of positive integers (weights of the sets in ${{{\mathcal{S}}}}$). The goal is to find a minimum-cardinality set $I \subseteq \{1,
\ldots, n\}$ such that for each $b_j \in B$ it holds that $r_j \leq \sum\limits_{i\in I \land b_j \in S_i}\omega_i$, or to declare that no such set exists.
That is, given a WMC instance we seek a smallest collection of subsets from ${{{\mathcal{S}}}}$ that satisfies the covering requirements of the elements of $B$ (keeping in mind that a set of weight $\omega$ covers each of its elements $\omega$ times). WMC is an extension of Set-Cover with unit costs. We will not define here the problem known as covering integer programming (CIP) (see [@kol-you:j:cip]). However, that problem will be quite important to us here. The reason is that we observe that WMC is a special case of CIP (with multiplicity constraints but) without packing constraints; footnote \[footnote:ky\] below is in effect describing how to embed our problem in that problem. An approximation algorithm of Kolliopoulos and Young [@kol-you:j:cip] for CIP (with multiplicity constraints but) without packing constraints, applied to the special case of WMC, gives the following result.[^4]
\[thm:ky\] There is a polynomial-time algorithm that when given an instance of WMC in which each set contains at most $t$ elements gives an ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(\log t)$-approximation.
For $t$-approval both WCCAV and WCCDV naturally translate to equivalent WMC instances. We consider WCCAV first. Let $(C,V,W, p, k)$ be an instance of $t$-approval-WCCAV, where $W = (w_1, \ldots, w_n)$ is the collection of voters that we may add. We assume without loss of generality that each voter in $W$ ranks $p$ among its top $t$ candidates (i.e., approves of $p$). We form an instance $(B,r,{{{\mathcal{S}}}},\omega)$ of WMC as follows. We set $B = C - \{p\}$. For each $c \in B$, we set its covering requirement to be $r_c =
{\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}_{(C,V)}(c) \ominus
{\ensuremath{\mathit{score}}}_{(C,V)}(p)$, where $i \ominus j =_{def} \max(0, i-j)$. For each vote $w \in W$, let $S_w$ be the set of candidates that $w$ does not approve of. By our assumption regarding each voter ranking $p$ among its top $t$ candidates, no $S_w$ contains $p$. We set ${{{\mathcal{S}}}}= (S_{w_1},
\ldots, S_{w_n})$ and we set $\omega = (\omega(w_1), \ldots,
\omega(w_n))$. It is easy to see that a set $I \subseteq \{1,
\ldots, n\}$ is a solution to this instance of WMC (that is, $I$ satisfies all covering requirements) if and only if adding the voters $\{w_i
\mid i \in I\}$ to the election $(C,V)$ ensures that $p$ is a winner. The reason for this is the following: If we add voter $w_i$ to the election then for each candidate $c \in
S_{w_i}$, the difference between the score of $c$ and the score of $p$ decreases by $\omega(w_i)$, and for each candidate $c \not\in
S_{w_i}$ this difference does not change. The covering requirements are set to guarantee that $p$’s score will match or exceed the scores of all candidates in the election.
We stress that in the above construction we did not assume $t$ to be a constant. Indeed, the construction applies to $t$-veto just as well as to $t$-approval. So using Theorem \[thm:ky\] we obtain the following result.
\[cor:wccav-log\] There is a polynomial-time ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(\log m)$-approximation algorithm for $t$-approval-WCCAV. There is a polynomial-time algorithm that when given an instance of $t$-veto-WCCAV ($t \in \mathbb{N}$) gives an ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(\log t)$-approximation.
It suffices to use the reduction of $t$-approval/$t$-veto to WMC and apply the algorithm from Theorem \[thm:ky\]. For the case of $t$-approval, the reduction guarantees that each set in the WMC instance contains at most $m$ elements. For the case of $t$-veto, each of these sets contains at most $t$ elements.
We can obtain analogous results for the case of $t$-approval/$t$-veto and WCCDV. One can either provide a direct reduction from these problems to WMC or notice that the reductions given in the proof of Theorem \[thm:reduction\] maintain approximation properties.
\[cor:wccdv-log\] There is a polynomial-time algorithm that when given an instance of $t$-approval-WCCDV ($t \in \mathbb{N}$) gives an ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(\log t)$-approximation. There is a polynomial-time ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(\log m)$-approximation algorithm for $t$-veto-WCCDV.
### A Direct Approach
Using algorithms for WMC, we were able to obtain relatively strong algorithms for WCCAV/WCCDV under $t$-approval and $t$-veto. However, with this approach we did not find approximation algorithms for $t$-approval-WCCAV and $t$-veto-WCCDV whose approximation ratios do not depend on the size of the election. In the following we will seek direct algorithms for these problems. We now show that a very simple greedy approach yields a polynomial-time $t$-approximation algorithm for $t$-approval-WCCAV and $t$-veto-WCCDV. (Recall that this means that in cases when making $p$ win is possible, the number of voters our algorithm adds/deletes to reach victory is never more than $t$ times that of the optimal set of additions/deletions.)
Let GBW (greedy by weight) define the following very simple algorithm for WCCAV. (The votes are the weighted $t$-approval vectors induced by the preferences of the voters.) (Pre)discard all unregistered votes that do not approve of the preferred candidate $p$. Order the (remaining) unregistered votes from heaviest to lightest, breaking ties in voter weights in some simple, transparent way (for concreteness, let us say by lexicographic order on the votes’ representations). GBW goes through the unregistered votes in that order, and as it reaches each vote it adds the vote exactly if the vote disapproves of at least one candidate whose score (i.e., total weight of approvals) is currently strictly greater than that of $p$. It stops successfully when $p$ has become a winner and unsuccessfully if before that happens the algorithm runs out of votes to consider. The following result says that GBW is a $t$-approximation algorithm for $t$-approval-WCCAV, and also for $t$-veto-WCCDV, using the obvious analogue of GBW for $t$-veto-WCCDV, which we will also call GBW.[^5]
\[thm:gbw\] Let $t \geq 3$. The polynomial-time greedy algorithm GBW is a $t$-approximation algorithm for $t$-approval-WCCAV and $t$-veto-WCCDV; and there are instances in which GBW’s approximation factor on each of these problems is no better than $t$.
We prove Theorem \[thm:gbw\]’s upper and lower bound parts separately, through the following two lemmas from which the theorem immediately follows.
\[t:GBW-t-deferred-av-dv\] Let $t \geq 3$. There are instances on which the polynomial-time greedy algorithm GBW has an approximation factor on $t$-approval-WCCAV no better than $t$. There are instances on which the polynomial-time greedy algorithm GBW has an approximation factor on $t$-veto-WCCDV no better than $t$.
\[lemma:upper\] Let $t \geq 3$. The polynomial-time greedy algorithm GBW is a $t$-approximation algorithm for $t$-approval-WCCAV and $t$-veto-WCCDV.
The proof of our lower-bound claim, Lemma \[t:GBW-t-deferred-av-dv\], consists of a somewhat detailed pair of constructions, and is of less interest than the upper-bound part of Theorem \[thm:gbw\], namely Lemma \[lemma:upper\]. We thus defer to the appendix the proof of Lemma \[t:GBW-t-deferred-av-dv\].
Let us now prove the two claims that GBW is a $t$-approximation algorithm. We will prove the result for $t=3$ and WCCAV, but it will be immediately clear that our proof straightforwardly generalizes to all greater $t$; and the WCCDV case follows using Theorem \[thm:reduction\]. Clearly GBW is a polynomial-time algorithm. Consider a given input instance of $t$-approval-WCCAV, with preferred candidate $p$. Without loss of generality, assume all unregistered voters approve of $p$. We will say a candidate “has a gap” (under the current set of registered voters and whatever unregistered voters have already been added) if that candidate has strictly more weight of approvals than $p$ does. For each candidate $d$ who has a gap, $d \neq p$, define $i_d$ to be the minimum number of unregistered voters one has to add to remove $d$’s gap; that is, if one went from heaviest to lightest among the unregistered voters, adding in turn each that disapproved of $d$, $i_d$ is the number of voters one would add before $d$ no longer had a gap. If for any candidate $d$ it holds that no integer realizes $i_d$, then control is impossible using the unregistered voter set. Clearly, any successful addition of voters must add at least $\max_d i_d$ voters (the max throughout this proof is over all candidates initially having a gap).
Let us henceforth assume that control is possible in the input case. We will show that after having added at most $3 \cdot \max_d i_d$ voters GBW will have made $p$ a winner, and so GBW is a 3-approximation algorithm. By way of contradiction, suppose that after $3 \cdot \max_d i_d$ additions some candidate, $z$, still has a gap.
*Case 1 \[In at least $\max_d i_d$ of the first $3 \cdot \max_d
i_d$ votes added by GBW, $z$ is not approved\].* Since for the last one of these to be added $z$ must still have had a gap before the addition, each earlier vote considered that disapproved $z$ had a gap for $z$ when it was considered and so would have been added when reached. So, keeping in mind that $i_z \leq \max_d i_d$, we in fact must have added the $i_z$ heaviest voters disapproving of $z$, and so contrary to the assumption, $z$ no longer has a gap after these additions.
*Case 2 \[Case 1 does not hold\].* So $z$ is approved in at least $1 + 2\cdot \max_d i_d$ of the added votes. What made the final one of the added votes, call it $v'$, eligible for addition? It must be that some candidate, say $y$, still had a gap just before $v'$ was added.
*Case 2a \[$y$ is disapproved in at least $\max_d i_d$ of the $2\cdot \max_d i_d$ votes added before $v'$ that approved $z$\].* Then, since until $y$’s gap was removed no unregistered voters disapproving of $y$ would be excluded by GBW, $y$’s $i_y$ heaviest voters will have been added. So contrary to Case $2$’s assumption, $y$ does not have a gap when we get to adding vote $v'$.
*Case 2b \[Case 2 holds but Case 2a does not\].* Then $y$ is approved in at least $1+\max_d i_d$ of the $2\cdot \max_d i_d$ votes before $v'$ that GBW added that approve $z$. So we have $1+\max_d i_d$ votes added approving of exactly $z$ and $y$. But then who made the last of *those* $1+\max_d i_d$ votes, call it $v''$, eligible to be added? It must be that some candidate $w$ had a gap up through $v''$. But at the moment before adding $v''$ we would have added $\max_d i_d \geq i_w$ votes approving exactly $z$ and $y$ and so disapproving $w$, and since $w$ allegedly still had a gap, we while doing so under GBW would have in fact added the $i_w$ heaviest voters disapproving of $w$, and so $w$’s gap would have been removed before $v''$, so contrary to our assumption $w$ was not the gap that made $v''$ eligible.
One might naturally wonder how GBW performs on $t$-veto-WCCAV and $t$-approval-WCCDV. By an argument far easier than that used in the above proof of Lemma \[lemma:upper\], in both of these cases GBW provides a $t$-approximation algorithm.
\[t:FORMERLY-no-constant\] GBW is a $t$-approximation algorithm for t-veto-WCCAV. GBW is a $t$-approximation algorithm for t-approval-WCCDV.
Consider $t$-veto-WCCAV. Let $p$ be the preferred candidate. For each candidate $d$ with an initial positive “gap” relative to the preferred candidate $p$ (i.e., a surplus over $p$ in total weight of approvals), let $i_d$ be as defined in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:upper\]. (Recall that $i_d$ is the number of votes we would need to add to remove the surplus of $d$ over $p$ if we took the unregistered votes, discarded all that didn’t simultaneously approve $p$ and disapprove $d$, and then added those one at a time from heaviest to lightest until the gap was removed.) Clearly, $\sum i_d$, where the sum is taken over those candidates with an initial surplus relative to $p$, is an upper bound on the number of votes added by GBW. This is true since GBW works by adding extra votes from heaviest to lightest, restricted to those vetoing a candidate who at that point has a positive gap relative to $p$; so under GBW each gap will be closed by the largest weight votes that address it. On the other hand, in any overall optimal solution $i_d$ is a lower bound on the smallest number of votes from that solution’s added-vote set that would suffice to remove $d$’s positive gap (since it takes $i_d$ even if we use the heaviest votes addressing the gap). In the overall optimal solution each added vote narrows at most $t$ gaps. So GBW’s solution uses at worst $t$ times as many added votes as does the optimal solution. The claim for $t$-approval-WCCDV follows by Theorem \[thm:reduction\].
This result replaces a flawed claim in an earlier version of this paper that GBW and some of its cousins do not provide ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(1)$ approximations for these problems. Of course, having a $t$-approximation for these two problems is not wildly exciting, since for these problems the multicover-based approach from earlier in this section showed that for some function $f(t)$, with $f(t) = {{\protect\mathcal O}}(\log t)$, we even have $f(t)$-approximation algorithms for these problems. However, if the constant of the “big oh” of that other algorithm is large, it is possible that for sufficiently small values of $t$ the above approach may give a better approximation. Also, we feel that it is interesting to learn about the behavior of explicit heuristics, especially attractive approaches such as greedy algorithms.
Related Work {#sec:related-work}
============
The study of the complexity of (unweighted) electoral control was initiated by Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick [@bar-tov-tri:j:control], who considered constructive control by adding/deleting/partitioning candidates/voters under the plurality rule and under the Condorcet rule (that is, the rule that chooses Condorcet winner whenever there is one, and has no winners otherwise). The various types of control model at least some of the flavor of actions that occur in the real world, such as voter suppression and targeted get-out-the-vote drives (see the survey of Faliszewski, Hemaspaandra, and Hemaspaandra [@fal-hem-hem:j:cacm-survey] for more examples and discussions). A major motivation for the study of control was to obtain “complexity barrier” results, that is, results that show that detecting opportunities for various control attacks is computationally difficult. In particular, Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick focused on ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hardness as the measure of computational difficulty.
This research direction was continued by Hemaspaandra, Hemaspaandra, and Rothe [@hem-hem-rot:j:destructive-control], who were the first to study destructive control attacks on elections. Since then, many authors have studied electoral control in many varied settings and under many different rules; we refer the reader to the survey [@fal-hem-hem:j:cacm-survey]. Some recent research, not covered in that survey, includes complexity-of-control results for the $t$-approval family of rules [@lin:thesis:elections], for Bucklin’s rule (and for fallback, its extension for truncated votes) [@erd-rot:c:fallback; @erd-pir-rot:c:voter-partition-in-bucklin-and-fallback-voting], for maximin [@fal-hem-hem:j:multimode], for range voting [@men:jtoappear:range-voting], and for Schultze’s rule and the ranked pairs rule [@par-xia:strategic-schultze-ranked-pairs]. In the present paper, we compare control and manipulation. The recent paper [@fit-hem-hem:ctoappear:control-manipulation] studies settings in which both control and manipulation are occurring. Researchers have, in the quite different setting of electing members to fill a fixed-size, multimember panel, defined variants of control that have coexisting constructive and destructive aspects [@mei-pro-ros-zoh:j:multiwinner]. There is also work analyzing counting variants of control [@fal-woj:c:counting-control], where the goal is not only to decide if a given control attack is possible, but also to count the number of ways in which this attack can be carried out.
The complexity-barrier research line turned out to be very successful. For most voting rules that were considered, a significant number of control attacks are ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard. Indeed, it is even possible to construct an artificial election system resistant to all types of control attacks [@hem-hem-rot:j:hybrid]. However, there are also a number of results that suggest that in practice the complexity barrier might not be as strong as one might at first think. For example, Faliszewski et al. [@fal-hem-hem-rot:j:single-peaked-preferences] and Brandt et al. [@bra-bri-hem-hem:c:sp2] have shown that if the votes are restricted to being single-peaked, then many control problems that are known to be ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete become polynomial-time solvable. Indeed, this often holds even if elections are just nearly single-peaked [@fal-hem-hem:c:nearly-sp], as many real-world elections seem to be. Similarly, some initial experimental results of Rothe and Schend [@rot-sch:empirical-control]—published very recently—suggest that, at least under certain distributions and settings, some ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard control problems can be solved in practice on many instances. As part of a different line of research, Xia [@xia:c:vote-operations] has studied the asymptotic behavior of the number of voters that have to be added to/deleted from a randomly constructed election in a successful control action.
There are a number of other problems that involving changing the structure of elections. These problems include candidate cloning [@elk-fal-sli:j:cloning; @elk-fal-sli:c:decloning] (where it is possible to replace a given candidate $c$ with a number of its clones), or the possible winner problem when new alternatives join [@che-lan-mau-mon:c:possible-winners-adding; @lan-mon-xia:c:new-alternatives-new-results] (where some additional, not yet ranked candidates can be introduced). This last problem is also related to the possible winner problem with truncated ballots [@bau-fal-lan-rot:c:lazy-voters].
The only papers that directly raise the issue of weighted control are, to the best of our knowledge, the theses of Russell [@rus:t:borda] and Lin [@lin:thesis:elections]. However, we also mention the papers of Baumeister et al. [@bau-roo-rot-sch-xia:weighted-pw], and of Perek et al. [@per-fal-ros-pin:c:losing-voters], where the authors, in effect, consider problems of affecting the result of an election through picking the weights of the voters. (The paper of Perek et al. motivates its study differently, but in effect studies a constrained variant of choosing voter weights.) Their problems are similar to, though different from, simultaneous (multimode) addition and deletion of voters [@fal-hem-hem:j:multimode].
This paper has given $f(\cdot)$-approximation results for weighted election control problems. Elkind and Faliszewski [@elk-fal:c:shift-bribery] have given a 2-approximation algorithm for a weighted, bribery-related case.
Conclusions {#ss:conclusions}
===========
WCCAV WCCDV WCM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[-0.5em\] Plurality ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ (Thm. \[t:t-approval-in-P\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ (Thm. \[t:t-approval-in-P\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ [@con-lan-san:j:when-hard-to-manipulate]
\[5pt\] [$t$-approval, $2 \leq t < m$]{} ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ (Thm. \[t:t-approval-in-P\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ (Thm. \[t:t-approval-in-P\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}comp.}}}$ [@hem-hem:j:dichotomy]
\[5pt\] [Borda]{} ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}comp.}}}$ (Thm. \[t:bounded-borda\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}comp.}}}$ (Thm. \[t:bounded-borda\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}comp.}}}$ [@hem-hem:j:dichotomy]
\[8pt\] $\alpha = (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m)$, $\|\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m\}\| \geq 3$ \*[${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}comp.}}}$ (Thm. \[t:avdv-scoring-protocols\])]{} \*[${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}comp.}}}$ [@hem-hem:j:dichotomy]]{}
\[25pt\] Llull (3 candidates) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}comp.}}}$ (Cor. \[cor:llull\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}comp.}}}$ (Cor. \[cor:llull\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ [@fal-hem-sch:c:copeland-ties-matter]
\[10pt\] [${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard]{} (Thm. \[t:bounded-weakcondorcet\]) [${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard]{} (Thm. \[t:bounded-weakcondorcet\])
: \[tab:bounded\]Our results for the complexity of control by adding/deleting voters in weighted elections for any fixed number of candidates, ${m \geq 3}$, compared to the complexity of weighted coalitional manipulation.
WCCAV WCCDV
------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\[-0.5em\] $t$-approval
$t = 2$ ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ (Thm. \[t:WCCAV-2approval-in-P\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}complete}}}$ (Thm. \[t:hardness\])
$t = 3$ ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}complete}}}$ (Thm. \[t:hardness\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}complete}}}$ [@lin:thesis:elections]
$t \geq 4$ ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}complete}}}$ [@lin:thesis:elections] ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}complete}}}$ [@lin:thesis:elections]
\[10pt\] $t$-veto
$t = 2$ ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}complete}}}$ (Thm. \[t:hardness\]) ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{P}}}$ (Thm. \[t:2-veto\])
$t = 3$ ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}complete}}}$ [@lin:thesis:elections] ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}complete}}}$ (Thm. \[t:hardness\])
$t \geq 4$ ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}complete}}}$ [@lin:thesis:elections] ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NP\hbox{-}complete}}}$ [@lin:thesis:elections]
: \[tab:unbounded\]The complexity of control by adding and deleting voters for ${t}$-approval and ${t}$-veto with an unbounded number of candidates.
------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
WCCAV WCCDV
\[-0.50em\] ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(\log m)$ (Thm. \[cor:wccav-log\]) ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(\log t)$ (Thm. \[cor:wccdv-log\])
$t$ (Thm. \[thm:gbw\]) $t$ (Thm. \[t:FORMERLY-no-constant\])
\[12pt\] ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(\log t)$ (Thm. \[cor:wccav-log\]) ${{\protect\mathcal O}}(\log m)$ (Thm. \[cor:wccdv-log\])
$t$ (Thm. \[t:FORMERLY-no-constant\]) $t$ (Thm. \[thm:gbw\])
------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
: \[tab:approx\]Approximation ratios of our algorithms for WCCAV and WCCDV under $t$-approval and $t$-veto.
We have studied voter control under a number of voting rules, including scoring protocols, families of scoring protocols, and the (weak)Condorcet-consistent rules. We have shown that the complexity of voter control can be quite different from the complexity of weighted coalitional manipulation: there are natural voting rules for which weighted coalitional manipulation is easy but weighted voter control is hard, and there are natural rules where the opposite is the case. Furthermore, we have shown that for weighted voter control under $t$-approval and $t$-veto, there are good, natural approximation algorithms. Our results for voter control in weighted elections are summarized in Tables \[tab:bounded\], \[tab:unbounded\], and \[tab:approx\].
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
We are very grateful to the anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions. This work was supported in part by grants AGH-11.11.120.865, NCN-DEC-2011/03/B/ST6/01393, NCN-UMO-2012/06/M/ST1/00358, and NSF-CCF-{0915792,1101452,1101479}, and two Bessel Awards from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
Additional Details Related to Section \[ss:approx\]
===================================================
We present here the deferred proof of Lemma \[t:GBW-t-deferred-av-dv\] and some other details related to Section \[ss:approx\].
Our goal is to show that GBW sometimes really does use fully $t$ times the optimal number of added/deleted votes, for the cases in question. Examples are (somewhat detailed but) not hard to construct, and the lower bound even holds for $t=2$, though in Section \[ss:t-approval\] we obtained an exact solution by a different approach. However, one does have to be careful to set the “gap” pattern created by the unregistered voters to be a realizable one. For our $t$-approval-WCCAV construction, this will be easy to do directly. For our $t$-veto-WCCDV construction, we will establish realizability through a small tool—which we hope may prove useful elsewhere—that lets one set up certain patterns of gaps. We state the tool below as Tool \[tool:tool1\]. Fix any $t \in \{2,3,4,\ldots\}$. We will now construct an instance of $t$-approval-WCCAV on which GBW uses $t$ times as many additions as the optimal strategy. Our construction will have $2t$ candidates: the preferred candidate $p$, candidates $a_1,\ldots,a_t$, and candidates $d_1,\ldots,d_{t-1}$. Now, suppose that under the votes of the registered voters, the “gaps” are as follows. For each candidate $a_i$, the total weight of approvals of $a_i$ exceeds the total weight of approvals of $p$ by exactly $2t$. And for each candidate $d_i$, the total weight of approvals of $d_i$ equals the total weight of approvals of $p$. This can easily be realized, namely by our registered voter set being one weight-$2t$ voter who approves of each $a_i$.
Our set of unregistered voters will be as follows. There will be one unregistered voter, call it “nice,” of weight $2t$, who approves of $p$ and each of the $t-1$ candidates $d_i$, and disapproves of each of the $t$ candidates $a_i$. For each $j$, $1\leq
j \leq t$, we will have a single unregistered voter, call it $\alpha_j$, of weight $3t$, who approves of $p$ and of each $a_i$ other than $a_j$, and disapproves of $a_j$ and all the $d_i$’s.
Note that GBW will add all $t$ voters $\alpha_i$. But ideal would be to add the single voter called “nice,” since doing so suffices to make $p$ a winner. So for each $t \geq 2$ we have constructed a setting where GBW for $t$-approval-WCCAV takes $t$ times more than the optimal number of added votes. It also holds that for each $t \geq 2$, we can similarly construct a setting where GBW for $t$-veto-WCCDV takes $t$ times more than the optimal number of deleted votes, and can prove that setting to be realizable. In fact, we can do so by following something of the flavor of the above scheme, except with a slightly different vote set that adjusts it to handle the case of deleting voters, and with more care regarding realizability. Here is the construction. Fix any $t \in \{2,3,4,\ldots\}$. Our candidate set will again be the preferred candidate $p$, candidates $a_1,\ldots,a_t$, and candidates $d_1,\ldots,d_{t-1}$. Let us specify the voter set. We will put into our voter set a collection of weight-1 votes such that the gaps in total approval weight *relative to $d_1$* created by those votes are as follows. Each of $d_2$ through $d_{t-1}$ have the same total approval weight as $d_1$. The total approval weight of $p$ exceeds that of $d_1$ by $3t^2+3t$. And the total approval weight of each $a_i$ exceeds that of $d_1$ by $3t^2$.
As Tool \[tool:tool1\] below, we will observe that for $2t$-candidate $t$-approval voting, any gap pattern where the gaps are all multiples of $t$ can be realized. Since in the current proof we are using $2t$-candidate $t$-veto, and that is the same as $2t$-candidate $t$-approval, Tool \[tool:tool1\] applies here. In particular, Tool \[tool:tool1\] easily builds a set of weight-1 votes realizing precisely our desired set of gaps. (The exact number of weight-1 votes used in this construction is not important. However, from the gaps mentioned above and the vote-set size mentioned in the tool, the precise number is easily seen to be $(3t+3+t(3t))(2t-1)$.)
We are not yet done building our voter set. We will also have in our voter set one voter, call it “nice,” of weight $2t$, who approves of exactly all $t$ of the $a_i$’s. And for each $j$, $1\leq j \leq t$, we will have one voter of weight $3t$ who approves of exactly $a_j$ and all $t-1$ of the $d_i$’s.
Under the entire set of votes created above—the votes from the tool combined with “nice” and the other $t$ votes just mentioned—it is easy to see that $d_1$ is a candidate having the least total approval weight, and it is tied in total approval weight with each other $d_i$. The total approval weight of $p$ exceeds that of $d_1$ by $3t$. And each $a_i$ exceeds $d_1$ in total approval weight by $5t$. However, in light of the pattern of votes and weights we have here, it is clear that GBW (in its version for $t$-veto) will delete the $t$ weight-$3t$ voters. (Note that the votes added by Tool \[tool:tool1\] are all weight-1 votes, and so are highly unattractive to GBW.) But ideal would be to delete the single voter called “nice,” since doing so suffices to make $p$ a winner. So for each $t \geq 2$ we have constructed a realizable setting where GBW for $t$-veto-WCCDV takes $t$ times more than the optimal number of deleted votes.
Within the above proof, we referred to and used a small tool that can build certain patterns of vote weight gaps in certain approval elections. It would be an overreach to claim that this is a McGarvey-like tool, since this is a different setting than, and is a far less flexible result than, the famous theorem of McGarvey [@mcg:j:election-graph]. However, it in a small way is a tool that perhaps might be useful elsewhere, and so we state and prove this modest tool.
\[tool:tool1\] Let $t\geq 2$. Let $n_1,\ldots,n_{2t-1}$ be any list of nonnegative integers each divisible by $t$. Then there exists a collection of $t$-approval votes, over $2t$ candidates, such that under those votes, relative to the candidate getting the fewest approvals, the list of gaps in number of approvals between that candidate and the other $2t-1$ candidates is precisely $(n_1,\ldots,n_{2t-1})$. Furthermore, this can be done with $(2t-1)(\sum n_i)/t$ unweighted (i.e., weight 1) votes. It alternatively can be done with $(2t-1)^2$ weighted votes (or even $(2t-1)\|\{i~|~n_i \neq 0\}\|$ weighted votes).
Consider an election with $2t$ candidates, where the votes cast are $t$-approval votes. Consider the collection of $2t-1$ votes, each of weight one, in which the votes all approve of a particular candidate (for this example, let that one be the first candidate), and the remaining $t-1$ approvals cyclically rotate around the other candidates. So the $t$-approval votes, viewed as bit vectors, are these: $1\,1^{t-1}\, 0^t$, $1\,0\, 1^{t-1}\, 0^{t-1}$, $\ldots$, $1\,0^t\, 1^{t-1}$, $1\,1\,0^t\, 1^{t-2}$, $\ldots$, $1\,1^{t-1}\,0^t\,1$. Note that the first candidate is approved in all $2t-1$ of those votes, and each other candidate is approved in exactly $t-1$ of those votes. So this collection of votes sets a gap of $t$ in favor of the first candidate, between the total approval weight of the first candidate and that of each other candidate And the difference in total approval weight between each other pair of candidates is zero.
Given a gap pattern as stated in the tool, where each gap above the least-approved candidate (call that candidate $c$) is a multiple of $t$, we can simply use the approach of the above paragraph repeatedly, to boost each other candidate, $d$, one at a time to whatever multiple of $t$ it is supposed to exceed $c$ by in total approval weight. (In this, $d$ will play the role “the first candidate” did in the previous paragraph.) If $d$’s surplus relative to $c$ is $kt$ and we wish to use only weight-1 votes, we can do this for $d$ with $k(2t-1)$ weight-1 votes. Otherwise, we can do this for $d$ with $2t-1$ weight-$k$ votes. So the total number of votes used is as given in the statement of this tool.
This appendix is not seeking to provide a comprehensive study of which gap collections are realizable under $t$-approval voting, nor is it seeking to find the smallest number of voters needed to realize realizable gap collection. That is an interesting direction for study, but is not our goal here. However, we mention that there clearly exist some gap collections that cannot be realized. For example, the “then there exists” claim of Tool \[tool:tool1\] is not even always true if one removes the assumption of divisibility by $t$. An example showing this is the following. Consider a 4-candidate setting where votes will be 2-approval votes, and we desire a gap list relative to the least-approved candidate of $(1,1,1)$, i.e., each of the other candidates has one more approval than does the least-approved candidate. Clearly, the total number of approvals of any set of votes achieving this is $4B+3$, where $B$ is whatever number of approvals the least-approved candidate happens to get under the vote set one is trying, and so the total number of approvals is odd. However, any vote set of 2-approval votes has an even total number of approvals. So this gap collection cannot be realized.
[^1]: If the number of candidates is fixed, then $t$-veto can be expressed as $(m-t)$-approval, where $m$ is the number of candidates. If the number of candidates is unbounded, then $t$-veto is not $t'$-approval.
[^2]: We emphasize that such a view of $t$-approval and $t$-veto is correct in settings where the set of candidates remains fixed. If the set of candidates were to change (e.g., as in control by adding/deleting candidates), then we would have to use the standard, preference-order-based definition.
[^3]: We mention in passing that an analogue of this theorem in the model in which we are bounding the total weight of votes that can be added/deleted was obtained by Russell [@rus:t:borda].
[^4]: \[footnote:ky\]This follows from the sentence starting “Our second algorithm finds a solution” on page 496 of [@kol-you:j:cip] (which itself follows from their Theorem 8), keeping in mind that we have none of their so-called packing constraints, and so we may take it that what they call $\epsilon$ is one and the matrix and vector they call $B$ and $b$ won’t be a factor here. Their vector $a$ corresponds to our $r_j$’s; the element in the $j$th row and $i$th column of their matrix $A$ will for us be set to $\omega_i$ if $S_i$ contains $b_j$ and $0$ otherwise; we set their cost vector $c$ to be a vector of all $1$’s; we set their multiplicity vector $d$ to be a vector of all $1$’s; their vector $x$ corresponds to the characteristic function of our $I$; and their $\alpha$ will be Theorem \[thm:ky\]’s bound $t$ on the number of elements of $B$ contained in any $S_i$.
[^5]: For completeness and clarity, we describe what we mean by GBW for $t$-veto-WCCDV. Order all votes that do not approve of $p$ from heaviest to lightest, breaking ties in voter weights in some simple, transparent way (for concreteness, let us say by lexicographic order on the votes’ representations). GBW goes through these votes in that order, and as it reaches each vote it removes the vote exactly if the vote approves of at least one candidate whose score (i.e., total weight of approvals) is currently strictly greater than that of $p$. It stops successfully when $p$ has become a winner and unsuccessfully if before that happens the algorithm runs out of such votes to consider.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
---
Required Metadata {#section:metadata .unnumbered}
=================
C1 Current code version 0.6.0
---- ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2 Permanent link to code/repository used for this code version <https://github.com/pesummary/pesummary/tree/v0.6.0>
C4 Legal Code License MIT
C5 Code versioning system used git
C6 Software code languages, tools, and services used Python, Javascript, HTML, CSS, Bootstrap
C7 Compilation requirements, operating environments & dependencies numpy$\geq 1.15.4$, h5py, matplotlib, seaborn, statsmodels, corner, tables, deepdish, pandas, pygments, astropy$\geq 3.2.3$, lalsuite$\geq 6.70.0$, ligo-gracedb, configparser, gwpy, plotly, tqdm$\geq 4.44.0$
C8 If available Link to developer documentation/manual See <https://lscsoft.docs.ligo.org/pesummary>
: Code metadata (mandatory)[]{data-label=""}
Conflict of Interest
====================
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We establish the largest eruptive/confined flare database to date and analyze 322 flares of *GOES* class M1.0 and larger that occurred during 2010$-$2019, i.e., almost spanning the entire solar cycle 24. We find that the total unsigned magnetic flux ($\Phi$$_{AR}$) of active regions (ARs) is a key parameter in governing the eruptive character of large flares, with the proportion of eruptive flares exhibiting a strong anti-correlation with $\Phi$$_{AR}$. This means that an AR containing a large magnetic flux has a lower probability for the large flares it produces to be associated with a coronal mass ejection (CME). This finding is supported by the high positive correlation we obtained between the critical decay index height and $\Phi$$_{AR}$, implying that ARs with a larger $\Phi$$_{AR}$ have a stronger magnetic confinement. Moreover, the confined flares originating from ARs larger than 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx have several characteristics in common: stable filament, slipping magnetic reconnection and strongly sheared post-flare loops. Our findings reveal new relations between the magnetic flux of ARs and the occurrence of CMEs in association with large flares. These relations obtained here provide quantitative criteria for forecasting CMEs and adverse space weather, and have also important implications for “superflares" on solar-type stars and stellar CMEs.'
author:
- 'Ting Li, Yijun Hou, Shuhong Yang, Jun Zhang, Lijuan Liu & Astrid M. Veronig'
title: Magnetic Flux of Active Regions Determining the Eruptive Character of Large Solar Flares
---
Introduction
============
Solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are the most energetic phenomena in our solar system and are the dominant contributors to adverse space weather at Earth (Gosling et al. 1991; Green et al. 2018). They originate from the rapid release of free magnetic energy stored in the sheared or twisted magnetic fields of active regions (ARs) through magnetic reconnection (Forbes 2000; Shibata & Magara 2011). Magnetic reconnection is believed to be a fundamental process in magnetized plasma systems throughout the Universe where magnetic energy is stored over relatively long times to be released suddenly in bursts of various forms (thermal, kinetic, and high-energy particle) (Priest & Forbes 2000; Su et al. 2013). Flares associated with a CME are usually referred to as eruptive events, while flares that are not accompanied by a CME are called confined or “CME-less" events (Svestka 1986; Moore et al. 2001). The association rate of flares and CMEs has revealed that most small flares occur without a CME, whereas for large flares (M-class, X-class) the CME-association is steeply increasing, and reaches 100% for the biggest events (Andrews 2003; Yashiro et al. 2006). The broad variety of strong space weather effects is mostly due to the CME rather than the flare itself. Our understanding of the physical mechanism of flares and their relationship with CMEs is important to forecast space weather in the near-Earth environment (Forbes 2000; Shibata & Magara 2011). Meanwhile, the solar flare-CME paradigm might be applied to magnetic activities in other stars, which is vital for the question of exoplanet habitability and the evolution of stellar mass loss and rotation (Khodachenko et al. 2007; Lammer et al. 2007).
Substantial observational studies have revealed that a flare would be confined if the strapping magnetic field overlying the flaring region is too strong or does not decrease sufficiently fast with height (Green et al. 2002; Wang & Zhang 2007; Cheng et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2014; Chen et al. 2015; Thalmann et al. 2015). To quantify the decline of the strapping field with height, the decay index has been used (Kliem & T[ö]{}r[ö]{}k 2006; Fan & Gibson 2007; Zuccarello et al. 2015), i.e., $\emph{n}$=–$\emph{d}$ $\ln$$B_{hor}$/$\emph{d}$ $\ln$$\emph{h}$, with $B_{hor}$ denoting the horizontal field and $\emph{h}$ the height in the corona. The torus instability of a magnetic flux rope occurs when the decay index $\emph{n}$ reaches a critical value $n_{crit}$$\approx$1.5 (Kliem & T[ö]{}r[ö]{}k 2006; Fan & Gibson 2007). Recent magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) simulations showed that the overlying field lines form a confining cage and a weaker magnetic cage would produce a more energetic eruption with a CME (Amari et al. 2018). Another important factor that governs the eruptive character of solar flares is the non-potentiality of ARs. Statistical studies have shown that flare and CME productivity are correlated with magnetic shear, electric current, magnetic free energy, etc (Hagyard & Rabin 1986; Falconer et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2016a). It is suggested that AR eruptivity is related to the relative value of magnetic non-potentiality over the restriction of the background field (Sun et al. 2015).
In this paper, we derive important quantitative relations between the magnetic properties of ARs and the eruptive character of large solar flares, based on the *Solar Dynamics Observatory* (*SDO*; Pesnell et al. 2012) observations during the period of solar cycle 24. A total of 322 flares (170 eruptive and 152 confined) of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (*GOES*) class M1.0 and larger that occurred within 45$^{\circ}$ from the central meridian, from June 2010 until June 2019, are selected. About 51% (155 of 301) of the M-class flares are eruptive and the percentage increases up to $\sim$71% (15 of 21) for X-class flares, similar to the previous results (Yashiro et al. 2006). To our knowledge, the eruptive/confined flare sample established in this study is by far the largest one in the era of *SDO*. We show that total unsigned magnetic flux of ARs ($\Phi$$_{AR}$) is a decisive parameter in governing the eruptive character of flares, and the proportion of eruptive flares exhibits a strong anti-correlation with $\Phi$$_{AR}$. This finding is further supported by the high correlation obtained between $\Phi$$_{AR}$ and the critical height for torus instability.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sections 2 and 3, we describe the data analysis and show the statistical results, respectively. Section 4 presents the detailed analysis for six events as typical examples. Finally, we summarize our findings and discuss the implications in Section 5.
Data Analysis
=============
Event Sample
------------
The *SDO* satellite has already provided a rich database since its launch in February 2010. Until now, its observation period lasts about 10 years and almost spans the entire solar cycle 24. Thus it is a good opportunity to carry out statistical analysis about the flare-CME mechanism based on the *SDO* observations. Firstly, we examined a database RibbonDB presented by Kazachenko et al. (2017) and selected all 302 flare events larger than M1.0 that occurred within $45^{\circ}$ from the central meridian, from June 2010 until April 2016. To extend the time period, we checked for the *GOES* soft X-ray (SXR) flare catalog to search for flare events from May 2016 to June 2019 and found 20 flares of GOES class M1.0 and greater. A total of 322 flare events are involved in our database over a nine-year period (see Table FlareM1.0). Secondly, for each flare, its CME association was determined by checking the CME catalog[^1] (Gopalswamy et al. 2009) of the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO)/Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO). We regarded a flare as eruptive if the CME onset time was within 90 min of the flare start time and the position angle of the CME agreed with the quadrant on the Sun where the flare occurred. Moreover, we also inspected the observations of the *twin Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory* (*STEREO*; Kaiser et al. 2008; Howard et al. 2008) to check from a different viewing angle if there is an associated CME. For the events difficult to determine the classification, e.g., there are two flares within a short time or the CME is too weak to be identified, we then checked the EUV observations from the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA; Lemen et al. 2012) on board the *SDO* and identified the coronal EUV wave manually. If a global coronal EUV wave was associated with the flare, the flare was classified as eruptive. Out of these 322 flares, 170 ($\sim$53%) events were eruptive (155 M- and 15 X-) and 152 ($\sim$47%) were confined (146 M- and 6 X-).
Data and Methods
----------------
We investigated the relations between the AR parameters (unsigned AR magnetic flux $\Phi$$_{AR}$ and AR area) and the eruptive character of large solar flares. The AR parameters in RibbonDB catalog (Kazachenko et al. 2017) are calculated based on the full-disk Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI; Scherrer et al. 2012) vector magnetogram data series (`hmi.B_720s`) before the flare onset time. To avoid noisy magnetic fields, only pixels that host a normal component of the magnetic field $|$$B_{n}$$|$$>$100 G are considered. For the flare events that are not included in the RibbonDB catalog, we use the available vector magnetograms (`hmi.sharp_cea_720s`) from Space-Weather HMI AR Patches (Bobra et al. 2014) before the flare onset. The magnetograms were re-mapped using a cylindrical equal area projection with a pixel size of $\sim$0$\arcsec$.5 and presented as (B$_{r}$, B$_{\theta}$, B$_{\phi}$) in heliocentric spherical coordinates corresponding to (B$_{z}$, -B$_{y}$, B$_{x}$) in heliographic coordinates (Sun 2013). Similarly, to calculate the AR magnetic flux and AR area, we consider all pixels of $|$$B_{r}$$|$$>$100 G. Moreover, RibbonDB catalog (Kazachenko et al. 2017) also includes the parameters of flare ribbons such as the flare ribbon reconnection flux $\Phi$$_{ribbon}$, the cumulative flare ribbon area S$_{ribbon}$, the ratio of the AR magnetic flux involved in the flare reconnection R$_{flux}$ ($\Phi$$_{ribbon}$/$\Phi$$_{AR}$) and the area ratio R$_{S}$ (S$_{ribbon}$/S$_{AR}$). In this work, we also use these parameters of 302 flare events larger than M1.0 and investigate their distributions and correlations in eruptive and confined flares.
The role of the background coronal fields in confined and eruptive flares was estimated by calculating the decay index n above the ARs. In order to extrapolate the 3D magnetic field in the entire AR volume, we use the Fourier transformation method (Alissandrakis 1981) to extrapolate the potential field. The method yields the local potential field with a resolution around 0.72 Mm, same as the resolution of the boundary condition. The boundary condition is the normal component of the photospheric magnetic field from Space-Weather HMI AR Patches (Bobra et al. 2014) observed prior to the flare start. From the extrapolated field, the mean value of the horizontal magnetic field, $<$$B_{hor}$$>$, as a function of height is obtained along the main polarity inversion line (PIL) and an average decay index, $<$n$>$, is then derived. Here, the main PIL was identified as zero Gauss contour in the bottom vertical magnetic field (B$_{r}$) image from the extrapolated potential fields (Bokenkamp 2007; Vasantharaju et al. 2018). To analyze the structure and dynamics of typical flare examples, we used the E(UV) observations from the AIA, with a resolution of $\sim$0$\arcsec$.6 per pixel and a cadence of 12(24) s. Five channels of AIA 1600, 304, 171, 94 and 131 [Å]{} were mainly applied to analyze the appearances of the flares. The full-disk line-of-sight (LOS) magnetic field data from the HMI are also used to present the ARs producing the typical flare examples.
Statistical Results
===================
Magnetic Properties of ARs and Eruptive Character of Solar Flares
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1(a) shows the scatter plot of the flare peak X-ray flux versus $\Phi$$_{AR}$. Blue (red) circles are the eruptive (confined) flares. Obviously, when $\Phi$$_{AR}$ is small enough, the flares tend to be eruptive (Area A in Figure 1(a)). About 92% (36 of 39) of events occurring in ARs with $\Phi$$_{AR}$ smaller than 3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx are eruptive. An overwhelming majority of flares that are hosted by ARs with a large magnetic flux do not generate CMEs (Area C in Figure 1(a)). The proportion of confined flares of GOES class $\geq$M1 is $\sim$93% (26 of 28) corresponding to the AR with $\Phi$$_{AR}$ larger than 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx. We examined two special eruptive events (M4.0-class flare on 24 October 2014 in Figure 10 and X1.8-class event on 20 December 2014) in Area C of Figure 1(a) and found that they either were located at the edge of the AR or caused a sympathetic eruption of a nearby quiescent filament. If the AR has a moderate magnetic flux (larger than 3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx and smaller than 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx), the likelihood of eruptive and confined events appears to be almost equal (132 eruptive flares and 126 confined events of 258 in Area B of Figure 1(a)). The scatter plot of the flare peak X-ray flux versus total AR area shows a similar trend (Figure 1(b)). All flares in ARs with an area smaller than 5.0$\times$$10^{19}$ $cm^{2}$ are eruptive (Area A in Figure 1(b)) and all flares in ARs larger than 3.0$\times$$10^{20}$ $cm^{2}$ are confined (Area C in Figure 1(b)).
Figures 1(c)-(d) display the histograms for confined and eruptive events. There are significant differences in distributions of AR magnetic flux and AR area between the confined and eruptive cases. The confined events have larger AR magnetic flux and AR area. The averages of the log values of $\Phi$$_{AR}$ (indicated by vertical dotted lines) are 6.3$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx and 4.4$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx for confined and eruptive cases, respectively. The log-mean values of AR area for the confined and eruptive events are 1.5$\times$$10^{20}$ $cm^{2}$ and 1.2$\times$$10^{20}$ $cm^{2}$, respectively. Based on the the number distributions of AR magnetic flux and AR area between the confined and eruptive cases, we display the relations of the proportions of eruptive flares P$_{E}$ (P$_{E}$=N$_{E}$/(N$_{E}$+N$_{C}$), N$_{E}$ and N$_{C}$ are numbers of eruptive and confined events, respectively) with $\Phi$$_{AR}$ and AR area in Figures 1(e)-(f). It can be seen that P$_{E}$ decreases with $\Phi$$_{AR}$. The proportion P$_{E}$ has a strong anti-correlation with $\Phi$$_{AR}$ at the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient r$_{s}$ of $-$0.97. The Spearman rank correlation provides a measure of the monotonic relationship between two variables. The linear fitting to the scatter plot provides the relation of
P$_{E}$=(-0.75$\pm$0.06)log$|$$\Phi$$_{AR}$$|$+(17.53$\pm$1.27), (1)
where $\Phi$$_{AR}$ is in units of \[Mx\].
Similarly, the proportion P$_{E}$ shows a strong anti-correlation with AR area (r$_{s}$=$-$0.95), and provides the relation of
P$_{E}$=(-0.76$\pm$0.09)logS$_{AR}$+(15.70$\pm$1.86), (2)
where S$_{AR}$ is in units of \[cm$^{2}$\].
Role of the Background Coronal Fields
-------------------------------------
We investigate the role of the background coronal fields by calculating the decay index n above the ARs. Figure 2 shows four examples including one eruptive flare in Area A of Figure 1(a) and three confined flares in Area C of Figure 1(a). Black asterisks denote the $<$$B_{hor}$$>$ versus h profiles and blue diamonds are the $<$n$>$ versus h profiles. The error bars mark the corresponding standard deviation. The critical height for torus instability $h_{crit}$ corresponds to the height where $<$n$>$ reaches a value of 1.5 (Kliem & T[ö]{}r[ö]{}k 2006; Fan & Gibson 2007). Clearly, the $h_{crit}$ value of AR 11305 ($\sim$ 17 Mm) with a small magnetic flux is lower than those of three other ARs (36$-$60 Mm) with larger magnetic fluxes, which means that the constraining field above AR 11305 producing an eruptive flare decays more rapidly than other ARs with confined flares, and therefore a perturbation in the lower corona may cause the CME seed to erupt out more easily (Wang & Zhang 2007; Liu et al. 2018).
Following the procedure described above, we estimated the critical decay index heights $h_{crit}$ for 82 events (including all the events in Areas A and C of Figure 1(a) and 15 flares in Area B of Figure 1(a)). Figure 3(a) shows the scatter plot of $h_{crit}$ versus $\Phi$$_{AR}$. It can be seen that $h_{crit}$ increases with $\Phi$$_{AR}$. This indicates that ARs with a larger magnetic flux tend to have stronger constraining field. The critical decay index height has a strong correlation with AR magnetic flux at the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient r$_{s}$ of 0.86. The linear fitting to the scatter plot provides the relation of
$h_{crit}$=(38.31$\pm$2.37)log$|$$\Phi$$_{AR}$$|$+($-$834.53$\pm$53.92), (3)
where $h_{crit}$ and $\Phi$$_{AR}$ are in units of \[Mm\] and \[Mx\], respectively.
Using this equation, an $\Phi$$_{AR}$ value of 3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx yields a $h_{crit}$ of $\sim$27 Mm (left vertical and bottom horizontal lines in Figure 3(a)) and 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx corresponds to $h_{crit}$ of about 47 Mm (right vertical and top horizontal lines in Figure 3(a)). In Figure 3(b), we plot the flare peak X-ray flux versus $h_{crit}$. All flares $\geq$M1 (28 events) with a $h_{crit}$ value smaller than 27 Mm are eruptive (Area A in Figure 3(b)), and about 95% (20 of 21) of events with $h_{crit}$ larger than 47 Mm are confined (Area C in Figure 3(b)). The results of Figures 1 and 3 suggest that stronger strapping fields over the ARs with a larger magnetic flux play the major role in confining the eruption.
Relations of Flare Reconnection Flux with Flare Peak X-Ray Flux
---------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4 shows the scatter plots of flare ribbon reconnection flux and cumulative flare ribbon area versus flare peak X-ray flux. We find that flare reconnection flux $\Phi$$_{ribbon}$ correlates with flare peak X-ray flux F$_{SXR}$ at a moderate rank order correlation coefficient r$_{s}$ of 0.51 for all the flares (Figure 4(a)). By fitting the data, we obtained their empirical relationship
log$|$$\Phi$$_{ribbon}$$|$=(0.51$\pm$0.04)logF$_{SXR}$+(24.02$\pm$0.17), (4)
where $\Phi$$_{ribbon}$ and F$_{SXR}$ are in units of \[Mx\] and \[W/m$^{2}$\], respectively.
The rank order correlation coefficient r$_{s}$ for the subset of eruptive flares (r$_{s}$=0.58) is larger than r$_{s}$ for the confined flares (r$_{s}$=0.42). The corresponding fitting parameters for the subsets of confined and eruptive flares show no significant differences.
The ribbon area and flare peak X-ray flux (Figure 4(b)) also show a moderate correlation with a rank order correlation coefficient r$_{s}$ of 0.58 and their relation is
logS$_{ribbon}$=(0.49$\pm$0.03)logF$_{SXR}$+(21.12$\pm$0.14), (5)
where S$_{ribbon}$ and F$_{SXR}$ are in units of \[cm$^{2}$\] and \[W/m$^{2}$\], respectively.
Similarly, there are no significant differences in the fitting parameters when considering confined and eruptive flares separately.
Flare Reconnection Flux Ratio and Area Ratio in Confined and Eruptive Flares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Figures 5(a)-(b), we display the histograms of flare reconnection flux ratio R$_{flux}$ ($\Phi$$_{ribbon}$/$\Phi$$_{AR}$) and ribbon area ratio R$_{S}$ (S$_{ribbon}$/S$_{AR}$) for confined and eruptive events. It can be seen that the distributions of both R$_{flux}$ and R$_{S}$ show evident differences, with R$_{flux}$ and R$_{S}$ for confined events smaller than those for eruptive flares. R$_{flux}$ ranges between 1% and 41% for eruptive flares and ranges between 1% and 21% for confined events. The proportion of eruptive flares reaches $\sim$89% (39 of 44) corresponding to the flux ratio R$_{flux}$ higher than 15%. The log averages of flux ratio R$_{flux}$ are 6.3% for confined and 9.5% for eruptive events. Similarly, the confined flares have the smaller area ratio R$_{S}$ (1%$-$18%) than eruptive events (1%$-$30%). The log-mean values of area ratio R$_{S}$ are 4.0% for confined and 6.1% for eruptive cases.
Appearances of Typical Flare Examples
=====================================
Two Confined Flares Within ARs of Large Magnetic Flux
-----------------------------------------------------
We investigate the dynamic evolution of confined flares originating from ARs with a large magnetic flux ($\geq$ 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx), including 26 events from 5 different ARs (ARs 11339, 11520, 11967, 12192 and 12242). After examining the AIA observations of these confined flares, we find that they have common characteristics: slipping reconnection, strong shear, and a stable filament. Here, two confined events from ARs 11520 and 12242 are taken as examples to analyze the flare dynamics and magnetic topological structures in detail.
On 10 July 2012, a confined M1.7 flare occurred in the sigmoidal region of AR 11520 with $\Phi$$_{AR}$ of 1.24$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx. The flare was initiated at 04:58 UT and the GOES SXR flux peaked at 05:14 UT. Before the flare started, a filament was located along the PIL at the flaring region (left panel in Figure 6(a)). It did not show any rise process during the flare and was stably present after the flare (right panel in Figure 6(a)). The comparison of the 304 [Å]{} image with the HMI LOS magnetogram showed that the flare consisted of two positive-polarity ribbons PR1-PR2 and two negative-polarity ribbons NR1-NR2 (middle panel in Figure 6(a)). Ribbons PR1 and NR1 were located at two ends of the filament and PR2 and NR2 at both sides of the main body (axis) of the filament. High-temperature flare loops at 94 [Å]{} displayed notable dynamic evolution (Figure 6(b)). To display the fine structures of the EUV images, the 94 [Å]{} filter channel data have been processed using the multi-scale Gaussian normalization (MGN) method (Morgan & Druckm[ü]{}ller 2014). At the start of the flare, two sets of loop bundles L1 (connecting PR2-NR1) and L2 (connecting PR1-NR2) overlying the stable filament became bright. Starting from about 05:10 UT, a group of brightened short loops L3 were formed connecting PR2 and NR2, and meanwhile another longer loop bundles L4 linking PR1-NR1 can be discerned. During the flare, the north parts of loop bundles L2 and L3 exhibited apparent bidirectional slipping motions along ribbon NR2. Finally, strongly sheared post-flare loops (PFLs) appeared above the non-eruptive filament. Based on the dynamic evolution of flare loops and their relations with flare ribbons, we suggest that slipping magnetic reconnection (Priest & D[é]{}moulin 1995; Aulanier et al. 2006) between loop bundles L1 and L2 occurred and led to the formation of L3 and L4. We estimated the inclination angles $\theta$ of PFLs with respect to the PIL, corresponding to the angle between the tangents of the PFL and PIL at their intersection (left panel in Figure 6(c)). The complementary angle of $\theta$ has been referred to as the shear angle in previous studies (Su et al. 2007; Aulanier et al. 2012). We derive small $\theta$ values, ranging from 10$^{\circ}$ to 30$^{\circ}$, indicative of a high non-potentiality in the form of a strong shear. Then more high-temperature PFLs gradually cooled down and formed PFLs overlying the stable filament at 171 [Å]{} (Figure 6(c)).
Using the photospheric vector magnetic field observed by SDO/HMI at 04:24 UT, we make a nonlinear force-free (NLFFF) extrapolation by applying the optimization method (Wheatland et al. 2000; Wiegelmann 2004) and obtain the 3D coronal magnetic fields. There are two sets of sheared magnetic systems (MS1 and MS2 in Figure 7(a)) overlying a twisted flux rope (FR) prior to the flare onset. By comparing the AIA observations with the extrapolation results, we suggest that the two magnetic systems MS1 and MS2 approximately correspond to two sets of loop bundles L1 and L2 (Figure 6(b)) and the flux rope FR bears a good resemblance to the observed non-eruptive filament (Figure 6(a)). Based on the extrapolated 3D coronal magnetic field, we calculated the squashing factor Q (Liu et al. 2016b) which defines the locations of the quasi-separatrix layers (QSLs) (D[é]{}moulin et al. 1996; Titov et al. 2002). As seen from the distribution of Q (Figure 7(b)), the observed flare ribbons are roughly matching the locations of high Q values, implying that magnetic reconnection involved in the flare probably occurs in regions of very strong magnetic connectivity gradients, i.e., QSLs.
Figure 8 shows another confined M1.3-class flare on 19 December 2014 in AR 12242, which has a large $\Phi$$_{AR}$ of $\sim$ 1.11$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx. The flare was initiated at 09:31 UT and peaked at 09:44 UT. It occurred at the northwest of AR 12242 and a filament was present along the PIL at the flaring region (Figure 8(a)). During the flare process, the mainbody of the filament did not show any rise phase except for the mild activation at its south part. After the flare, the filament remained stabilized, similar to the filament in the confined M1.7-class flare in AR 11520 (Figure 6(a)). Two quasi-parallel flare ribbons were distinguished from AIA 304 [Å]{} images, including ribbon PR in the leading positive-polarity sunspot and the negative-polarity ribbon NR. As shown from the high-temperature 131 [Å]{} observations, the flare loops were composed of two sets of magnetic systems S1 and S2 overlying the non-eruptive filament, displaying a clear “X-shape" structure (Figure 8(b)). The south ends of systems S1 and S2 were anchored in ribbon PR and their north ends in ribbon NR. During the flare evolution, S1 and S2 exhibited apparent slipping motions along ribbons PR and NR, and more flare loops successively appeared. In the gradual phase of the flare, low-temperature PFLs were formed as best observed in the AIA 171 [Å]{} channel (Figure 8(c)). Similarly, the early formed PFLs also displayed an “X-shape" structure. We estimated the inclination angles $\theta$ of PFLs with respect to the PIL and found $\theta$ values in the range of 20$^{\circ}$$-$28$^{\circ}$. The small $\theta$ values imply that the PFLs are strongly sheared and have a higher non-potentiality.
The apparent slipping motions of the fine structures within flare ribbons are further displayed in Figure 9. Ribbon PR was composed of numerous bright dot-like substructures, corresponding to the footpoints of high-temperature flare loops. These substructures exhibited apparent slipping motions in opposite directions (Figure 9(a)). We followed the trails of 3 different substructures within ribbon PR. From 09:33:10 UT, the bright knot “1" slipped toward the east with a displacement of about 3.8 Mm in 110 s (with a velocity of $\sim$30 km s$^{-1}$). Meanwhile, another bright knot “2" displayed a rapid slipping motion in the opposite direction at a velocity of $\sim$130 km s$^{-1}$. At 09:34:58 UT, the bright knot “3" at the middle part of PR underwent a fast slippage towards the northeast. In order to analyze the slipping motions of the substructures, we create a stack plot (Figure 9(c)) along slice “C-D" in the AIA 131 [Å]{} images (blue curve in Figure 9(a)). As seen from the stack plot, the slipping motions along ribbon PR were in both directions with speeds of 20$-$150 km s$^{-1}$. Figure 9(b) shows the stack plot of the other ribbon NR along slice “A-B" (green dash-dotted curve in Figure 8(b)). Similarly, the slippage along ribbon NR was bi-directional with apparent speeds of 20$-$30 km s$^{-1}$, smaller than those of ribbon PR.
One Special Eruptive Event Within an AR of Large Magnetic Flux
--------------------------------------------------------------
A large majority of flares (26 of 28 events) originating from ARs of $\Phi$$_{AR}$ $\geq$ 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx are confined, however there are two special eruptive flares among the 28 events. One event is M4.0 flare on 24 October 2014 and the other is X1.8 event on 20 December 2014. The X1.8 flare caused a sympathetic eruption of a nearby quiescent filament and generated a CME. Figure 10 displays the appearance of the eruptive M4.0 flare on 24 October 2014. The flare was initiated at 07:37 UT and peaked at 07:48 UT. It was located at the southeast of AR 12192, far away from the main PIL of the AR. The flare was triggered by a blow-out jet as seen in AIA 304 and 131 [Å]{} images, and produced a CME at 08:12 UT observed by LASCO/C2. It was suggested that the eruptive flare on the southern border of the AR was close to neighboring open field regions (Thalmann et al. 2015) and thus the jet successfully escaped from the solar surface and formed a CME.
One Eruptive Flare Within an AR of Small Magnetic Flux
------------------------------------------------------
About 92% events occurring in ARs with $\Phi$$_{AR}$ smaller than 3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx are eruptive. Here, we present an eruptive M3.9 event on 02 October 2011 as an example (Figure 11). The flare originated from AR 11305 (N09$^{\circ}$, W12$^{\circ}$) with a smaller $\Phi$$_{AR}$ of $\sim$ 1.67$\times$$10^{22}$. It started at 00:37 UT and reached its peak at 00:50 UT. A high-temperature flux rope erupted towards the southwest in 131 [Å]{} image. The angle of separation between *SDO* and *STEREO B* on 02 Oct 2011 was around 97$^{\circ}$. An erupting CME bubble can be observed at the west limb in *STEREO B*/EUVI 195 [Å]{} image. Starting from about 01:05 UT, an Earth-directed CME was observed by the COR1 coronagraph aboard *STEREO B*.
One Eruptive and One Confined Flares Within the same AR of Medium Magnetic Flux
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When $\Phi$$_{AR}$ is between 3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ and 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx, almost one half of flares are confined. Here, we show two examples from the same AR 11429 on 06 March 2012. At 07:52 UT, an eruptive M1.0-class flare occurred in AR 11429 with $\Phi$$_{AR}$ of about 6.78$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx measured before the flare onset (Figure 12). A reverse-S shaped filament was located along the PIL. During the flare, the middle part of the filament erupted and caused a CME. The AR was emerging persistently and the magnetic flux increased to $\sim$ 7.96$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx at 12:00 UT. Then another confined M2.1-class flare occurred at 12:23 UT and peaked at 12:41 UT (Figure 13). The filament in the AR did not erupt except for the activation at the north part. A flux rope was illuminated and started to rise at 12:26 UT as observed in 131 [Å]{} images. The rise lasted for about 10 min and ceased at 12:37 UT. Then the flux rope seemed to stay at a certain height and faded away gradually. The eruption of the flux rope failed and did not generate any CME.
Summary and Discussion
======================
In this work, we established the extensive database of eruptive/confined large flares in the *SDO* era (a total of 322 events including 170 eruptive and 152 confined cases). The morphological properties of flaring ARs and the flare ribbons, and their statistical relationships have been investigated. Our study delivered the following main results.
1\. We find that the total unsigned magnetic flux $\Phi$$_{AR}$ of ARs plays an important role in governing the eruptive character of flares, and the proportion of eruptive flares exhibits a strong anti-correlation with $\Phi$$_{AR}$ (r$_{s}$=-0.97). About 93% flares originating from ARs with an unsigned magnetic flux larger than 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx are confined, i.e., are not associated with a CME. About 92% events occurring in ARs with $\Phi$$_{AR}$ smaller than 3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx are eruptive.
2\. We also find a very high positive correlation (r$_{s}$=0.86) empirical relation between critical decay index height $h_{crit}$ and $\Phi$$_{AR}$. This implies that ARs with a large magnetic flux have a strong magnetic cage, which confines the eruption. This is the first time that such a fundamental relation between the total AR flux and the confinement properties for large flares is derived.
3\. We find that the flare ribbon reconnection flux and flare ribbon area are correlated with the peak X-ray flux. There are no significant differences in the fitting parameters when considering confined and eruptive flares separately. These findings are consistent with previous studies (Veronig & Polanec 2015; Kazachenko et al. 2017; Tschernitz et al. 2018), while the obtained correlation coefficients between flare reconnection flux $\Phi$$_{ribbon}$ and flare peak X-ray flux F$_{SXR}$ are different, probably due to different ranges of flare classes in different statistical studies.
4\. The ratio of the AR magnetic flux that is involved in the flare reconnection process ranges between 1% and 41% for eruptive flares and between 1% and 21% for confined events. Similarly, the confined flares have the smaller area ratio R$_{S}$ (1%$-$18%) than eruptive events (1%$-$30%).
5\. By analyzing the dynamic evolution of 26 confined flares occurring in ARs with $\Phi$$_{AR}$$\geq$1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx, we find that these flares have several characteristics in common: stable filament, slipping magnetic reconnection and strongly sheared PFLs, belonging to “type I" flares as proposed in our previous work (Li et al. 2019).
Our results show that the magnetic flux of ARs is a key parameter in determining the eruptive character of large solar flares, and the proportion of eruptive flares exhibits a strong anti-correlation with $\Phi$$_{AR}$. The relation was first found in our work and has never been revealed before. This means that the association rate of flares and CMEs is decreasing with the increasing magnetic flux of ARs. This finding is further supported by the high correlation obtained between $\Phi$$_{AR}$ and the critical height for torus instability. The ARs seem to be classified into three situations according to their different magnetic properties: strong confinement ($\Phi$$_{AR}$$\geq$1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx or $h_{crit}$$\geq$47 Mm), moderate confinement (3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ $<$$\Phi$$_{AR}$$<$1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx or 27$<$$h_{crit}$$<$47 Mm) and weak confinement ($\Phi$$_{AR}$$\leq$3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx or $h_{crit}$$\leq$27 Mm). The values we use to discriminate between classes, 3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx and 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx, are arbitrary. In the case of strong confinement, the flare energy and associated magnetic reconfigurations are insufficient to break through the overlying field even if it is an X-class flare (e.g. AR 12192), thus tend to generate confined flares (Guo et al. 2010; Sarkar & Srivastava 2018; Jing et al. 2018; Duan et al. 2019). On the contrary, if the constraining effect of the background field is so small, small disturbance in the lower corona can result in the generation of a CME, which explains the high proportion of eruptive flares originating from ARs with a small magnetic flux. When the confinement of overlying magnetic cage is moderate, almost one half of flares are confined (Area B in Figure 1(a), also see two examples in Figures 12-13). This indicates that the overlying confinement and AR non-potentiality (Falconer et al. 2002; Nindos & Andrews 2004) may jointly determine the class of the flare in the moderate-confinement environment. Previous statistical studies have shown that confined flares are often located much closer to the AR centers where the strapping field is higher, whereas eruptive flares occur at the periphery of an AR (Wang & Zhang 2007; Baumgartner et al. 2018).
Moreover, it is also found that the flux ratio R$_{flux}$ and area ratio R$_{S}$ for confined flares are significantly smaller than those for eruptive events. This result is similar to the statistical result of Toriumi et al. (2017), who showed the parameter of the ribbon area normalized by the sunspot area determines whether a given flare is eruptive or not. They suggested that the relative structural relation between the flaring region and the entire AR controls the CME productivity.
Our findings reveal a new relation between the magnetic flux of ARs and the occurrence of CMEs in association with large flares. They also have important implications for stellar CMEs and the recently detected “superflares" on solar-type stars (Maehara et al. 2012; Lynch et al. 2019). In order to produce a large flare, the magnetic flux of the source AR has to be large (Aulanier et al. 2013; Shibata et al. 2013; Tschernitz et al. 2018). The historical observational data shows that the largest magnetic flux of flaring ARs is up to a few times $10^{23}$ Mx (Zhang et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2011; Schrijver et al. 2012). In the present study, between 1% and 41% of the magnetic flux of the source AR for eruptive flares and between 1% and 21% of $\Phi$$_{AR}$ for confined events are involved in the flare reconnection process. If we assume that the maximum percentage of 40% of the magnetic flux contained in the AR contributing to the flare reconnection process (Kazachenko et al. 2017; Tschernitz et al. 2018), a total reconnection flux of $\sim$ 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx can be obtained for an AR with $\Phi$$_{AR}$ of 2.3$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx (the maximum magnetic flux in our sample). According to the relation between the flare ribbon reconnection flux and the peak X-ray flux (Equation 4 and Figure 4), a flare of GOES class $\sim$ X100 could be powered.
Our results are interesting in two aspects: for the solar case, as it means that for the strongest space weather effects (which are predominantly due to the CME rather than the flare), we can not simply extrapolate that the space weather effects will be increasingly stronger for flares produced by large ARs present on the Sun. Second, it has implications for the stellar case: we may speculate that in case of the much larger ARs (stellar spots) that are needed to produce the reported “superflares" on solar-type stars, the flares are probably mostly confined, as they will be associated with a very strong overlying AR strapping field. This may provide an explanation why the detection of stellar CMEs is rare (Drake et al. 2013; Odert et al. 2017; Moschou et al. 2019; Argiroffi et al. 2019), and implies that the solar-stellar connection between flare rates and CME rates may be fundamentally non-linear and actually “breaking" when we come to the very large events (Drake et al. 2013; Odert et al. 2017).
The confined flares from ARs with $\Phi$$_{AR}$$\geq$1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx are characterized by slipping reconnection, strong shear, and a stable filament. They belong to “type I" confined flares proposed by Li et al. (2019), who classified confined flares into two types based on their different dynamic properties and magnetic configurations. Similar to the appearance of confined flares in AR 12192 (Li et al. 2019), the filaments in ARs 11339, 11520 (Figures 6-7), 11967 and 12242 (Figures 8-9) were all stably present and seemed not to be involved in the flare evolution. The footpoints of high-temperature flare loops exhibited apparent slipping motions in both directions along flare ribbons (Figure 9), which implies the occurrence of slipping magnetic reconnection overlying the non-eruptive filaments (Li & Zhang 2015; Dud[í]{}k et al. 2016; L[ö]{}rin[č]{}[í]{}k et al. 2019; Shen et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2019). We suggest that slipping flare loops along the two directions correspond to two different magnetic systems, and the continuous slipping magnetic reconnection between two magnetic systems causes the exchange of their magnetic connectivity and apparent bi-directional slipping motions of reconnecting field lines. Moreover, the PFLs observed in the gradual phase of the flares were strongly sheared, indicating a high non-potentiality. These observational characteristics of “type I" confined flares are inconsistent with the 2D standard CSHKP flare model (Carmichael 1964; Sturrock 1966; Hirayama 1974; Kopp & Pneuman 1976), which suggests that the reconnection is associated with the filament/flux rope eruption and occurs at a current sheet below the erupting filament. Our observations have revealed several different features. First, the filament/flux rope seemed to be neither disturbed nor erupting during or after the flare. Second, the reconnection site is more likely along the QSLs between two magnetic systems overlying non-eruptive filaments. In summary, the signatures of “type I" confined flares in ARs with a large magnetic flux pose a challenge to the 2D classical flare model and need to establish 3D MHD models.
Alissandrakis, C. E. 1981, , 100, 197 Amari, T., Canou, A., Aly, J.-J., Delyon, F., & Alauzet, F. 2018, , 554, 211 Andrews, M. D. 2003, , 218, 261 Argiroffi, C., Reale, F., Drake, J. J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 742 Aulanier, G., D[é]{}moulin, P., Schrijver, C. J., et al. 2013, , 549, A66 Aulanier, G., Janvier, M., & Schmieder, B. 2012, , 543, A110 Aulanier, G., Pariat, E., D[é]{}moulin, P., & DeVore, C. R. 2006, , 238, 347 Baumgartner, C., Thalmann, J. K., & Veronig, A. M. 2018, , 853, 105 Bobra, M. G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2014, , 289, 3549 Bokenkamp, N. 2007, PhD thesis, Stanford Univ. Carmichael, H. 1964, NASA Special Publication, 50, 451 Chen, A. Q., Wang, J. X., Li, J. W., et al. 2011, , 534, A47 Chen, H., Yang, J., Ji, K., et al. 2019, , 887, 118 Chen, H., Zhang, J., Ma, S., et al. 2015, , 808, L24 Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Ding, M. D., Guo, Y., & Su, J. T. 2011, , 732, 87 D[é]{}moulin, P., Priest, E. R., & Lonie, D. P. 1996, , 101, 7631 Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., Yashiro, S., et al. 2013, , 764, 170 Duan, A., Jiang, C., He, W., et al. 2019, , 884, 73 Dud[í]{}k, J., Polito, V., Janvier, M., et al. 2016, , 823, 41 Falconer, D. A., Moore, R. L., & Gary, G. A. 2002, , 569, 1016 Fan, Y., & Gibson, S. E. 2007, , 668, 1232 Forbes, T. G. 2000, , 105, 23153 Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., et al. 2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295 Gosling, J. T., McComas, D. J., Phillips, J. L., et al. 1991, , 96, 7831 Green, L. M., Matthews, S. A., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., Harra, L. K., & Culhane, J. L. 2002, , 205, 325 Green, L. M., T[ö]{}r[ö]{}k, T., Vr[š]{}nak, B., et al. 2018, , 214, 46 Guo, Y., Ding, M. D., Schmieder, B., et al. 2010, , 725, L38 Hagyard, M. J., & Rabin, D. M. 1986, Advances in Space Research, 6, 7 Hirayama, T. 1974, , 34, 323 Howard, R. A., Moses, J. D., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2008, , 136, 67 Jing, J., Liu, C., Lee, J., et al. 2018, , 864, 138 Kaiser, M. L., Kucera, T. A., Davila, J. M., et al. 2008, , 136, 5 Kazachenko, M. D., Lynch, B. J., Welsch, B. T., et al. 2017, , 845, 49 Khodachenko, M. L., Ribas, I., Lammer, H., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 167 Kliem, B., & T[ö]{}r[ö]{}k, T. 2006, , 96, 255002 Kopp, R. A., & Pneuman, G. W. 1976, , 50, 85 Lammer, H., Lichtenegger, H. I. M., Kulikov, Y. N., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 185 Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 17 Li, T., Liu, L., Hou, Y., et al. 2019, , 881, 151 Li, T., & Zhang, J. 2015, , 804, L8 Liu, L., Wang, Y., Wang, J., et al. 2016a, , 826, 119 Liu, L., Wang, Y., Zhou, Z., et al. 2018, , 858, 121 Liu, R., Kliem, B., Titov, V. S., et al. 2016b, , 818, 148 L[ö]{}rin[č]{}[í]{}k, J., Dud[í]{}k, J., & Aulanier, G. 2019, , 885, 83 Lynch, B. J., Airapetian, V. S., DeVore, C. R., et al. 2019, , 880, 97 Maehara, H., Shibayama, T., Notsu, S., et al. 2012, , 485, 478 Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., et al. 2001, , 552, 833 Morgan, H., & Druckm[ü]{}ller, M. 2014, , 289, 2945 Moschou, S.-P., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., et al. 2019, , 877, 105 Nindos, A., & Andrews, M. D. 2004, , 616, L175 Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., Hanslmeier, A., et al. 2017, , 472, 876 Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 3 Priest, E. R., & D[é]{}moulin, P. 1995, , 100, 23443 Priest, E., & Forbes, T. 2000, Magnetic Reconnection Sarkar, R., & Srivastava, N. 2018, , 293, 16 Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, , 275, 207 Schrijver, C. J., Beer, J., Baltensperger, U., et al. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 117, A08103 Shen, Y., Qu, Z., Zhou, C., et al. 2019, , 885, L11 Shibata, K., Isobe, H., Hillier, A., et al. 2013, , 65, 49 Shibata, K., & Magara, T. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6 Sturrock, P. A. 1966, , 211, 695 Su, Y., Golub, L., & Van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2007, , 655, 606 Su, Y., Veronig, A. M., Holman, G. D., et al. 2013, Nature Physics, 9, 489 Sun, X. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1309.2392 Sun, X., Bobra, M. G., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2015, , 804, L28 Svestka, Z. 1986, The Lower Atmosphere of Solar Flares, 332 Thalmann, J. K., Su, Y., Temmer, M., et al. 2015, , 801, L23 Titov, V. S., Hornig, G., & D[é]{}moulin, P. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1164 Toriumi, S., Schrijver, C. J., Harra, L. K., et al. 2017, , 834, 56 Tschernitz, J., Veronig, A. M., Thalmann, J. K., et al. 2018, , 853, 41 Vasantharaju, N., Vemareddy, P., Ravindra, B., et al. 2018, , 860, 58 Veronig, A. M., & Polanec, W. 2015, , 290, 2923 Wang, Y., & Zhang, J. 2007, , 665, 1428 Wheatland, M. S., Sturrock, P. A., & Roumeliotis, G. 2000, , 540, 1150 Wiegelmann, T. 2004, , 219, 87 Yang, S., Zhang, J., & Xiang, Y. 2014, , 793, L28 Yashiro, S., Akiyama, S., Gopalswamy, N., et al. 2006, , 650, L143 Zhang, J., Wang, Y., & Liu, Y. 2010, , 723, 1006 Zuccarello, F. P., Aulanier, G., & Gilchrist, S. A. 2015, , 814, 126
![Relations of the eruptive character of large solar flares with unsigned AR magnetic flux and AR area. Top: scatter plots of flare peak X-ray flux vs. unsigned AR magnetic flux and AR area. Blue (red) circles are the eruptive (confined) flares. Two vertical dash-dotted lines in panel (a) respectively refer to AR magnetic flux of 3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx and 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx. Two vertical dash-dotted lines in panel (b) respectively correspond to AR area of 5.0$\times$$10^{19}$ $cm^{2}$ and 3.0$\times$$10^{20}$ $cm^{2}$. Middle: histograms of AR magnetic flux and AR area for confined (red) and eruptive (blue) events. Dotted vertical lines indicate the means of the log values. Bottom: proportions of eruptive flares P$_{E}$ vs. unsigned AR magnetic flux and AR area. Orange lines show the results of linear fitting, and slopes $\alpha$ and Spearman rank order correlation coefficients r$_{s}$ are shown at the bottom left. \[fig1\]](fig1.eps)
\[bb=15 304 554 525,clip,angle=0,scale=0.88\][fig2.eps]{}
![ Scatter plots of critical decay index height vs. unsigned AR magnetic flux and flare peak X-ray flux vs. critical decay index height. Blue (red) circles are the eruptive (confined) flares. The black solid line in panel (a) shows the result of a linear fitting, and slope $\alpha$ and Spearman rank order correlation coefficients r$_{s}$ are shown at the bottom right. Two vertical dotted lines in panel (a) denote the positions where $\Phi$$_{AR}$ respectively equals 3.0$\times$$10^{22}$ Mx and 1.0$\times$$10^{23}$ Mx. Two horizontal dash-dotted lines in panel (a) and two vertical dash-dotted lines in panel (b) respectively refer to critical decay index height of 27 Mm and 47 Mm. \[fig3\]](fig3.eps)
![ Scatter plots of unsigned flare reconnection magnetic flux and ribbon area vs. flare peak X-ray flux for confined (red) and eruptive (blue) flares. Red, blue and green straight lines show the results of linear fitting respectively for confined, eruptive and total events. The slopes $\alpha$ and Spearman rank order correlation coefficients r$_{s}$ are shown at the bottom right. \[fig4\]](fig4.eps)
![Histograms of the ratios of flare reconnection flux/AR flux and ribbon area/AR area for confined (red) and eruptive (blue) events. Dotted vertical lines indicate the means of the log values. \[fig5\]](fig5.eps)
![ Appearance of the confined M1.7-class flare in AR 11520 on 10 July 2012. (a) SDO/AIA 304 [Å]{} images showing the stable filament before and after the flare. Green and blue contours are the LOS magnetic fields at $\pm$750 G levels. PR1-PR2 are two positive-polarity flare ribbons and NR1-NR2 are two negative-polarity ribbons. (b) AIA 94 [Å]{} images displaying the dynamic evolution of high-temperature flare loops. Red contours denote the AIA 1600 [Å]{} flare brightenings. L1-L4 outline four sets of loop bundles and white arrow points to sheared post-flare loops. (c) AIA 171 [Å]{} images showing the low-temperature PFLs. Two sets of PFLs (purple and blue dashed-dotted curves) are delineated to estimate their inclination angles with respect to the PIL (green dash-dotted line). The animation of this figure includes AIA 304, 171 and 94 [Å]{} images from 04:58 UT to 05:41 UT. The video duration is 3 s.\[fig6\]](fig6.eps)
![Magnetic field configuration of the flare region. (a) Side view of extrapolated field lines showing two magnetic systems MS1-MS2 and the underlying flux rope FR. (b) Map of the squashing factor Q on the HMI bottom boundary calculated from the nonlinear force-free field. Green contours outline the flare ribbon brightenings in the AIA 1600 [Å]{} channel. \[fig7\]](fig7.eps)
![Appearance of the confined M1.3-class flare in AR 12242 on 19 December 2014. (a) SDO/AIA 304 [Å]{} images showing the non-eruptive filament throughout the flare. Green and blue contours are the HMI LOS magnetic fields at $\pm$350 G levels. NR and PR are two quasi-parallel flare ribbons. The white square denotes the field of view (FOV) of Figure 9. (b) AIA 131 [Å]{} images displaying two magnetic systems S1 and S2. Green dash-dotted curve “A-B" shows the cut position used to obtain the stack plot shown in Figure 9. (c) AIA 171 [Å]{} images showing the low-temperature PFLs. Red and blue dotted curves outline the PFLs at different times and the black dash-dotted line delineates the PIL associated with the flare. The animation of this figure includes AIA 304, 171 and 131 [Å]{} images from 09:25 UT to 10:11 UT. The video duration is 3 s. \[fig8\]](fig8.eps)
![Apparent slipping motions of fine structures within flare ribbons PR and NR. (a) Time series of SDO/AIA 131 [Å]{} images showing the slippage of traced bright knots (“1"$-$“3") within ribbon PR. Bright knots “1" and “3" slipped toward the east end of PR and knot “2" slipped in the opposite direction. The blue curve “C-D" shows the cut position used to obtain the stack plot shown in panel (c). (b)-(c) 131 [Å]{} stack plots along slices “A-B" and “C-D" showing the bidirectional slippage along ribbons NR and PR. \[fig9\]](fig9.eps)
![Appearance of the eruptive M4.0-class flare in AR 12192 on 24 October 2014. (a) SDO/HMI LOS magnetogram with contours of the AIA 1600 [Å]{} flare brightenings (green contours) overplotted. (b)-(c) AIA 304 and 131 [Å]{} images displaying the blow-out jet at the southeast edge of AR 12192. (d) LASCO/C2 running-difference image showing the associated CME. \[fig10\]](fig10.eps)
![Overview of the eruptive M3.9 flare on 02 October 2011 in AR 11305. (a) SDO/HMI LOS magnetogram with contours of the AIA 1600 [Å]{} flare brightenings (green contours) overplotted. (b) AIA 131 [Å]{} image displaying the eruptive flux rope. (c) STEREO B/EUVI 195 [Å]{} image showing the generated CME bubble. (d) STEREO B/COR1 image displaying the associated CME. \[fig11\]](fig11.eps)
![Appearance of the eruptive M1.0-class flare in AR 11429 on 06 March 2012. (a) SDO/HMI LOS magnetogram with contours of the AIA 1600 [Å]{} flare brightenings (green contours) overplotted. (b)-(c) AIA 304 and 131 [Å]{} images displaying the partial-eruptive filament. (d) LASCO/C2 running-difference image showing the associated CME. \[fig12\]](fig12.eps)
![Appearance of the confined M2.1-class flare in AR 11429 on 06 March 2012. (a) SDO/HMI LOS magnetogram with contours of the AIA 1600 [Å]{} flare brightenings (red contours) overplotted. (b) AIA 304 [Å]{} image displaying the non-eruptive filament along the PIL. (c) AIA 131 [Å]{} image showing the failed eruption of the flux rope. (d) LASCO/C2 running-difference image. \[fig13\]](fig13.eps)
[^1]: <https://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME_list/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We analyzed the data for the nearby cluster of galaxies Abell 2255 from archival [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations in order to search for the properties of X-ray point like structures in the outskirts. 11 point-like X-ray emission is detected. Detected X-ray sources are then observed with the 1.5 meter [*RTT-150*]{} at Turkish National Observatory for possible optical counterparts. The cluster field is covered through 5 [*ANDOR*]{} photometer pointings. 3 sources have no optical follow-ups. 2 QSOs and 1 star are observed from the field. For 4 sources we have obtained the corresponding redhifts. The cumulative log($N$)-log($S$) is studied and the cluster source number is calculated to be 4 times higher than the field at $F_x$$\sim$10$^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. This phenomenon is interpreted as increased galaxy activity as they first encounter high density ICM environment at the cluster outskirt. We suggest that X-ray emission is triggered by either increased accretion onto LMXBs, fueling of AGNs and/or awakening of BHs.'
address:
- |
Boğaziçi University, Physics Department\
80815 Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey\
murat.hudaverdi@boun.edu.tr
- |
Akdeniz University, Physics Department\
Dumlupinar Boulevard, 07058, Antalya, Turkey
- |
18 Mart Çanakkale University, Physics Department\
Terzioglu Campus, 17100, Canakkale, Turkey\
- |
Istanbul University\
Astronomy & Space Sciences Department\
34119, Istanbul, Turkey
- |
Nagoya University, Department of Physics\
Furo-cho, Chikusa, 464-8602. Nagoya, Japan
author:
- 'Murat Hudaverdi , E. Nihal Ercan, Arzu Mert-Ankay'
- 'Fatma Gök, Ebru Aktekin'
- 'Gülnur İkis Gün, Burak Uğraş'
- Tolga Güver
- Hideyo Kunieda
title: 'MULTI$-$BAND ANALYSIS OF ABELL 2255 '
---
Introduction
============
Clusters of galaxies are the largest aggregates of galaxies. They are formed from the gravitational collapse of the field galaxies and the subgroups which is a recurrent event and still ongoing at the present epoch. Samples of galaxies extracted from a certain cluster are subject to the same selection effects because they all accomodate at the same redshift. Cluster centers come to dynamical equilibrium prior to outer regions. Consequently the substructral features vanish in the core. Whereas the cluster outskirts are dynamically complex regions populated by galaxies moving towards the cluster potential. Understanding the undergoing physics in these regions between the virialized cluster cores and the widespread field is specially important.
Although early optical surveys suggest that active galaxies in clusters are relatively lower than the field (Refs. ; ; ) , the conventional portrait of clusters shows overdensities of galaxies as expected. The recent X-ray results (Refs. ; ; ) on [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} data reveal higher fractions of point sources toward clusters of galaxies compared to blank fields. Refs. and conducted systematic analysis of X-ray source populations and found significant excess from cluster fields. As data for more clusters become available, it is concluded that the brighter galaxies are likely to locate in the outskirts of clusters ([*R*]{} $\sim$ 1 Mpc), which is naturally attributed to the infall-related fueling of active nuclei (See Refs. ; ).
In order to understand environmental effects of high-density Intra-cluster medium (ICM) on galaxies, we selected a dynamically active merging system, dominated by point-like structures not buried into the ICM diffuse emission. In this paper, we report X-ray and optical observational results of galaxies from the outskirts of Abell 2255. A2255 is a nearby ($z$=0.086), bright cluster showing several signs of a merger event. Based on optical data, Ref. reported subgroups of galaxies in the outskirts, rotating around the center of A2255. Two bright central galaxies which are the survived central-dominant (cD) ellipticals of merged subclusters and high velocity dispersions (Ref. ) are the other evidences of large scale dynamics. A2255 is also bright in radio wavelenghts. The cluster contains a central radio halo and relics (Refs. ; ). It is well known fact that radio emission comes from relativistic electrons which can be accelerated by large scale cluster mergers. A2255 is also well studied in X-rays. [*ROSAT*]{} data results showed that X-ray peak is offset from the brigtest galaxy (Refs. ; ). More recently, Ref. observed A2255 by [*XMM-Newton*]{} and reported temperature asymmetries, indicating subunit mergings. Ref. , analyzed [*Chandra*]{} data to investigate the X-ray properties of cluster galaxies in the central ([*R*]{} $\le$ 0.5 Mpc) region. The study confirms the results of Ref. that X-ray selected AGN fraction is higher than the optically selected AGNs and these AGNs likely to reside in red early-type galaxies.
The purpose of this paper is to study source properties in the cluster outskirts with X-ray and optical properties. We present the data in $\S$ \[data\]. The following section $\S$ \[analysis\] describes the analysis steps. The results are discussed in $\S$ \[discussion\]. Assuming $H_o$=75 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and cosmological deceleration parameter of $q_0$=0.5, the luminosity distance to A2255 is found to be 348 Mpc, and an angular size of 1 arcsec corresponds to 1.63 kpc. The quoted uncertainties for the best fit parameters of spectral fittings in $\S$3.1 are given for 90% confidence range.
\[data\]Observations and Data Reduction
=======================================
X-Ray Data
----------
We analysed archival X-ray data ([*PI: Turner, M.*]{}) obtained by two [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations. Both of the observations are covering entire cluster emission with $\sim$3 arcmin offset from the X-ray peak. The three EPIC instruments, the two MOSs (Ref. ) and the PN (Ref. ), were used. A2255 was observed in revolutions 525 and 548. The cameras were operated in the Prime Full Window mode for MOS and Prime Full Window Extended mode for PN. The thin filter was used for all EPIC cameras. We processed the observation data files and created calibrated event files using the SAS version 7.0.0. The event lists were generated from the observation data files (ODF) by the tasks [EMCHAIN]{} and [EPCHAIN]{}.
In the standart analysis, the events were selected with [PATTERN 0-12]{} for MOS and single & double pixel events ([PATTERN 0-4]{}) for PN. In order to exclude the contribution from background flare events, we extracted light curves for the full field of view . Table \[table1\] shows the journal of our observations with [*XMM-Newton*]{}. It is known that a high-energy band is more sensitive to flare events than a soft-energy band (Ref. ). We thus choose 10-12 keV energy band for MOS and 12-14 keV for PN. The extracted light curves were clipped to clean the contamination by soft proton flares as decribed by Ref. . These Good Time Intervals ([GTI]{}) were applied to the event lists and filtered events files are produced. Figure \[fig:A2255\_with\_sources\] shows [*XMM-Newton*]{} 0.3-10.0 keV energy band merged image of A2255. The image is raw, non-background subtracted and adaptively smoothed to enhance cluster emission above the background emission.
![Adaptively smoothed XMM-Newton merged EPIC image of A2255 in the 0.3-10 keV band. The image has a size of 30$^{\prime}\times$30$^{\prime}$ and a pixel size of 5$^{\prime\prime}$. It is adjusted with north up and east left. The bar shows 500 kpc scale size. The circles indicate the x-ray source locations. []{data-label="fig:A2255_with_sources"}](fig1.ps){width="8cm"}
Optical Data
------------
Optical observations of Abell 2255 were performed with 150 cm Russian-Turkish Telescope ([*RTT-150*]{}). The telescope is located at Bakirlitepe Mountain, Antalya, south of Turkey. The source was observed using the ANDOR photometer and [*TFOSC*]{} spectrometer. The raw data were reduced using standard procedures as described by Ref. .
{width="11cm"}
### ANDOR Photometer
The photometric data were taken with ANDOR CCD on 2005 June 30 and 2007 July 19. The CCD size is 2048 $\times$ 2048 pixels at 0.24 arcsec pixel$^{-1}$ resolution. The intended area was covered with 5 pointings. The exposure time was 1500 sec for each frame in using Johnson B, R filters. The instrumental magnitudes were found by DAOPHOT[^1] (Ref. ) aperture photometry tasks in IRAF[^2]. These instrumental magnitudes were then calibrated using field standard stars in the USNO A2.0[^3] catalog. Figure \[fig:superpose\] shows the superposition of 0.3-10 keV X-ray contours on 5-pointings of ANDOR. The contours are logaritmically spaced after the image is adaptively smoothed to enhance ICM emission. Two bright galaxies, associated to the previous merger events, are seen at the west of the central contour. The central contour is distorted from symetry as also reported by Ref. , which is probably caused by these two galaxies.
### [*TFOSC*]{} Spectrometer
The optical spectrometric data are taken by [*TFOSC*]{}. Its optical design is similar to the FOSC[^4] series. For this study the grism $\#$ 15 is used, which provides the maximal light efficiency and the widest spectral range (3230-9120 $\AA$). Obtained spectral resolution is $\sim$ 8$\AA$. We acquired 900 s for each source. Wavelength calibration was performed using Neon lamp. Reduction of spectroscopic data was done with IRAF.
\[analysis\] ANALYSIS and RESULTS
=================================
\[ICM\]Temperature distribution of ICM
--------------------------------------
First, we examined hot plasma that surrounds the cluster galaxies. Global X-ray spectrum was extracted from a circle of radius 5 arcmin central region. Background estimate was obtained from blank-sky event lists (Ref. ) after applying the same screening and filtering. The required response and auxiliary files for spectra were produced by rmfgen-1.53.5 and arfgen-1.66.4, respectively.
{width="6.2cm"} {width="6.3cm"}
We fitted the spectrum with a singel MEKAL model. It is an emission spectrum from hot diffuse gas based on the model calculations of Mewe and Kaastra with Fe L calculations by Liedahl (Ref. ). The absorption is fixed to the Galactic value ($N_{\rm H}=$ 2.6 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Ref. ). The temperature value is $kT=6.7\pm0.3$ keV and metal abundance value is $Z=0.27\pm0.06$ solar. The temperature map is obtained by the multi-scale spectro-imaging algorithm described in detail by Ref. . Figure \[temperature\_map\] shows both our temperature map and previous map from Ref. . Both maps show a nonuniform distribution of temperature. The best fitted temperature values are $kT=5.4\pm0.7$ keV for east and $kT=8.4\pm0.3$ keV for west, respectively. This result verifies the temperature variation from east to west is significant. Our obtained global value and temperature distribution of A2255 are in good agreement with previous work of Ref. . In this study, A2255 is selected to investigate member galaxies; therefore, a preliminary check of A2255 ICM is enough for our objectives. For a detailed study of the A2255 temperature distribution and ICM dynamical state, the reader is referred to recent analysis results of Ref. and the references therein.
\[det\]X-Ray source detection and spectra
-----------------------------------------
Sources are detected using two different the SAS routines ([EMLDETECT]{} and [EWAVELET]{}) for comparison. The detection probability was set at $P\sim3.2 \times 10^{-5}$ by selecting maximum-likelihood of ML=10 and 4$\sigma$ gaussian of the signal-to-noise ratio, respectively. The detection is applied to soft (0.5-2 keV) and hard (2-10 keV) X-ray images. The energy cuts are designed to diagnose possible intrinsic absorption and/or hard excess emission features. This selection also breaks the counts equally, which is statistically favorable. The soft and hard source-lists are merged by SAS command [SRCMATCH]{}. A total of 11 X-ray sources are qualified in the final list from the cluster field. The source locations are displayed in Figure \[fig:superpose\].
The sources are expected to have different spectral types, and hence not all sources were detected significantly in both soft and hard energy bands. Of these, 7 sources were detected only in the soft band. The other 4 sources (1, 5, 7 and 8 from Figure \[fig:superpose\]) were identified in both soft and hard energy bands. The point-like source spectra are extracted within circles by covering 90% fractional energy of the energy encircled function (EEF). The background count rates were produced from surrounding annulus for each sources. With this selection, we intended to remove cluster emission as well as standard background components. Only PN data is used for the rest of the analysis, because it has higher sensitivity than MOS cameras.
![X-ray spectra for the sources (1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) with no optical spectrum. The crosses are the data points, and the solid line is the best-fit power low (plus a thermal plasma for \#11 XMMU J171123.7+641657) model. Left-bottom images are optical follow-ups. The sources 7, 8 and 9 have no optical counterparts.[]{data-label="source_spectrum"}](fig5.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![X-ray spectra for the sources (1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) with no optical spectrum. The crosses are the data points, and the solid line is the best-fit power low (plus a thermal plasma for \#11 XMMU J171123.7+641657) model. Left-bottom images are optical follow-ups. The sources 7, 8 and 9 have no optical counterparts.[]{data-label="source_spectrum"}](fig6.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![X-ray spectra for the sources (1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) with no optical spectrum. The crosses are the data points, and the solid line is the best-fit power low (plus a thermal plasma for \#11 XMMU J171123.7+641657) model. Left-bottom images are optical follow-ups. The sources 7, 8 and 9 have no optical counterparts.[]{data-label="source_spectrum"}](fig7.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![X-ray spectra for the sources (1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) with no optical spectrum. The crosses are the data points, and the solid line is the best-fit power low (plus a thermal plasma for \#11 XMMU J171123.7+641657) model. Left-bottom images are optical follow-ups. The sources 7, 8 and 9 have no optical counterparts.[]{data-label="source_spectrum"}](fig8.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![X-ray spectra for the sources (1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) with no optical spectrum. The crosses are the data points, and the solid line is the best-fit power low (plus a thermal plasma for \#11 XMMU J171123.7+641657) model. Left-bottom images are optical follow-ups. The sources 7, 8 and 9 have no optical counterparts.[]{data-label="source_spectrum"}](fig9.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![X-ray spectra for the sources (1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) with no optical spectrum. The crosses are the data points, and the solid line is the best-fit power low (plus a thermal plasma for \#11 XMMU J171123.7+641657) model. Left-bottom images are optical follow-ups. The sources 7, 8 and 9 have no optical counterparts.[]{data-label="source_spectrum"}](fig10.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
Figure \[source\_spectrum\] shows the spectra for the sources with no X-ray spectral information in the literature (sources 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11). Optical followups (if there is any) of the sources are shown at the bottom left corner. The X-ray spectra were fitted with a single power-law emission model except source 11-XMMU J171123.7+641657. There was strong deviation in the soft X-ray band (E$\le$2 keV) for the brightest X-ray source 11. Single power-law model gave an index $\Gamma=$1.98$^{+0.24}_{-0.18}$ with ${\chi}_{\nu}^{2}=$0.78 ($\nu=$31). Additional thermal (MEKA) model of hot gas with $kT=$0.65$^{+0.42}_{-0.26}$ keV temperature to the power-law model ($\Gamma=$1.89$^{+0.30}_{-0.26}$) improved the spectrum significantly (${\chi}_{\nu}^{2}=$0.59, $\nu=$32).
The X-ray spectra for all the sources were fitted by single power-law model. The ${\chi}_{\nu}^{2}$ values were found acceptable, corresponding to the probability of $\ge$0.90. The power-law indices of the best-fit values were in the physically tolerable range (1$<{\Gamma}<$3.5), clustering around the $\Gamma=$2.08. The sources 3 and 4 have too few counts ($\sim$ 110) for a spectral fit. For these sources, the luminosities were calculated using a power-law index fixed to 2.0 in the spectra. The detected source properties with the best fit spectral parameters are summarized in table \[table3\]. The columns show (1) source id, (2) acronmy, (3) positional error, (4) power-law index (5) F$_{X}$ and (6) log$L_X$ at 2-10 keV, (7) reduced ${\chi}^{2}$ and (8) net counts after background subtraction.
\[log\]log($N$)-log($S$) {#counts}
------------------------
The flux values in hard band (2-10 keV) derived from spectral fitting have provided good measurements of the source number counts, or log($N$)-log($S$) relationship. The sample includes 11 sources with fluxes between 10$^{-11.8}$ and 10$^{-13.7}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The results are compared with Lockman Hole (non-cluster field). We acknowledge that the number of sources is admittedly low, but it can be regarded as being a rational method to infer appreciable knowledge on cluster galaxies. The cumulative source number per area (degree$^{-2}$) can be calculated as the sum of the inverse areas of all sources brighter than flux $S$, $N(>S)$. Using the integrated formula of source numbers in units of deg$^{-2}$, $N(>S)=\!\!\sum_{i=1}^{n}\!\!\frac {1}{\Omega_i} ($deg$^{-2})$, where $n$ is the detected source number and $\Omega_i$ is the sky coverage for the flux of the $i$-th source, the relation between source number and flux is derived. It is a well known fact that each pixel on detector is not equally sensitive. The survey area decreases with the flux, and hence the detection probability decreases as off-axis angle increases. To determine the number counts per area with precision, it is necessary to correct for the incompleteness of the sample. Figure \[fig:logN\_logS\] shows a comparison of the obtained log($N$)-log($S$) plot for A2255 and the Lockman Hole results (Refs. , ). The dotted-lines include statistical and systematic instrumental errors. The statistical error was represented with 1$\sigma$ poisson errors ($\sigma_{dN}=\sqrt{ \sum_{i=1}^{n} (1/{\Omega_i})^2 } $deg$^{-2}$) in the source numbers. The systematic instrumental errors related to vignetting and the point spread function (PSF) is considered as 3.5% by Ref. for an off-axis source. To be conservative, we favor to use 10% absolute calibrational error defined by Ref. . The source numbers at each flux level was corrected by considering the corresponding sky coverage. Each flux value in the plot was corrected by using the sensitivity map (top left corner of Figure \[fig:logN\_logS\]). The map shows the survey area, $\Omega$ deg$^2$, as a function of the limiting fluxes in the 2-10 keV band. The counting rates were derived with the assumption of $\Gamma =$ 2.0 and the galactic value of the hydrogen absorption column density (Ref. ).
Figure \[fig:logN\_logS\] also includes the Lockman Hole X-ray source study by Ref. . One of the other recent works on Lockman Hole by Ref. also investigated the source properties by modelling. Based on their study, single power law assumption converts the field source numbers, $N (>S) = 1.45 {\times} 10^{-14} \times S^{-1.16_{-0.25}^{+0.20}}$, where the slope is ${\alpha}=$ 1.16$_{-0.25}^{+0.20}$ and the normalization is $K= 1.45{\times} 10^{-14}$ deg$^{-2}$. The solid-line in Figure \[fig:logN\_logS\] shows the model-line for Lockman Hole.
The log($N$)-log($S$) plot shows large population of X-ray sources in A2255 cluster clearly. The significance increases at the brighter end. The source density value corresponds to 102$\pm$39 sources deg$^{-2}$ for the cluster field around the flux value of $\sim$ $10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. From the above mentioned equation, a density of 22$\pm$3 sources deg$^{-2}$ from Lockman Hole was calculated at this flux level. The error corresponds to field-to-field variation of the blank field, which is known as cosmic variance. Based on the most sensitive mesurement to the date, it is reported to be less than 15% in the 2-10 keV band (Ref. ). If we perform a descriptive calculation by using the minumum possible source density from A2255 and the maximum source density for the Lockman Hole, the number density is 38 sources deg$^{-2}$ for A2255. This worse-case scenario calculation confirms that $\sim$ 40% of the detected X-ray sources are A2255 members. It corresponds to at least a factor of 4 times higher source number excess from the cluster region at this flux level. However, it vanishes gradually at the fainter end as expected.
\[TUG\]Optical imaging and photospectrum
----------------------------------------
X-ray selected sources from the cluster field are observed by ground based [*RTT-150*]{} telescope for 1500s exposures with five pointings. Figure \[fig:superpose\] shows the pointings with detected 11 x-ray sources (circles). Of these, 7 sources were found with optical counterpart (limiting magnitude $R$=18.48). The locatization accuracy was high enough that optical followup sources were not tested for positional match. The largest shift between optical and x-ray peak was $\Delta R$=4.36 arcsec for source 4. This was in the confidence range considering R$\sigma$ errors. We assigned $B$ and $R$ magnitudes to the whole spectroscopic sample. Important parameters derived from optical observations are given in Table \[table4\]. The columns are (1) id; (2) acronmys; (3) $m_R$ apparent $R$ magnitude; (4) $m_B$ apparent $B$ magnitude; (5) $M_B$ absolute $B$ magnitude calculated from apparent magnitude and distance, as $M_B = m_B + 5 - 5 log(d)$; (6) $B$ luminosity in solar-units, defined as log $L_B = -0.4 (M_B - 5.41)$; (7) optical redshifts calculated from [*TFOSC*]{} spectroscopy (see \[notes\] for detail).
{width="8.7cm"} {width="3.8cm"} {width="8.7cm"} {width="3.8cm"} {width="8.7cm"} {width="3.8cm"} {width="8.7cm"} {width="3.8cm"}
{width="8.7cm"}
Sources 1 (XMMU J171359.7+640939) and 10 (XMMU J171139.1+641405) were identified as background objects. The reshifts are $z$ = 1.363 (Ref. ) and $z$ = 0.925 (Ref. ), respectively. Source 11 (XMMU J171123.7+641657) had the faintest optical counterpart. Sources 2, 3, 4 and 6 were studied with [*TFOSC*]{} spectrometer and redshift values were obtained. Figure \[fig:optic\] shows the optical spectra with \[O $_{\rm II}$\] emission lines and [*ANDOR*]{} $R-$band images for the sources. The images are 20$^{\prime\prime}$ $\times$ 20$^{\prime\prime}$ sized cutouts. The spectral wavelength range of [*TFOSC*]{} Grism 15 was enough for the coverage of redshifted \[O $_{\rm II}$\] $\lambda$3727, H$_{\rm \alpha}$ $\lambda$6563, and \[S$_{\rm II}$\] $\lambda$6716, $\lambda$6731 doublet. The spectra are severely comprised by plenty of unkown emission lines. \[O $_{\rm II}$\] emission line is known as strong indicator of galaxy colour and good tracer of star formation (Ref. ). Therefore we principally applied \[O $_{\rm II}$\] line for the redshift calculations where the spectra is less ambiguous (Fig. \[fig:optic\]).
The source 5 was not pointed in [*ANDOR*]{} observations (see Fig. \[fig:superpose\]), but [*TFOSC*]{} spectrum was studied for this source. Figure \[fig:star\] shows the spectrum for source 5 (XMMU J171220.9+641007). Strong TiO absorbtion was interpreted as optical spectra of M4 star. The absorption band appears near 7590 $\rm \AA$. The X-ray spectrum of the source was fairly hard ($\Gamma$ $\sim$ 1.3) which is caused by magnetic activity (Ref. ). It has an X-ray flux of 5.32 $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Based on this result, the source was not reobserved with [*ANDOR*]{} photometer.
\[discussion\]Discussion
========================
We detected 11 X-ray sources from A2255 outskirts. Based on the log($N$)-log($S$) (See Figure \[fig:logN\_logS\]) the source number was estimated to be about 4 times higher relative to the field at $F_X$ = 1 $\times$ $10^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ flux limit. The X-ray luminosity values range between 40.48 $<$ log(L$_X$) $<$ 42.39 ergs s$^{-1}$, clustering at log(L$_X$) = 41.37 ergs s$^{-1}$. This excess indicates either an elavated X-ray emission or/and higher population of point sources from the cluster field.
X-ray emission from early-type galaxies has two origins: thermal emission from interstellar hot gas (ISM) and non-thermal energy release from accretion processes. If the matter accretes onto lower mass ($\le$ 1$M_{\odot}$) of neutron star or black hole the system is known as low-mass X-ray binary (LMXB). If the accretion is due to supermassive blackhole ($\sim$10$^8$ $M_{\odot}$) then the source is called active galactic nucleus (AGN). X-ray luminosity of thermal emission from hot halo is log(L$_X$) 37$\sim$38 ergs s$^{-1}$ (Ref. ). Expected luminosity from accetion processes is log(L$_X$) 38$\sim$39 ergs s$^{-1}$ for LMXB and log(L$_X$) $\ge$ 40 ergs s$^{-1}$ for AGNs (Refs. , ). Regarding the luminosity range observed in our study (log(L$_X$) $\ge$ 40.48 ergs s$^{-1}$), we believe that x-ray emission is dominated by discrete sources (LMXBs) rather than hot halo (e.g., Refs. , , , and references therein) unless a central AGN contributes to the emission.
In order to interpret the origin of this excess emission, we compared x-ray and optical properties. If the emission in optical wavelength is also elaveted with the same amount, the x-ray excess would not be suprising. According to the standard picture of galaxy clusters, red, early-type galaxies with less star formation are longer residents (Refs. ; ). Blue, later-type galaxies are more likely to locate at outer regions (e.g. Refs. , ). In this study of A2255, the sources at larger radii (R $>$ 0.5 Mpc), the populations from red cores to bluish outskirts were emphasized. We calculated B and R magnitudes of the optical follow-up sources through our [*RTT-150*]{} observations. Figure \[fig:R-Fx\] shows the comparisons of flux (lef panel) and luminosity (right panel) ratio values. The details are discussed in the following sections, \[fx/fr\] and \[lx/lb\].
![Left panel: Optical $R$-band magnitude vs. $F_X$ for X-ray detected galaxies in our sample. Diagonal dotted lines represent lines of constant X-ray to optical flux ratio \[i.e. log($f_X$/$f_R$) = +2, +1, 0, -1, -2\]. Luminous AGNs generally have log($f_X$/$f_R$) $\ge$ -1. Right panel: L$_X$-L$_B$ relation from A2255 cluster field. The gray dashed lines show the slopes for log (L$_X$/L$_B$) ratios of 28, 29, 30 and 31 for visual aid. The solid line is the distribution function for X-ray compact galaxies defined by Matsushita (2001) with 90$\%$ confidence limits (dashed lines).[]{data-label="fig:R-Fx"}](fig21.ps "fig:"){width="6.2cm"} ![Left panel: Optical $R$-band magnitude vs. $F_X$ for X-ray detected galaxies in our sample. Diagonal dotted lines represent lines of constant X-ray to optical flux ratio \[i.e. log($f_X$/$f_R$) = +2, +1, 0, -1, -2\]. Luminous AGNs generally have log($f_X$/$f_R$) $\ge$ -1. Right panel: L$_X$-L$_B$ relation from A2255 cluster field. The gray dashed lines show the slopes for log (L$_X$/L$_B$) ratios of 28, 29, 30 and 31 for visual aid. The solid line is the distribution function for X-ray compact galaxies defined by Matsushita (2001) with 90$\%$ confidence limits (dashed lines).[]{data-label="fig:R-Fx"}](fig22.ps "fig:"){width="6.2cm"}
\[fx/fr\]X-ray to optical fluxes - log ($f_X$/$f_R$)
-----------------------------------------------------
X-ray to optical flux ratio is a very helpful tool and provides important information on the variety of X-ray sources (Ref. ). The ratio is applied in many X-ray surveys for its simplicity and clarity (e.g. Refs. ; ). Figure \[fig:R-Fx\] shows the $R$-band magnitudes (from [*ANDOR*]{}) versus hard band flux for X-ray detected galaxies in our sample. We have illustrated several diagonal dashed lines to indicate constant X-ray to optical flux ratio values \[log ($f_{X}/f_{R}$) = $+$2, $+$1, 0, $-$1, $-$2\] in the figure which are calculated by the Kron-Cousins $R$ filter transmission function as defined by Ref. , $\rm{log} ({\it f_X}/{\it f_R}) = \rm{log} ({\it f_X}) + 5.759 + {\it R}/{2.5}$. Since the ratio is independent of distance, it is very useful to distinguish X-ray source variation by impeding redshift uncertainties. The normal galaxies and stars have log ($f_{X}/f_{R}$) $\le$ $-$2 and AGNs show higher ratio values (Ref. ). Log ($f_{X}/f_{R}$) $\ge$ $-$1 is comprehended as clear indication of unobscured AGN activity (e.g. Ref. ). A Large fraction of our sources spans in the ratio range of ($+$ 1 $\sim$ $-$ 2) which is typical for AGNs. Log ($f_{X}/f_{R}$) plot (Figure \[fig:R-Fx\] left panel) demostrates that majority of our samples are either a bright x-ray source or an AGN. However, x-ray to optical flux ratio is insufficient for a definite explanation of source types. We explore X-ray-to-optical luminosity ratios ($L_X$/$L_B$) in the next section to explore possible AGN activity.
\[lx/lb\]X-ray to optical luminosity relation ($L_X$/$L_B$)
-----------------------------------------------------------
X-ray studies of local early-type galaxies have revelaed that the total X-ray luminosity is associated with optical luminosity (e.g. Refs. ; ). Ref. reviews the nature of elliptical galaxies and explains how the interstellar gas is heated by high velocity interactions of stars and kinetic energy produced by Type Ia supernovae. Consequently, the $L_X$/$L_B$ luminosity ratio demonstrates the stellar velocity dispersions of a definite galaxy ($L_X$) and the stellar mass ($L_B$) of that galaxy (Refs. ; ). Ref. defines X-ray to optical luminosity correlation as $L_X$ $\propto$ $L_B^{1.6-2.3}$ for optically bright sources. The correlation for optically faint galaxies are observed to be rather linear, $L_X$ $\propto$ $L_B$ (e.g. Ref. ).
We plotted logarithm of the 2$-$10 keV luminosity ($L_X$) vs. the logarithm of the $B-$band luminosity ($L_B$), in Figure \[fig:R-Fx\] right panel. The dotted gray lines show log($L_X$/$L_B$) $=$ 28, 29, 30, 31 for visual aid. For comparison the average ratio distribution of early-type galaxies and 90% confidence limit reported by Ref. is represented in solid and dashed lines. A positive dispersion is evident in the plot. The majority of the sources have log($L_X$/$L_B$) $>$ 31. One source (\#3) shows the properties of normal elliptical galaxy.
The above mentioned $L_X$/$L_B$ plot (Figure \[fig:R-Fx\] right panel) was obtained only for the sources with optical counterparts. We also checked $L_X$/$L_B$ ratios for the sources with no optical follow-ups (i.e. \#7, \#8 and \#9). Considering the limiting magnitute of $R$=18.48, optical luminosity values were assinged. Source \#7 is found to be in the range of normal ellipticals. And sources \#8 and \#9 have the ratio similar to that of either bright ellipticals or AGNs.
\[notes\] Notes on individual sources
-------------------------------------
**XMMU J171359.7+640939** (\#1) and **XMMU J171139.1+641405** (\#10) are background objects. The X-ray spectra were best fitted by fairly large power-law indices ($\Gamma$ $>$ 2.2). Both sources are identified as QSOs, with $z$ = 1.363 (Ref. ) and $z$ = 0.925 (Ref. ), respectively. The EPIC-PN X-ray counts were insufficient for redshift determination. And yet in Figure \[fig:R-Fx\] both sources show strong deviation. In this study we verified that they both are QSOs and do not reside in A2255 gravitatinal potential.
**XMMU J171342.3+640454** (\#2) is a soft X-ray source. About 60% of the X-ray emission if detected below 2 keV. The best fitted power-law model gives an index of $\Gamma$=1.29$^{+3.53}_{-1.05}$. Chandra data was better fitted with 0.57 keV thermal emission of an elliptical galaxy (Ref. ). However, in our survey the net source count was not of sufficient quality to rule out thermal emission. The source is possibly interacting with the nearby ($\sim$ 20 kpc) spiral galaxy (Fig. \[fig:optic\]). The [*TFOSC*]{} spectrum shows a weak feature at 4034 $\rm \AA$ which is assumed to be \[O $_{\rm II}$\] emission line (Fig. \[fig:optic\]). The determined redshift for this source is $z$ = 0.0824. It is comparable to the value of Ref. ($z$ = 0.0847), formerly known as ZwCl 1710.4+6401 40. The X-ray and optical properties are consistent with that of Chandra (Ref. ). The source has log ($f_{X}/f_{R}$) $>$ $-$1 and $L_X$/$L_B$ = 31.22 (see Fig. \[fig:R-Fx\]). These values are higher than those of nornal elliptical or starburst galaxies. Based on the above results, the source is very bright galaxy, if not classified as an AGN.
A new redshift value is determined for **XMMU J171325.4+641000** (\#3). [*TFOSC*]{} spectrum has an \[O $_{\rm II}$\] emission line at 4029.3 [$\AA$]{}. The redshift we measure is $z$ = 0.0811 which is the first distance calculation for the source. The morphology shows signs of elongation in sout-east direction. The X-ray emission is dominated in soft energies and L$_X$ $=$ 3.0 $\times$ 10$^{40}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. The object negatively deviates in the flux and luminosity ratios (see Fig. \[fig:R-Fx\]). It has log ($f_{X}/f_{R}$) = -2.4 and $L_X$/$L_B$ = 29.67 which is expected from a normal galaxy. Being the faintest X-ray source in our sample, fairly bright in $B-$band and lacking of strong AGN features, we identify this object as a normal galaxy. The source is not buried into the extend ICM X-ray emission as has been shown Figure \[fig:A2255\_with\_sources\]. It is probably approaching to the cluster potential in the FOV direction.
Sources **XMMU J171236.2+640035** (\#4) is fairly bright. [*TFOCS*]{} spectrum showed \[O $_{\rm II}$\] line at $\sim$ 4056 $\rm \AA$ (Fig. \[fig:optic\]). The obtained redshift is $z$ = 0.0883. The x-ray and optical peaks do not coincide. The shift is about 4 arcsec ($\sim$ 6.5 kpc) (See Fig. \[fig:optic\]). Considering x-ray and optical positional errors, this distance can be presumed in the confidence range. The calculated redshift value suggests that the source is merging to cluster from behind in the south-west direction.
[*TFOSC*]{} spectrum of source \#5 (**XMMU J171220.9+641007**) shows M star-like properties. Strong TiO absorbtion is evident in the optical spectrum of Figure \[fig:star\], which is strong in M-stars. The absorption band appears near 7590 $\rm \AA$. The X-ray spectrum of the source is fairly hard ($\Gamma$ $\sim$ 1.3) which is probably caused by magnetic activity (Ref. ). X-ray flux is obtained to be 5.32 $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
**XMMU J171216.2+640210** (\#6) is the second brightest X-ray source in our survey. X-ray properties is also studied by Ref. with [*Chandra*]{}. Our best fitted spectra result and calculated luminosity with [*XMM*]{} is consistent with that of [*Chandra*]{} (Ref. ). The galaxy is also a powerful head-tail radio source (Ref. ). The emission line at 4373.6 $\rm \AA$ in [*TFOSC*]{} spectrum is evident. If this line is associated to S $_{\rm II}$ (rest frame $\lambda$4072), our calculated redshift value of $z$ = 0.0741 is comparable to the $z$ = 0.0714 value of Ref. . The optical spectrum shows emission features of \[O $_{\rm II}$\] (rest frame $\lambda$3727) and \[H$\alpha$\] at 7121.5 $\rm \AA$ (see Figure \[fig:optic\]). \[H$\alpha$\] line is seen from galaxies classified as star-forming. The Ca $_{\rm II}$ H and K and CH around 4665 $\rm \AA$ (rest frame 4280-4300 $\rm \AA$) absorption bands are also weakly present. The weak absorption features at 7053.4 $\rm \AA$ is assumed to be Ca $_{\rm II}$ + Ba $_{\rm II}$ blend. These match the redshift to be $z$ = 0.0851 and place the source closer to the cluster potential well, which is very tempting. A consistent redshift value ($z$ = 0.0714) is observed, but $z$ = 0.0851 as indicated by weaker lines is not totally ruled out. The $f_{X}/f_{R}$ and the $L_X$/$L_B$ values are consistent with that of AGNs. Ref. studied luminous X-ray source that are not AGNs at $L_X$ $\sim$ 10$^{41}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. Therefore, source \#6 appears to be a very luminous galaxy, but may also be an AGN as noted by Ref. as well.
The sources with no optical follow-ups (\#7, \#8 and \#9) were bright in X-rays (see Table \[table3\]). Considering the confidence range of the X-ray luminosities, **XMMU J171159.6+635938 (\#7)** can be explained by normal ellipticals. The X-ray emission from **XMMU J171148.1+635601(\#8)** and **XMMU J171148.7+640534 (\#9)** is contaminated by unresolved discrete sources in these galaxies. X-ray spectrum of **XMMU J171123.7+641657 (\#11)** is studied in detail for the very first time in this study. The $L_X$/$L_B$ study (see Fig. \[fig:optic\]) indicates that source \#11 may be an AGN. It is the brightest X-ray source of our sample, but the faintest in optical band (see. Fig \[source\_spectrum\]). if sources \#8, \#9 and \#11 really possess active nuclei, the possible mechanism that would obscure the optical emission from sources is very intriguing. One of the possible explanations would be X-ray bright optically normal galaxies (XBONGs). XBONGs are thought to be luminous AGNs (Refs. ; ). This is also an ideal solution for our result, especially regarding our luminosity value of $L_X$ = 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for source \#11.
The recent studies show that the X-ray sources are not randomly distributed within clusters (Refs. , ). The brighter sources are likely to reside at the outskirts, while faint ones are closer to the core (R $<$ 1Mpc). Activating or deactivating x-ray sources are discussed with possible AGN fueling and quenching mechanisms (Refs. , ). Considering the luminosity range of our sample (10$^{40.8}$ $<$ $L_X$ $<$ 10$^{42.39}$ erg s$^{-1}$), the sources from A2255 outskirts are likely to be undergoing a similar physical processes. The cluster environments are the places with high probability of collisions and close passages. Particularly, the outskirts are dynamically complex due to new arrivals. Normally galaxies are inbalance within itself, particularly in terms of accreeting matter. When a galaxy begins to experience cluster gravitational potential and encounters high density ICM, the balances are then disturbed. The stability between accreeting system is rearranged. Depending the mass of the compact object, new LMXBs and AGNs might be formed or they get brighter as more matter accretes. It is known that, if not all, galaxies host a black hole (BH) at its center. Most of them are not energetic, waiting for fuel to awake. The dynamical high density environment of cluster outskirts may trigger these kinds of starved BHs, which increases the X-ray source density in cluster outskirts. This explains excess of X-ray emission and crowd of x-ray sources in A2255 outskirts. The infall induced nuclear activities is the suggested solution for our results.
Conclusions
===========
With [*XMM*]{} archival data we detected 11 point sources at the outskirts of A2255. Optical follow-up sources are observed by [*RTT-150*]{} optical telescope. X-ray spectra for several sources (\#7, \#8, \#9 and \#11) were studied for the very first time. The results for source \#2, \#4 and \#6 are found to be in reasonably good aggreement with their earlier studies (Refs. , ). Source \#5 identified to be an M-type star with strong TiO absorption. The redshift value of $z$ = 0.0811 found for source \#3 through our [*TFOSC*]{} optical observations. The sources \#1 and \#10 verified to be possible QSOs. Based on log($N$)-log($S$) study, an elavated X-ray emission and/or higher source population is evident from the cluster outskirt. The source population is calculated to be 4 times higher than the field at the flux value of $F_X$ $\sim$ $10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. We suggest that X-ray emission is triggered by either increased accretion onto LMXBs, fueling of AGNs and awakening of BHs in the cluster outskirts.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work is financially supported by a Grant-in-Aid by Academic R&D Funding System contract No. 106T310, through The Scientific & Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). M.H. is supported by TUBITAK Post-Doctoral Fellowship. The authors also acknowledge the partial support by Boğaziçi University Research Foundation via code number 06HB301. We would like thank Dr. Graziella Branduardi-Raymont for her useful suggestions and comments. This research made use of data obtained through the XMM-Newton, an ESA Science Mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA member states and the US (NASA).
[99]{} Osterbrock D. E. 1960, ApJ, 132, 325 Gisler G. R. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 633 Dressler A., Gunn J. E., & Schneider D. P. 1985, ApJ, 294, 70 Cappi, M., Mazzotta, P., Elvis, M., Burke, D. J., Comastri, A., Fiore, F., Forman, W., Fruscione, A., Green, P., Harris, D., and 14 coauthors, 2001, ApJ, 548, 624 Molnar S. M., Hughes J. P., Donahue M., & Joy M. 2002, ApJ, 573, L91 Johnson O., Best P. N., & Almaini O. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 924 Cappelluti N., Cappi M., Dadina M. et al., 2005, A&A, 430, 39 Ruderman J. T., & Ebeling H., 2005, ApJ, 183, 743 Martini P., Kelson D. D., Kim E., et al., 2006, ApJ, 644, 116 Hudaverdi M., Kunieda H., Tanaka T. et al., 2006, PASJ, 58, 931 Yuan Q., Zhou X. $\&$ Jiang Z., 2003, ApJS, 149, 53 Burns J. O., Roettiger K., Pinkney J., et al., 1995, ApJ, 446, 583 Giovannini G., Tordi M., & Feretti L., 1999, New Astron., 4, 141 Govoni F., Murgia M., Feretti L., et al., 2005, A&A, 579, 571 Davis D. S., White R. E, III, 1998, ApJ, 492, 57 Sakelliou I. & Ponman T.J., 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1409 Davis D. S., Miller C. A., Mushotzky R. F., 2003, ApJ, 597, 202 Martini P., Kelson D. D., Mulchaey J. & Trager S. C., 2002, ApJ, 576, L109 Turner M. J. L. et al., 2001, A&A, 365, L27 Strüder L., et al., 2001, A&A, 365, L18 Ehle M., Breitfellner M., Diaz Trigo M., et al., 2003, [*XMM-Newton Users’ Handbook*]{}, Issue 2.5 Hudaverdi M., Yamashita K. $\&$ Furuzawa A., 2005, AdSpR, 36, 643 Aslan Z., Bikmaev, I. F., Vitrichenko, É. A., 2001, AstL. 27, 398 Stetson P. B., 1987, PASP, 99, 191 Lump D. H., Warhick R. S., Page M. $\&$ De Luca A. 2002, A$\&$A, 389, 93 Kaastra, J.S. 1992, An X-Ray Spectral Code for Optically Thin Plasmas (Internal SRON-Leiden Report, updated version 2.0) Dickey J. M. $\&$ Lockman F. J. 1990, ARA$\&$A, 28, 215 Bourdin H., Sauvaget J. L., Slezak E., Bijaoui A. $\&$ Teyssier R. 2004, A$\&$A, 414, 429 Hasinger G., Altieri B., Arnaud M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L45 Saxton, R. D. 2003, XMM-SOC-CAL-TN-0023 Kirsch, M., 2006, XMM-Science Ops Centre Technical Note, XMM-SOC-CAL-TN-0018 Schneider D. P., Richards G. T., Fan, X. et al., 2002, AJ, 123, 567 Richards G. T., Nichol R. C., Gray A. G., 2004, ApJS, 155, 257 Gallagher, J. S., Hunter, D. A. & Bushouse, H., 1989, AJ, 97, 700 Brandt W. N. $\&$ Hasinger, G., 2005, ARA$\&$A, 43, 827 Blanton E. L., Sarazin C. L., & Irwin, J. A. 2001, ApJ, 552, 106 Randall S. W., Sarazin C. L. and Irwin J. A. 2006, ApJ, 636, 200 Lehmer B. D., Brandt W. N., Alexander D. M., et al., 2007, ApJ, 657, 681 David L. P., Jones C., Forman W., et al., 2006, ApJ, 653, 207 Sarazin, C. L., Irwin, J. A., & Bregman, J. N. 2001, ApJ, 556, 533 Ellingson E., 2004, ogci.conf., 327 Kodama T., Smail I., Nakata F., et al., 2001, ApJ, 562, 9 Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 42, 565 Whitmore B. C., Gilmore D. M., Jones C., 1993, ApJ, 407, 489 Maccacaro T., Gioia I. M., Wolter A., et al., 1988, ApJ, 326, 680 Krumpe M., Lamer G., Schwope A. D., Wagner S., Zamorani G., Mignoli M., Staubert R., Wisotzki L., Hasinger G., 2007, A$\&$A, 466, 41 Mainieri V., Bergeron J., Hasinger G., Lehmann I., Rosati P., Schmidt M., Szokoly G. $\&$ Della Ceca R., 2002, A$\&$A, 393, 425 Zombeck M. V. 1990, Handbook of space astronomy and astrophysics, Cambridge University Press O’Sullivan E., Forbes D. A., & Ponman T. J. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 461 Ellis S. C., & O’Sullivan E. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 627 Sarazin C. L. 1997, in ASP Conf. Ser. 116, The Nature of Elliptical Galaxies, ed. M. Arnaboldi, G. S. Da Costa, & P. Saha (San Francisco: ASP), 375 Mahdavi A., & Geller M. J. 2001, ApJ, 554, L129 Canizares C. R., Fabbiano G., & Trinchieri G. 1987, ApJ, 312, 503 Gilfanov M. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 146 Matsushita K., 2001, ApJ, 547, 693 Zwicky F., 1971, [*Catalogue of selected compact galaxies and of post-eruptive galaxies*]{}, Zuerich, Switzerland Feretti L., Boehringer H., Giovannini G., et al., 1997, A$\&$A, 317, 432 Owen F. N., Ledlow M. J. $\&$ Keel W. C., 1995, AJ, 109, 14 Colbert E. $\&$ Ptak A. 2002, ApjS, 143, 25 Comastra A., Brusa M., Ciliegi P., Mignoli, M., Fiore, F., Maiolino, R., Severgnini, P., Baldi, A., Molendi, S., Vignali, C., La Franca, F., Matt, G., Perola, G. C., 2002, arXiv:astro-ph/0203019 Yuan F. & Narayan R., 2004, ApJ, 612, 724
[^1]: Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Photometry package
[^2]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (http://iraf.noao.edu/), which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^3]: United States Naval Observatory Astrometric Standards
[^4]: http://www.astro.ku.dk/ per/fosc/index.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The spin dynamics of photoexcited carriers in semiconductors in contact with a ferromagnet is treated theoretically and compared with time-dependent Faraday rotation experiments. The long time response of the system is found to be governed by the first tens of picoseconds in which the excited plasma interacts strongly with the intrinsic interface between semiconductor and ferromagnet in spite of the existence of a Schottky barrier in equilibrium.'
author:
- 'Gerrit E. W. Bauer'
- Arne Brataas
- Yaroslav Tserkovnyak
- 'Bertrand I. Halperin'
- Maciej Zwierzycki
- 'Paul J. Kelly'
title: Dynamic ferromagnetic proximity effect in photoexcited semiconductors
---
Magnetoelectronics, *i.e*. the science and technology of using ferromagnets in electronic circuits, is divided into two subfields, metal-based [@GMR] and semiconductor-based magnetoelectronics [@Optics], with little common ground.
Metal researchers focus mainly on topics derived from giant magnetoresistance, the large difference in the DC conductance for parallel and antiparallel magnetization configurations of magnetic multilayers, where theoretical understanding has progressed to the stage of materials-specific predictions [@SSP]. More recently, the dynamics of the magnetization vectors in the presence of charge and spin currents has received a lot of attention [@Slon96; @Tsoi98; @Heinrich; @Ralph].
Semiconductor-based magnetoelectronics is motivated by the prospect of integrating new functionalities with conventional semiconductor electronics. The emphasis has been on the basic problem of spin injection into semiconductors, theoretical understanding is less advanced and detailed electronic structure calculations are just starting [@Wunnicke; @Zwierzycki]. Unlike metals, semiconductors can be studied by optical spectroscopies such as the powerful time-resolved Faraday or Kerr rotation techniques, in which a selected component of a spin-polarized excitation cloud in the semiconductor can be monitored on $%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{ps}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{ps}%
%EndExpansion
$ time scales [@Awschalom]. In *n*-doped GaAs, these experiments revealed long spin-coherence of the order of $%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{\U{3bc}s}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{\mu s}%
%EndExpansion
$ [@Awschalom]. When the semiconductor is in contact with a ferromagnet, an initially unpolarized electron distribution prepared using linearly polarized light, was found to very quickly acquire a spin polarization - the dynamic ferromagnetic proximity (DFP) effect [@Kawakami; @Epstein1; @Epstein2]. In turn DFP efficiently imprints spin information from a ferromagnet onto nuclear spins by dynamic nuclear polarization, opening new options for quantum information storage.
In this Letter we wish to show that metal and semiconductor-based magnetoelectronics can both be understood in terms of coherent spin accumulations. Specifically, the DFP can be treated by the same formalism that successfully describes the dynamics of the magnetization vector in metallic hybrids [@Gilbert; @Heinrich]. The experiments can be understood in terms of a time-dependent interaction between the conduction-band electrons and the ferromagnet in a fireball-afterglow scenario. Photoexcited holes are instrumental in helping the electrons to overcome the Schottky barrier between metal and semiconductor in the first $\lesssim50%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{ps}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{ps}%
%EndExpansion
$ (fireball regime) and induce the proximity effect. The interaction weakens with vanishing hole density, thus preventing fast decay of the created spin accumulation in the afterglow.
Two groups have already contributed important insights into this problem. Ciuti *et al.* [@Sham] interpreted the DFP in terms of a spin-dependent reflection of electrons at a ferromagnetic interface through a Schottky barrier in equilibrium, but did not address the time dependence of the problem. Gridnev [@Gridnev] did investigate the dynamics of the photoexcited carriers, but postulated a phenomenological relaxation tensor with a specific anisotropy that we find difficult to justify. We show how both approaches can be unified and extended by *ab initio* magnetoelectronic circuit theory [@Brataas00; @Bauer03; @Xia01; @Xia02].
We first summarize the experimental evidence [@Epstein1; @Epstein2]. Initially, a $\sim100$ $%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{fs}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{fs}%
%EndExpansion
$ pulse with frequency close to the band gap is absorbed by the semiconductor (100 $%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{nm}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{nm}%
%EndExpansion
$ of GaAs). The polarization state is then monitored by time-dependent Faraday rotation measurements of the coherent spin precession in an applied magnetic field. The homogeneously excited carriers (fireball) thermalize within a $%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{ps}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{ps}%
%EndExpansion
$, in which the holes also lose any initial spin polarization. The interaction time-scale with the ferromagnet (Fe or MnAs) can be deduced from the rise time of the polarization after excitation with a linearly polarized (LP) light pulse to be $\leq50$ $%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{ps}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{ps}%
%EndExpansion
$ [@Epstein1]. For long delay times (afterglow), the spin relaxation is very slow ($>2$ $%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{ns}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{ns}%
%EndExpansion
$), comparable to GaAs reference samples in the absence of a ferromagnet. The sample can be also excited by circularly polarized light (CP), in which case the fireball is polarized from the outset. Dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP) by the hyperfine interaction can be detected by deviations of the precession frequency from the bare Larmor frequency, *i.e*. a modified g-factor [@Kawakami]. DNP should vanish when the external magnetic field is normal to the spin accumulation. It therefore remains to be explained that Epstein *et al.* [@Epstein1] observe a modified $g-$factor for this configuration that differs for LP and CP excitation. Interesting additional information relates to the material dependence, indicating that the polarization induced by Fe is of opposite sign to that induced by MnAs [@Epstein1], and to the modulation of the afterglow Larmor frequency by an applied bias [@Epstein2].
Let us consider a semiconductor (Sc) film in which a non-equilibrium electron chemical potential $\langle\mu|=\langle\mu_{c},\vec{\mu}_{s}|$ is excited with charge $\mu_{c}$ and spin $\langle\vec{\mu}_{s}|\equiv\langle\mu_{x},\mu
_{y},\mu_{z}|$ accumulation (in energy units). The bilayer parallel to the $\left( yz\right) $ plane consists of a semiconductor in contact with a metallic ferromagnetic film (F) with fixed single-domain magnetization in the direction of the unit vector $\vec{m}$. By its relatively huge density of states a metallic ferromagnet may be treated as a reservoir in equilibrium. A charge $\left( I_{c}\right) $ and spin $\left( \vec{I}_{s}\right) $ current $\langle I|=\langle I_{c},\vec{I}_{s}|$ (in units of reciprocal time) flows through the ferromagnet/semiconductor (F$\vert$Sc) interface, which is governed by the spin-dependent (dimensionless) conductances $g_{\uparrow\uparrow}$ and $g_{\downarrow\downarrow}$ as well as the complex spin-mixing conductance $g_{\uparrow\downarrow}$ [@Brataas00]$.$ Physically, the real part of the mixing conductance expresses the angular momentum transfer to and from the ferromagnet, such as the strength of the spin-current induced magnetization torque [@Slon96; @Bauer03] or non-local Gilbert damping [@Gilbert], whereas the imaginary part is an effective magnetic field [@Huertas00; @Stiles; @Huertas02]. The microscopic expression for the conductances is Landauer-like$$g_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}=\sum_{nm}[\delta_{nm}-r_{nm}^{\sigma}(r_{nm}%
^{\sigma^{\prime}})^{\ast}], \label{mix}%$$ where the reflection coefficient $r_{nm}^{\sigma}$ of an electron in the Sc with spin $\sigma$ at the Sc$\vert$F contact between $n-$th and $m-$th transverse modes is accessible to *ab initio* calculations [@Xia01; @Xia02; @Wunnicke; @Zwierzycki]. The time dependence of the system is governed by charge and spin conservation [@Brataas00]:$$\begin{aligned}
-2h\mathcal{D}\left( \frac{d\mu_{c}}{dt}\right) _{bias} & =\left(
g_{\uparrow\uparrow}+g_{\downarrow\downarrow}\right) \left( \mu_{c}%
-e\varphi\right) \nonumber\\
& +\left( g_{\uparrow\uparrow}-g_{\downarrow\downarrow}\right) \left(
\vec{m}\cdot\vec{\mu}_{s}\right) \label{charge}%\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{gathered}
-2h\mathcal{D}\left( \frac{d\vec{\mu}_{s}}{dt}\right) _{bias}%
=2\operatorname{Re}g_{\uparrow\downarrow}\vec{\mu}_{s}+2\operatorname{Im}%
g_{\uparrow\downarrow}\left( \vec{m}\times\vec{\mu}_{s}\right) \nonumber\\
+\left[ \left( g_{\uparrow\uparrow}-g_{\downarrow\downarrow}\right) \left(
\mu_{c}-e\varphi\right) +\left( g_{\uparrow\uparrow}+g_{\downarrow
\downarrow}-2\operatorname{Re}g_{\uparrow\downarrow}\right) \left( \vec
{m}\cdot\vec{\mu}_{s}\right) \right] \vec{m} \label{spin}%\end{gathered}$$ where $\mathcal{D}$ is the Sc single-spin energy density of states. The electrostatic potential $\varphi$ due to an applied bias and/or a charge imbalance between electrons and holes will be disregarded in the following (see below). In the presence of a magnetic field $\vec{B}$, the sum of externally applied and hyperfine (Overhauser) fields with ordered nuclear spins, we have to add $$\left( \frac{d\vec{\mu}_{s}}{dt}\right) _{field}=-\frac{g_{e}\mu_{B}}{\hbar
}\vec{B}\times\vec{\mu}_{s}%$$ where $g_{e}$ is the electron g-factor ($\approx-0.4$ in GaAs) and $\mu_{B}$ the Bohr magneton. These equations can be summarized in terms of a $4\times4$ matrix equation:$$-T_{I}\frac{d|\mu\rangle}{dt}=\mathbf{\Gamma}|\mu\rangle. \label{Kinetic}%$$ where $T_{I}=2h\mathcal{D}/g$ is an interface-mediated relaxation time in terms of the total conductance $g=g_{\uparrow\uparrow}+g_{\downarrow
\downarrow}$. Choosing $\vec{m}$** **parallel to the $z-$axis:$$\mathbf{\Gamma}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc}%
1 & 0 & 0 & p\\
0 & \eta_{r} & -\eta_{i}-\Omega_{z} & \Omega_{y}\\
0 & \eta_{i}+\Omega_{z} & \eta_{r} & -\Omega_{x}\\
p & -\Omega_{y} & \Omega_{x} & 1
\end{array}
\right) ,$$ $\left\vert \Omega_{\alpha}\right\vert /T_{I}=\left\vert g_{e}\right\vert
\mu_{B}B_{\alpha}/\hbar$ is the Larmor frequency, the mixing conductance has been normalized as $\eta=2g_{\uparrow\downarrow}/g$ with subscripts $i$ and $r$ denoting its real and imaginary part, and the polarization is defined as $p=\left( g_{\uparrow\uparrow}-g_{\downarrow\downarrow}\right) /g$. Eq. $\left( \text{\ref{Kinetic}}\right) $ can be solved easily [@Gridnev] for the boundary conditions corresponding to LP excitation $\langle\mu
^{LP}\left( 0\right) |=\langle1,0,0,0|$ or circularly polarized (CP) excitation with wave vector in the $x-$direction $\langle\mu^{CP}\left(
0\right) |=\langle1,1,0,0|$.
When the conductance is expressed in terms of an interface transparency parameter $\kappa$ times the intrinsic Sc single-spin Sharvin conductance, we can write: $$T_{I}\approx\frac{3.5}{\kappa}\frac{L}{100\text{ }\mathrm{nm}}\sqrt
{\frac{m^{\ast}}{0.067m_{0}}\frac{10\text{ }\mathrm{meV}}{\varepsilon}}%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{ps}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{ps}%
%EndExpansion
. \label{relax}%$$ For an Ohmic interface with $\kappa\simeq0.1,$ $L_{Sc}=100$ and at a characteristic electron kinetic energy (depending on doping and excitation density) of $\varepsilon=10$ $\mathrm{meV,}$ the time constant for GaAs (effective mass $m^{\ast}=0.067m_{0}$) is $T_{I}\sim35$ $,$ of the order of the experimental rise time of the proximity effect [@Epstein1]. At long time scales, experiments find $\breve{T}_{I}>2$ $\mathrm{%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{ns}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{ns}%
%EndExpansion
}$, which corresponds to a strongly reduced transparency of $\breve{\kappa
}\lesssim0.002.$
With a few exceptions (notably InAs), Schottky barriers are formed at metal-semiconductor interfaces when interface states in the gap of the semiconductor become filled giving rise to space charges. Photoexcited holes are strongly attracted by the barrier, thereby dragging the electrons with them [@Flatte] and/or screen the barrier. The observed large $\kappa$ in the fireball regime reflects the facilitation of electron transport to the Sc$\vert$F interface by the holes. In the limit of predominant ambipolar electron-hole transport (and absence of an applied bias) we can justify negelect of electrostatic potential $\varphi,$ but the electron conductance $g$ might be affected by the scattering of the holes.
At long time scales, the holes disappear into the ferromagnet or recombination with electrons in the semiconductor, but the electron spin accumulation persists [@Sham]. In this afterglow, remaining space charges vanish when the sample is grounded and net charge transport is suppressed. Eq. (\[charge\]) thus vanishes and $$-\breve{T}_{I}\frac{d\vec{\mu}_{s}}{dt}=\mathbf{\breve{\Gamma}}_{s}\vec{\mu
}_{s}. \label{Bloch}%$$ with$$\mathbf{\breve{\Gamma}}_{s}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}%
\breve{\eta}_{r} & -\breve{\eta}_{i}-\breve{\Omega}_{z} & \breve{\Omega}_{y}\\
\breve{\eta}_{i}+\breve{\Omega}_{z} & \breve{\eta}_{r} & -\breve{\Omega}_{x}\\
-\breve{\Omega}_{y} & \breve{\Omega}_{x} & 1-\breve{p}^{2}%
\end{array}
\right) .$$ where the decoration $\smallsmile$ indicates electron transport through the full Schottky barrier.
The kinetic equations are valid when the system is diffuse or chaotic (as a result of interface roughness or bulk disorder). The ferromagnetic elements should have an exchange splitting $\Delta$ which is large enough that the magnetic coherence length $\ell_{c}=\hbar/\sqrt{2m\Delta}<\min\left(
\ell,L_{F}\right) ,$ where $L_{F}$ is the thickness of the ferromagnetic layer (typically $50$ $%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{nm}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{nm}%
%EndExpansion
$). These conditions are usually fulfilled in hybrid systems except for very thin layers with nearly perfect interfaces. The spin relaxation time in GaAs is taken to be very long. We also require that $L_{Sc}<\sqrt{2\hbar v_{F}%
\ell/3g_{e}\mu_{B}B_{ext}}$ for diffuse systems [@Huertas00] or $L_{Sc}<\hbar v_{F}/g_{e}\mu_{B}B_{ext}$ for ballistic systems, where $\ell$ is the mean free path, $v_{F}$ the Fermi velocity and $B_{ext}$ the externally applied field. For samples with $L_{Sc}=100~%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{nm}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{nm}%
%EndExpansion
$ the applied magnetic fields should therefore not much exceed 5 T.
Thus a microscopic justification can be given for Gridnev’s phenomenological relaxation tensor [@Gridnev]. But whereas we can explain that the longitudinal relaxation $\sim g\ $or $\sim\breve{g}\left( 1-\breve{p}%
^{2}\right) $ can differ from the transverse components $\left(
\sim\operatorname{Re}g_{\uparrow\downarrow}\text{ or }\sim\operatorname{Re}%
\breve{g}_{\uparrow\downarrow}\right) ,$ Gridnev postulated a large difference between the two components *normal* to $\vec{m}.$ Such large magnetic anisotropies can be excluded for Fe and the scenario sketched by Gridnev can not be a generic explanation for all experiments. To explain the proximity polarization, Gridnev’s $3\times3$ Bloch equation *must* be extended to the $4\times4$ kinetic equation (\[Kinetic\]) that includes a charge current component.
First-principles calculations of the bare interface conductance without Schottky barrier provide a first indication of the transport properties in the first tens of $%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{ps}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{ps}%
%EndExpansion
$. We choose here the Fe$\vert$InAs system, which apart from the Schottky barrier, is very similar to Fe$\vert$GaAs, and as such, of great interest in itself. Table 1 summarizes results obtained by scattering matrix calculations with a first-principles tight-binding basis described in Ref. [@Zwierzycki]. We find the reversal of polarization sign with disorder as noted before [@Zwierzycki], which may explain the negative polarization found for Fe$\vert$GaAs [@Epstein1]. The real part of the mixing conductance $\eta_{r}$ (torque) is close to unity similar to metallic interfaces, but in contrast to these, the imaginary part $\eta_{i}$ is strongly enhanced$.$ The latter can be explained by the focus on a small number of states with wave vectors close to the origin, which prevents the averaging to zero found in metals [@Xia02].
\[c\][ccccccc]{} & & $G\left[ 1/f\Omega m^{2}\right] $ & $p$ & $\kappa$ & $\operatorname{Re}\eta$ & $\operatorname{Im}\eta
$\
Clean & Fe$|$InAs & $1.5\cdot
10^{-5}$ & $0.98$ & $0.14$ & $1.3$ & $-1.3$\
& Fe$|$AsIn & $3.6\cdot10^{-5}$ & $0.88$ & $0.35$ & $1.6$ & $-1.05$\
Dirty & Fe$|$InAs & $5.7\cdot10^{-5}$ & $-0.29$ & $0.56$ & $1.1$ & $-0.18$\
& Fe$|$AsIn & $7.4\cdot10^{-5}$ & $-0.22$ & $0.71$ & $1.3$ & $-0.30$\
We now model the experiments of Epstein *et al.* on GaAs$\vert$MnAs (concentrating on Fig. 1 in [@Epstein1]) in which an external magnetic field of 0.12 T lies in the interface $(yz)$ plane. Analytic solutions of Eq. (\[Kinetic\]) can be obtained for $\eta_{r}=1\left(
=\breve{\eta}_{r}\right) \ $(see Table 1 and [@Xia02]) such that all modes are exponentially damped by a single interface relaxation time $T_{I}.$ Time is measured in units of $T_{I}$ and the polarization is chosen to be $p=1\left( =\breve{p}\right) $. In the fireball regime the quality factor $\Omega_{y}\ \ll1,$ and we adopt $\eta_{i}=-1\left( =\breve{\eta}_{i}\right)
$. For LP excitation the charge component relaxes in favor of the $z-$component polarized along the magnetization direction, $2\mu_{z}\left(
t\right) =e^{-\left( 1-p\right) t/T_{I}}-e^{-\left( 1+p\right) t/T_{I}}$ for $\Omega_{y}=0$, which is the essence of the DFP effect. The time scale on which the Schottky barrier recovers determines (together with $p$) the modulus of the spin accumulation in the afterglow. It is of the same order, but smaller, than $T_{I}$ because of competing electron-hole recombination in the semiconductor. Our Fig. 1 is similar to Fig. 1 in [@Epstein1], but additional experimental data on a short time scale are required to guide the development of a more refined model.
As mentioned above, a modified Larmor frequency has been observed [@Epstein1] even when the photon wave vector is normal to the field. This is at odds with the notion that a CP excited spin accumulation should rotate around the field without net angular momentum transfer to the nuclei. This *could* be evidence for a DFP effect for the CP configuration. In the fireball, a significant $\eta_{i}$ acts like a magnetic field in the $z-$direction, causing the initial spin ensemble to precess into the direction of the external magnetic field, which is then able to polarize the nuclear spins. This effect is weaker for LP excitation since, in the brief fireball interval, any spin accumulation has to be generated before it can precess.
For LP excitation the Larmor frequency depends [@Epstein2] on an applied bias, proving that the electrostatic potential $\varphi$ can, in general, not be neglected in Eqs. (2,3). This does not invalidate our qualitative arguments since, compared to the bare interface exchange the modifications needed to explain the shifts in the effective Larmor frequencies are small, beyond the accuracy of our model. The decreasing spin lifetime in the afterglow with increasing bias has been explained by inhomogeneus nuclear polarization [@Epstein2], but lowering the Schottky barrier by a forward bias also reduces $\breve{T}_{I}$.
In conclusion, we propose a physical picture for the spin dynamics of photoexcited carriers in semiconductor$\vert$ferromagnet bilayers. The experiments can be understood in terms of at least two time scales. In the first 50 ps or so, the photoexcited carriers screen the Schottky barrier efficiently and the interaction of the electrons with the ferromagnet is described by nearly intrinsic interface conductances that can be calculated from first principles. After delay times of $>$100 ps, the Schottky barrier protects the semiconductor carriers from fast decay and any residual exchange interaction is very weak. More insight into the interaction of carriers in semiconductors with ferromagnets could be gained by a faster ($%
%TCIMACRO{\unit{ps}}%
%BeginExpansion
\operatorname{ps}%
%EndExpansion
$) time resolution and higher applied magnetic fields. Quantitative explanation of the experiments requires self-consistent modelling of the combined electron and hole carrier dynamics as well as *ab initio* calculations of the interface scattering matrices for electrons and holes.
We thank D.D. Awschalom, Y. Kato, and R.J. Epstein for helpful discussions on the Faraday rotation experiments. This work has been supported by the FOM, the NEDO joint research program Nano Magnetoelectronics, DARPA award MDA 972-01-1-0024, and the European Commission’s RT Network *Computational Magnetoelectronics* (Contract No. HPRN-CT-2000-00143).
[99]{}
S. Maekawa and T. Shinjo (Eds.), *Applications of Magnetic Nanostructures*, ed. by (Taylor and Francis, New York, U.S.A, 2002).
D.D. Awschalom, D. Loss, N. Samarth (Eds.), *Semiconductor Spintronics and Quantum Computing*, (Springer, Berlin, 2002).
E. Tsymbal and D. G. Pettifor, Sol. State Phys. **56**, 113 (2001).
J.C. Slonczewski, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **159**, L1 (1996); L. Berger, Phys. Rev. B **54**, 9353 (1996).
M. Tsoi *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 4281 (1998); J.-E. Wegrowe *et al.*, Europhys. Lett. **45**, 626 (1999); J.Z. Sun, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **202**, 157 (1999); E.B. Myers *et al.*, Science **285**, 867(1999), and several more recent others.
B. Heinrich, Y. Tserkovnyak, G. Woltersdorf, A. Brataas, R. Urban, and G.E.W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 187601 (2003).
S.I. Kiselev, J.C. Sankey, I.N. Krivorotov, N.C. Emley, R.J. Schoelkopf, R.A. Buhrman, D.C. Ralph, cond-mat/0306259.
O. Wunnicke, Ph. Mavropoulos, R. Zeller, P.H.Dederichs, and D. Grundler, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 241306 (2002).
M. Zwierzycki, K. Xia,P. J. Kelly, G.E.W. Bauer, and I. Turek, Phys. Rev. B **67**, 092401 (2003).
D.D. Awschalom and N. Samarth, in Ref. [@Optics].
R.K. Kawakami, Y. Kato, M. Hanson, I. Malajovich, J.M. Stevens, E. Johnston-Halperin, G. Salis, A.C. Gossard, and D.D. Awshalom, Science **294**, 131 (2001).
R.J. Epstein, I. Malajovich, R.K. Kawakami, Y. Chye, M. Hanson, P.M. Petroff, A.C. Gossard, and D.D. Awschalom, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 121202 (2002).
R.J. Epstein, J. Stephens, M. Hanson, Y. Chye, A.C. Gossard, P.M. Petroff, and D.D. Awschalom, Phys. Rev. B **68**, 041305 (2003).
Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, and G.E.W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 117601 (2002).
C. Ciuti, J.P. McGuire, and L.J. Sham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 156601 (2002); J.P. McGuire, C. Ciuti, and L.J. Sham, cond-mat/0302088..
V.N. Gridnev, JETP Letters **77**, 187 (2003) \[PZETF **77**, 217(2003)\].
A. Brataas, Yu.V. Nazarov, and G.E.W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 2481 (2000); Eur. Phys. J. B **22**, 99 (2001).
G.E.W. Bauer, Y. Tserkovnyak, D. Huertas-Hernando, and A. Brataas, Phys. Rev. B **67**, 094421 (2003); in: *Advances in Solid State Physics* (B. Kramer, Ed.), Vol. 43 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2003).
K. Xia, P.J. Kelly, G.E.W. Bauer, I. Turek, J. Kudrnovský, and V. Drchal, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 064407 (2001).
K. Xia, P. J. Kelly, G.E.W. Bauer, A. Brataas, and I. Turek, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 220401 (2002).
D. Huertas-Hernando, Yu.V. Nazarov, A. Brataas, and G.E.W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 5700 (2000).
M.D. Stiles and A. Zangwill, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 014407 (2002).
D. Huertas-Hernando, Yu.V. Nazarov, and W. Belzig, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 047003 (2002).
M.E. Flatté and J.M. Byers, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 4220 (2000)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Wide-field imaging surveys such as the Dark Energy Survey (DES) rely on coarse measurements of spectral energy distributions in a few filters to estimate the redshift distribution of source galaxies. In this regime, sample variance, shot noise, and selection effects limit the attainable accuracy of redshift calibration and thus of cosmological constraints. We present a new method to combine wide-field, few-filter measurements with catalogs from deep fields with additional filters and sufficiently low photometric noise to break degeneracies in photometric redshifts. The multi-band deep field is used as an intermediary between wide-field observations and accurate redshifts, greatly reducing sample variance, shot noise, and selection effects. Our implementation of the method uses self-organizing maps to group galaxies into *phenotypes* based on their observed fluxes, and is tested using a mock DES catalog created from $N$-body simulations. It yields a typical uncertainty on the mean redshift in each of five tomographic bins for an idealized simulation of the DES Year 3 weak-lensing tomographic analysis of $\sigma_{\Delta z} = 0.007$, which is a 60% improvement compared to the Year 1 analysis. Although the implementation of the method is tailored to DES, its formalism can be applied to other large photometric surveys with a similar observing strategy.'
author:
- '\'
bibliography:
- 'pheno-z.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: |
Phenotypic redshifts with self-organizing maps:\
A novel method to characterize redshift distributions of source galaxies for weak lensing
---
\[firstpage\]
dark energy – galaxies: distances and redshifts – gravitational lensing: weak
Introduction
============
Solving the mysteries surrounding the nature of the cosmic acceleration requires measuring the growth of structure with exquisite precision and accuracy. To this end, one of the most promising probes is weak gravitational lensing. In weak lensing, light from distant source galaxies is deflected by the large-scale structure of the Universe, affecting their apparent shapes by gravitational shear (see e.g. @Bartelmann2001, @Kilbinger2015, or @Mandelbaum2018 for a review on the subject). The amplitude of the shear depends on the distribution of the matter causing the lensing, and the distance ratios of source and lens galaxies. The physical interpretation of the signal is thus sensitive to systematic errors in redshift estimates of source galaxies [@Ma2006; @Huterer2006]. For precision cosmology from weak lensing probes, an accurate measurement of galaxy shapes must be coupled with a robust characterization of the redshift distribution of source galaxies.
In imaging surveys, redshift must be inferred from the electromagnetic spectral energy distribution (SED) of distant galaxies, integrated over a number of filter bands. Ongoing broadband imaging surveys, such as the Dark Energy Survey [DES; @DarkEnergySurveyCollaboration2005], the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program [HSC-SPP; @Aihara2018] and the Kilo Degree Survey [KiDS; @deJong2013], as well as upcoming ones such as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope [LSST; @Ivezic2008], the Euclid survey [@Laureijs2011], and the Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Telescope [WFIRST; @Spergel2013], rely on measurements of flux in a small number of bands (three to six) to determine redshifts of source galaxies.
The coarse measurement of a galaxy’s redshifted SED often does not uniquely determine its redshift and type: two different rest-frame SEDs at two different redshifts can be indistinguishable, as illustrated in (lower panel). This type/redshift degeneracy is the fundamental cause of uncertainty in redshift calibration, i.e. in the constraint of the mean and shape of the redshift distribution of an ensemble of galaxies, across methods. It can bias template-fitting methods [e.g. @Benitez2000; @Ilbert2006], even with a Bayesian treatment of sufficiently flexible template sets, because the choice of priors determines the mix of estimated type/redshift combinations at fixed ambiguous broad-band fluxes. It can bias empirical methods based on machine learning [e.g. @Collister2004; @CarrascoKind2013; @DEVicente2016] or direct calibration from spectroscopic samples, because present spectroscopic samples are subject to selection effects at fixed broad-band observables [@Bonnett2016; @Gruen2017]. These can be both explicit (i.e. because spectroscopic targets were selected by properties not observed in a wide-field survey) or implicit (i.e. because success of spectroscopic redshift determination depends on type/redshift). Type/redshift degeneracy contributes to the dominant systematic uncertainty in redshifts derived from cross-correlations [@Schneider2006; @Newman2008; @Menard2013; @Schmidt2013; @Hildebrandt2017; @Samuroff2017; @Davis2017; @Davis2018], the evolution of clustering bias with redshift [@Gatti2018]. The latter is due in part to the evolution of the mix of galaxy types as a function of redshift. Because of type/redshift degeneracy, such an evolution is present in any sample that can be selected from broad-band photometry. Finally, type/redshift degeneracy is the fundamental reason for sample variance in redshift calibration from fields like COSMOS [@Lima2008; @Amon2018; @Hoyle2018]: a criterion based on few broad-band colors selects a mix of galaxy types/redshifts that depends on the large-scale structure present in a small calibration field.
{width="0.75\linewidth"}
A substantial improvement in redshift calibration therefore requires that the type/redshift degeneracy in wide-field surveys be broken more effectively. While the collection of large, representative samples of faint galaxy spectra remains unfeasible, recent studies indicate that broad-band photometry that covers the full range of optical and near-infrared wavelengths substantially improves the accuracy of redshift calibration [@Masters2017; @Hildebrandt2018]. This is again illustrated by the lower panel of : the additional bands can break type/redshift degeneracies that are present in, e.g., *(g)riz* information. Over large areas and to the depth of upcoming surveys, only few-band photometry is readily available, primarily due to a lack of efficient near-infrared survey facilities (but cf. KiDS+VIKING, @Wright2018). However, in the next decade, imaging surveys such as the Euclid survey [@Laureijs2011] and WFIRST [@Spergel2013] have been designed to address this lack of near-infrared data.
In this paper, we develop a method that leverages photometric data in additional filters (and with sufficiently low photometric noise), available over a limited area of a survey, to break degeneracies and thus overcome the key limitations of redshift distribution characterization from few-band data. Optical surveys commonly observe some regions more often than the wide-field, and these can be chosen to overlap with auxiliary near-infrared data and spectroscopy. The galaxies observed in these ‘deep fields’ can be grouped into a sufficiently fine-grained set of *phenotypes* based on their observed many-band fluxes [@Sanchez2018]. The average density with which galaxies from each phenotype appear in the sky can be measured more accurately from the deep fields than from a smaller spectroscopic sample.
The redshift distribution of a deep-field phenotype can be estimated from a sub-sample for which both the multi-band fluxes and accurate redshifts are available. This could be the result of a future targeted spectroscopic campaign [cf. @Masters2015] or, as long as spectroscopic redshifts do not cover all phenotypes, a photometric campaign with high-quality and broad wavelength coverage, to be used with a template fitting method. Members of a phenotype have very similar multi-band colors, giving typically a compact redshift distribution. This substantially reduces redshift biases that might arise from non-representative or incomplete spectroscopic follow-up, sample variance, or from variation of clustering bias with redshift. The larger volume and depth of the deep fields allow the estimation of the density of galaxies from each phenotype in the sky with a lower sample variance, lower shot noise, and higher completeness than would be possible from redshift samples alone. Knowing this density and the multi-band properties of a phenotype and applying the distribution of measurement noise in the wide survey, we can determine the probability that an observation in the wide field originates from a given phenotype. That is, we learn how to statistically break the type/redshift degeneracy at given broad-band flux from a larger sample of galaxies than is possible to obtain accurate redshifts for. In this scheme, the multi-band deep measurements thus mediate an indirect mapping between wide-field measurements and accurate redshifts.
For the purpose of developing the method in this paper, we will assume that the subset of galaxies with known redshifts (1) is representative at any position in multi-band deep field color space, and (2) has their redshifts characterized accurately. While progress is being made towards achieving this with spectroscopy [e.g. @Masters2019], or many-band photometric redshifts, which show promising performance [at least for a large subset of the source galaxies measured in DES; @Laigle2016; @Eriksen2019], substantial work remains to be done on validating this assumption in practical applications of our scheme, and extending its validity to the fainter galaxy samples required by future lensing surveys.
The paper is organized as follows. In , we develop the formalism of the method which is tested on a mock galaxy catalog presented in . The implementation of the method with self-organizing maps is presented in and the fiducial choices of features and hyperparameters are described in . The performance of the method with unlimited samples is assessed in . We then apply the method to a simulated DES catalog in order to forecast its performance on ongoing and future surveys. The DES Year 3 (Y3), i.e. the analysis of the data taken in the first 3 years of DES, targets an uncertainty in the mean redshift of each source tomographic bin $\sigma_{\Delta z}\sim0.01$, which is unmatched for wide-field galaxy samples with comparable data, and a main motivation for this work. The sources of uncertainty and their impacts on a DES Y3-like calibration are characterized in . The impact of the DES Y3 weak lensing analysis choices on redshift calibration are assessed in . We describe the redshift uncertainty on a DES Y3-like analysis in and explore possible improvements of the calibration in . Finally, we conclude in . A reader less interested in technical aspects may wish to focus on and .
We define three terms used in this paper that have varying uses in the cosmological literature. By *sample variance* we mean a statistical uncertainty introduced by the limited volume of a survey. By *shot noise* we mean a statistical uncertainty introduced by the limited number of objects in a sample. And the term *bias* is used for a mean offset of an estimated quantity from a true one that remains after averaging over many (hypothetical) random realizations of a survey.
Formalism {#sec:formalism}
=========
In this section we develop a method based on galaxy phenotypes to estimate redshift distributions in tomographic bins. The method is applicable to any photometric survey with a similar observation strategy to DES.
Assume two kinds of photometric measurements are obtained over the survey: *wide* data (e.g. flux or colors), available for every galaxy in the survey, and *deep* data, available only for a subset of galaxies. The dimensionality of the deep data is higher by having flux measurements in more bands of the electromagnetic spectrum. We shall denote the wide data by $\vec{\hat{x}}$ with errors $\vec{\hat{\Sigma}}$. We will call the deep data $\vec{x}$. We will assume noiseless deep data, but confirm that obtainable levels of deep field noise do not affect our conclusions. The deep sample is considered complete in the sense that any galaxy included in the wide data would be observed if its location was within a deep field.
A third sample contains galaxies with confidently known redshifts, $z$. The *redshift* data can be obtained using many-band photometric observations or spectroscopy. In this work, we will assume the redshift sample to be a representative subset of the deep data, with perfect redshift information. This is a fair assumption when the redshift sample is populated with high-quality photometric redshifts (e.g. from COSMOS or multi-medium/narrow-band surveys), and the deep sample is complete to sufficiently faint magnitudes. It is, however, a strong assumption for spectroscopic redshifts when matched to a photometric sample with only few observed bands [@Gruen2017]. As one increases the wavelength coverage, the assumption of representativeness becomes less problematic: in our scheme, it is only required to hold at each position in deep multi-color space, and thus only for subsets of galaxies with close to uniform type and well-constrained redshift. This is confirmed by the observation that, at a given position in seven-color optical-NIR data space, the dependence of mean redshift on magnitude is small. Once in a discretized cell of the Euclid/WFIRST color space, @Masters2019 quantify the dependence on galaxy brightness as $\sim 0.0029$ change in $\Delta z/(1 + \bar{z})$ per magnitude. Thus despite a selection effect in the spectroscopic survey to only observe a brighter subset of the galaxies at given deep multi-band color, the inferred redshift distribution would still be close to unbiased and representative of the full sample.
In order to estimate the conditional probability $p(z|\vec{\hat{x}})$, the deep sample can be used as an intermediary between wide-field photometry and redshift. Redshifts inferred directly from wide measurements with only a small number of bands can be degenerate when distinct galaxy types/redshifts yield the same observables. This is the ultimate reason behind sample variance and selection biases in redshift calibration: the same observed wide-field data can correspond to different distributions of redshift depending on the line of sight or additional selections, e.g. based on the success of a spectroscopic redshift determination. Sample variance, shot noise, and selection effects may thus cause the mix of types/redshifts in a redshift sample at given $\vec{\hat{x}}$ to deviate from the mean of a complete sample collected over a larger area.
The type/redshift degeneracy is mitigated for a deep sample in which supplementary bands and more precise photometry reduce the type mixing at a given point in multi-color space. A tighter relation can in this case be found between redshifts and deep observables. At the same time, the small sample of galaxies with known accurate redshifts can be reweighted to match the density of deep field galaxies in this multi-color space. Because the position in this multi-color space is highly indicative of type and redshift, and because larger, complete samples of deep photometric galaxies can be collected, this reweighting evens out the type/redshift mix of the redshift sample at given wide-field flux [@Lima2008]. As a result, sample variance and selection effects present in the redshift sample are reduced. By statistically relating the deep to the wide data that would be observed for the same galaxy, the deep sample enables estimating wide galaxy redshifts with reduced susceptibility to sample variance and selection effects.
The deep and wide data sets do not necessarily represent the same population of galaxies. Not all galaxies seen in the deep field are detected in the wide field, and for a particular science case, not all the galaxies detected in the wide data are used. Only the ones satisfying some selection, $\hat{s}$, are taken into account. The wide data, $\vec{\hat{x}}$, and its errors, $\vec{\hat{\Sigma}}$, are correlated with other properties that may enter in the selection, $\hat{s}$, such as ellipticity or size. These properties are linked to colors in the deep observations, $\vec{x}$, that are unobserved in the wide data. For example, morphology correlates with galaxy color [e.g. @Larson1980; @Strateva2001]. Assume one sample, $\hat{s}_0$, selects elliptical galaxies and another, $\hat{s}_1$, selects spiral galaxies. Those two samples will have a different distribution of $\vec{x}$ given $\vec{\hat{x}}$. Therefore, the mapping of $\vec{\hat{x}}$ to $z$ will be different for different science samples, $\hat{s}$. In our case $\hat{s}$ is the selection of observed DES galaxies that end up in our weak lensing source catalog.
A photometric redshift estimator for an individual galaxy is given by $$\label{p_z_x}
p(z|\vec{\hat{x}},\vec{\hat{\Sigma}},\hat{s}) = \int \vec{dx} \; p(z|\vec{x}) \; p(\vec{x}|\vec{\hat{x}},\vec{\hat{\Sigma}}, \hat{s}),$$ where we marginalized over the deep measurements, $\vec{x}$. In , we assume that $p(z|\vec{x},\vec{\hat{x}}, \vec{\hat{\Sigma}}, \hat{s})=p(z|\vec{x})$. The validity of this assumption in our scheme is tested in . For an ensemble of $N$ galaxies, an estimator [see @Malz2018 for a discussion] of the redshift distribution, ${d}N/\mathrm{d}z\propto p(z)$, is given by $$\label{p_z_s}
p(z|\hat{s}) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \int \vec{dx}\; p(z|\vec{x}) \; p(\vec{x}|\vec{\hat{x}}_i,\vec{\hat{\Sigma}}_i, \hat{s}),$$ where the contribution of each galaxy is summed. The conditional probability distributions $p(z|\vec{x})$ and $p(\vec{x}|\vec{\hat{x}},\vec{\hat{\Sigma}}, \hat{s})$ must be learned but this might be infeasible because the variables $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{\hat{x}}$ are continuous and multidimensional. In DES for example, $\vec{\hat{x}}$ has 4 dimensions and $\vec{x}$ can have up to 9 dimensions. To overcome the problem of a complicated mapping from a 4-dimensional space to a 9-dimensional space, we discretize those spaces. We can consider that $\vec{\hat{x}}$ and $\vec{x}$ are observable characteristics of an underlying variable that defines a galaxy’s SED and redshift. We can also consider that galaxies with similar $\vec{x}$ will have similar redshift. It is therefore reasonable to cluster the deep data, $\vec{x}$, in discretized deep cells, $c$, and the wide data, $\vec{\hat{x}}$, in discretized wide cells, $\hat{c}$. Each deep cell, $c$, represents a galaxy phenotype. For our purpose, all galaxies in the same cells have the same observables, and some underlying variables – the galaxy’s ‘genes’ – determine these observables. We therefore call this method *phenotypic* redshifts (hereafter pheno-$z$).
Using a variety of clustering methods, a galaxy with wide measurement, $\vec{\hat{x}}$, and error, $\vec{\hat{\Sigma}}$, can be assigned to a unique cell $\hat{c}$. Similarly, a galaxy with deep measurement, $\vec{x}$, can be assigned to a unique cell $c$. Those two assignments need not necessarily be produced using the same method. This reduces, for each galaxy, the continuous multi-dimensional vectors $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{\hat{x}}$ (with their errors) to two integers. In this scheme, given a selection of galaxies, $\hat{s}$, each wide cell, $\hat{c}$, has a redshift distribution: $$p(z|\hat{c},\hat{s}) = \sum_{c} p(z|c) \; p(c|\hat{c}, \hat{s}),$$ which is analogous to , and where we have assumed $p(z | c, \hat{c}, \hat{s}) = p(z | c)$. For an ensemble of galaxies with selection $\hat{s}$, its redshift distribution is given by $$\label{p_z_hats}
p(z|\hat{s}) = \sum_{c, \hat{c}} p(z|c) \; p(c|\hat{c}, \hat{s}) \; p(\hat{c} | \hat{s}),$$ where $p(\hat{c} | \hat{s})$ is the fractional assignment of galaxies to cell $\hat{c}$. This is the discretized version of . The quantity $p(c|\hat{c}, \hat{s})$ will be called the transfer function and is specific to a science sample, $\hat{s}$. In our scheme, it is estimated from galaxies for which both deep and (possibly simulated) wide observations are available (hereafter the *overlap* sample).
It is useful to consider the sources of bias, sample variance and shot noise inherent to this scheme. We note that the transfer function, $p(c|\hat{c}, \hat{s})$, is proportional to $p(\hat{c}, \hat{s}|c)p(c)$ per Bayes’ theorem. Sample variance and shot noise in the estimated redshift distribution can thus be caused by the limited volume and count of the deep galaxy sample, introducing noise in $p(c)$, or by the limited overlap sample, introducing noise in $p(\hat{c}, \hat{s}|c)$. If it were the case that $c$ uniquely determines the redshift, there would be no variance in $p(z|c)$ as long as a redshift is known for at least one galaxy from each deep cell $c$. For a large enough sample of bands in the deep data, $p(z|c)$ is indeed much narrower than $p(z|\hat{c},\hat{s})$. Sample variance and shot noise due to limited redshift sample [as estimated in @Bordoloi2010; @Gruen2017] can therefore be reduced in this scheme.
Biases could be introduced by the discretization. is an approximation to that breaks when the redshift distribution varies within the confines of a $c$ cell in a way that is correlated with $\hat c$ or $\hat s$. One of the purposes of this paper is to test the validity of this approximation (see and ).
Source bin definition {#sec:bin}
---------------------
To perform tomographic analysis of lensing signals [see e.g. @Hu1999], galaxies must be placed into redshift bins. The pheno-$z$ method, developed in , to estimate redshift distributions is independent of the bin assignment method. The simple algorithm presented in this section is aimed to assign galaxies to one bin uniquely, with little overlap of bins, such that each contains roughly the same number of galaxies.
To achieve the binning, two samples are used: the redshift sample for which we have deep measurements and the overlap sample for which we have deep and wide measurements. The redshift sample is assigned to cells $c$ and the mean redshift, $\bar{z}_c$, in each of those cells is computed. Each galaxy in the overlap sample is assigned to cells $c$ and $\hat{c}$. The fractional occupation of those cells $f_{c}=p(c|\hat{s})$ and $f_{\hat{c}}=p(\hat{c}|\hat{s})$ are such that $\sum_c f_{c} = \sum_{\hat{c}} f_{\hat{c}} = 1$. All galaxies in the redshift sample are used whereas only the galaxies respecting the selection criteria enter the overlap sample.
We wish to assign galaxies to $N_{\mathrm{bin}}$ tomographic bins ($N_{\mathrm{bin}}=5$ in this work). The first step consists of assigning cells $c$ to tomographic bins $B$. The cells $\hat{c}$ are then assigned to tomographic bins $\hat{B}$ using the transfer function. The procedure is the following:
1. Cells $c$ are sorted by their mean redshift, $\bar{z}_c$, in ascending order. Cells are assigned to bin $B$ until $\sum_{c\in B}f_c \geq \frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{bin}}}$, where $B=1,...,N_{\mathrm{bin}}$. We discuss the impact of cells lacking redshift information in .
2. Each cell $\hat{c}$ is assigned to a bin $\hat{B}$ by finding which bin $B$ it has the highest probability of belonging to through $p(c|\hat{c},\hat{s})$: $$\hat{B} = \operatorname*{argmax}_B p(B|\hat{c},\hat{s}) = \operatorname*{argmax}_B \sum_{c\in B} p(c|\hat{c}, \hat{s}).$$
3. Individual galaxies are assigned to bin $\hat{B}$ based on their wide cell assignment, $\hat{c}$.
Once the bins are computed, the final quantity of interest, the redshift distribution in bin $\hat{B}$ can be inferred: $$\label{n_i_z}
p(z|\hat{B},\hat{s}) = \sum_{\hat{c}\in \hat{B}}\sum_c p(z|c) \; p(c|\hat{c}, \hat{s}) \; p(\hat{c} | \hat{s}).$$ Throughout this work, we will use to estimate redshift distributions in tomographic bins.
Simulated DES galaxy catalogs {#sec:Galaxy_catalogs}
=============================
In this work we use simulated galaxy catalogs designed to mimic observational data collected with the Dark Energy Camera [DECam; @Honscheid2008; @Flaugher2015]. DECam is a 570 megapixel camera with a 3 deg$^2$ field-of-view, installed at the prime focus of the Blanco 4-m telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) in northern Chile. In addition, we mimic data by surveys conducted with the Visible and Infrared Survey Telescope for Astronomy [VISTA; @Emerson2004], a 4-m telescope located at ESO’s Cerro Paranal Observatory in Chile and mounted with a near infrared camera, VIRCAM (VISTA InfraRed CAMera), which has a 1.65 degree diameter field-of-view containing 67 megapixels. Both the underlying real and simulated galaxy samples are described below.
The Dark Energy Survey
----------------------
The DES is an ongoing ground-based wide-area optical imaging survey which is designed to probe the causes of cosmic acceleration through four independent probes: Type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, weak gravitational lensing, and galaxy clusters. After six years of operations (2013-2019), the survey has imaged about one-eighth of the total sky. DES has conducted two distinct multi-band imaging surveys with DECam: a $\sim 5000\; \text{deg}^2$ wide-area survey in the *grizY* bands[^1] and a $\sim 27\; \text{deg}^2$ deep supernova survey observed in the *griz* bands. The deep supernova survey overlaps with the VISTA *YJHKs* bands measurements, and we have obtained $u$ band imaging of these fields using DECam.
### DES Year 3 samples {#sec:DES_Y3_samples}
The pheno-$z$ method requires four samples to estimate redshift distributions in tomographic bins using . The following datasets will be used in the DES Y3 analysis:
1. *Deep sample*: In DES, *ugriz* deep photometry is obtained in 10 supernova fields ($\sim27\;\mathrm{deg}^2$), as well as in the COSMOS field ($\sim2\;\mathrm{deg}^2$). Some of those fields overlap with deep VISTA measurements in the *YJHKs* bands from the UltraVista survey [@McCracken2012] for COSMOS and from the VISTA Deep Extragalactic Observations [VIDEO; @Jarvis2013] survey for the supernova fields. summarizes the overlap between the DES deep photometry and the UltraVISTA (COSMOS) and VIDEO fields. The VISTA *Y* band is available in three of the four fields where *JHKs* bands are available. Including the *Y* band reduces the total available area from 9.93 to $7.99\;\mathrm{deg}^2$. We examine the trade-off between area and *Y* band in . In the especially deep supernova fields C3 and X3, DECam *griz* is at an equivalent depth of at least $200\times90s$, while the regular depth supernova field E2 has at least $80\times90s$ exposures, compared to a final wide-field DES exposure time of $10\times90$s.
2. *Redshift sample*: The galaxies in the COSMOS field can be assigned a redshift either by using many-band photo-$z$s [@Laigle2016] which are available for all galaxies or by using spectroscopic redshifts available for a subset of galaxies as long as this subset is representative of the color space spanned by the deep sample and is a fair sample of $z$ within any given cell.[^2] The use of many-band photo-$z$ is advantageous as it avoids selection effects commonly present in spectroscopic samples. The COSMOS catalog provides photometry in 30 different UV, visible and IR bands. For each galaxy, the probability density function (PDF) $p^{\mathrm{C30}}(z)$ of its redshift given its photometry is computed using the LePhare template-fitting code [@Arnouts1999; @Ilbert2006]. The typical width of $p^{\mathrm{C30}}(z)$ for DES sources is $\approx 0.01(1+z)$ and the typical catastrophic failure rate is 1%. The available overlap between DES deep and UltraVista for which many-band photo-$z$s are available is $1.38\;\mathrm{deg}^2$ and contains $\sim 135,000$ galaxies.
3. *Overlap sample*: This sample comprises objects for which deep and (possibly synthetic) wide measurements are available. In practice, we will use <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Balrog</span> [@Suchyta2016], a software package that paints synthetic galaxies into observed images in order to render wide measurements and assess selection effects. The deep sample galaxies are painted several times over the whole DES footprint to produce a number of realizations of each deep field galaxy under different observing conditions and noise realizations. The shape measurement pipeline is also run on those fake galaxies yielding only objects that would end up in the shape catalog after its cuts on e.g. observed size and signal-to-noise ratio. This method produces a sample of galaxies with deep and wide measurements with the same selection as the real source galaxies used in the weak lensing analysis.
4. *Wide sample*: All galaxies that are selected for the shape catalog are included in the wide sample. These are the galaxies for which we infer the redshift distributions.
Buzzard mock galaxy catalog {#sec:buzzard}
---------------------------
We use the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Buzzard-v1.6</span> simulation, a mock DES catalog created from a set of dark-matter-only simulations (a detailed description of the simulation and the catalog construction can be found in @MacCrann2018 [@DeRose2019], Wechsler et al. in preparation). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Buzzard-v1.6</span> is constructed from a set of 3 $N$-body simulations run using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l-gadget2</span>, a version of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget2</span> [@Springel2005] modified for memory efficiency. The simulation box sizes ranged from 1 to 4 $h^{-1}$Gpc. Light cones from each box were constructed on the fly.
Galaxies are added to the simulations using the Adding Density Dependent GAlaxies to Light-cone Simulations algorithm (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">addgals</span>; @DeRose2019, Wechsler et al. in preparation). This algorithm pastes galaxies onto dark matter particles in an $N$-body simulation by matching galaxy luminosities with local dark matter densities. This method does not use dark matter host haloes, which are commonly unresolved for the galaxies and simulations used here. SEDs from a training set of spectroscopic data from SDSS DR7 [@Cooper2011] are assigned to the simulated galaxies to match the color-environment relation. These SEDs are integrated in the DES pass bands to generate *ugriz* magnitudes and in the VISTA pass bands to generate *YJHKs* magnitudes (see ). Galaxy sizes and ellipticities are drawn from distributions fit to SuprimeCam *i* band data [@Miyazaki2002]. Galaxies are added to the simulation to the projected apparent magnitude limit of the final DES dataset out to redshift $z = 2$.
The use of SDSS spectra means that the SEDs assigned in Buzzard are limited to bright or low redshift galaxies. In contrast to template fitting methods, the resulting lack of SED evolution with redshift is not a major concern for testing our scheme: there is no assumption made that the same underlying SED exists at different redshifts to produce different but related phenotypes. Changes in galaxy SEDs with redshift could, however, introduce a different degree of type-redshift degeneracy as seen in the mock catalogs, which is a caveat in transferring our findings to real data and should be tested by comparing e.g. the scatter of redshift within deep SOM cells between mock and data. Note also that as the rest-frame UV part of the SEDs is not recorded by the SDSS spectra, the spectroscopic data must be extrapolated to produce the optical colors at $z\gtrapprox1.5$. The lack of informative colors above this redshift motivates the redshift cut in the samples described below. This may lead to an underestimate of the uncertainty in high-redshift tails. Only a small fraction of observable galaxies in those parts of wide-field color-magnitude space that provide sufficiently constrained redshift distributions for lensing use in DES Y1 (the analysis of the data taken in the first year of DES) and Y3 lie at $z>1.5$ (cf. e.g. @Hoyle2018), but this will change in deeper future data sets. In addition, our error estimates assume that the overall population density and signal-to-noise distribution of Buzzard galaxies as a function of redshift mimics the data, which is only approximately true.
### Mock samples in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Buzzard</span>
Using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Buzzard</span> simulated catalog, we construct the 4 samples described in to test and refine our method. In the simulations, galaxies are assigned a true redshift $z_{\mathrm{true}}$ and a true flux in each band. Observed fluxes are derived for each galaxy depending on its position on the sky. The error model used is tailored to match DES wide-field observations. In the following, in order for the simulations to mimic the real data, we will use the simulated true and observed information as deep and wide information, respectively.
We use the true redshift for the redshift sample and to compare our inferred redshift distributions to the true ones. We reiterate that this assumption is likely valid for the brighter subset of existing spectroscopic and many-band photometric redshift samples only [@Laigle2016; @Eriksen2019; @Masters2019], and must be validated when applying any empirical redshift calibration scheme in practice. The simulated true fluxes without errors are used as the deep measurements. This is justified by the significantly longer integrated exposure time of the deep fields relative to the wide survey. We have validated that flux errors at least five times smaller than those that define the limiting magnitudes in Appendix \[app:softB\], applied to the simulated deep field catalogs, do not appreciably affect our redshift calibration. We are actively studying the interplay of deep field flux errors and deep SOM calibration on Y3 data (Myles et al. in preparation). When the measurements are considered noiseless, $\vec{\Sigma}$ is taken to be the identity matrix when training the self-organizing map (SOM; ) or when assigning galaxies to the SOM. To mimic the deep and redshift samples, two cuts are performed on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Buzzard</span> catalog. Only galaxies with true redshift $z_{\mathrm{true}}<1.5$ and true magnitude in *i* band $m_{\mathrm{true},\,i}<24.5$ are kept in both samples. The hard boundary at $z_{\mathrm{true}}=1.5$ has its drawbacks (namely, in the reliability of the error estimate of the highest redshift bin) but it ensures that the colors are sufficiently correct which is not the case at high $z_{\mathrm{true}}$ in the simulations. The redshift sample is expected to be representative of the deep sample at any point in deep multi-color space, as would be the case for COSMOS multi-band redshifts.
For the wide sample, we want galaxies whose properties are similar to the ones of galaxies we would use in the DES Y3 cosmology analysis. These galaxies are a subset of all DES Y3 observed galaxies in the wide survey. This subset is the result of both easy-to-mock selections (galaxies with observed magnitude in some band lower than a threshold) and difficult-to-mock selections (cut galaxies which would fail in the shape measurement algorithm). We use the simple selection criterion of observed magnitude in *i* band $m_{\mathrm{obs},\,i}<23.5$ to create the wide sample. A more refined selection, which depends on a galaxy’s size and the limiting magnitude in *r* band of the survey at its position on the sky, is used at the end of this work to check the robustness of our uncertainties estimates (see ). The distributions of the observed *i* band magnitude of those three selections applied to all galaxies in a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Buzzard</span> tile ($\sim53\;\mathrm{deg}^2$) is shown in .
![Distribution of the observed *i* band magnitude of three selections, $\hat{s}$, applied to all galaxies in a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Buzzard</span> tile ($\sim53\;\mathrm{deg}^2$). The deep selection (blue) is $z_{\mathrm{true}}<1.5$ and $m_{\mathrm{true},\,i}<24.5$. The hard cut selection (red) is the deep selection plus $m_{\mathrm{obs},\,i}<23.5$. The weak lensing (WL) selection (black) uses a more complex criterion based on the size of the galaxy and the limiting magnitude of the DES Y3 survey (see ).\[fig:samples\_mag\_i\]](Figures/samples_mag_i_density.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
To obtain the overlap sample, we apply the same selection criterion as the one used for the wide sample. To mimic the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Balrog</span> algorithm, we can take the galaxies in the deep sample, randomly select positions over the full Y3 footprint and run the error model at their position to obtain a noisy version of the galaxy. This allows us to have multiple wide realizations of the same galaxy. Only galaxies respecting the wide selection criterion are then selected. The galaxies in the deep sample can be spliced a certain number of times giving an overlap sample of variable size.
In summary, only two selections are performed: a deep and a wide. The first is applied to the redshift and deep samples, the second to the overlap and wide samples.
Implementation {#sec:implementation}
==============
As stated in , a wide variety of clustering methods can be used to achieve the assignment of wide and deep data to cells $\hat{c}$ and $c$, respectively. In this work, we use self-organizing maps to obtain both. This choice is motivated by the visual representation offered by this method which helps interpretation and debugging. Also, recent works have shown the capabilities of this algorithm in dealing with photo-$z$s [see e.g. @CarrascoKind2014; @Masters2015].
Self-organizing maps {#sec:SOM}
--------------------
A self-organizing map (SOM) or Kohonen map is a type of artificial neural network that produces a discretized and low-dimensional representation of the input space. Since its introduction by @Kohonen1982, this algorithm has found a large range of scientific applications (see e.g. @Kohonen2001 [-@Kohonen2001]). In astronomy, SOMs have been used in different classification problems: galaxy morphologies [@Naim1997], gamma-ray bursts [@Rajaniemi2002] or astronomical light curves [@Brett2004]. More recently, this method has been used to compute photo-$z$s: single photo-$z$ estimator [@Geach2012; @Way2012] and the full redshift PDF [@CarrascoKind2014]. It has also been used to characterize the color-redshift relation to determine relevant spectroscopic targets [@Masters2015] necessary to meet the photo-$z$ precision requirements for weak lensing cosmology for the Euclid survey [@Laureijs2011]. This work resulted in the Complete Calibration of the Color-Redshift Relation [C3R2; @Masters2017] survey, which targets missing regions of color space.
The SOM algorithm is an unsupervised method (the output variable, in our case the redshift, is not used in training) which produces a direct mapping from the input space to a lower dimensional grid. The training phase is a competitive process whereby cells of the map (more commonly called neurons or nodes) compete to most closely resemble each galaxy of the training data, until the best match is assigned as that galaxy’s phenotype. The SOM is a type of non-linear principal component analysis which preserves separation, i.e. distances in input space are reflected in the map.
Consider a training sample of $n$ galaxies. For each galaxy we can build an $m$-dimensional input vector $\vec{x} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ made of measured galaxy attributes such as magnitudes, colors or size (but not the redshift). A SOM is a set of $C$ cells arranged in an $l$-dimensional grid that has a given topology. Here we consider two-dimensional square maps with periodic boundary conditions (the map resembles a torus). Each cell is associated to a weight vector $\vec{\omega_k} \in \mathbb{R}^m$, where $k=1,...,C$, that lives in the same space as the input vectors.
The iterative training process starts by initializing the weight vectors either randomly or by sampling from the input data. At each step of the algorithm, a random galaxy from the training sample is presented to the map. The cells whose weight vector is the closest to the galaxy’s vector is the Best Matching Unit (BMU). To define closeness, we use the $\chi^2$ distance: $$\label{chi_2_dist}
d^2(\vec{x}, \vec{\omega_k}) = (\vec{x}-\vec{\omega_{k}})^\top\vec{\Sigma^{-1}}(\vec{x}-\vec{\omega_{k}}),$$ where $\vec{\Sigma}$ is the covariance matrix for the training vector, $\vec{x}$. The cell minimizing this distance is the BMU and is denoted by the subscript $b$: $$c_b = \operatorname*{arg\,min}_k d(\vec{x}, \vec{\omega_k}).$$ To preserve the topology of the input space, not only the BMU is identified as being similar to the training galaxy but also its neighborhood. Therefore, these cells are all modified to more closely resemble the training galaxy. To update the weights, the following relation is used for all weights $\vec{\omega_k}$: $$\vec{\omega_k}(t+1) = \vec{\omega_k}(t) + a(t)\;H_{b,k}(t)\;[\vec{x}(t)-\vec{\omega_k}(t)],$$ where $t$ represents the current time step in the training. The learning rate function, $a(t)$, encodes the responsiveness of the map to new data. It is a monotonically decreasing function of the time step: the map gets gradually less sensitive to new training vectors. The learning rate function in terms of the total number of training steps, $t_{\mathrm{max}}$, has the following form: $$a(t) = a_0^{t/t_{\mathrm{max}}},$$ where $a_0\in[0,1]$. The size of the BMU’s neighborhood affected by the new training vector also decreases as a function of time steps. This is encoded in the neighborhood function $H_{b,k}(t)$ which is parametrized as a Gaussian kernel centered on the BMU: $$H_{b,k}(t) = \exp[-D^2_{b,k}/\sigma^2(t)].$$ The distance between the BMU, $c_b$, and any cell on the map, $c_k$, is the Euclidean distance on the $l$-dimensional map: $$D^2_{b,k} = \sum_{i=1}^l (c_{b,i}-c_{k,i})^2,$$ where we account for periodic boundary conditions. The width of the Gaussian kernel is parametrized as $$\sigma(t) = \sigma_s^{1-t/t_{\mathrm{max}}}.$$ Its starting value $\sigma_s$ should be large enough such that most of the map is initially affected. As the training progresses the width shrinks until only the BMU and its closest neighbors are significantly affected by new data.
Assignment of galaxies to cells
-------------------------------
After the training has converged, we use the $\chi^2$ distance introduced in to assign galaxies to a cell. Given its input vector, $\vec{x}$, and its covariance matrix, $\vec{\Sigma}$, a galaxy has a probability of belonging to cell $c$ given by $$\label{assignment_som}
-2\ln p(c|\vec{x}, \vec{\Sigma}) = (\vec{x}-\vec{\omega_{c}})^\top\vec{\Sigma^{-1}}(\vec{x}-\vec{\omega_{c}}) + \mathrm{const.},$$ where $\omega_{c}$ is the weight vector of cell $c$. In this paper, the deep measurements are considered noiseless, while the wide measurements have noise. When the measurement is considered noiseless, the identity is used for the covariance matrix, $\vec{\Sigma}$. When the measurement has noise, we compute the full inverse covariance matrix in . We present how to calculate the inverse covariance matrix in Appendix \[app:covariance\]. For computational efficiency and tractability, we would like to keep a single integer for each galaxy instead of a vector in $\mathbb{R}^C$ where C is the number of cells. To this end, we keep only the cell which maximizes the above probability.
Scheme implementation
---------------------
The computation of the redshift distributions with the pheno-$z$ scheme (see ) is depicted in . To compute $p(z|c)$, a ‘Deep SOM’ is trained using all galaxies in the deep sample. A redshift distribution can be computed for each SOM cell $c$ by assigning the redshift sample to the Deep SOM. A second SOM, the ‘Wide SOM’, is trained on the wide sample. Assignment of the galaxies in this sample to the Wide SOM yields $p(\hat{c}|\hat{s})$. The transfer function, $p(c|\hat{c}, \hat{s})$, is computed by assigning the galaxies in the overlap sample to the Deep and the Wide SOMs. The tomographic bins are obtained using the procedure described in using the assignment of the redshift and overlap samples to the Deep SOM as well as the transfer function, $p(c|\hat{c}, \hat{s})$.
In our scheme, three probability distributions must be obtained to compute . We need to know the probability that a galaxy ends up in wide cell, $\hat{c}$, if it passes selection $\hat{s}$. This is obtained as the fractional occupation of $\hat{c}$ by the sample of interest. We can make use of our single cell assignment to compute it: $$p(\hat{c}|\hat{s})=\frac{1}{n_{\hat{s}}} \sum_{i\in \hat{s}} \delta_{\hat{c}, \hat{c}_i},$$ where $n_{\hat{s}}$ is the number of galaxies in the sample of interest, $\delta$ is the Kronecker delta and $\hat{c}_i$ is a number representing the cell that maximizes the probability given in for the *i*th object in the sample.
The second necessary piece of our scheme is the transfer function, $p(c|\hat{c},\hat{s})$, which characterizes the mapping between wide and deep measurements. Using the definition of conditional probability, we can define it as $$\label{transfer_matrix_bayes}
p(c|\hat{c},\hat{s}) = \frac{p(c,\hat{c}|\hat{s})}{p(\hat{c}|\hat{s})}.$$ This transfer function is the fractional occupation of deep cell, $c$, given wide cell, $\hat{c}$. Galaxies of the overlap sample are assigned to cells $c$ and $\hat{c}$ based on their deep and wide information, respectively. To compute , we count the number of instances of the unique combination $(c,\hat{c})$ and divide it by the number of instances of $\hat{c}$. The transfer function becomes: $$\label{transfer_matrix_assign_unique}
p(c|\hat{c},\hat{s}) = \frac{\sum_{i\in\hat{s}}\delta_{c,c_i}\delta_{\hat{c},\hat{c_i}}}{\sum_{i\in\hat{s}}\delta_{c,c_i}},$$ where $c_i$, $\hat{c_i}$ are the best matching deep and wide cells, respectively, of the *i*th galaxy in the overlap sample which has selection $\hat{s}$. This overlap sample can be obtained using either actual galaxies which are measured in both the deep and the wide survey or artificial wide-field measurement of the deep sample as discussed in .
The last piece of our scheme is the redshift distribution $p(z|c)$ of deep cell $c$. We use the assignment of the redshift sample to the deep cells $c$. For each cell $c$, we compute $p(z|c)$ as a normalized redshift histogram with bin spacing $\Delta z = 0.02$. This resolution is sufficient since we only use combinations of these histograms, corresponding to wide-field bins with relatively wide redshift distributions, for our metrics.
\[sec:implementation\_Y3\]
{width="\linewidth"}
Fiducial SOMs {#sec:fiducial_SOM}
=============
We must choose the features () used to train the SOMs as well as their hyperparameters (), i.e. parameters whose values are not learned during the training process. Intuition guides the search for the best parameters but empirical evidence settles the final choices. The choice of the number of cells for both SOMs is specific to the samples available in DES Y3.
Choice of features {#sec:choice_features}
------------------
A SOM needs input vectors, $\vec{x}$, on which it is trained. The available data consist of flux measurements, $f_x$, in a set of electromagnetic bands ($x = u, g, r, ...$). Using those raw fluxes would not be optimal as the value in each band is highly correlated with the overall luminosity of the galaxy, which spans several orders of magnitude. This would result in an overweighting of the brightest or the faintest galaxies. A common choice to overcome this problem is to use magnitudes: $$m_x = m_{0,x} - 2.5 \log_{10} f_x,$$ for the zeropoint $m_{0,x}$ in $x$ band. The drawback of this method is that some faint galaxies will have a zero – or even negative – measured flux in some bands. Those measurements are undefined in the magnitude system. Removing those faint objects is unacceptable as it would introduce an additional selection that may bias cosmological analyses. Preserving the information about a galaxy’s SED contained in the non-measurement of some band is not easily achievable using the magnitude system.
We instead adopt an inverse hyperbolic sine transformation of flux known as ‘luptitude’ after @Lupton1999 ([-@Lupton1999]): $$\label{luptitutude}
\mu_x=\mu_0 - a\sinh^{-1}\left(\frac{f_x}{2b}\right).$$ The zeropoint is $\mu_0=m_0-2.5\log b$, $a=2.5 \log e$ and $b$ is a softening parameter that sets the scale at which luptitudes transition between logarithmic and linear behavior. For bright galaxies (large $f_x$), luptitudes behave like magnitudes whereas for faint galaxies (small $f_x$), they behave like fluxes. Zero or negative fluxes are well defined with this parametrization which allows us to avoid throwing away any galaxy. Luptitudes properly manage both the bright and faint ends of the luminosity function. Our analysis is robust to the choice of softening parameter $b$ which is discussed in Appendix \[app:softB\].
Luptitudes could be used as entries of the input vector, $\vec{x}$, but for a sufficient set of measured colors we expect most of the information regarding redshift to lie in the shape of the SED. The flux of a galaxy in this case is only a weak prior on its redshift. We find that in practice the addition of total flux (or magnitude) to the deep SOM does not improve the performance of the algorithm. Ratios of fluxes (or equivalently difference of magnitudes) appear to encode the most relevant information to discriminate redshifts and types. Similarly to color, which is a difference of magnitudes, we can define ‘lupticolor’ which is a difference of luptitudes. For high signal-to-noise ratios, a lupticolor is equivalent to the ratio of fluxes. For noisy detections, it becomes the preferable flux difference.
Our tests show that adding a luptitude to the input vector of the Deep SOM slightly decreases the ability of the method to estimate the redshift distributions whereas for the Wide SOM, it improves it. The difference lies in the number of bands available. The deep input vector has 8 lupticolors which are enough to characterize the redshift of the galaxy. For the wide input vector with only three lupticolors, the luptitude adds information and helps break degeneracies at low redshift.
The input vector of the Deep SOM is chosen to be a list of lupticolors with respect to the luptitude in *i* band: $$\vec{x} = (\mu_{x_1}{-}\mu_i, ..., \mu_{x_8}{-}\mu_i),$$ where the bands $x_1$ to $x_8$ are $ugrzYJHK$. This choice will be referred to as a lupticolor Deep SOM. For the input vector of the Wide SOM, we also use lupticolors with respect to the luptitude in *i* band, and we add the luptitude in *i* band: $$\vec{\hat{x}} = (\mu_i, \mu_g{-}\mu_i, \mu_r{-}\mu_i, \mu_z{-}\mu_i).$$ In the case of the wide field, where only few colors are measures, we find empirically that addition of the luptitude improves the performance of the scheme. This choice will be referred to as a ‘lupticolor-luptitude’ Wide SOM.
Choice of hyperparameters {#sec:choice_hyperparam}
-------------------------
As presented in , the SOM has various hyperparameters. Apart from one key parameter, the number of cells in the SOM, both the Wide and the Deep SOMs share the same hyperparameters.
The topology of the two-dimensional grid (square, rectangular, spherical or hexagonal), the boundary conditions (periodic or not) as well as the number of cells must be decided. @CarrascoKind2014 ([-@CarrascoKind2014]) showed that spherical or rectangular grids with periodic boundary conditions performed better. The drawback of the spherical topology is that the number of cells cannot be easily tuned. This leads us to choose the square grid with periodic boundary conditions.
Our pheno-$z$ scheme assumes that $p(z|c,\hat{c}, \hat{s})=p(z|c)$, i.e. once the assignment to a Deep SOM cell, $c$, is known, a galaxy’s noisy photometry, embodied by its assignment to the Wide SOM cell, $\hat{c}$, does not add information. This is only true if the cell $c$ represents a negligible volume in the *griz* color space compared to the photometric uncertainty. This assumption requires a sufficient number of Deep SOM cells. A second assumption of our method is that we have a $p(z|c)$ for each Deep SOM cell, $c$, which is only true if we have a sufficient number of galaxies with redshifts to sample the distribution in each cell. While for a narrow distribution $p(z|c)$ a small number of galaxies suffices, this still limits the number of Deep SOM cells. Those two competing effects lead us to set the Deep SOM to a 128 by 128 grid (16,384 cells). This setup reduces the number of empty cells for a COSMOS-like redshift sample ($\sim135,000$ galaxies) while producing rather sharp phenotypes, i.e. the volume of each cell in color space is small.
The number of cells of the Wide SOM is dictated by the photometric uncertainty in the wide measurements. By scanning over the number of Wide SOM cells, we found that a 32 by 32 grid offers a sufficient amount of cells to describe the possible phenotypes observed in the wide survey, and that larger numbers of cells did not significantly change the calibration.
The pheno-$z$ method is robust to other available hyperparameters. The learning rate, $a_0$, which governs how much each step in the training process affects the map, has a negligible impact unless we choose extreme values (0.01, 0.99). It is set to $a_0=0.5$. The initial width of the neighborhood function, $\sigma_s$, is set to the full size of the SOM. This allows the first training vectors to affect the whole map. The maximum number of training steps, $t_{\mathrm{max}}$, must be large enough such that the SOM converges. By scanning over $t_{\mathrm{max}}$, we found that two million steps are sufficient.
We also looked at three-dimensional SOMs and found that an extra dimension for the same number of cells had a negligible impact on the results.
Validation of the fiducial SOMs
-------------------------------
Our fiducial pheno-$z$ scheme uses a 128 by 128 lupticolor Deep SOM and a 32 by 32 lupticolor-luptitude Wide SOM. In Appendix \[app:val\_features\_size\], we present the assessment of this choice on our redshift calibration procedure. Using other feature combinations for the Deep and Wide SOMs results in a similar calibration. The feature selection does not matter much but our choice has the conceptual advantages described in . While using a limited redshift sample, increasing the number of cells of the Deep SOM leads to a higher calibration error whereas increasing the number of cells of the Wide SOM does not affect it.
Pheno-$z$ scheme performance with unlimited samples {#sec:capabilities}
===================================================
In this section, we use our pheno-$z$ scheme with the fiducial SOMs presented in the preceding section to test its capabilities. We show that, with large enough redshift, deep, and overlap samples, the choices made in the methodology allow a redshift calibration without relevant biases. The effect of limited samples is evaluated separately in .
The most relevant metrics to assess performance for weak lensing purposes [@Bonnett2016; @Hoyle2018] are the differences in the mean and the width of the true redshift distribution and the one estimated with the pheno-$z$ scheme, in each tomographic bin:
\[metrics\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{metric_dz}
\Delta \langle z \rangle &= \langle z_{\mathrm{true}}\rangle-\langle z_{\mathrm{pheno}}\rangle, \; \text{and} \\ \label{metric_dsigmas}
\Delta \sigma(z) &= \sigma(z_{\mathrm{true}})-\sigma(z_{\mathrm{pheno}}).\end{aligned}$$
These metrics are the calibration error of the method. Averaging them over many (hypothetical) random realizations of a survey gives the bias of the method. In the Y1 analysis, the detailed shape of the redshift distributions had little impact. Switching the redshift distribution shape directly estimated from resampled COSMOS objects [@Hoyle2018] to the one estimated using Bayesian Photometric Redshifts [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BPZ;</span> @Benitez2000], a template fitting method, had little impact on the cosmological inference from cosmic shear as long as the mean redshift of the distributions agreed within uncertainties [@Troxel2018]. This is consistent with the finding of @Bonnett2016 for the DES Science Verification analysis. For future, statistically improved, lensing measurements, this simplification may however become invalid. We therefore focus our attention on the first metric for tuning and validating the method, but aim to be able to characterize the biases in general (i.e. in terms of possible realizations of the redshift distributions).
The bias is determined under ‘perfect’ conditions that are defined by the following requirements: the redshift sample is identical to the deep sample; the overlap sample is identical to the wide sample; and both are large. The galaxies of all samples are randomly sampled from the full DES Y3 footprint. We use our usual selection $m_{\mathrm{obs},i}<23.5$ for the wide/overlap sample. A hundred iterations of this best case scenario are run where the redshift/deep sample is made of $10^6$ galaxies and the wide/overlap sample is made of $2\cdot10^6$ galaxies. presents the means of the metrics defined in for this best case scenario for our fiducial lupticolor 128 by 128 Deep SOM coupled to a lupticolor-luptitude 32 by 32 Wide SOM. For comparison the same test is performed with a lupticolor 256 by 256 Deep SOM. As expected, from the reduction of biases related to discretization, increasing the number of cells in the Deep SOM results in a lower bias. This means that there are more than 16,384 possible phenotypes (as the 128 by 128 Deep SOM has 16,384 cells). The first two bins are the most affected: increasing the number of cells by a factor of four reduces the bias, $\langle\Delta \langle z \rangle\rangle$, by a factor of two. Note that this increase in resolution is only possible with the idealized, large redshift/deep sample used in this test. If our available redshift sample were larger, we would use a larger SOM.
\[tab:bias\_best\_case\]
Sources of uncertainty due to limited samples {#sec:sources_uncertainty}
=============================================
Deep multi-band observations and, more so, observations that accurately determine galaxy redshifts with spectroscopy or otherwise, require substantial telescope resources. As a result, in practice, deep and redshift samples are limited in galaxy count and area. In this section, we determine the impact of these limited samples on redshift calibration using our scheme.
Limited samples can impact redshift calibration both as a statistical error – i.e. depending on the field or sample of galaxies chosen for deep and redshift observations – or as a systematic error – i.e. as a bias due to the limited resolution by which galaxies sample color space (see also ). We use the metrics presented in to assess this limitation: $\langle \Delta \langle z \rangle \rangle$ over many realizations of our samples assesses the systematic error in mean redshift, whereas $\sigma(\Delta \langle z \rangle)$ is a statistical error due to variance in the samples used.
To this end, we use the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Buzzard</span> simulated catalogs to assess systematic and statistical errors. Each source of uncertainty, i.e. the effect of limiting each sample, is separately probed in the subsections below. At each iteration of a test, only the sample of interest is modified and the other fixed samples are sampled randomly over the full DES footprint and with a sufficient number to avoid a sample variance or shot noise contribution. In , we discuss the perhaps counter-intuitive finding that the statistical error in a realistic use case is limited by the size of the *deep* sample, not the redshift sample.
Limited redshift sample {#sec:lim_spec_sample}
-----------------------
The redshift sample used to estimate $p(z|c)$ is limited in two ways. First, it contains a finite number of galaxies; second, the galaxies it contains come from a small field on the sky: COSMOS. This implies that the scatter of the redshift calibration error, $\sigma(\Delta \langle z \rangle)$, has contributions from shot noise and sample variance, respectively.
### Shot noise {#sec:sample_variance}
One can assess the effect of shot noise in the redshift sample by computing the redshift distribution of a sample of galaxies many times using our pheno-$z$ method. At each iteration we randomly select a fixed number of galaxies for our redshift sample. In this test, we do not want to include sample variance, thus the redshift sample is also composed of galaxies randomly selected over the full DES footprint.
The left panel of shows the shot noise as a function of the number of galaxies in the redshift sample. If the number of galaxies is too low, there is a significant scatter in $\Delta\langle z \rangle$, but with more than $\sim10^5$ galaxies, the scatter reaches a plateau at the $2\text{--}4 \cdot 10^{-4}$ level which is well below our requirements ($\sigma_{\Delta z} \sim 0.01$). Note that the first and last bins exhibit more shot noise probably due to the hard boundaries at $z=0$ and $z=1.5$.
{width="\linewidth"}
### Sample variance
This effect stems from the fact that the selection of galaxies depends on the environment: as the matter field is not homogeneous on small scales, different lines of sight have different distributions of galaxies.
With a redshift sample that is small on the sky, subsets of galaxies contained in this sample have the same environment which influences their overall properties (notably redshift and colors). This sample variance was a major limitation in the DES Y1 redshift calibration. To test the effect of sample variance we can repeat our calibration method many times with a redshift sample coming from a different part of the sky at each iteration. The top plot in shows the result of one iteration with a redshift sample made of 135,000 galaxies sampled from a 1.38 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ field. The estimated distribution has many spikes. Those are caused by the incomplete population of galaxies in the sample: galaxies have similar redshifts and colors. Many Deep SOM cells that should have broader redshift distributions end up being peaked due to the presence of a galaxy cluster in the redshift field. When the redshift sample is limited to a small field on the sky, the $p(z|c)$ is strongly structured by sample variance.
{width="0.7\linewidth"}
We test the effect of sample variance as a function of the redshift field area available. To avoid shot noise effects, we sample the same number of galaxies for redshift fields of different sizes. The sample variance is measured as the standard deviation of the difference between the mean of the true redshift distribution and the mean of the pheno-$z$ estimation. As expected, it decreases as the area increases. This effect is shown in the right panel of for a fixed number of galaxies of $10^5$. The first tomographic bin has a higher level of sample variance because of higher density fluctuations due to the smaller volume at low redshift.
For the DES Y3 calibration, we expect that the redshift sample will contain about 135,000 galaxies in a 1.38 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ field from COSMOS. The expected sample variance from such a field is quoted in for two different sets of VISTA bands used. Using the *Y* band, we expect uncertainties of the order $\sigma(\Delta\langle z \rangle)\sim0.001$ from sample variance alone. Relative to , we find that for COSMOS, this effect dominates by a factor of five, compared to shot noise. For comparison, DES Y1 redshift calibration [@Hoyle2018] achieved a typical $\sigma(\Delta\langle z \rangle) \sim 0.02$, with sample variance (labeled ‘COSMOS footprint sampling’ in their Table 2) contributing $\sim0.007$ in quadrature to the uncertainty. Despite using an identical sample of galaxies as @Hoyle2018, our pheno-$z$ method reveals a net reduction of the sample variance in the COSMOS redshift information, owing to augmentation of the estimate of multi-color density of galaxies with a larger, purely photometric, deep sample. The main source of sample variance is the limited size of the deep sample () which, however, can be more easily extended than the redshift sample.
Limited overlap sample
----------------------
We estimate the overlap sample by drawing galaxies from the deep fields (i.e. the overlap between deep DES *ugriz* and VISTA *YJHKs* or *JHKs*; see ) over the full DES footprint with the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Balrog</span> algorithm. In this section we test what size of the overlap sample is required.
We assume the deep sample is artificially drawn at random locations over the footprint, with $N$ realizations of each galaxy over the full footprint. $N$ must be sufficient to provide enough deep-wide tuples to populate the transfer function, $p(c|\hat{c},\hat{s})$, and avoid noise introduced by unevenly sampling observing conditions.
Our investigation shows that increasing $N$ from 5 to 50 has no impact on the mean and standard deviation of the calibration error, $\Delta \langle z \rangle$. We thus use 10 realizations at different random positions (i.e. with different noise realizations) of each deep field galaxy. This corresponds to 1–2% ratio of galaxy count in the overlap to wide sample for DES Y3.
Limited deep sample {#sec:lim_deep_sample}
-------------------
The overlap sample used to compute the transfer function, $p(c|\hat{c},\hat{s})$, is limited by the deep sample. Indeed, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Balrog</span> takes as input the galaxies measured in the deep survey, which spans only a limited area (see ). We first look at the sample variance in the overlap sample due to the limited area of the deep sample. Secondly, we look at the trade-offs between the number of VISTA bands used and the area available.
### Sample variance
As the area is bigger than the one of the redshift sample, we might expect less sample variance coming from the overlap sample. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The transfer function is sensitive to changes in $p(c, \hat{c})$ due to sample variance. Although the reconstructed redshift distributions, shown on the bottom plot in , do not exhibit the spikes produced by the limited redshift sample shown on the top plot, the scatter of the calibration error, $\Delta\langle z \rangle$, is three to five times larger, as reported in . The sample variance of the deep sample dominates over the one of the redshift sample. We are learning a noisy realization of the distribution of multi-band deep colors given a wide-field flux measurement, and so are incorrectly learning the distribution of SEDs given our selection and observed galaxy colors.
### Number of bands vs. deep area {#sec:Yband_area}
As described in and , depending on which VISTA bands are used the available area in the deep sample will be different. Either we use *YJHKs* and have 7.99 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ of deep fields in three places or we drop the *Y* band and have 9.93 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ in four fields. Those two possibilities are tested empirically.
We repeat the tests performed on the limited redshift sample () and on the limited deep sample () without the *Y* band and with the increased area. The results, shown in , show two opposite trends. The bias, $\langle\Delta \langle z \rangle\rangle$, is significantly larger without the *Y* band for the last bin and almost unchanged for the other bins. At large redshift, the *Y* band provides valuable information necessary to estimate correctly the redshift distribution. The bias is not sensitive to the area used but to the number of bands available. On the contrary, the variance of the calibration error is affected by the size of the deep field. Without the *Y* band, the standard deviation of the calibration error, $\sigma(\Delta \langle z \rangle)$, is smaller by about 15% because this option provides a larger deep field area.
The two effects – a bigger deep field area and one less band – have opposite impact of about the same amplitude. A reduction in bias in the high redshift bin is particularly beneficial and thus may favor including $Y$.
Impact of empty Deep SOM cells {#sec:empty_deep_som_cells}
------------------------------
When computing the redshift distributions using , the $p(c_e|\hat{c},\hat{s})$ of empty cells, $c_e$, is set to zero. To check that this does not introduce a bias, we compute the ‘true’ redshift distributions of the empty cells by assigning a sample of $5\cdot10^5$ galaxies to the Deep SOM. A redshift distribution is obtained for the initially empty cells and used in our $p(z|\hat{B}, \hat{s})$ computation. In , we compare the resulting bias in the two cases: with empty cells ignored and with empty cells filled with a large number of galaxies to be as close to the ‘true’ redshift distribution as we can get. This latter method is equivalent to a ‘perfect’ interpolation to the empty cells. We therefore conclude that ignoring empty cells does not introduce a relevant bias. In practice, since larger numbers of cells could be empty in the case of sparse redshift samples, and since spectroscopic samples (rather than complete redshifts over a field) may suffer selection biases, the impact of cells without redshift information should be checked.
\[tab:bestcase\_interpolation\]
Some of the cells ($\sim50$) remain empty even when the very large sample is assigned to the Deep SOM. Those cells are often located where there is a sharp color and redshift gradient. This results from the SOM training: both sides of the boundary evolve differently pulling the cells to empty regions of color space. These cells are not a problem in our scheme as they never enter any computation.
Discussion of statistical error budget {#sec:strangecv}
--------------------------------------
The comparison of and shows that the limited area of the deep photometric sample is dominating the statistical error budget of redshift calibration for a DES-like setting, by a factor of several, rather than the limited size of a COSMOS-like redshift sample (see ).
This finding can be understood from the role of these samples in our scheme. The redshift sample informs the redshift distribution of galaxies at given multi-band color. Because at most multi-band colors this redshift distribution is narrow, there is little room for sample variance – regardless of their position in the sky, any set of redshift galaxies of the same multi-band color will be very similar in mean redshift. Increasing the number of accurate redshifts, or spreading them over a larger area, reduces this variance further (see ), but it is already at a tolerable level for a COSMOS-like sample.
The deep sample, while not adding accurate redshift information, constrains the density of galaxies in multi-band color space, i.e. the mix of multi-band colors that corresponds to a given few-band color observed in the wide field. Uncertain information about this distribution can be seen as an incorrect prior on the abundance of galaxy templates, causing an inaccurate breaking of the type/redshift degeneracy.
This finding represents an opportunity: by separating the abundance aspect of sample variance from the redshift sample, it allows us to augment the scarce information on accurate galaxy redshifts with a larger, complete sample for which deep multi-band photometry can be acquired with relatively modest observational effort.
Impact of analysis choices for DES Y3 weak lensing {#sec:refinement}
==================================================
In this section, we assess the robustness of our method when the quality of the inputs decreases. We first test a more realistic selection, $\hat{s}$, for the wide and overlap samples in . The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> [@Huff2017; @Sheldon2017] weak lensing analysis requires the use of fluxes measured by the shape measurement algorithm to correct for selection biases. We test the effect of this noisier photometry in . Finally, we test the possibility of dropping the *g* band in the Wide SOM in . The combined effect of these realistic conditions is discussed in .
We compare those variations of the scheme to a ‘standard’ pheno-$z$ scheme which uses DES *ugriz* and VISTA *YJHKs* bands for the Deep SOM and DES *griz* for the Wide SOM, a 1.38 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ redshift sample, a 7.99 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ deep sample and a hard cut $m_{\mathrm{obs},i}<23.5$ as the wide selection. In this standard scheme, 10 realizations of each deep field galaxy at different random positions constitute the overlap sample. The usual metrics for this standard scheme are presented in .
[@l\*[11]{}[S\[table-format=1.4, round-mode=places,round-precision=4, group-digits=false\]]{}@]{} \[-3pt\][**Variation**]{} & & & & & & & & & &\
(lr)[2-11]{} & &\
(lr)[1-1]{} (lr)[2-6]{}(lr)[7-11]{} Standard & -0.007282 & -0.004013 & 0.000637 & 0.001587 & 0.005594 & 0.007652 & 0.004196 & 0.002786 & 0.003273 & 0.003691\
w/ weak lensing selection$^a$ & -0.005708 & -0.004044 & 0.000311 & 0.002744 & 0.005748 & 0.008316 & 0.004626 & 0.004231 & 0.002967 & 0.004212\
w/ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes$^b$ & -0.008891 & -0.004413 & 0.000081 & 0.002180 & 0.006886 & 0.007659 & 0.004911 & 0.003906 & 0.003317 & 0.003739\
w/ only *riz*$^c$ & -0.007003 & -0.004999 & 0.001929 & 0.000635 & 0.006117 & 0.007059 & 0.005132 & 0.003564 & 0.003626 & 0.003833\
w/ decreased softening parameter$^d$ & -0.007430 & -0.005286 & -0.001229 & -0.000533 & 0.004381 & 0.007169 & 0.003961 & 0.003432 & 0.002794 & 0.003253\
& &\
(lr)[1-1]{} (lr)[2-6]{}(lr)[7-11]{} Standard & -0.004825 & -0.004463 & -0.005671 & -0.005382 & -0.004385 & 0.003638 & 0.002610 & 0.002915 & 0.002405 & 0.003688\
w/ weak lensing selection$^a$ & -0.000912 & -0.004316 & -0.004418 & -0.004202 & -0.003882 & 0.004292 & 0.003533 & 0.003902 & 0.002734 & 0.003516\
w/ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes$^b$ & -0.004657 & -0.004000 & -0.005294 & -0.004816 & -0.003629 & 0.003928 & 0.003073 & 0.003687 & 0.002956 & 0.003894\
w/ only *riz*$^c$ & -0.004292 & -0.002877 & -0.005380 & -0.005109 & -0.003423 & 0.003550 & 0.004250 & 0.003410 & 0.002873 & 0.003458\
w/ decreased softening parameter$^d$ & -0.003444 & -0.004135 & -0.005149 & -0.004773 & -0.003886 & 0.003550 & 0.003274 & 0.003017 & 0.002645 & 0.003460\
\
\
\
\[tab:YJHK\_comparisons\]
Weak lensing selection $\hat{s}$ {#sec:wl-selection}
--------------------------------
In the above tests, we used a simple selection for the wide and overlap samples. Only galaxies with $m_{\mathrm{obs},\,i}<23.5$ were selected. Here we run our pheno-$z$ scheme with a more refined selection criterion. The goal is to more accurately mimic the selection effect produced by the shape measurement algorithm. For this purpose, we select only galaxies for which $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wl_selection}
m_{\mathrm{obs},\,r} < -2.5\;\log_{10}(0.5)+l_r,\; \mathrm{and} \\
\sqrt{s^2 + (0.13 \cdot \mathrm{psf}_r)^2} > 0.1625 \cdot \mathrm{psf}_r,
\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{\mathrm{obs},\,r}$ is the observed *r* band magnitude of the galaxy, $l_r$ is the limiting magnitude in the *r* band of the survey at the galaxy’s position, $s$ is the size of the galaxy and $\text{psf}_r$ is the full width at half maximum of the point spread function in *r* band, both in pixels. The latter is a function of the telescope optics and the astronomical seeing. As many observations of the same line of sight are combined to produce the catalog, the variation is averaged out. We therefore approximate it by $\text{psf}_r = 0.9''$ over the full footprint. The distribution in magnitude of such a sample is shown in .
The values for the mean and standard deviation of the bias using the weak lensing selection described in are presented in (see ‘w/ weak lensing selection’ entry). Using a more refined weak lensing selection than the hard cut at $m_{\mathrm{obs},\,i}<23.5$ used throughout this work does not introduce any bias but slightly increases the variance.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes {#sec:metacal_flux}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For our cosmology analysis, we must understand if, when sheared, a galaxy’s tomographic bin changes. The shape algorithm – <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> – allows us to artificially shear the galaxies and measure their resulting fluxes. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> flux measurement is noisier than the usual multi-object fitting [MOF; @Drlica-Wagner2018 their section 6.3] flux measurement used by DES but the tomographic binning must be performed on <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes for the reason mentioned above [see also @Zuntz2018 their section 7.4]. The estimation of the redshift distribution could then be performed using MOF photometry. To achieve this, we would need to introduce a third SOM and compute a transfer function between MOF fluxes and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes. We suspect that introducing a third SOM would not improve our calibration. To avoid this complication we can perform the estimation of redshift distributions using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes.
The simulated fluxes used throughout this work were tailored to match MOF measurement errors. On average the errors are $\sqrt{2}$ larger for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> measurements, i.e. $\sigma_{\mathrm{MCAL}} = \sqrt{2}\sigma_{\mathrm{MOF}}$. We can build fake <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes, $f_{\mathrm{MCAL}}$, using our ‘MOF’ fluxes, $f_{\mathrm{MOF}}$: $$\label{metacal_flux}
f_{\mathrm{MCAL}} = f_{\mathrm{MOF}} + \sqrt{\sigma_{\mathrm{MCAL}}^2-\sigma_{\mathrm{MOF}}^2}\cdot\mathcal{N}(0,1).$$ This results in $f_{\mathrm{MCAL}} = f_{\rm MOF}+\sigma_{\mathrm{MOF}}\cdot\mathcal{N}(0,1)$, where $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ is a normal distribution with zero mean and standard deviation one. Note that this neglects any systematic differences between <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> and MOF fluxes, which would be compensated by the transfer function derived from deep galaxies with wide-field <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> flux realizations.
We run our pheno-$z$ scheme replacing the wide ‘MOF’ fluxes by the mock <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes. As can be seen in (entry ‘w/ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes’), this results in a slight increase of the bias and variance in calibration.
Dropping the *g* band {#sec:drop_g}
---------------------
Detailed tests on DES Y1 and Y3 data (Mike Jarvis, private communication) and theoretical considerations [@Plazas2012] show that point-spread function (PSF) modeling in DES is most difficult in the *g* band. The expected and observed bias in PSF modeling in *g* band significantly biases shape measurement. At a secondary level, it also biases *g* band photometry. Thus, it may be preferable to run <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> uniquely on the *riz* bands. In this case, the tomographic binning must be performed only on those bands. To simplify the comparisons and separate the different effects, we use only the *riz* bands, but still use ‘MOF’ fluxes. We perform our pheno-$z$ scheme, training the Wide SOM on *riz* bands. The result of dropping the *g* band is shown in (entry ‘w/ only *riz*’). The observed degradation is similarly slight to the one produced by the use of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes.
The *g* band carries some useful information, especially at low redshift. Indeed, dropping this band results in larger bins. This effect is the strongest for the lowest redshift bin as can be seen in , where the true redshift distributions obtained using *griz* or *riz* are compared.
![Comparison of redshift distributions of bins defined with and without *g* band color in addition to *riz*. Information contained in *g* is particularly useful at low redshift. We show the true redshift distributions. The calibration of mean redshift does not substantially suffer from the loss of *g* band data in the wide field.[]{data-label="fig:Riz_griz_metacal_mof_comparison"}](Figures/Riz_griz_comparison.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Pheno-$z$ uncertainty for DES Y3 {#sec:z_uncertainty_Y3}
================================
We integrate the different variations discussed in to be as close as possible to the actual redshift distribution estimation of DES Y3 weak lensing sources.
We make use of three deep fields of 3.32, 3.29 and 1.38 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ (see ), respectively, to train a 128 by 128 Deep SOM. The input vectors are eight lupticolors relative to the *i* band (using DES *ugriz* and VISTA *YJHKs*). The redshift sample is made of 135,000 galaxies sampled from a 1.38 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ field mimicking COSMOS. Each deep field galaxy is painted 10 times over the full DES footprint to yield the overlap sample used to compute the transfer function. The wide sample is made of randomly selected galaxies over the full DES footprint. The wide and overlap sample selection is performed using the refined weak lensing selection (see ), and the samples use mock <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metacalibration</span> fluxes (see ). The 32 by 32 Wide SOM is trained on the wide sample, and does not use the *g* band (see ). Its input vector is $\vec{x} = (\mu_i, \mu_r-\mu_i, \mu_z-\mu_i)$, where $\mu_x$ is the luptitude in $x$ band (see ). 300 iterations of this pheno-$z$ fiducial scheme are performed with different deep and redshift fields at each iteration. The resulting redshift distributions of the wide sample are presented in and the associated metrics in (entry ‘DES Y3’). The expectation value of the realizations estimates closely the shape of the true redshift distribution. At each redshift, 68% of the realizations are comprised in the light shaded area. This broad region is the result of sample variance.
![Effect of sample variance on the DES Y3 source redshift distributions. 300 realizations of the distributions are computed using the pheno-$z$ scheme. The light shaded regions contain 68% of these realizations at each redshift. Their means (lines) estimate closely the true redshift distributions (dark shaded regions; mildly different in each realization).[]{data-label="fig:Pheno-z_DESY3"}](Figures/Pheno-z_DESY3.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
[@l\*[10]{}[S\[table-format=1.4, round-mode=places,round-precision=4, group-digits=false\]]{}@]{} \[-3pt\][**Pheno-$z$ scheme**]{} & & & & & & & & & &\
(lr)[2-11]{} & &\
(lr)[1-1]{} (lr)[2-6]{}(lr)[7-11]{} DES Y3 & -0.006093 & -0.005594 & 0.000819 & 0.001853 & 0.007972 & 0.007534 & 0.006102 & 0.004734 & 0.003693 & 0.005360\
Bigger deep sample & -0.006321 & -0.005936 & 0.000967 & 0.001820 & 0.007732 & 0.004428 & 0.003882 & 0.003105 & 0.002240 & 0.003315\
Bigger redshift sample & -0.004013 & -0.003293 & 0.001699 & 0.001686 & 0.007697 & 0.004999 & 0.004376 & 0.003866 & 0.003069 & 0.004386\
& &\
(lr)[1-1]{} (lr)[2-6]{}(lr)[7-11]{} DES Y3 & -0.000933 & -0.001647 & -0.003395 & -0.004936 & -0.004096 & 0.004213 & 0.004520 & 0.004160 & 0.002872 & 0.003632\
Bigger deep sample & -0.001330 & -0.001964 & -0.003662 & -0.005403 & -0.004159 & 0.002735 & 0.002716 & 0.002368 & 0.001784 & 0.002309\
Bigger redshift sample & -0.000728 & -0.000918 & -0.002459 & -0.004340 & -0.003572 & 0.003301 & 0.003371 & 0.002775 & 0.002088 & 0.002782\
\[tab:final\_uncertainty\]
![Predicted uncertainty in the mean redshift for DES Y3 () compared to the uncertainty of the DES Y1 analysis with and without clustering information [@Hoyle2018]. The potential impact on this uncertainty of a bigger deep or redshift sample is also presented (dark red vs. brighter red bars). A caveat to the comparison to DES Y1 is that, unlike the Y1 uncertainty shown here, the pheno-$z$ calibration uncertainty is correlated between bins, however in a way that can be accounted for in the cosmological likelihood.[]{data-label="fig:DES_Y3_uncertainty"}](Figures/DES_Y3_uncertainty.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
To obtain the DES Y3 redshift uncertainty for the *i*th bin, $\sigma_{\Delta z^i}$, we take the root mean square of $\langle\Delta\langle z \rangle\rangle$ and add $\sigma(\Delta\langle z \rangle)$ of the *i*th tomographic bin in quadrature: $$\sigma_{\Delta z^i}= \sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{bin}}}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\mathrm{bin}}}\langle \Delta \langle z \rangle \rangle_j^2 +\sigma(\Delta\langle z \rangle)_i^2}.
\label{eqn:total_uncertainty}$$ The result is presented in and compared to the DES Y1 results [@Hoyle2018]. The pheno-$z$ scheme shows a net improvement by a factor of 2 (55–69% compared to the Y1 uncertainty without clustering and 43–60% with clustering; see @Davis2017, @Gatti2018, and @Cawthon2018 for details on the clustering redshift method applied to DES Y1).
The $\Delta \langle z \rangle$ in different bins are correlated which must be accounted for in the inference of cosmological parameters. In the Y1 analysis [@Hoyle2018], the uncertainty on the mean redshift was derived independently for each redshift bin. The off-diagonal elements of the covariance matrix of $\Delta \langle z \rangle$ could not be estimated accurately. @Hoyle2018 showed that increasing the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix by a factor $(1.6)^2$ and zeroing the off-diagonal elements ensured that the uncertainties of any inferred parameters were conservatively estimated for reasonable values of the off-diagonal elements. The DES Y1 values presented in have also been increased by this factor 1.6. We do not include this factor in our DES Y3 estimate, as there we plan to fully marginalize over the correlated redshift distribution uncertainty. Given multiple realizations of the distributions, whose variability due to sample variance is estimated here, we can marginalize over redshift uncertainty fully by directly sampling from these realizations in the cosmological likelihood (Cordero et al. in preparation). This fully accounts for the correlation between the redshift bins and we expect it to yield reduced – yet still conservative – errors on derived quantities, which adds to the improvement in calibration possible with our scheme. The covariance matrix of $\Delta \langle z \rangle$ is presented in . As expected, neighboring bins are more correlated and the correlation is higher at low redshift.
![Correlation matrix of $\Delta \langle z \rangle$ between redshift bins for the DES Y3 configuration.[]{data-label="fig:DES_Y3_correlation_matrix"}](Figures/DES_Y3_correlation_matrix.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Possible improvements {#sec:possible_improvements}
=====================
Our pheno-$z$ scheme applied to the simulated <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Buzzard</span> catalog allows us to investigate how the calibration could be improved with more data. As we have previously seen, the bias is limited by the size of our redshift sample whereas the standard deviation of the calibration error is limited by the size of the deep fields. We investigate how both those effects could be mitigated.
The major contributor to the cosmic variance in our pheno-$z$ scheme are the deep fields. Increasing their area by taking VISTA *YJHKs* images of the DES supernova fields would allow us to reduce the sample variance. The VISTA Extragalactic Infrared Legacy Survey (VEILS)[^3] is currently imaging some of the lacking photometry in *J* and *Ks* bands. We estimate that 15, 8, 14 and 8 VISTA pointings in *Y*, *J*, *H* and *Ks* bands, respectively, would be needed to acquire the remaining uncovered DES supernova fields area. Achieving similar depth to the VIDEO survey (see Table 1 of @Jarvis2013 for planned time per pointing) would require $\sim395$ hours of telescope time. We test this possibility by assuming the availability of five deep fields: one 1.38 $\mathrm{deg}^2$, one 9 $\mathrm{deg}^2$, one 7.5 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ and two 6 $\mathrm{deg}^2$ fields. The mean and standard deviation of the calibration error, $\Delta\langle z \rangle$, over 300 iterations are presented in (see entry ‘Bigger deep sample’). As expected the mean of the bias is marginally reduced by the increase of the deep fields area. As shown in , the standard deviation decreases by 34–41%. This significant reduction of the sample variance can also be seen in the standard deviation of $\Delta\sigma(z)$ which decreases by 35–43%.
![Taking VISTA *YJHKs* measurements in the DES supernova fields would increase the deep field area available by $\sim22\;\mathrm{deg}^2$ which would result in a significant decrease of the sample variance.[]{data-label="fig:DES_Y3_cosmic_variance"}](Figures/DES_Y3_cosmic_variance.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
The bias of the method is limited by the number of galaxies in the redshift sample. As we have seen in , increasing the number of cells in the Deep SOM reduces the bias, but those cells must be populated. Therefore we need a large enough sample to populate a bigger SOM. Let us assume that we can increase the number of galaxies for which we have many-band photo-$z$ by a factor of four and use a 256 by 256 Deep SOM. We suppose that we take many-band measurements in three supplementary COSMOS-like (i.e. 1.38 $\mathrm{deg}^2$) fields in the DES footprint. In each of these fields we sample 135,000 galaxies. As we have seen in , the increase of area should not be contiguous but at different locations on the sky to maximize the sample variance reduction. Furthermore, as the many-bands must include DES *ugriz* and VISTA *YJHKs*, these fields can also be used in the transfer function computation.
The results of increasing the redshift field area by a factor of four is presented in (entry ‘Bigger redshift sample’). The effect on $\Delta\langle z\rangle$ and $\Delta\sigma(z)$ is assessed over 300 iterations. The RMS of the calibration error of mean redshift is decreased by 18%. As the redshift field is also part of the deep fields and is used in the transfer function computation, the standard deviation of $\Delta\langle z\rangle$ also decreases by 17–34%.
While there are advantages to the spatial resolution and wavelength coverage of the space-based observations of the COSMOS field, a multi-medium/narrow-band survey like the Advanced Large Homogeneous Area Medium-Band Redshift Astronomical [ALHAMBRA; @Moles2008] survey with the appropriate depth might also offer the necessary sample of reliable photometric redshifts. The data could be provided by the ongoing Physics of the Accelerating Universe [PAU; @Marti2014; @Eriksen2019] survey or by the planned Javalambre Physics of the Accelerating Universe Astrophysical Survey [J-PAS; @Benitez2014]. Another option would be to use a sufficiently accurate photometric code on the weight vectors of the Deep SOM. This would yield a redshift PDF for each Deep SOM cell.
The method could be extended by incorporating the information contained in the clustering of sources. A hierarchical Bayesian model can be used to combine the pheno-$z$ method with the information contained in the galaxy clustering against a well-characterized tracer population [@Sanchez2018].
Reliability of redshift samples
-------------------------------
One aspect not considered in this work is the reliability of present or obtainable redshift samples. Photometric redshifts based on multi-band fluxes, such as COSMOS [@Laigle2016], are known to suffer from increasing outlier rates towards faint magnitudes. These have recently been found to be a significant concern for the purposes of lensing cosmology, at least under some conditions [@Hildebrandt2018]. Likewise, spectroscopic samples can suffer from outliers due to erroneous line identifications or blends. In addition, such a sample may be incomplete at a given position in multi-band color space, albeit superior to a photometric sample with a limited number of bands [@Gruen2017].
Unless complementary information, e.g. from clustering, is able to counter these sources of potential bias [@Sanchez2018], we thus emphasize that application of our method requires validating that the redshift samples used are sufficiently reliable. While this is not within the scope of the present work, which is primarily meant to establish the statistical benefits of a phenotypic approach that uses deep field photometry as part of wide field redshift calibration, such tests need to be part of any practical application to data.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Inferring accurate redshift distributions from coarse measurements of redshifted source photometry is a difficult task. Improving the characterization of redshift distributions requires breaking type/redshift degeneracies. To this end, we propose a novel method – *phenotypic* redshift – which uses photometric deep fields, where measurements in more bands are available. The information from multi-band deep fields acts as an intermediary between wide-field photometry and accurate redshifts to produce a better mapping in two ways. Firstly, because the deep fields in surveys like DES are larger than existing samples of galaxies with accurately known redshifts, it provides an improved estimate of the distribution of galaxies in color space. Secondly, the deep many-band photometry better breaks type/redshift degeneracies, thereby improving the color/redshift relation applied in the redshift estimation. Importantly, this reduces sample variance and selection effects due to the sparse sample of galaxies with accurate redshifts and therefore leverages this scarce resource towards a more accurate characterization of the target sample’s redshift distribution.
Our implementation of this method uses two self-organizing maps: one to group galaxies into phenotypes based on their observed fluxes in the deep fields, and one to discretize the wide-field flux measurements. By taking actual or simulated observations of the deep fields under wide-field conditions, the transfer of galaxies from cells in one of these maps to the other can be accurately quantified.
Application of the method to simulated galaxy samples allows us to probe the various sources of uncertainty in a coherent manner. We tested the method on a mock DES catalog, emulating a calibration of the DES Year 3 weak lensing analysis using DES deep fields with near-infrared auxiliary data, and COSMOS for redshifts. With these samples, the typical uncertainty on the mean redshift in five tomographic bins is $\sigma_{\Delta z} = 0.00$7, which is about a factor of 2 improvement compared to the Year 1 analysis. The method yields realizations of redshift distributions which can be marginalized in the cosmological parameter likelihood, accounting for the correlation between redshift distributions in different tomographic bins. This finding comes with the caveat, shared among all redshift calibration methods that are based on reference samples, that it assumes perfectly accurate redshifts to be known for the COSMOS-like sample used in the calibration.
About half the error is due to systematic biases, $\langle \Delta z \rangle$, in the method. This bias is limited by our ability to populate the deep field SOM on a fine enough grid. If we had more galaxies with accurate redshifts, we could increase the number of phenotypes. The potential gains are rather modest for the effort required: if DES had three additional COSMOS-like fields, the RMS value of the calibration error would be reduced by 18%. This is a tall order and unlikely to be fulfilled on the timescale of DES. A different solution to the requirement of a high-resolution deep field SOM with redshifts in each cell may be to use a template fitting technique to assign redshift distributions to any cells not covered by spectroscopy.
The error due to sample variance can, on the contrary, be reduced with a somewhat unexpected strategy. We find the sample variance of the method to be dominated by the area covered with deep multi-band photometric observations, rather than the sample of accurate redshifts (). Designs of future imaging surveys should thus maximize the overlap of their deep fields with complementary photometric surveys. For example, $\sim395$ hours of telescope time would be needed to obtain VISTA *YJHKs* measurements over the rest of the DES supernova fields. This would reduce the sample variance by 34–41%, and would also be beneficial to redshift calibrations with the overlapping LSST. The Dark Energy Science Collaboration of LSST aims for $\sigma_{\Delta z}=0.002(1+z)$ in their Year 1 analysis and $\sigma_{\Delta z}=0.001(1+z)$ in their Year 10 analysis [@LSST2018], which are challenging requirements. Our tests indicate that while in principle they could be met by a scheme like the one presented here, this would require both an increase in the resolution of the deep field SOM (and thus a larger sample of galaxies with known redshift and accurate multi-band photometry) and a larger volume of purely photometric optical and near-infrared deep fields.
In DES Y1, the information contained in the clustering of sources was used separately to constrain the redshift distribution. The pheno-$z$ method provides a way of combining flux measurements with information contained in the sources’ position. A hierarchical Bayesian model allows us to combine the pheno-$z$ method and the information contained in the galaxy clustering against a well-characterized tracer population in a robust way [@Sanchez2018]. We intend to apply a variation of this method on DES Y3 data.
Obtaining reliable redshifts to cover the many-color optical/NIR space remains a major observational and modeling challenge. The pheno-$z$ framework can leverage this effort by efficiently using complementary information about the abundance and redshift of observable galaxy types to accurately estimate redshift distributions of ensembles of galaxies selected from photometric data sets.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors thank Jamie McCullough and numerous members of the DES Collaboration for helpful comments on the manuscript.
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC02-76SF00515. Support for DG was provided by NASA through Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship grant number PF5-160138 awarded by the Chandra X-ray Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for NASA under contract NAS8-03060.
Funding for the DES Projects has been provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Ministry of Science and Education of Spain, the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago, the Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University, the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas A&M University, Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos, Funda[ç]{}[ã]{}o Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo [à]{} Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient[í]{}fico e Tecnol[ó]{}gico and the Minist[é]{}rio da Ci[ê]{}ncia, Tecnologia e Inova[ç]{}[ã]{}o, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Collaborating Institutions in the Dark Energy Survey.
The Collaborating Institutions are Argonne National Laboratory, the University of California at Santa Cruz, the University of Cambridge, Centro de Investigaciones Energ[é]{}ticas, Medioambientales y Tecnol[ó]{}gicas-Madrid, the University of Chicago, University College London, the DES-Brazil Consortium, the University of Edinburgh, the Eidgen[ö]{}ssische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Z[ü]{}rich, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Institut de Ci[è]{}ncies de l’Espai (IEEC/CSIC), the Institut de F[í]{}sica d’Altes Energies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Ludwig-Maximilians Universit[ä]{}t M[ü]{}nchen and the associated Excellence Cluster Universe, the University of Michigan, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, the University of Nottingham, The Ohio State University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Portsmouth, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University, the University of Sussex, Texas A&M University, and the OzDES Membership Consortium.
Based in part on observations at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
The DES data management system is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers AST-1138766 and AST-1536171. The DES participants from Spanish institutions are partially supported by MINECO under grants AYA2015-71825, ESP2015-66861, FPA2015-68048, SEV-2016-0588, SEV-2016-0597, and MDM-2015-0509, some of which include ERDF funds from the European Union. IFAE is partially funded by the CERCA program of the Generalitat de Catalunya. Research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) including ERC grant agreements 240672, 291329, and 306478. We acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), through project number CE110001020, and the Brazilian Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia (INCT) e-Universe (CNPq grant 465376/2014-2).
This manuscript has been authored by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.
This paper has gone through internal review by the DES collaboration.
Softening parameter of luptitudes {#app:softB}
=================================
The use of luptitudes to build the input vector of our scheme requires the choice of a softening parameter, $b$, which sets the scale at which luptitudes transition between logarithmic and linear behavior (see ).
Two requirements guide the choice of this parameter. The differences between luptitudes and magnitudes for high signal-to-noise data as well as the luptitude variance at low flux levels should be minimized. The former is the intrinsic goal of luptitudes while the latter is not strictly required. It is just convenient if the luptiude variance at zero flux is comparable to its variance at a small signal-to-noise ratio. These two effects oppose each other. @Lupton1999 minimize a total penalty made of the addition of those two effects modeled as costs. The optimal choice of $b$ with their penalty is $b =1.042\sigma$ where $\sigma^2$ is the variance of the flux. This assumes all objects have the same error.
In reality, measurement errors change as the observation conditions change. It could be possible to set different values of $b$ for different parts of the sky although it is unpractical. We can set $b$ for the whole footprint using a typical seeing quality and sky brightness for a given band. @Lupton1999 show that even if the softening parameter is badly chosen, it does not result in catastrophic definition of luptitudes; we recover the expected behavior.
Our measurement errors in each band $x$, are computed using $$\label{soft_b_sigma_lim}
\sigma_x = \frac{1}{n_{\sigma}}10^{\frac{22.5-l_x}{2.5}},$$ where $l_x$ is the limiting magnitude of the survey in $x$ band and $n_{\sigma}$ is the number of $\sigma$ at which the limiting magnitude is quoted. For the DES bands, the DES Y1 limiting magnitudes of @Drlica-Wagner2018, quoted at 10-$\sigma$, are used : $u=23.7$, $g=23.5$, $r=22.9$, $i=22.2$, $z=25$. DES Y3 has similar depth as Y1, but over the full survey area. For the VISTA bands, we use the VIDEO limiting magnitudes, which are quoted at 5-$\sigma$ : $Y=24.6$, $J=24.5$, $H=24.0$, $Ks=23.5$.
The limiting magnitudes used are conservative as the DES deep measurements are expected to be at a higher depth. Also, our simulations have true fluxes which have no errors. We test the sensitivity of our quoted uncertainties to the softening parameter by running our pheno-$z$ scheme with limiting magnitudes in all deep bands increased by one magnitude (thus decreasing the softening parameter). The result is presented in (entry ‘w/ decreased softening parameter’). There is no significant change in our metrics. Hence, we are insensitive to such a change of the softening parameter.
Validation of feature and SOM size choice {#app:val_features_size}
=========================================
The choice of a lupticolor 128 by 128 Deep SOM coupled to a 32 by 32 Wide SOM must be validated empirically. To this end, we train a variety of 128 by 128 Deep SOM, trained using either colors or lupticolors, and a variety of 32 by 32 Wide SOM, trained on several different features including lupticolors, colors, lupticolors and a luptitude, colors and a magnitude. For this test the samples consist of galaxies randomly selected over the whole Y3 footprint to avoid any sample variance. Also, the number of galaxies in the redshift sample is sufficient to minimize the shot noise effect. The difference in mean redshift between the true distribution and the one estimated with our scheme is reported in . We also report the overlap, $\mathcal{O}$, between bins, i.e. the fraction of galaxies assigned to a bin which does not have the highest $\mathrm{d}n/\mathrm{d}z$ at their true redshift: $$\mathcal{O} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\mathrm{bin}}}\int_{z\,:\,n^{i}(z)<\max_{j} n^{j}(z)} dz\;n^{i}(z)$$ where $n^{i}(z)=p(z|i, \hat{s})N(i)$ is the unnormalized redshift distribution in bin $i$ and $N_{\mathrm{bin}}$ is the number of tomographic bins.
[ll\*[5]{}[S\[table-format=1.4, round-mode=places,round-precision=4, group-digits=false\]]{}c]{} \[-2pt\][**Deep SOM**]{} & \[-2pt\][**Wide SOM**]{} & & \[-2pt\][**Overlap**]{}\
(lr)[3-7]{} & & & & & & &\
color & lupticolor & 0.00006 & -0.00090 & 0.00020 & 0.00335 & 0.01056 & 0.33\
lupticolor & lupticolor & -0.00110 & -0.00220 & -0.00110 & 0.00263 & 0.00799 & 0.34\
lupticolor & lupticolor + luptitude & -0.00292 & -0.00202 & -0.00042 & 0.00223 & 0.00724 & 0.37\
color & lupticolor + luptitude & -0.00159 & -0.00135 & 0.00042 & 0.00217 & 0.01125 & 0.37\
color & color & 0.00050 & -0.00107 & 0.00013 & 0.00374 & 0.01052 & 0.34\
color & color + magnitude & 0.00135 & -0.00091 & 0.00026 & 0.00279 & 0.01031 & 0.38\
\[tab:features\]
We find that the choice of features does not matter very much. The first 4 bins have a calibration error, for all features combination tested, of $\Delta \langle z \rangle < 0.005$ which is acceptable for our purpose. The last bin has a larger calibration error, reaching $\Delta \langle z \rangle > 0.01$, but it is the most suspect one in the simulations as it is constructed from a hard cutoff at $z=1.5$. We stick to the Deep lupticolor and Wide lupticolor-luptitude SOMs for the reasons mentioned in .
To test the impact of the size of the SOMs on our scheme, we use a realistic redshift sample ($10^5$ galaxies) and different SOM sizes. The result, presented in , shows that increasing the size of the Deep SOM results in a larger calibration error whereas increasing the size of the Wide SOM does not result in any improvement. We therefore stick to the 128 by 128 Deep SOM and 32 by 32 Wide SOM.
![Impact of the number of Deep and Wide SOM cells on the redshift distribution estimation. An unbiased method would give $\Delta\langle z\rangle=0$ for all bins (gray dashed line). The Deep SOM is trained on lupticolors and the Wide SOM on lupticolors and the luptitude in *i* band. All SOMs are square and the size given in the legend is the number of cells on a side (e.g. 128 means a 128 by 128 SOM). \[fig:som\_size\]](Figures/SOM_size_comparison.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Calculation of Covariance and Inverse Covariance Matrices {#app:covariance}
=========================================================
We present the analytic forms for calculating the covariance and inverse covariance matrices for two cases:
- [differences of magnitudes or luptitudes with respect to a reference magnitude or luptitude, and including the reference magnitude or luptitude;]{}
- [differences of magnitudes or luptitudes with respect to a reference magnitude or luptitude, *not* including the reference magnitude or luptitude.]{}
For example, we might have the bands $g$, $r$, and $i$, and we might decide to use the $i$ band as the reference band. Let us call the errors in each band $\sigma_x$. We assume each band is independently measured. We define the four combinations of covariance terms between the reference band magnitude and the colors:
- [ The covariance between the reference band magnitude and itself, $$\Sigma_{i, i} = \sigma^2_i \ .$$]{}
- [ The covariance between the reference band magnitude and a color, $$\Sigma_{i, g-i} = -\sigma^2_i \ .$$]{}
- [ The covariance between a color and itself, $$\Sigma_{g-i, g-i} = \sigma^2_g + \sigma^2_i \ .$$]{}
- [ The covariance between one color and a second, $$\Sigma_{g-i, r-i} = \sigma^2_i \ .$$]{}
If our input vector is $\vec{x} = (m_i, m_g-m_i, m_r-m_i)$, then its covariance matrix is $$\Sigma = \begin{bmatrix}
\sigma^2_i & -\sigma^2_i & -\sigma^2_i \\
-\sigma^2_i & \sigma^2_i + \sigma^2_g & \sigma^2_i \\
-\sigma^2_i & \sigma^2_i & \sigma^2_i + \sigma^2_r \\
\end{bmatrix} \ .$$ If our input vector is $\vec{x} = (m_g-m_i, m_r-m_i)$, then its covariance matrix is $$\Sigma = \begin{bmatrix}
\sigma^2_i + \sigma^2_g & \sigma^2_i \\
\sigma^2_i & \sigma^2_i + \sigma^2_r \\
\end{bmatrix} \ .$$
We are interested in the inverse covariance matrix for . We could numerically invert the covariance matrices constructed from the above rules, but we find a significant speedup (about 60 times faster) from using analytic formulas for the inverse covariance. When our input vector is the reference magnitude and differences with respect to the reference band, for example $\vec{x} = (m_i, m_g-m_i, m_r-m_i)$, then the inverse covariance terms are as follows:
- [ The inverse covariance between the reference band magnitude and itself, $$\Sigma^{-1}_{i, i} = \sum_f \frac{1}{\sigma^2_f} \ ,$$ where the sum is over all flux passbands $f$.]{}
- [ The inverse covariance between the reference band magnitude and a color, $$\Sigma^{-1}_{i, g-i} = \frac{1}{\sigma^2_g} \ .$$]{}
- [ The inverse covariance between a color and itself, $$\Sigma^{-1}_{g-i, g-i} = \frac{1}{\sigma^2_g} \ .$$]{}
- [ The inverse covariance between one color and a second, $$\Sigma^{-1}_{g-i, r-i} = 0 \ .$$]{}
When our input vector is only the difference with respect to the reference band, for example $\vec{x} = (m_g-m_i, m_r-m_i)$, then the inverse covariance terms are as follows:
- [The inverse covariance between a color and itself, $$\Sigma^{-1}_{g-i, g-i} = \frac{1}{\sigma^2_g} - \frac{1}{\sigma^4_g} \frac{1}{\sum_f \frac{1}{\sigma^2_f}} \ ,$$ where the sum is over all flux passbands $f$.]{}
- [The inverse covariance between one color and a second, $$\Sigma^{-1}_{g-i, r-i} = -\frac{1}{\sigma^2_g \sigma^2_r} \frac{1}{\sum_f \frac{1}{\sigma^2_f}} \ ,$$ where the sum is over all flux passbands $f$.]{}
These terms are derived by considering the Sherman-Morrison formula: $$\label{eq:sherman-morrison}
(C + u v^T)^{-1} = C^{-1} - \frac{C^{-1} u v^T C^{-1}}{1 + v^T C^{-1} u} \ ,$$ where $\Sigma = C + u v^T$. In our case, $C$ is a diagonal matrix, $C_{j-i, k-i}$ = $\delta_{jk} \sigma^2_{j}$, and $u$ and $v$ are the same vector $[\sigma_i \ldots \sigma_i]$. We may suggestively write as a sum over the indices $m,n$: $$(C + u u^T)^{-1}_{jk} = \frac{\delta_{jk}}{\sigma^2_j} - \frac{\sum_{mn} \frac{\delta_{jm}}{\sigma^2_j} \sigma^2_i \frac{\delta_{kn}}{\sigma^2_k}}{1 + \sum_{mn} \frac{\delta_{mn} \sigma^2_i}{\sigma^2_m}} \ .$$ Carrying out the sums and simplifying, we find the above formulas for the inverse covariance matrix.
The variance in the measurement of a luptitude, $\sigma^2_{\mu_x}$, can be calculated from the variance in the measurement of its respective flux, $\sigma^2_{f_x}$: $$\sigma^2_{\mu_x} = \frac{a^2}{4b^2 + f_x^2} \sigma^2_{f_x},$$ where $a=2.5 \log e$ and $b$ is a softening parameter [@Lupton1999]. Once this variance is found, the covariance and inverse covariance matrices may be found with the above formulas.
Affiliations {#affiliations .unnumbered}
============
$^{1}$ SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA\
$^{2}$ Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics & Cosmology, P. O. Box 2450, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA\
$^{3}$ ' Ecole Polytechnique F' ed' erale de Lausanne, Route Cantonale, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland\
$^{4}$ Institute of Science, Technology, and Policy, ETH Zurich, Universit" atstrasse 41, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland\
$^{5}$ Descartes Labs, Inc., 100 N Guadelupe St, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA\
$^{6}$ Department of Physics, Stanford University, 382 Via Pueblo Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA\
$^{7}$ Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC), 08034 Barcelona, Spain\
$^{8}$ Institute of Space Sciences (ICE, CSIC), Campus UAB, Carrer de Can Magrans, s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain\
$^{9}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA\
$^{10}$ Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA\
$^{11}$ Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA\
$^{12}$ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Dr., Pasadena, CA 91109, USA\
$^{13}$ Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, 08010 Barcelona, Spain\
$^{14}$ Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain\
$^{15}$ Department of Physics, Duke University Durham, NC 27708, USA\
$^{16}$ Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Casilla 603, La Serena, Chile\
$^{17}$ Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P. O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA\
$^{18}$ Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 3FX, UK\
$^{19}$ LSST, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA\
$^{20}$ Physics Department, 2320 Chamberlin Hall, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1150 University Avenue Madison, WI 53706, USA\
$^{21}$ Jodrell Bank Center for Astrophysics, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK\
$^{22}$ Department of Physics & Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK\
$^{23}$ Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain\
$^{24}$ Laboratório Interinstitucional de e-Astronomia - LIneA, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 20921-400, Brazil\
$^{25}$ Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1002 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA\
$^{26}$ National Center for Supercomputing Applications, 1205 West Clark St., Urbana, IL 61801, USA\
$^{27}$ Observatório Nacional, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 20921-400, Brazil\
$^{28}$ Department of Physics, IIT Hyderabad, Kandi, Telangana 502285, India\
$^{29}$ Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA\
$^{30}$ Department of Astronomy/Steward Observatory, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721-0065, USA\
$^{31}$ Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA\
$^{32}$ Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA\
$^{33}$ Instituto de Fisica Teorica UAM/CSIC, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain\
$^{34}$ Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 16, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland\
$^{35}$ Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA\
$^{36}$ Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA\
$^{37}$ Center for Astrophysics $|$ Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street | MS 42 | Cambridge, MA 02138, USA\
$^{38}$ Australian Astronomical Optics, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia\
$^{39}$ Departamento de Física Matemática, Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, CP 66318, São Paulo, SP, 05314-970, Brazil\
$^{40}$ George P. and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy, and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA\
$^{41}$ Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Peyton Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA\
$^{42}$ School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK\
$^{43}$ Brandeis University, Physics Department, 415 South Street, Waltham, MA 02453, USA\
$^{44}$ Instituto de Física Gleb Wataghin, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 13083-859, Campinas, SP, Brazil\
$^{45}$ Computer Science and Mathematics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA\
$^{46}$ Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439, USA\
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: While there are DES $Y$ band flux measurements available, due to their lower depth we will not use it.
[^2]: See section 5.3 of @Masters2015 for references of spectroscopic data available and @Masters2017 for the Complete Calibration of the Color-Redshift Relation (C3R2) survey, which aims at increasing the representativeness of the spectroscopic data available.
[^3]: <https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mbanerji/VEILS/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
Suryajith Chillara Partha Mukhopadhyay\
\
bibliography:
- 'ref1.bib'
title: On the Limits of Depth Reduction at Depth 3 Over Small Finite Fields
---
Introduction {#Section:Intro}
============
In a recent breakthrough, Gupta et.al. [@gkks2013] have proved that over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, if an $n^{O(1)}$-variate polynomial of degree $d$ is computable by an arithmetic circuit of size $s$, then it can also be computed by a depth three $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit of size $2^{O(\sqrt{d \log d \log n \log s})}$. As a corollary of this result, they get a $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit of size $2^{O(\sqrt{n} \log n)}$ computing the determinant polynomial of a $n\times n$ matrix (over ${\mathbb{Q}}$). Before this result, no depth 3 circuit for Determinant of size smaller than $2^{O(n\log n)}$ was known (over any field of characteristic $\neq$ 2).
The situation is very different over *fixed-size finite fields*. Grigoriev and Karpinski proved that over fixed-size finite fields, any depth 3 circuit for the determinant polynomial of a $n\times n$ matrix must be of size $2^{\Omega(n)}$ [@gk1998]. Although Grigoriev and Karpinski proved the lower bound result only for the determinant polynomial, it is a folklore result that some modification of their argument can show a similar depth 3 circuit size lower bound for the permanent polynomial as well [^1]. Over any field, Ryser’s formula for Permanent gives a $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit of size $2^{O(n)}$ (for an exposition of this result, see [@feige2009]). Thus, for the permanent polynomial the depth 3 complexity (over fixed-size finite fields) is essentially $2^{\Theta(n)}$.
The result of [@gkks2013] is obtained through an ingenious depth reduction technique but their technique is tailored to the fields of zero characteristic. In particular, the main technical ingredients of their proof are the well-known monomial formula of Fischer [@fis1994] and the duality trick of Saxena [@sax2008]. These techniques do not work over finite fields. Looking at the contrasting situation over $\mathbb{Q}$ and the fixed-size finite fields, a natural question is to ask whether one can find a new depth reduction technique over fixed-size finite fields such that any $n^{O(1)}$-variate and degree $n$ polynomial in ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$ can also be computed by a ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit of size $2^{o(n\log n)}$.
Over any fixed-size finite field ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ for $q\geq 3$, is it possible to compute any $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomial in ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$ by a ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit of size $2^{o(n\ln n)}$ ?
Note that any $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomial can be trivially computed by a ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit of size $2^{O(n\log n)}$ by writing it explicitly as a sum of all $n^{O(n)}$ possible monomials.
We give a negative answer to the aforementioned question by showing that over fixed-size finite fields, any ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit computing the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial (which is in ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$ for any field) must be of size $2^{\Omega(n\log n)}$ (See Subsection \[Subsection:IMM\], for the definition of the polynomial). More precisely, we prove that any ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit computing the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial of $n$ generic $n\times n$ matrices (denoted by ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$), must be of size $2^{\Omega(n\log n)}$.
Previously, Nisan and Wigderson [@nw1997] proved a size lower bound of $\Omega(n^{d-1}/d!)$ for any homogenous ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit computing the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial over $d$ generic $n\times n$ matrices. Kumar et.al. [@kms2013] improved the bound to $\Omega(n^{d-1}/2^d)$. These results work over any field. Over fields of zero characteristic, Shpilka and Wigderson proved a near quadratic lower bound for the size of depth 3 circuits computing the trace of the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial [@sw2001].
Recently Tavenas [@tav2013], by improving upon the previous works of Agrawal and Vinay[@av2008], and Koiran [@koi2012] proved that any $n^{O(1)}$-variate, $n$-degree polynomial in ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$ has a depth four ${\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}}$ circuit of size $2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$. Subsequently, Kayal et.al. [@kss2013] proved a size lower bound of $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$ for a polynomial in ${\mbox{\small\rm VNP}}$ which is constructed from the combinatorial design of Nisan and Wigderson [@nw1994]. In a beautiful follow up result, Fournier et.al. [@flms2013] proved that a similar lower bound of $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$ is also attainable by the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial (see [@cm2013], for a unified analysis of the depth 4 lower bounds of [@kss2013] and [@flms2013]). The main technique used is *the method of shifted partial derivatives* which was used to prove $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n})}$ size lower bound for ${\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}}$ circuits computing Determinant or Permanent polynomial [@gkks2012]. Recent work of Kumar and Saraf [@ks2013] shows that the depth reduction as shown by Tavenas [@tav2013] is optimal even for the homogenous formulas. This strengthens the result of [@flms2013] who proved the optimality of depth reduction for the circuits. Similar to the situation at depth 4, we also give an example of an explicit $n^2$-variate and $n$-degree polynomial in ${\mbox{\small\rm VNP}}$ (which is not known to be in ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$) such that over fixed-size finite fields, any depth three $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit computing it must be of size $2^{\Omega(n \log n)}$. This polynomial family, denoted by ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ (see Subsection \[Subsection:NW\], for the definition of the polynomial) is closely related to the polynomial family (with a small modification) introduced by Kayal et.al. [@kss2013]. In fact, from our proof idea it will be clear that the strong depth 3 size lower bound results that we show for ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ and ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomials, are not really influenced by the fact that the polynomials are either in ${\mbox{\small\rm VNP}}$ or ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$. Rather, the bounds are determined by a combinatorial property of the subspaces generated by a set of carefully chosen derivatives. One interesting conclusion (which is somewhat counter intuitive) of the depth 3 circuit size lower bound results is that, we get the first examples of explicit polynomials (one in ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$ and one in ${\mbox{\small\rm VNP}}$) such that they have provably stronger lower bounds than Permanent in a reasonably strong model of computation, i.e. ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuits over fixed-size finite fields. Our main theorem is the following.
\[main-thm\] Over any fixed-size finite field ${\mathbb{F}_q}$ such that $q\geq 3$, any depth three ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit computing the polynomials ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ or ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ must be of size at least $2^{\delta n\log n}$, where $\epsilon, \delta\in (0,1)$ and depend only on $q$.
As an important consequence of the above theorem, we have the following corollary.
Over any fixed-size finite field ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ for $q\geq 3$, there is no depth reduction technique that can be used to compute all the $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomials in ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$ by depth 3 circuits of size $2^{o(n\log n)}$.
The result of [@gk1998] only says that over fixed-size finite fields, not all the $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomials in ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$ can be computed by ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuits of size $2^{o(n)}$.
Next, we study the depth 4 complexity of ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial over any field. We prove that any depth four ${\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}}$ circuit that computes ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial must be of size $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$. Matching their lower bound, the polynomials considered by Kayal et.al. [@kss2013] and Fournier et.al. [@flms2013] have depth four ${\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}}$ circuits of size $2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$. In contrast, the polynomial ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ has no known matching upper bound. This result is obtained by the application of a key theorem from our recent work [@cm2013].
\[depth-4-lb\] For $\epsilon\in (0,1)$, any depth four ${\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}}$ circuit computing the ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial (over any field) must be of size $2^{\Omega_{\epsilon}({\sqrt{n}\log n})}$.
In a very recent work (and independent of ours), Kumar and Saraf have proved super polynomial circuit size lower bound for homogeneous depth 4 circuits (with *no fan-in restriction*) computing the ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial [@ks12013].
Proof Idea {#Subsection:ProofIdea .unnumbered}
----------
Our proof technique is quite simple and it borrows ideas mostly from the proof technique of Grigoriev and Karpinski[@gk1998]. ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuits over fixed-size finite fields enjoy a nice property that the derivatives of the high rank product gates can be eliminated except for a few erroneous points (denoted by $E$). This property was first observed by Grigoriev and Karpinski in [@gk1998]. To do that they fixed a threshold for the rank of the product gates. Since they were looking for a $2^{\Omega(n)}$ lower bound for the Determinant of a $n\times n$ matrix and the rank of the entire derivative space of of the determinant polynomial is $2^{O(n)}$, it was natural for them to fix the threshold to be $O(n)$. We choose the threshold for the rank of the product gates to be $O(n\log n)$. This allows us to bound the size of the error set meaningfully.
The dimension of the derivative spaces of the polynomial families $\{{\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\}_{n>0}$ and $\{{\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\}_{n>0}$ is $2^{\Omega(n\log n)}$. We carefully choose subspaces of the derivative spaces of these polynomials that have an additional structure. These subspaces are spanned by a *downward closed* set of monomials. Let ${\mathbb{F}_q}$ be the finite field and $N$ be the number of the variables in the polynomial under consideration. The basic idea is to prove that the dimension of the derivative space $H$ of the polynomial being considered is more than the dimension of the set of functions in $H$ which do not evaluate to zero over the entire space ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N$. Since the subspace $H$ contains only multilinear polynomials, we can then conclude that a nonzero multilinear polynomial in $H$ will evaluate to zero on entire ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N$, which is not possible. Since we can only bound the rank of the derivative space of ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuits over ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N\setminus E$, we need an argument to lift the upper bound from ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N\setminus E$ to the entire space. We do this by defining a suitable linear map from $H$ to $H$. The downward closed structure of the generator set of $H$ is crucial for the map to be well defined. The argument is motivated by a group symmetry argument given in [@gk1998]. In [@gk1998], the argument was on the space of invertible matrices ${\mbox{\small\rm GL}}_n({\mathbb{F}_q})$. The fact that the derivative space of the determinant polynomial of a $n\times n$ matrix is invariant under ${\mbox{\small\rm GL}}_n({\mathbb{F}_q})$ action was crucially used.
Finally, we prove Theorem \[depth-4-lb\] using the method of shifted partial derivatives. We use a key theorem from [@cm2013] which was used to unify the lower bound proofs of [@kss2013] and [@flms2013]. To apply the result from [@cm2013], we show that for the ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial, a set of $2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$ of derivatives of order $O(\sqrt{n})$ have a pair-wise good distance between their leading monomials.
Organization
============
In section \[prelim\], we introduce the preliminaries related to arithmetic circuits, partial derivatives, and define the polynomial families $\{{\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\}_{n>0}$ and $\{{\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\}_{n>0}$. We recall known results related to the derivative space of ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuits in Section \[Section:der-depth3\]. In section \[Section:Der\], we study the derivative spaces of our polynomial families. We prove Theorem \[main-thm\] in Section \[Section:Covering\]. In the section \[Section:DepthFourBound\], we prove the depth 4 lower bound for the ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial. We conclude in Section \[conclusion\].
Preliminaries {#prelim}
=============
### Arithmetic Circuits {#arithmetic-circuits .unnumbered}
An arithmetic circuit over a field ${\mathbb{F}}$ with the set of variables $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n$ is a directed acyclic graph such that the internal nodes are labelled by addition or multiplication gates and the leaf nodes are labelled by the variables or the field elements. The node with fan-out zero is the output gate. An arithmetic circuit computes a polynomial in the polynomial ring ${\mathbb{F}}[x_1,x_2,\dots, x_n]$. Size of an arithmetic circuit is the number of nodes and the depth is the length of a longest path from the root to a leaf node.
### Depth 3 Circuits {#depth-3-circuits .unnumbered}
Usually a depth 3 circuit over a field ${\mathbb{F}}$ is denoted by ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$. The circuit has an addition gate at the top, a middle layer of multiplication gates, and then a level of addition gates at the bottom. A $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit with $s$ multiplication gates computes a polynomial of the following form. $$\begin{aligned}
C({\mbox{\small\rm X}})=\sum_{i=1}^s\prod_{j=1}^{d_i}{L}_{i,j}(x_1,\dots,x_n)\end{aligned}$$ where ${L}_{i,j}$s are affine linear functions over ${\mathbb{F}}$ and $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\}$ are the variables appearing in the polynomial.
### Depth 4 Circuits {#depth-4-circuits .unnumbered}
A depth four circuit over a field ${\mathbb{F}}$ is denoted by ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma\Pi}$. It has alternating layers of addition and multiplication gates where the top gate is an addition gate. A depth four circuit computes a polynomial of the following form. $$\begin{aligned}
C ({\mbox{\small\rm X}})= \sum_{i=1}^s\prod_{j=1}^{d_i}Q_{i,j}(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n)\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{i,j}$s are polynomials in ${\mathbb{F}}[x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n]$. A ${\Sigma\Pi^{[D]}\Sigma\Pi^{[t]}}$ circuit is a depth four circuit where the fan-in of the multiplication gates in the bottom layer is bounded by a parameter $t$ and the fan-in of all the multiplication gates in the layer adjacent to the output gate is bounded by the parameter $D$. These circuits compute polynomials of the form $C = \sum_{i=1}^s\prod_{j=1}^{d_i}Q_{i,j}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ where the degree of the polynomial $Q_{i,j}$ is bounded by $t$ for all $i$ and $j$, and $d_i\leq D$ for all $i$. Building on the results of [@av2008] and [@koi2012], Tavenas[@tav2013] proved the following important theorem.
\[tav2013\] Let $f$ be an $n$-variate polynomial computed by a circuit of size $s$ and of degree $d$. Then, $f$ is computed by a ${\Sigma\Pi^{[D]}\Sigma\Pi^{[t]}}$ circuit $C$ of size $2^{O(\sqrt{d \log(ds) \log n)}}$ where $D=O(\sqrt{d})$ and $t\leq\sqrt{d}$. Furthermore, if $f$ is homogenous, it will also the case for $C$.
### Partial Derivatives {#partial-derivatives .unnumbered}
For a monomial $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{i}} = x_1^{i_1}x_2^{i_2}\dots x_n^{i_n}$, let $\partial^{\mathbf{i}}f$ be the partial derivative of $f$ with respect to the monomial $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{i}}$. The degree of the monomial is denoted by $|\mathbf{i}|$ where $|\mathbf{i}|:=(i_1 + i_2 + \dots + i_n)$. We recall the following definition of partial derivative space from [@gkks2012].
\[shiftedPartialDerDefn\] Let $f({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\in \mathbb{F}[{\mbox{\small\rm X}}]$ be a multivariate polynomial. The span of the $k$-th order derivatives of $f$, denoted by $\langle\partial^{=k}f\rangle$, is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\partial^{=k}f\rangle= {\mathbb{F}}\mbox{-span} \{\partial^{\mathbf{j}}f : \mathbf{j} \in \mathbb{Z}^n_{\geq 0} \mbox{ with } |\mathbf{j}| = k \}
\end{aligned}$$ We denote by $\dim(\langle\partial^{=k}f\rangle)$ the dimension of the vector space $\langle\partial^{=k}f\rangle$.
Let $\succ$ be any admissible monomial ordering. The *leading monomial* of a polynomial $f({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) \in {\mathbb{F}}[{\mbox{\small\rm X}}]$, denoted by ${\mbox{\small\rm LM}}(f)$ is the largest monomial $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{i}}\in f({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ under the order $\succ$.
### Combinatorial Nullstellensatz {#combinatorial-nullstellensatz .unnumbered}
We recall the following theorem from [@Alon99].
\[thm:alon\] Let $f(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n)$ be a polynomial in $n$ variables over an arbitrary field ${\mathbb{F}}$. Suppose that the degree of $f$ as a polynomial in $x_i$ is at most $t_i$, for $1\leq i\leq n$ and let $S_i\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}$ such that $|S_i|\geq t_i + 1$. If $f(a_1,a_2,\dots,a_n)=0$ for all $n$-tuples in $S_1\times S_2\times\dots\times S_n$, then $f=0$.
The Polynomial Families {#Section:poly-family}
-----------------------
A multivariate polynomial family $\{f_n({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\in{\mathbb{F}}[x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n] : n\geq 1\}$ is in the class ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$ if $f_n$ has degree at most $\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm poly}}(n)$ and can be computed by an arithmetic circuit of size $\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm poly}}(n)$. It is in ${\mbox{\small\rm VNP}}$ if it can be expressed as $$f_n({\mbox{\small\rm X}})=\sum_{{\mbox{\small\rm Y}}\in\{0,1\}^m} g_{n+m}({\mbox{\small\rm X}},{\mbox{\small\rm Y}})$$ where $m=|{\mbox{\small\rm Y}}|=\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm poly}}(n)$ and $g_{n+m}$ is a polynomial in ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$.
### The Polynomial Family from the Combinatorial Design {#Subsection:NW .unnumbered}
Let ${\mathbb{F}}$ be any field[^2]. For integers $n>0$ ranging over prime powers and $0<\epsilon<1$, we define a polynomial family $\{{\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\}_{n>0}$ in ${\mathbb{F}_q}[{\mbox{\small\rm X}}]$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) = \sum_{a(z) \in {\mathbb{F}}_n[z]}x_{1a(1)} x_{2a(2)}\ldots x_{na(n)} \end{aligned}$$ where $a(z)$ runs over all univariate polynomials of degree $ < \epsilon n$. The finite field ${\mathbb{F}}_n$ is naturally identified with the numbers $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$. Notice that the number of monomials in ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ is $n^{\epsilon n}$. From the explicitness of the polynomial, it is clear that $\{{\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\}_{n>0}$ is in ${\mbox{\small\rm VNP}}$ for any $\epsilon\in (0,1)$. In [@kss2013], a very similar family of polynomials was considered where the degree of the univariate polynomial was bounded by $\epsilon \sqrt{n}$.
### The Iterated Matrix Multiplication Polynomial {#Subsection:IMM .unnumbered}
The iterated matrix multiplication polynomial of $n$ generic $n\times n$ matrices ${\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(1)}, {\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(2)}, \ldots, {\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(n)}$ is the $(1,1)$th entry of the product of the matrices. More formally, let ${\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(1)}, {\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(2)}, \ldots, {\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(n)}$ be $n$ generic $n\times n$ matrices with disjoint sets of variables and $x_{ij}^{(k)}$ be the variable in ${\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(k)}$ indexed by $(i,j)\in[n]\times[n]$. Then the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial (denoted by the family $\{{\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\}_{n>0}$) is defined as follows.
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) = \sum_{i_1, i_2, \ldots, i_{n-1} \in [n]}x_{1i_1}^{(1)}x_{i_1i_2}^{(2)}\dots x_{i_{(n-2)}i_{(n-1)}}^{(n-1)}x_{i_{(n-1)}1}^{(n)}\end{aligned}$$
Notice that ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ is a $n^2(n-2) + 2n$-variate polynomial of degree $n$. For our application, we consider $n=2m$ where $m$ ranges over the positive integers. Over any field ${\mathbb{F}}$, the polynomial family $\{{\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}(X)\}_{n>0}$ can be computed in ${\mbox{\small\rm VP}}$. This can be seen by observing that ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}(X)$ can be computed by a $\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm poly}}(n)$ sized algebraic branching program.
The Derivative Space of ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ Circuits Over Small Fields {#Section:der-depth3}
======================================================================
In this section we fix the field ${\mathbb{F}}$ to be a fixed-size finite field ${\mathbb{F}_q}$ where $q\geq 3$. Let $C$ be a ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit of top fan-in $s$ computing a $N=n^{O(1)}$-variate polynomial of degree $n$. Consider a $\Pi$ gate $T={L}_1{L}_2\dots{L}_d$. Let $r$ be the rank of the (homogeneous)-linear system corresponding to $\{{L}_1, {L}_2, \dots, {L}_d\}$ by viewing each ${L}_i$ as a vector in ${\mathbb{F}_q}^{N + 1}$. Fix a threshold for the rank of the system of linear functions $r_0 = \beta n\ln n$, where $\beta > 0$ is a constant to be fixed in the analysis. In our application, the parameter $N$ is at least $n^2$, so the threshold for the rank is meaningful. W.l.o.g, let $\{{L}_1, {L}_2, \dots, {L}_r\}$ be a set of affine linear forms whose homogeneous system forms a maximal independent set of linear functions. The following analysis has been reworked from [@gk1998] to fix the parameters. It shows that the derivative space of a ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit can be approximated by the low rank gates of the circuit over a large subset of ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N$.
### Low rank gates : $r \leq r_0$ {#Subsection:LowRankGates .unnumbered}
Over the finite field ${\mathbb{F}_q}$, we have $x^q = x$. We express $T: {\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}\rightarrow {\mathbb{F}_q}$ as a linear combination of $\{{L}_1^{e_1} {L}_2^{e_2}\dots {L}_r^{e_r} : e_i< q ~ \mbox{for all}~ i\in [r]\}$. Since, the derivatives of all orders lie in the same space, the dimension of the set of partial derivatives of $T$ of all orders is bounded by $q^{r}\leq q^{r_0}$.
### High rank gates : $r > r_0$ {#Subsection:HighRankGates .unnumbered}
Let the rank of a high rank gate $T$ be $y\beta n\ln n$ where $y\geq 1$. We assign values to the variables uniformly at random from ${\mathbb{F}_q}$ and compute the probability that at most $n$ linearly independent functions evaluate to zero. $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Pr$_{a\in{\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}}$[ at most $n$ linearly independent functions evaluate to zero]} &= \sum_{i=0}^n{r \choose i}\left(\frac{1}{q}\right)^i\left(1 - \frac{1}{q}\right)^{r-i}\\
&\leq n{r \choose n}\left(\frac{1}{q}\right)^n\left(1 - \frac{1}{q}\right)^{r-n} \end{aligned}$$
The above inequality follows from the fact that $r> 2n$. Hence, if we differentiate $T$ with respect to any set of variables of size at most $n$ and restrict the variables to values from ${\mathbb{F}_q}$, the gate $T$ may not vanish over a set of points $E_T$ whose size is estimated below. $$\begin{aligned}
|E_T| \leq n{r \choose n}\left(\frac{1}{q}\right)^n\left(1 - \frac{1}{q}\right)^{r-n}q^{N} \end{aligned}$$
Over all the gates, let $E$ be the set of points over which some of the product gates with large rank may not evaluate to zero. Then by a union bound, we get that $|E|\leq s |E_T|$. If $s\leq e^{\delta n \ln n}$ then we have the following estimate. $$\begin{aligned}
|E| &\leq e^{\delta n \ln n}n{r \choose n}\left(\frac{1}{q}\right)^n\left(1 - \frac{1}{q}\right)^{r-n}q^{N}\\
&\leq e^{\delta n \ln n}n\left(\frac{er}{n}\right)^ne^{-\frac{r-n}{q}}q^{N}\\
&= q^{N}e^{\delta n \ln n + n+ n\ln\frac{r}{n} + \ln n - \frac{r-n}{q}}\\
&= q^{N}e^{\delta n \ln n + n+ n\ln\frac{y\beta n \ln n}{n} + \ln n
- \frac{y\beta n\ln n-n}{q}} \end{aligned}$$ To bound the above estimate meaningfully, we need $\delta n \ln n$ to be strictly less than $\frac{y\beta n}{q} \ln n - n\ln y$. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta < \frac{y\beta}{q} - \frac{\ln y}{\ln n} {\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eq:ErrorSetEstimate}\end{aligned}$$
Once we satisfy the relation given by the inequality \[eq:ErrorSetEstimate\], we can upper bound the size of $E$ as $|E|<q^{N} \mu^{n\ln n}$ for some suitably fixed constant $\mu$ between $0$ and $1$. Now it is clear that over ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N \setminus E $, the derivative space is spanned by the derivatives of the low rank gates. We summarize it in the following lemma.
\[depth3-restriction\] Let ${\mathbb{F}_q}$ be a fixed-size finite field where $q\geq 3$. Then there exist constants $0<\delta(q),\beta(q), \mu(q)<1$ such that the following is true. Let $C$ be a ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit of top fan-in $s \leq e^{\delta n\ln n}$ computing a $N=n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomial $f({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ over the finite field ${\mathbb{F}_q}$. Then, there exists a set $E\subset {\mathbb{F}_q}^N$ of size at most $q^N \mu^{n\ln n}$ such that the dimension of the space spanned by the derivatives of order $\leq n$ of $C$ restricted to ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N\setminus E$ is $\leq s~q^{\beta n\ln n}$.
In Section \[Section:Covering\], we show how to fix the parameters $\delta, \beta$, and $\mu$ which depend only on the field size $q$.
Derivative Spaces of the Polynomial Families {#Section:Der}
============================================
In this section, we study the derivative spaces of ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ and ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomials. Instead of considering the full derivative spaces, we focus on a set of carefully chosen derivatives and consider the subspaces spanned by them.
The derivative space of $\{{\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\}_{n>0}$ polynomial family {#Subsection:Der-NW .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A set of variables $D=\{x_{i_1j_1}, x_{i_2j_2},\dots,x_{i_tj_t}\}$ is called an admissible set if $i_k$s (for $1\leq k\leq t$) are all distinct and $\epsilon n \leq t \leq n$. Let $H$ be the subspace spanned by the set of the partial derivatives of the polynomial ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ with respect to the admissible sets of variables. More formally,
$$\begin{aligned}
H := {\mathbb{F}_q}\mbox{-span}\left\{\frac{\partial {\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})}{\partial D} : D~\mbox{is an admissible set of variables}\right\} \end{aligned}$$
Since the monomials of the ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial are defined by the univariate polynomials of degree $< \epsilon n$, each partial derivative with respect to such a set $D$ yields a multilinear monomial. If we choose $\epsilon$ such that $n-\epsilon n > \epsilon n$ (i.e. $\epsilon < 1/2$), then after the differentiation, all the monomials of length $n-\epsilon n$ are distinct. This follows from the fact that the monomials are generated from the image of the univariate polynomials of degree $<\epsilon n$.
Let us treat these monomials as functions from ${\mathbb{F}_q}^{n^2}\rightarrow{\mathbb{F}_q}$. The following lemma says that the functions corresponding to any set of distinct monomials are linearly independent.
\[comb-null\] Let $m_1({\mbox{\small\rm X}}), m_2({\mbox{\small\rm X}}), \dots, m_k({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ be any set of $k$ distinct monomials in ${\mathbb{F}}_q [x_1,x_2,\dots,x_N]$. For $1\leq i\leq k$, let $f_i : {\mathbb{F}}_q^N\rightarrow {\mathbb{F}}_q$ be the function corresponding to the monomial $m_i({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$, i.e. $f_i({\mbox{\small\rm X}})=m_i({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$. Then, $f_i$s are linearly independent in the $q^N$ dimensional vector space over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$.
If $f_i$s are not linearly independent then $\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i f_i = 0$ for $\bar{\lambda}=(\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_k)\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^k\setminus\{\bar{0}\}$. Then, the nonzero multilinear polynomial $\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i m_i({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ evaluates to zero on ${\mathbb{F}}_q^N$, which contradicts Theorem \[thm:alon\].
Consider the derivatives of ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ corresponding to the sets $\{x_{1 a(1)}, x_{2 a(2)}, \dots, x_{\epsilon n a(\epsilon n)}\}$ for all univariate polynomials $a$ of degree $<\epsilon n$. From Lemma \[comb-null\], it follows that $\dim(H) \geq n^{\epsilon n}=e^{\epsilon n \ln n}$. W.l.o.g, we can assume that the constant function $\mathbf{1} : {\mathbb{F}_q}^{n^2}\rightarrow {\mathbb{F}_q}$ given by $\forall x, \mathbf{1}(x)=1$ is also in $H$. This corresponds to the derivatives of order $n$.
The derivative space of $\{{\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\}_{n>0}$ polynomial family {#Subsection:Der-IMM .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For our application, we consider $n=2m$ where $m$ ranges over the positive integers. Consider the set of matrices ${\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(1)}, {\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(3)}, \ldots, {\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(2m-1)}$ corresponding to the odd places. Let $S$ be any set of $m$ variables chosen as follows. Choose any variable from the first row of ${\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(1)}$ and choose any one variable from each of the matrices ${\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(3)}, \ldots, {\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(2m-1)}$. We call such a set $S$ an admissible set.
If we differentiate ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ with respect to two different admissible sets of variables $S$ and $S'$, then we get two different monomials of length $m$ each. This follows from the structure of the monomials in the ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial, whenever we fix two variables from ${\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(i-1)}$ and ${\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(i+1)}$, the variable from ${\mbox{\small\rm X}}^{(i)}$ gets fixed. So the number of such monomials after differentiation is exactly $n^{2m-1}= e^{(n-1)\ln n}$.
Let $m_{S}$ be the monomial obtained after differentiating ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ by the set of variables in $S$ and $\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m_S)$ be the set of variables in $m_S$. Consider the derivatives of ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ with respect to the following sets of variables.
$$\begin{aligned}
\{ S \cup T : T \subseteq \operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m_S) \}~ \mbox{where $S$ ranges over all admissible sets}. \end{aligned}$$
Let $H$ be the subspace spanned by these derivatives. More formally,
$$\begin{aligned}
H := {\mathbb{F}_q}\mbox{-span}\left\{\frac{\partial {\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}(X)}{\partial D} : D =S \cup T
~\mbox{where}~T\subseteq \operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m_S) ; S ~\mbox{is an admissible set}\right\} \end{aligned}$$
As before, we can assume that the constant function $\mathbf{1}$ is in $H$. From Lemma \[comb-null\], we know that $\dim(H)\geq e^{(n-1)\ln n}$. Now to unify the arguments for ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ and ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomials, we introduce the following notion.
### Downward closed property {#downward-closed-property .unnumbered}
A set of monomials ${\mathcal{M}}$ is said to be downward closed if the following property holds. If $m({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) \in {\mathcal{M}}$ and $m'({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ is such that $\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m'({\mbox{\small\rm X}})) \subseteq \operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m({\mbox{\small\rm X}}))$, then $m'({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) \in {\mathcal{M}}$.
Now we consider a downward closed set of monomials ${\mathcal{M}}$ over $N$ variables. These monomials can be viewed as functions from ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N$ to ${\mathbb{F}_q}$. W.l.o.g, we assume that the constant function is also in ${\mathcal{M}}$ (constant function corresponds to a monomial with an empty set of variables). Let $H$ be the subspace spanned by these functions in ${\mathcal{M}}$.
For any $u\in {\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}$, define an operator $T_u$ such that $(T_u(f))({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) = f({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u)$ for any function $f:{\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}\rightarrow{\mathbb{F}_q}$. The following proposition is simple to prove.
Let $H$ be the subspace spanned by a downward closed set of monomials ${\mathcal{M}}$ over the set of variables $\{x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_N\}$. Then for any $u\in {\mathbb{F}_q}^N$, $T_u$ is a linear map from $H$ to $H$.
Let $g({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ be an arbitrary function in $H$ which can be expressed as follows: $g({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) =\sum_{i\geq 1}c_im_i({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ where $m_i({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) \in {\mathcal{M}}$, and $c_i \in {\mathbb{F}_q}$ for all $i\geq 1$. $$\begin{aligned}
(T_u(g))({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) &= g({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u) = \sum_{i\geq 1}c_im_i({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u) \end{aligned}$$
It is sufficient to prove that $m({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u)\in H$ where $m({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) \in {\mathcal{M}}$. We can express $m({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u)$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
m({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u) = \sum_{S\subseteq~\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}\left(m\left({\mbox{\small\rm X}}\right)\right)} c_S\prod_{x_r\in S}x_r
\end{aligned}$$ where $c_S\in {\mathbb{F}_q}$. For every $S\subseteq~\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m({\mbox{\small\rm X}}))$, ${\prod_{x_r\in S}} x_r\in {\mathcal{M}}$ because ${\mathcal{M}}$ is downward closed. Since the choice of $S$ was arbitrary, $m({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u)\in H$. It is obvious that $T_u$ is a linear map.
It is not difficult to observe that the derivative spaces that we select for ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ and ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ are spanned by downward closed sets of monomials.
\[down-closed\] The generator sets for the derivative subspaces $H$ for ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ and ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomials are downward closed.
Let us consider the ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial first. Let $m \in H$ be any monomial and $D$ be the admissible set such that $m=\frac{\partial {\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})}{\partial D}$. Let $m'$ be any monomial such that $\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m')\subseteq \operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m)$. Then $m'=\frac{\partial {\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})}{\partial D'}$ where $D'=D\cup (\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m)\setminus \operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m'))$.
Similarly for the ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial, consider any $m\in H$. Then $m=\frac{\partial {\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}(X)}{\partial D}$ and $D=S\cup T$ for an admissible set $S$ and $T\subseteq\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m_S)$. If $m'$ is any monomial such that $\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m')\subseteq \operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m)$, then $m'=\frac{\partial {\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}(X)}{\partial D'}$ where $D'=S\cup (T\cup (\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m)\setminus\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m')))$. Clearly $T\cup
(\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m)\setminus\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m'))\subseteq \operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm var}}(m_S)$.
A Covering Argument {#Section:Covering}
===================
In this section, we adapt the covering argument of [@gk1998] to prove the lower bound results. In [@gk1998], the covering argument was given over the set of invertible matrices. Here we adapt their argument suitably over the entire space ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N$. As defined in the section \[Section:Der\], the subspace $H$ represents the chosen derivative subspace of either the ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial or the ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial.
Define the subspace $H_a := \{f\in H : f(a)=0\}$ for $a \in {\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}$. Let us recall that $E$ is the set of points over which some of the product gates with large rank may not evaluate to zero. Let the set of points ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N\setminus E$ be denoted by $A$. Then $\bigcap_{a\in A}H_a$ denotes the set of functions which evaluate to zero over all points in $A$. Now, we consider the space of the functions which do not evaluate to zero over all of $A$. From Lemma \[depth3-restriction\], we get that $\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm codim}}(\bigcap_{a\in A}H_a) < s~q^{r_0}$.
For any $u , a \in {\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}$, we have that $T_u(H_a) = H_{u+a}$.
Let $f({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ be any function in $H_a$. $(T_u(f))({\mbox{\small\rm X}}) = f({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u)$. Since $f(a) = 0$, $f(a+u-u)=0$. Also the monomials of $f({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u)$ are obtained as the subsets of the monomials of $f$. Since $H$ is generated by a downward closed set of monomials, it is clear that $f({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u)\in H$ implying $f({\mbox{\small\rm X}}-u)\in H_{u+a}$. So $T_u(H_a)\subseteq H_{u+a}$.
Now consider any function $g({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\in H_{u+a}$. Define the function $h({\mbox{\small\rm X}})=g({\mbox{\small\rm X}}+ u)$. Then $h(a)=0$ and so $h({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\in H_a$ [^3]. Also, $T_u(h({\mbox{\small\rm X}})) = g({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$. Hence, $H_{a+u}\subseteq T_u(H_a)$.
Let $P = \bigcap_{a\in A}H_a$. Let $S\subset {\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}$ be a set such that we can cover the entire space ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N$ by the shifts of $A$ with the elements from $S$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\bigcup_{u\in S}u + A = {\mathbb{F}_q}^{N} \end{aligned}$$
Now by applying the map $T_u$ to $P$, we get the following. $$\begin{aligned}
T_u(P) = \bigcap_{a\in A}T_u(H_a) = \bigcap_{b\in u+A}H_b
\end{aligned}$$
By a further intersection over $S$, we get the following.
$$\bigcap_{u\in S} T_u(P) = \bigcap_{u\in S}\bigcap_{b\in u+A}H_b = \bigcap_{b\in{\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}}H_b {\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{coveringstatement}$$ From Equation \[coveringstatement\], we get the following estimate. $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm codim}}\left(\bigcap_{b\in{\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}}H_b\right) = \operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm codim}}\left(\bigcap_{u\in S}T_u(P)\right) \leq |S|~\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm codim}}(P) \leq |S|~ s~ q^{r_0} {\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eq:codim-estimate}\end{aligned}$$ The $\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm codim}}\left(\bigcap_{b\in{\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}}H_b\right)$ refers to the dimension of the set of functions in $H$ which do not evaluate to zero over all the points in ${\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}$.
Next, we show an upper-bound estimate for the size of the set $S$. This follows from a simple adaptation of the dominating set based argument given in [@gk1998].
Upper bound on the size of the set $S$ {#upper-bound-on-the-size-of-the-set-s .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------
Consider the directed graph $G = (V,R)$ defined as follows. The points in ${\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}$ are the vertices of the graph. For $u_1, u_2\in {\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}$, the edge $u_1\rightarrow u_2$ is in $R$ iff $u_2 = u_1+b$ for any $b\in A$. Clearly the in-degree and out-degree of any vertex are equal to $|A|$. Now, we recall Lemma 2 of [@gk1998] to estimate the size of $S$.
\[lov75\] Let $(V,R)$ be a directed (regular) graph with $|V| =m$ vertices and with the in-degree and the out-degree of each vertex both equal to $d$. Then there exists a subset $U\subset V$ of a size $O(\frac{m}{d}\log(d+1))$ such that for any vertex $v\in V$ there is a vertex $u\in U$ forming an edge $(u,v)\in R$.
Let $c_0$ be the constant fixed by the lemma in its $O()$ notation. By Lemma \[lov75\], we get the following estimate.
$$\begin{aligned}
|S| &\leq c_0\frac{|{\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}|}{|A|}\log (|A|+1)\\
&\leq c_0 \frac{q^{N}}{q^{N}-|E|}\log (q^{N}-|E|+1)\\
&\leq c_0\log q ~N~\frac{q^{N}}{q^{N}-|E|}\\
&= O(N) \end{aligned}$$
The last equation follows from the estimate for $|E|$ from the section \[Section:der-depth3\].
### Fixing the parameters {#fixing-the-parameters .unnumbered}
Consider the inequality \[eq:ErrorSetEstimate\] which is $\delta < \frac{y\beta}{q} - \frac{\ln y}{\ln n}$. Fix the values for $\beta, \delta$, and $\mu$ in Lemma \[depth3-restriction\] as follows. Set $\beta=\frac{1}{10\ln q},
\delta = \frac{1}{20 q\ln q}, \nu=\frac{\delta}{2}$, and $\mu=e^{-\nu}$. Consider the function $g(y) = y - \frac{10q\ln q}{\ln n}\ln y -0.50$. Since $g(y)$ is a monotonically increasing function which takes the value of $0.50$ at $y=1$, $g(y)>0$ and thus $\delta < \frac{y\beta}{q} - \frac{\ln y}{\ln n}$ for the chosen values of $\beta$ and $\delta$. Also, $\frac{y\beta}{q} - \frac{\ln y}{\ln n} - \delta > \nu$ and thus $|E|\leq q^{N}\mu^{n\ln n}$.
From Section \[Section:Der\], we know that $\dim(H)$ for ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ is at least $e^{\epsilon n\ln n}$. Consider the upper bound on $\operatorname{\mbox{\small\rm codim}}\left(\bigcap_{b\in{\mathbb{F}_q}^{N}}H_b\right)$ given by the inequality \[eq:codim-estimate\]. If we choose $\epsilon$ in such a way that $e^{\epsilon n\ln n} > |S| ~s~q^{r_0}$, then there will be a multilinear polynomial $f$ in $H$ such that $f$ will evaluate to zero over all points in ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\dim(H) &> n^{\epsilon n} = e^{\epsilon n \ln n}\\
\implies e^{\epsilon n\ln n} &> |S| ~ s~ q^{r_0} = e^{\delta n \ln n +(\beta\ln q) n \ln n + \ln N}\\ \end{aligned}$$
Considering the terms of the order of $n\ln n$ in the exponent, it is enough to choose $\epsilon (< 1/2)$ such that the following holds. $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon &> \delta + \beta \ln q\\
&= \frac{1}{20 q\ln q} + \frac{1}{10} \end{aligned}$$
Since the $\dim(H)$ for ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ is $\geq e^{(n-1)\ln n}$, the chosen values of $\beta$ and $\delta$ clearly suffice. Finally, recall from Theorem \[thm:alon\] that no non-zero multilinear polynomial can be zero over ${\mathbb{F}_q}^N$. Thus, we get the main theorem (restated from Section \[Section:Intro\]).
For any fixed-size finite field ${\mathbb{F}_q}$ such that $q\geq 3$, any depth three ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit computing the polynomials ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ or ${\mbox{\small\rm IMM}}_{n,n}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ must be of size at least $2^{\delta n\log n}$ where $\delta,\epsilon\in(0,1)$ and depend only on $q$.
It is straightforward to observe that the lower bound analysis holds for any polynomial for which we can find a subspace (of sufficiently large dimension) of its derivative space spanned by a downward closed set of monomials.
Depth 4 Circuit Size Lower Bound for ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ Polynomial {#Section:DepthFourBound}
==========================================================================================================
In this section we prove the depth 4 size lower bound for the ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial. This result holds over any field. It was shown in [@cm2013] that any polynomial that satisfies a simple combinatorial property called *Leading Monomial Distance Property* would require $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$-sized depth four ${\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}}$ arithmetic circuits computing it. To define the Leading Monomial Distance Property, we first define the notion of distance between two monomials.
\[def:MonomialDistance\] Let $m_1, m_2$ be two monomials over a set of variables. Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be the (multi)-sets of variables corresponding to the monomials $m_1$ and $m_2$ respectively. The distance $\Delta(m_1, m_2)$ between the monomials $m_1$ and $m_2$ is the $\min\{|S_1|-|S_1\cap S_2|, |S_2|-|S_1\cap S_2|\}$ where the cardinalities are the order of the (multi)-sets.
For example, let $m_1 = x_1^2x_2x_3^2x_4$ and $m_2 = x_1x_2^2x_3x_5x_6$. Then $S_1 = \{x_1, x_1, x_2, x_3, x_3, x_4\}$, $S_2 = \{x_1, x_2, x_2, x_3, x_5, x_6\}$, $|S_1|=6$, $|S_2|=6$ and $\Delta(m_1, m_2) = 3$.
We say that a $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomial has the Leading Monomial Distance Property, if the leading monomials of a *large subset* ($\approx n^{\sqrt{n}}$) of its span of the derivatives (of order $\approx \sqrt{n}$) have *good pair-wise distance*. We denote the leading monomial of a polynomial $f({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ by ${\mbox{\small\rm LM}}(f)$. Let $\langle\partial^{=k}(f)\rangle$ be the subspace spanned by the $k$th order derivatives of $f$ as defined in Section \[Section:Intro\].
\[thm:DepthFourAbstract\] Let $f({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ be a $n^{O(1)}$-variate polynomial of degree $n$. Let there be at least $n^{\delta k}$ ($\delta$ is any constant $>0$) different polynomials in $\langle\partial^{=k}(f)\rangle$ for $k=\mu \sqrt{n}$ such that any two of their leading monomials have a distance of at least $\Delta\geq \frac{n}{c}$ for any constant $c>1$, and $0<\mu<\frac{1}{40c}$. Then any depth four ${\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}}$ circuit that computes $f({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ must be of size $e^{\Omega_{\delta,c}(\sqrt{n}\ln n)}$.
We use the above theorem to prove the depth 4 lower bound for the ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial (Theorem \[depth-4-lb\]). Let us consider the polynomial ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ over any field ${\mathbb{F}}[{\mbox{\small\rm X}}]$. First, we fix an ordering on the variables: $x_{11}\succ x_{12} \succ \dots \succ x_{nn}$. We fix a threshold $k=\mu\sqrt{n}$ where $\mu$ is a constant to be fixed later.
Consider the sets of variables of the form $\{x_{1 i_1}, x_{2 i_2}, \ldots, x_{k i_k}\}$ such that $i_j\in [n]$ for $1\leq j\leq k$. Corresponding to any such set of variables, we can find a univariate polynomial $a(z)\in{\mathbb{F}}_n[z]$ of degree $< \epsilon n$ such that $a(j)=i_j$ for $1\leq j\leq k$. Number of such different sets of size $k$ is $n^k$. Let us represent these sets by $S_1, S_2, \dots, S_{n^k}$.
Now, we partition the monomials of ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ into sets $B_1, B_2, \ldots, B_{n^k}$ such that for $1\leq i\leq k$, each monomial in the set $B_i$ contains all the variables of the set $S_i$.
Let $P_i({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ be the polynomial corresponding to the sum of monomials in $B_i$ for all $i\in[n^k]$. We can express the polynomial ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ as follows.
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})=\sum_{i=1}^{n^k} P_i({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\end{aligned}$$
Now, if we differentiate the polynomial ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ with respect to any particular set of variables $S_j = \{x_{1 i_1}, x_{2 i_2}, \ldots, x_{k i_k} \}$, we can see that only one of the polynomials in $\{P_1({\mbox{\small\rm X}}), P_2({\mbox{\small\rm X}}), \ldots, P_{n^k}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\}$ contributes a leading monomial. Since any two monomials can intersect at at most $\epsilon n - 1$ places, the distance between the leading monomials (that we get after differentiation) will be $\Delta\geq n-\mu\sqrt{n}-\epsilon n$. We can consider any $\epsilon \in (0,1)$, and then fix $c$ to be any constant $\geq \lceil\frac{2}{1-\epsilon}\rceil$. Finally, we fix $\mu$ to any value such that $0<\mu<\frac{1}{40c}$.
Thus, we get at least $n^k$ different polynomials in $\langle\partial^{=k}(f)\rangle$ such that any two of their leading monomials have pair-wise distance $\geq n/c$. Now we apply Theorem \[thm:DepthFourAbstract\] with $\delta=1$ to obtain the following theorem (Theorem \[depth-4-lb\], restated from Section \[Section:Intro\]).
Any depth four ${\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}}$ circuit for computing the ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ polynomial (over any field) must be of size $2^{\Omega_{\epsilon}({\sqrt{n}\log n})}$.
In [@kss2013] and [@flms2013], the polynomials for which the similar lower bounds were proved have matching upper bounds of $2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$. From [@gkks2012], the current depth 4 size lower bounds for Determinant and Permanent are $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n})}$. To the best of our knowledge, the polynomial ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$ is the first example of an explicit polynomial in ${\mbox{\small\rm VNP}}$ for which we have the depth four ${\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}}$ circuit size lower bound of $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$ but no known matching upper bound.
Conclusion
==========
Then main interesting open problem is to prove that over the fixed-size fields, any ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit computing the determinant polynomial for a $n\times n$ matrix must be of size $2^{\Omega(n\log n)}$. For an optimist, the task will be to find a ${\Sigma\Pi\Sigma}$ circuit of size $2^{o(n\log n)}$ for the determinant polynomial. It seems that we need significantly new ideas and techniques to make progress either on the lower bound side or on the upper bound side.
[^1]: Saptharishi gives a nice exposition of this result in his unpublished survey and he attributes it to Koutis and Srinivasan [@rp:pc].
[^2]: In the lower bound proof for ${\mbox{\small\rm NW}}_{n,\epsilon}({\mbox{\small\rm X}})$, we will consider ${\mathbb{F}}$ to be any fixed finite field ${\mathbb{F}_q}$ such that $q\geq 3$.
[^3]: The fact that $h({\mbox{\small\rm X}})\in H$ follows again from the downward closed property of the generators.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We have used infrared polarimetric imaging with NICMOS to determine precisely the position of the star that illuminates (and presumably generated) the bipolar, pre-planetary reflection nebula RAFGL 2688 (the Egg Nebula). The polarimetric data pinpoint the illuminating star, which is not detected directly at wavelengths $\le$ 2 $\mu$m, at a position well within the dark lane that bisects the nebula, 055 ($\sim550$ AU) southwest of the infrared peak which was previously detected at the southern tip of the northern polar lobe. The inferred position of the central star corresponds to the geometric center of the tips of the four principle lobes of near-infrared H$_2$ emission; identifying the central star at this position also reveals the strong point symmetric structure of the nebula, as seen both in the intensity and polarization structure of the polar lobes. The polarimetric and imaging data indicate that the infrared peak directly detected in the NICMOS images is a self-luminous source and, therefore, is most likely a distant binary companion to the illuminating star. Although present theory predicts that bipolar structure in pre-planetary and planetary nebulae is a consequence of binary star evolution, the separation between the components of the RAFGL 2688 binary system, as deduced from these observations, is much too large for the presence of the infrared companion to have influenced the structure of the RAFGL 2688 nebula.'
author:
- 'David A. Weintraub, Joel H. Kastner, Dean C. Hines, Raghvendra Sahai'
title: 'Pinpointing the Position of the Post-AGB Star at the Core of RAFGL 2688 using Polarimetric Imaging with NICMOS'
---
Introduction
============
The bipolar structures exhibited by a substantial fraction of the known planetary nebulae likely arise during the last, rapid, pre-planetary nebula (PPN) stage of evolution of intermediate-mass (1–8 M$_\odot$) stars off the asymptotic giant branch (AGB). A popular, albeit largely untested, model for such bipolarity is that the central AGB star possesses a companion that aids in the buildup of a dense, dusty equatorial torus surrounding the central star (e.g., [@soke1998]). Alternatively, the fossil remnant of a $\beta$ Pic-like main-sequence disk may bear responsibility for triggering bipolarity during post-main sequence evolution ([@kast1995]). Whatever the mechanism that abets their formation, bipolar PPN typically show two bright reflection lobes separated by a dark dust lane. The star that illuminates the polar lobes presumably is located at or near the center of the equatorial, dust torus. While this geometry obscures the central star along our direct line of sight, photons readily escape the nebular core in the polar directions and subsequently are scattered by dust grains located primarily in the walls of the rarefied, expanding lobes. As even the lobe walls tend to be optically thin in the near-infrared, such photons can be singly scattered out of the nebula into our line of sight. Single scattering produces polarized light that contains a record of the original direction of the unpolarized light source; therefore, polarimetric maps of such polarized nebulae contain clues as to the locations of their illuminating sources, even if those stars lie hidden inside dust lanes.
Recent direct imaging of RAFGL 2688 (the Egg Nebula) with the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) aboard the Hubble Space Telescope ([*HST*]{}) ([@saha1998]) revealed a compact red source just south of the bottom of the northern reflection lobe. However, initial analysis of the polarimetric maps from NICMOS indicated that this red source was not the primary illuminator of the reflection nebulosity; this object is most likely a companion to the post-AGB star that lurks in the core of the Egg Nebula. From a preliminary examination of the 2.0 $\mu$m polarimetric map, Sahai et al. suggested that the obscured, post-AGB star was located $\simeq$ 750 AU (075) south of the red companion.
In this paper, we present a rigorous analysis of the 2.0 $\mu$m polarization map of RAFGL 2688 obtained by NICMOS. We determine the precise position of the post-AGB star in the core, assess the relationship of the red source to the illuminator star, and discuss the implications of this work for understanding the formation of the Egg Nebula and of other bipolar PPN.
Polarization Data Analysis
==========================
The data and data reduction methods used in this study were first presented by Sahai et al. (1998). In brief summary, RAFGL 2688 was imaged through the POL0L, POL120L and POL240L filters with camera 2 (NIC2) of NICMOS, using integration times of 1215 s for each filter. These filters are centered at 1.994 $\mu$m and have a full-width-half-maximum of 0.2025 $\mu$m. The field of view for these images is 195$\times$193 and the plate scale is 0076/pixel ([@thom1998]). The calculations of fractional polarization ([*p*]{}) and polarization position angle ($\theta$) are carried out as described by Hines (1998)[^1]; however, we find that the best position angle calculations include the addition of a small, constant angle $\phi$ to $\theta$, i.e. $$\theta = {1 \over 2}\tan^{-1}\biggr({U \over Q}\biggl) + \phi,$$ where $U$ and $Q$ are the Stokes vectors obtained from the polarimetric images. The offset angle $\phi$ could represent a systematic rotation of the filters in the polarization filter set from their nominal position angles. For example, if the three polarizing filters were designed to lie at position angles 0$^\circ$, 120$^\circ$, and 240$^\circ$, they actually are found at position angles 0$^\circ$ + $\phi$, 120$^\circ$ + $\phi$, and 240$^\circ$ + $\phi$. Alternatively, $\phi$ could represent uncertainties in our knowledge of the absolute position angles assumed for the polarization calibrators. We suggest that RAFGL 2688 represents the best absolute position angle calibrator for NICMOS polarimetric data. As explained in §4.1, we have determined empirically that $\phi$ = 4.0$^\circ$ $\pm$ 0.2$^\circ$. A polarization map of RAFGL 2688, made with $\phi$ = 4.0$^\circ$, is presented in Figure 1.
The Polarization Structure of the Nebula
========================================
A centrosymmetric pattern is the dominant single feature of the polarization map (Fig. 1); however, it is apparent by careful inspection of Fig. 1 that the polarimetric centroid is not spatially coincident with the source (labeled A) at the southern tip of the northern lobe (see §4). Overall, the nebula is very highly polarized, with virtually the entire southern lobe polarized with $p$ $>$ 0.50 (see Fig. 6 in Sahai et al. 1998 for a grayscale map of the polarized intensity). A second strong feature of the polarization structure is the apparent point symmetry of the polarization pattern around position B, which we describe below. The implication of such a symmetry for the origin of the bipolar lobes is discussed later (see §4.2).
The southern lobe is more highly polarized overall than the northern lobe (Figure 2). In the north, only 11 pixels show vectors with polarization amplitudes above 0.7; all of these vectors are on or west of the polar axis, with all but one at least 5 from the center of the nebula (Figure 2a). In contrast, $\sim$300 pixels in the southern lobe have $p$ $>$ 0.7; these pixels are dominantly on the eastern side of the polar axis and all of them lie more than 4 from the center of the nebula, demonstrating a strong point symmetry to the polarization pattern around the nebular core. An additional $\sim$1000 pixels are polarized with 0.6 $<$ $p$ $<$ 0.7 (Figure 2b). In the north, virtually all these vectors lie west of the polar axis, stretching inwards along the west limb of the reflection lobe from a distance of $\sim$7 to just more than 3 from the center. In the south, these vectors are uniformly spread across the lobe in the outer regions and more concentrated to the east of the polar axis closer to the core. Most of the rest of the southern lobe is polarized at a level $p$ $>$ 0.50 (Figure 2c). In the north, the polarization vectors in the range 0.4 $<$ $p$ $<$ 0.6 cover most of the center of the lobe (Figure 2c); the region covered by these vectors stretches radially away from the core along the eastern side; the polarization vectors in the range 0.4 $<$ $p$ $<$ 0.6 also cover the center of the southern lobe at small radial distances and then this region stretches outwards from the core along the western side. Finally, the outer edges of the northern lobe nearest to the nebular core are dominated by polarization amplitudes in the 0.15–0.40 range (Figure 2d).
The Polarimetric Centroid
=========================
Method of Determination
-----------------------
To determine the position of the source that illuminates the nebula, we have used the method presented by Weintraub & Kastner (1993), coded into a program in the software package IDL. This method takes advantage of the fact that a dust grain that singly scatters photons out of the nebula imparts a polarization position angle to the scattered light that is perpendicular to the scattering plane, i.e., perpendicular to the projected direction from that dust grain to the source of illumination. Thus, for every pair of polarization vectors in a map, we can draw perpendiculars to each vector and determine a point of intersection. Ideally, for noiseless data and purely singly scattered photons, all the pairs of vectors would have a unique intersection, the [*polarimetric centroid*]{}, which should mark the intersection between the polar axis and the disk midplane (assuming the illuminating source is identical with the central star of the nebula and that the central star lies at the geometric center of the nebula).
Even for noisy data and a mixture of singly and multiply scattered photons, one can use the method of intersections of polarization perpendiculars to determine the polarization centroid, albeit with finite positional error bars ([@wein1993]). For a given data set, the accuracy with which we can determine the centroid depends on the absolute calibration of the position angles and thus depends on our knowledge of $\phi$. If $\phi$ is marginally inaccurate, the polarimetric centroid will be poorly determined while if $\phi$ is quite inaccurate, there will be no polarimetric centroid in the map at all. Thus, we have determined $\phi$ by examining a range of $\phi$ values between $-10^\circ$ and $+10^\circ$ and adopting the value that minimizes the uncertainty in determining the polarimetric centroid. In calculating the polarimetric centroid, we limit the calculation to the $>$8000 pixels containing flux levels with signal-to-noise ratios greater than six in all three of the POL0L, POL120L, and POL240L images.
Many of these pairs of vectors have nearly parallel position angles. For vector pairs with similar position angles, especially given even a small error in determining the true position angles, the intersection position is poorly determined. We therefore impose an additional constraint: we reject all vector pairs for which the angle between the vectors (modulo 180$^\circ$) is less than 20$^\circ$. This ensures that the small uncertainties in the position angle calculations do not produce large uncertainties in the actual position of the centroid. In practice, in addition to noise, many of the pixels, usually those with polarization vectors with lower polarization amplitudes, represent parts of the reflection nebula in which multiple scattering is probably dominant. Thus, for our final calculations, we placed a limit on the minimum allowable fractional polarization to be $p_{min}$ $\ge$ 0.15 in order to exclude lines of sight dominated by multiple scattering.
After calculating the intersection points for the complete set of allowable vectors and vector pairs, we calculate the statistical mean and the standard deviation of the mean ($\sigma$) for the polarization centroid. We then repeat this calculation, keeping only intersection points within a 3-$\sigma$ rejection threshold of the initially determined mean. We continue with this process, iteratively, until the solution converges on the polarimetric centroid (denoted B). We find that the initial calculation typically lies within 0.1 pixels ($<$ 001) of the final position and the calculation converges after only $\sim$five iterations and after rejecting only $\sim$2%–4% of the total possible intersections. Changing the rejection threshold appears to affect only the size of the uncertainty and the rate of convergence, not the position of the polarization centroid itself.
Results
-------
In Figure 3, we present the same map as shown in Figure 1 but drawn with all the vectors perpendicular to the polarization position angles. These vectors clearly point to a single intersection point, the polarimetric centroid (labeled B in Fig. 1,3-6). In addition, this map illustrates, very clearly, the symmetry axis of the nebula, as seen in scattered light.
By examining solutions where $p_{min}$ ranges from 0.15 to 0.35, we find that the centroid lies 052 $\pm$ 002 west and 016 $\pm$ 003 south (Figure 4) of the isolated intensity peak at the southern tip of the north lobe (position A), well within the dark dust lane that cuts across the middle of the bipolar nebula. The positional uncertainty is dominated by the systematic differences between solutions found when selecting different values of $p_{min}$, rather than by the statistical errors in a single calculation (which are more than an order of magnitude smaller).
We have used the position of the polarimetric centroid combined with the vector pattern to determine the direction of the projection of the polar (major) axis of the Egg Nebula. One can see (Fig. 3) that the projected polar axis, drawn at a position angle of 12$^\circ$ (east of north), runs exactly parallel to the straight lines formed by the alignment of the perpendiculars (of the polarization vectors) along the central axis of both the north and south scattering lobes. A change in more than 1$^\circ$ in the position angle of the polar axis produces a clear error in the left-right symmetry of the lobes, as defined by the polarization vectors. Thus, we believe this determination of the projected position angle of the polar axis represents an improvement over the previously inferred angle of 15$^\circ$ ([@ney1975]).
In projection, the centroid is located much closer to the northern than the southern lobe. The fact that B lies closer to the southern tip of the northern lobe than to the northern tip of the southern lobe is consistent with previous determinations that the polar axis of the system is inclined such that the northern lobe is tilted toward the observer. This geometry causes the optically thick equatorial torus to obscure the innermost part of the southern lobe but permits us to view most of the inner regions of the northern lobe.
It is interesting to note the point symmetry between the two scattering lobes. In the north, the majority of the total intensity of the nebula is east of the polar axis, including the brightest reflection peaks (see Fig. 1). In contrast, in the south, most of the reflection nebula is found to the west of the polar axis. In both lobes, the morphologically larger side of the nebula is the side showing lower overall polarization levels. We also see that the polar axis runs through the eastern side of the inward extension of the southern lobe and through the western side of the inward extension of the northern lobe. The simplest mechanism for producing point symmetric structure in the nebula is the operation of collimated bipolar outflows. Sahai & Trauger (1998) have argued, based on finding a high degree of point symmetry in the morphologies of their sample of young planetary nebulae, that such outflows are the primary agent for producing aspherical structure in planetary nebulae.
The Illuminator Star and its Surroundings
=========================================
The polarimetric centroid presumably marks the position of the post-AGB star that illuminates most or all of both the northern and southern reflection lobes of the Egg Nebula. We now consider whether this illuminator and the intensity peak A constitute a widely spaced ($>$550 AU) binary system.
If a field star were at position A, such a star would reveal itself in an Airy pattern in the total intensity profile, as NICMOS generates such patterns even for very faint point sources. The absence of such a pattern indicates that the intensity peak A is an extended object. Such an object could be either a region of enhanced dust density that reflects light from B or a star embedded in the nebula that illuminates and heats the local pocket of dust around it.
In Figure 5, we present a polarization map of the same region as seen in Figure 4; however, in order to focus on the polarization behavior near A, we present in Fig. 5 only the polarization vectors with amplitudes $p$ $<$ 0.15. If a point source at position A suffers little local extinction, then it becomes a source of 2 $\mu$m photons which should generate some sort of centrosymmetric polarization pattern centered on A while the direct line of sight to A should show a low polarization level. Given the local presence of the illuminator star at B, we might expect this pattern to be distorted by the influence of a second photon source.
In examining Fig. 5, we find neither an indication of any kind of centrosymmetric pattern, even a strongly distorted one, centered on the position of the intensity peak at A, nor a simple, centrosymmetric pattern focused on the position of the illuminator at B, similar to that which characterizes the vectors in the rest of the nebula. Instead, close to A, we find a region marked by extremely low polarization levels and a disorganized polarization pattern, despite the fact that the signal-to-noise ratio is high. A somewhat more organized vector pattern is seen in the vectors that lie northeast, north and northwest of A, and which appear to define a centrosymmetric pattern centered on B.
If intensity peak A were simply a region of enhanced density of cold dust, we should see a pattern of highly polarized vectors at A suggesting direct illumination from position B, as is seen at other intermediate intensity peaks further out in the northern lobe. The absence of such a pattern suggests that peak A is self-luminous; however, the lack of any Airy profile as would be expected from a point source indicates that the source at A, at 2 $\mu$m, is seen as a small, extended nebula. At this position in the nebula, the local NICMOS point spread function generated by emission from the extended source at A, combined with the illumination of dust in this vicinity by B, generates a disorganized polarization pattern marked by relatively low polarization levels. This analysis therefore supports the suggestion that intensity peak A is a self-luminous near-infrared source.
What is the nature of the self-luminous source at peak A? Is it a deeply embedded star or a blob of warm dust? If it is a blob of warm dust, the only likely heat sources would be illumination from the former AGB star located at least 550 AU distant or shock heating. To produce significant thermal emission at 1.65 $\mu$m, the wavelength at which the blob begins to appear ([@saha1998]), would require dust with temperatures of at least 1000 K. The heating of a large amount of dust when the heat source is at least 550 AU away is highly unlikely, even for an AGB star with a luminosity of 10$^4$ L$_\odot$. In addition, some of the luminosity of the AGB star would be expected to show up in a reflection pattern at peak A, which we do not see. As for shock heating, the maps of H$_2$ emission (Fig. 6; also, see [@saha1998]) reveal no evidence of shocked gas within a few tenths of an arcsec (several hundred AU) of peak A. If the dust had been heated by a passing shock that is now 200 AU away, having moved past at 30 km s$^{-1}$, it would have had at least 30 years to cool down. Thus, it appears more likely that intensity peak A is a star and that A and B most likely constitute a widely spaced, binary star system.
Assuming A and B are a binary, their minimum separation is 550 AU (taking d = 1 kpc). If A and B are both in the equatorial plane and the polar axis is tilted 15$^\circ$ out of the plane of the sky (Sahai et al. (1998) estimated a tilt of 10$^\circ$–20$^\circ$ from the axial ratio of the dust torus), then the star at A would lie $\sim$900 AU more distant than the star at B, making the true binary separation about 1000 AU. This separation is several orders of magnitude larger than that hypothesized ([@morr1987; @soke1998]) for a central binary system that could trigger the formation of an equatorial disk and the consequent bipolar outflow.
It is remarkable that position B appears to be equidistant and point-symmetrically placed between the apex of the western loop (E1), the apex of the middle of the eastern loops (E3), and the most distant points in the polar lobes of molecular hydrogen emission (Fig. 6). Thus, the polarimetric and molecular hydrogen emission centroids are positionally coincident. This result strongly indicates that the nebular illuminator at B also generated the H$_2$ emission, where the H$_2$ emission regions are delineated by sharp outer boundaries suggestive of shocks. As shocks require fairly sudden changes — in this case, perhaps the rapid turning-on of a fast wind from the former AGB star, perhaps triggered by the quite quick stripping and ejection of the stellar envelope and the subsequent capture of a close companion — the relationship between position B and the H$_2$ emission lobes suggests that the shocks seen in the H$_2$ were caused by a very sudden event or series of events in the evolution of the central star.
Thus, while the presence of the A+B binary at the core of RAFGL 2688 does not lend support to the binary trigger hypothesis for the formation of bipolar planetary nebulae, the relationship between the central star at B and the H$_2$ lobes may support such a hypothesis. Specifically, absorption of a close binary companion by the atmosphere of the central AGB star may cause the ejection of high-velocity material; the ejected material produces the shocked H$_2$ emission and generates the bipolar structure of the Egg Nebula.
Summary
=======
From a detailed analysis of the polarimetric images obtained using NICMOS and the [*HST*]{}, we have precisely determined the position of the post-AGB star in the waist of the Egg Nebula and the projected orientation of the polar axis (PA 12$^\circ$) of this bipolar system. This post-AGB star, which illuminates the Egg Nebula, falls point-symmetrically at the center of the molecular hydrogen emission regions that mark the waist and the polar lobes of the nebula. We find that this star lies 550 AU in projected distance, and perhaps 1000 AU in physical distance, from the star previously identified ([@saha1998]) at the southern tip of the northern polar lobe. Thus, these data provide clear evidence for the presence of an optically obscured, widely spaced binary system near the core of the bipolar, pre-planetary nebula RAFGL 2688. However, the separation between these components is orders of magnitude larger than required by models postulating that companions to AGB stars trigger the production of bipolar planetary nebulae.
Hines, D. C. 1998, “Imaging Polarimetry with NICMOS,” NICMOS Instrument Science Report.
Hines, D. C., Schmidt, & Schneider 1999, , in prep.
Kastner, J. H., & Weintraub, D. A. 1995. , 109, 1211
Morris, M. 1987, , 99, 1115
Ney, E. P., Merrill, K. M., Becklin, E. E., Neugebauer, G., & Wynn-Williams, C. G. 1975, ApJ, 198, L129
Sahai, R., Hines, D. C., Kastner, J. H., Weintraub, D. A., Trauger, J. T., Rieke, M. J., Thompson, R. I., & Schneider, G. 1998, , 492, L163
Sahai, R. & Trauger, J. T. 1998, AJ, 116, 1357
Soker, N. 1998, , 496, 833
Thompson, R. I, Rieke, M., Schneider, G., Hines, D.C., & Corbin, M.R., 1998, , 492, L95
Weintraub, D. A., & Kastner, J. H., 1993, , 411, 767
[^1]: Note that the coefficients for polarimetric imaging calculations have been updated; see http://www.stsci.edu/instruments/nicmos/nicmos\_polar.html and Hines, Schmidt & Schneider 1999
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Investigating many-body localization (MBL) using exact numerical methods is limited by the exponential growth of the Hilbert space. However, localized eigenstates display multifractality and only extend over a vanishing fraction of the Hilbert space. Here, building on this remarkable property, we develop a simple yet efficient decimation scheme to discard the irrelevant parts of the Hilbert space of the random-field Heisenberg chain. This leads to an Hilbert space fragmentation in small clusters, allowing to access larger systems at strong disorder. The MBL transition is quantitatively predicted, together with a geometrical interpretation of MBL multifractality.'
author:
- Francesca Pietracaprina
- Nicolas Laflorencie
title: 'Hilbert Space Fragmentation and Many-Body Localization'
---
[**Introduction—**]{} Many-Body localization (MBL) is one of the most intriguing phenomena of condensed matter physics [@jacquod_emergence_1997; @gornyi_interacting_2005; @basko_metal-insulator_2006]. While being the natural extension of the celebrated Anderson localization problem to interacting particles, it appears to be conceptually much more difficult to grasp, as compared to its non-interacting counterpart [@evers_anderson_2008]. Nonetheless, during the past decade an impressively wide amount of theoretical works (for recent reviews, see [@nandkishore_many-body_2015; @abanin_recent_2017; @alet_many-body_2018; @abanin_many-body_2019]) and a few experimental studies [@schreiber_observation_2015; @smith_many-body_2016; @choi_exploring_2016; @lukin_probing_2019] have explored the very peculiar properties of MBL physics. It is now well admitted [@pal_many-body_2010; @serbyn_local_2013; @huse_phenomenology_2014; @luitz_many-body_2015; @vosk_theory_2015; @potter_universal_2015; @imbrie_diagonalization_2016; @imbrie_local_2017] that in one dimension, a large class of quantum interacting systems displays a disorder-induced dynamical transition at high energy between two radically different regimes. At low disorder, high-energy eigenstates are ergodic and thermal in the sense that they obey the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH) [@deutsch_quantum_1991; @srednicki_chaos_1994], they display high (volume-law) entanglement [@page_average_1993; @kjall_many-body_2014; @luitz_many-body_2015], and are fully ergodic in the Hilbert space (HS) [@mace_multifractal_2018]. Conversely, at strong disorder ETH fails, all eigenstates are only area-law entangled [@bauer_area_2013] (a property usually restricted to ground-states [@eisert_area_2010; @dupont_many-body_2019]), and a generic HS multifractality is observed [@mace_multifractal_2018]. More precisely, for a given $\cal N$-dimensional HS, MBL eigenstates only spans a vanishing fraction of it $\sim {\cal N}^{D}$, with $D<1$ [@luca_ergodicity_2013; @luitz_many-body_2015; @mace_multifractal_2018].
This potentially huge reduction of the support of many-body localized eigenstates, as compared to the full HS, calls for the development of a controlled decimation scheme in order to efficiently discard the irrelevant part of the HS, thus promising a potentially significant computational gain in our description of MBL physics. Furthermore, besides such numerical considerations, a better understanding of the very structure of the HS is conceptually of prime interest. Indeed, as we show in this Letter, the MBL phenomenon is rooted in a fragmentation of HS. Some related ideas, very recently raised for disorder-free dipole-conserving Hamiltonians [@khemani_local_2019; @sala_ergodicity-breaking_2019], have been also promoted recently in Refs [@roy_exact_2018; @roy_percolation_2019] who explored the analogy between the MBL transition and a HS percolation scenario.
![Simplified picture for the Hilbert space fragmentation of model Eq. at strong disorder in the MBL regime. (a) Basis states $|j\rangle$ in the tight-binding representation Eq. are schematized by [vertices]{} (red circles), connected to neighbors (red [edges]{}). (b) [Vertices]{} having on-site energies $|\mu_j|> \Lambda$ are discarded (open circles) and the remaining active Hilbert space clusterizes into smaller pieces (blue bubbles).[]{data-label="fig:schematic"}](schematic){width="\columnwidth"}
Here we wish to go further by building an HS decimation scheme [@aoki_real-space_1980; @monthus_many-body_2010] combined with state-of-the-art exact diagonalization (ED) techniques [@pietracaprina_shift-invert_2018]. This leads to the following main result: at strong disorder an MBL Hamiltonian can be practically studied on a vanishing fraction of the original HS, thus allowing an improvement in the accessible system sizes. Surprisingly, one can even quantitatively capture the MBL transition although this decimation framework is approximate by nature. We further provide a quantitative study of the HS fragmentation by analyzing the disorder-induced development of disconnected HS clusters whose scaling can be directly related to the multifractal dimensions [@mace_multifractal_2018]. However, our analysis contrasts with a percolation transition [@roy_exact_2018; @roy_percolation_2019].\
\
[**Model—**]{} We start with the well-studied random-field Heisenberg spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ ring, described by $${\cal H}=\sum_{i=1}^L \left( S^x_i S^x_{i+1} + S^y_i S^y_{i+1} + S^z_i S^z_{i+1} + h_i S^z_i\right),
\label{eq:realspaceH}$$ where $h_i$ is drawn from a uniform distribution in $[-h,h]$. The total magnetization being conserved, we choose the largest subspace of zero magnetization, $\sum_i S^z_i=0$, of size $\mathcal N=\binom{L}{L/2}\approx 2^L/\sqrt{L}$. This model exhibits a MBL transition at $h_c\sim 3.7$ [@luitz_many-body_2015] in the middle of the spectrum. Eq. can be mapped onto a tight-binding single particle problem [@welsh_simple_2018; @logan_many-body_2019; @mace_multifractal_2018] on a high-dimensional lattice built out of its basis states $${\cal H}=\sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal N} \mu_j {\left| j \rangle\langle j \right|} + t \sum_{\langle j,k\rangle} {\left| j \rangle\langle k \right|},
\label{eq:tightbindingH}$$ where the spin configuration basis $\{{\left| j \rangle\right.}\}_{j=1,\ldots,\,\cal N}$ is the local projection of $S^z_i$, e.g. ${\left| \uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\downarrow\cdots \rangle\right.}_{z}$ and all its combinations. The first diagonal term in Eq. is an on-site inhomogeneous potential built from interactions and random fields: $\mu_j=\langle j|\sum_{i}S^z_i S^z_{i+1} + h_i S^z_i|j\rangle$, while the second term stands for a constant hopping $t=1/2$ between neighboring spin configurations connected by transverse spin couplings $S_i^x S_{i+1}^x+S_i^y S_{i+1}^y$.
In this form, $\cal H$ is nothing but the adjacency matrix of a complex graph whose vertices $j$ are basis states, weighted by $\mu_j$ and connected by edges of constant strength $t=1/2$. The vertex degree, determined by the number of flippable spin pairs $\uparrow\downarrow$ of the corresponding basis state ${\left| j \rangle\right.}$, is given on average by $\langle z\rangle =(L+1)/2$ and its distribution approaches a gaussian of variance $\propto L$. For finite disorder strength $h$, on-site energies $\mu_j$ have a normal distribution of variance $\sigma_\mu^2\approx a h^2 L$ [^1]. The fact that the ratio between the mean degree ${\langle z \rangle}\sim L$ and the effective disorder strength $\sigma_\mu\sim h \sqrt{L}$ diverges in the limit of infinite system size excludes a genuine Anderson localization in this configuration space. Instead, and contrary to random graphs with fixed connectivity [@garcia-mata_scaling_2017; @garcia-mata_two_2019], here a multifractal regime takes over in the MBL regime above $h_c$, where only a subextensive part of the HS is exploited [@luca_ergodicity_2013; @luitz_many-body_2015; @mace_multifractal_2018].\
\
[**Decimation and Hilbert space fragmentation—**]{} In order to take advantage, and somehow cure such an “underutilization” of HS degrees of freedom, we introduce a decimation scheme, directly acting on Eq. . This procedure uses the structure of resonances in the tight-binding problem to discard the trivial information that is encoded in the HS in the localized phase. We first note that the locator expansion for the resolvent [@pietracaprina_forward_2016; @scardicchio_perturbation_2017] $$G_{ab}=\frac{1}{E-\mu_a-\Sigma_{a}^{E}}\sum_{p\in\text{path}(a,b)}\prod_{j\in p}\frac{t}{E-\mu_j-\Sigma_{j}^{E}},
\label{eq:locator}$$ where $E$ is the energy and $\Sigma_j^E$ is the self-energy of site $j$, is convergent in the localized phase. We are interested in the largest terms in this expansion, which make Eq. diverge, signalling delocalization. If we consider $E=0$ (at the center of the spectrum) and neglect the self-energy, the product in Eq. are of the type ${t}/{\mu_j}$. Thus, the ones that could contribute to the divergence of the series are those for which ${\left| {t}/{\mu_j} \right|}\gg 1$.
We consider the following decimation procedure: out of all the vertices in the graph generated by $\cal H$, we keep only the ones whose corresponding contribution in Eq. is ${\left| {t}/{\mu_j} \right|}\gg 1$; namely, fixing an $O(1)$ cutoff value $\Lambda>t$, we keep the vertices $j$ whose weight is ${\left| \mu_j \right|}<\Lambda$. All vertices not satisfying this condition are discarded, as well as all edges connected to them. This removes the sites and paths that are not resonant. The adjacency matrix of the remaining subgraph thus defines the decimated Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_\Lambda$ of size ${\cal N}_\Lambda \times {\cal N}_\Lambda$. In contrast with Monthus and Garel [@monthus_many-body_2010], our approach neglects the renormalization of on-site energies, which is justified in the strong disorder limit. Furthermore, we also neglect the renormalization of hoppings, thus restraining the proliferation of new weak bonds. As recently discussed for the Anderson localization transition and the high-dimensional limit [@tarquini_critical_2017] the generation of such very small hoppings appears to be irrelevant at strong disorder, a rationale further justified here by the growing $\propto L$ connectivity and the constant hopping $t=1/2$ of the model.
The average fraction of surviving vertices in ${\cal H}_{\Lambda}$ depends on both the disorder strength $h$ and the cutoff $\Lambda$. Taking advantage of the normal distribution for the on-site energies $\mu_i$, at large enough $L$ it is readily given by =()b, with $b\approx 2.78$. From this scaling we immediately envision the potential numerical gain at strong disorder, with an effective HS size $\langle\mathcal{N}_\Lambda\rangle$ reduced by a factor $\propto h\sqrt{L}$, albeit the dominant $2^L$ scaling remains. However, a closer inspection of the decimated HS geometry reveals a much more interesting effect: while a giant percolating cluster exists at low disorder, ${\cal H}_\Lambda$ gets fragmented in disconnected components at high disorder (schematized in Fig. \[fig:schematic\]), a related phenomenon also observed in Refs. [@roy_exact_2018; @roy_percolation_2019] where a classical percolation transition in configuration space signals the MBL transition.
{width="1.88\columnwidth"}
Conversely here our clusterization mechanism is a non-universal process which depends on the cutoff value $\Lambda$ [^2]. We first focus on the largest cluster $\mathcal{C}_{\rm L}$ which is identified after the enumeration of all components in ${\cal H}_\Lambda$, for various spin chain sizes, up to $L=28$, corresponding to an original HS of size ${\cal N}\sim 4\times 10^7$ [^3]. Its disorder-average size $\langle{\cal N}_{{\cal C}_{\rm L}}\rangle$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:clusters\] (a) for various values of disorder strength and a cutoff $\Lambda=1$. We observe a clear power-law scaling with $\langle{\cal{N}}_\Lambda\rangle$: \_\^[D\_[,h]{}]{}, \[eq:power\] where the exponent $D_{\Lambda,h}\le 1$ has a non-trivial $\Lambda$ and $h$-dependence, shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:clusters\] (a). Indeed, the pseudo-critical disorder $h^*$ for which $D<1$, signalling the fragmentation, clearly depends on $\Lambda$, thus contrasting with the universal percolation mechanism found in Refs. [@roy_exact_2018; @roy_percolation_2019]. Nevertheless, at strong disorder one finds a power-law decay D\_[,h]{}\~h\^[-]{}, \[eq:D\] with $\beta_{\rm L}\approx 0.75$ for $\Lambda=1,\,2$.
In order to substantially reduce the high computational cost of the cluster enumeration, we apply another scheme to analyze the clusterization. For each disordered sample we pick up a ‘random’ cluster, $\mathcal{C}_{\rm R}$, chosen in the following way: we consider the set of vertices with highest degree in ${\cal H}_\Lambda$ and select one vertex randomly; we then consider the component to which the selected vertex belongs to. The average size $\langle{\cal N}_{\mathcal{C}_{\rm R}}\rangle$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:clusters\] (b) where one also observes a power-law behavior vs. $\langle {\cal N}_\Lambda\rangle$, Eq. . Here the exponent $D_{\Lambda,h}$ shows a similar non-trivial $\Lambda$ and $h$-dependence, as displayed in the inset of Fig. \[fig:clusters\] (b) with a decay at strong disorder Eq. occuring with a different exponent $\beta_{\rm R}\approx 1$. Nevertheless, the departure from $D=1$ also depends on $\Lambda$, showing no evidence of the MBL transition.
At this stage, it is useful to make a link with recent ED results obtained for the multifractal scalings in the MBL regime [@mace_multifractal_2018], where it was found that MBL eigenstates are supported by only a sub-extensive portion of the configuration space $\propto {\cal N}^{D_{\rm MBL}}$ with $D_{\rm MBL}\sim 1/h$ at strong disorder. Here, our decimation scheme reaches similar conclusions: the sub-extensive HS portion is understood as an HS fragmentation. It is quite natural to foresee that random clusters will be more representative and typical, as compared to the largest one which rather captures rare events. Interestingly, the strong disorder decay of the fractal dimension $D_{\Lambda,h}$ of ${\cal C}_{\rm R}$ follows Eq. with an exponent $\beta_{\rm R}\approx 1$, in agreement with $D_{\rm MBL}$. This result gives a striking geometrical interpretation of the MBL eigenstate multifractality observed in Ref [@mace_multifractal_2018].\
\
[**[Exact diagonalization of random clusters—]{}**]{} To go beyond these geometrical considerations, we aim at exploring in more details the microscopic behavior of eigenstates on such random clusters. Taking advantage of the reduced HS size at high disorder, larger system sizes (as compared to the state-of-the-art [@pietracaprina_shift-invert_2018]) can be accessed numerically by applying the shift-invert ED method [@luitz_many-body_2015; @pietracaprina_shift-invert_2018] on the corresponding matrices ${\cal H}_{\Lambda}$ and ${\cal H}_{{\cal C}_{\rm R}}$.
![Participation entropy Eq. , rescaled by the decimated HS size $\ln\langle {\cal N}_{\Lambda}\rangle$ with $\Lambda=1$, is plotted as a function of disorder strength $h$. Data, averaged over disorder and a few eigenstates in the middle of the spectrum, are shown for both (a) ${\cal H}_{\Lambda}$ and (b) ${\cal{H}}_{{\cal{C}}_{\rm R}}$, for various system lengths $L=12,\ldots,\,28$ as indicated on the graph. Dotted lines are $\propto h^{-1}$. The MBL transition is signalled by a crossing of the curves, which occurs in the grey region for $h_c\sim 4$. Insets are zooms over the crossing regions.[]{data-label="fig:Sp"}](Crossing_Sp){width="\linewidth"}
In order to explore the wave functions properties, we compute the participation entropy, defined for an eigenstate ${{\left| \Psi \rangle\right.}}$ in the spin basis $\{{\left| j \rangle\right.}\}$ by $${S_{\rm P}}=-{\sum_jp_j\ln p_j},\label{eq:SP}$$ where $p_j=|\langle j|\Psi\rangle|^2$ is the probability of occupation for each state ${\left| j \rangle\right.}$. ED data, obtained for a decimation cutoff $\Lambda=1$, are averaged over many samples ($10^4$ realizations for $L\leq 18$, $10^3$ for $18<L\leq26$, $500$ for $L=28$) and a few eigenstates in the middle of the spectrum.
Following recent results [@luca_ergodicity_2013; @luitz_many-body_2015; @mace_multifractal_2018], we expect $\langle S_{\rm P}\rangle$ to grow as $D\ln \mathcal{N}_\Lambda$, with $D=1$ in the delocalized phase, and $D\sim 1/h$ deep in the MBL regime [@mace_multifractal_2018]. In Fig. \[fig:Sp\] we show $\langle S_{\rm P}\rangle$, rescaled by $\ln \langle{\mathcal N}_\Lambda\rangle$, as a function of disorder for two cases: (a) the full decimated Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{\Lambda}$, and (b) for random clusters ${\cal{H}}_{{\cal{C}}_{\rm R}}$. The results reproduce the expected behavior [@mace_multifractal_2018] in the MBL regime with the correct $h^{-1}$ dependence, but also near the transition and in the delocalized phase. In addition, the MBL transition can be estimated almost quantitatively by the crossing of the data close to $h_c\sim 4$, in quite good agreement with the best ED estimates [@luitz_many-body_2015; @mace_multifractal_2018]. It is worth noting however, that a slight overestimation of the transition point is expected due to the enhancement of the delocalization effects by neglecting the self-energies in Eq. . Similar results are obtained for both ${\cal H}_{\Lambda}$ and ${\cal{H}}_{{\cal{C}}_{\rm R}}$, despite more pronounced finite size corrections for the latter.
We find that MBL eigenstates properties are well captured by our decimation scheme. Indeed, removing a vertex $j$ in the graph is equivalent to impose a vanishing wavefunction amplitude on the corresponding configuration basis state ${\left| j \rangle\right.}$. While not exact, this turns out to reproduce fairly faithfully the microscopic structure of eigenstates in the MBL regime, as well as close to the critical point. On the other hand, the properties of the energy spectrum, e.g. the level statistics, are very sensitive to the HS fragmentation which induces a block structure in ${\cal H}_{\Lambda}$, leading to an emergent integrability. Therefore, one would observe the appearance of a Poisson distribution for the energy gaps at a non-universal, cutoff-dependent, pseudo-critical disorder $h^*(\Lambda)$, as observed in the insets of Fig. \[fig:clusters\] for $D$.\
\
[**[Spin freezing effect—]{}**]{} One can try to make a link between our HS decimation scheme and random field configurations in real space. At strong disorder, some sites experience very strong fields $h_i$ such that spins get almost fully polarized. In Ref. [@mace_multifractal_2018], multifractality of the MBL regime was interpreted through this real-space spin freezing effect, with a density of frozen and active sites: $\rho_{\rm active}=1-\rho_{\rm frozen}\sim h^{-1}$ at large $h$, yielding a $h^{-1}$ multifractal dimension. Here, we can alternatively define for each random cluster an active fraction \_[active]{}=1-\_[i=1]{}\^[L]{} [| \_[j\_[R]{}]{} [j|S\_i\^z|j ]{} |]{}, \[eq:act\] which quantifies the density of real-space sites for which basis states in ${\cal{C}}_{\rm R}$ can effectively fluctuate between $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$. In Fig. \[fig:active\_fraction\] we show $\langle \rho_{\rm active}\rangle$ as a function of $h$ which, as expected decays at large $h$, but $\propto 1/\sqrt{h}$, contrasting with the multifractal dimension behavior (Fig. \[fig:clusters\] (b) and Ref. [@mace_multifractal_2018]). As a matter of fact, there is no simple relation between the HS fragmentation observed in our decimation scheme, based on on-site energies of the effective tight-binding model Eq. , and real-space freezing induced by strong random fields.
![Disorder average fraction of active sites Eq. plotted against $h$ for various sizes $L$. Power-law decay $h^{-\alpha}$ is observed at strong disorder, with an exponent $\alpha$ converging to $1/2$ with $L$, as shown in the inset.[]{data-label="fig:active_fraction"}](freezing){width=".8\linewidth"}
[**[Conclusions—]{}**]{} In this work, we have proposed a simple yet efficient decimation scheme to address the MBL problem, working directly in the spin configuration basis of the random-field Heisenberg chain. Naturally designed for strong disorder, this approach is able to give quantitative results in the MBL regime, and can even capture the transition. A simple picture of HS fragmentation emerges for the MBL regime, thus providing a straightforward geometrical interpretation to the eigenstate multifractality, albeit with no clear evidences for a percolation scenario [@roy_exact_2018; @roy_percolation_2019]. From a technical point of view, we have illustrated the feasibility and the efficiency of the method up to $L=28$ (i.e. a gain of one order of magnitude for the HS size as compared to standard ED [@pietracaprina_shift-invert_2018]), but this approach can be further improved to reach larger systems at strong disorder. This opens an avenue to investigate the existence MBL in two dimensions [@choi_exploring_2016; @bordia_probing_2017; @thomson_time_2018; @wahl_signatures_2019; @de_tomasi_solving_2018; @theveniaut_many-body_2019].
We are grateful to Fabien Alet, Gabriel Lemarié, Nicolas Macé, Cécile Monthus for comments and interesting discussions. This work benefited from the support of the project THERMOLOC ANR-16-CE30-0023-02 of the French National Research Agency (ANR). We acknowledge CALMIP (grants 2017-P0677 and 2018-P0677) and GENCI (grant x2018050225) for HPC resources.
[^1]: We numerically estimate the prefactor $a=0.0824(5)$.
[^2]: Note that our approach differs from Refs. [@roy_exact_2018; @roy_percolation_2019] where bonds with $|\mu_i-\mu_j|>t$ are discarded.
[^3]: The enumeration is performed using the breadth-first search algorithm, whose complexity scales as $L\times {\cal{N}}_{\Lambda}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Spectral graph theory has been widely applied in unsupervised and semi-supervised learning. It is still unknown how it can be exploited in supervised learning. In this paper, we find for the first time, to our knowledge, that it also plays a concrete role in supervised classification. It turns out that two classifiers are inherently related to the theory: linear regression for classification (LRC) and normalized radial basis function network (nRBFN), corresponding to linear and nonlinear kernel respectively. The spectral graph theory provides us with a new insight into a fundamental aspect of classification: the tradeoff between fitting error and overfitting risk. With the theory, ideal working conditions for LRC and nRBFN are presented, which ensure not only zero fitting error but also low overfitting risk. For quantitative analysis, two concepts, the fitting error and the spectral risk (indicating overfitting), have been defined. Their bounds for nRBFN and LRC are derived. A special result shows that the spectral risk of nRBFN is lower bounded by the number of classes and upper bounded by the size of radial basis. When the conditions are not met exactly, the classifiers will pursue the minimum fitting error, running into the risk of overfitting. It turns out that $\ell_2$-norm regularization can be applied to control overfitting. Its effect is explored under the spectral context. It is found that the two terms in the $\ell_2$-regularized objective are one-one correspondent to the fitting error and the spectral risk, revealing a tradeoff between the two quantities. Concerning practical performance, we devise a basis selection strategy to address the main problem hindering the applications of (n)RBFN. With the strategy, nRBFN is easy to implement yet flexible. Experiments on 14 benchmark data sets show the performance of nRBFN is comparable to that of SVM, whereas the parameter tuning of nRBFN is much easier, leading to reduction of model selection time.'
author:
- Zhenfang Hu
- Gang Pan
- Zhaohui Wu
bibliography:
- 'sparse.bib'
title: 'Spectral-graph Based Classifications: Linear Regression for Classification and Normalized Radial Basis Function Network'
---
[**Keywords:**]{} classification, spectral graph, radial basis function network, linear regression, regularization, overfitting.
Introduction
============
Spectral graph theory is a theory that centers around the graph Laplacian matrix [@chung1997spectral]. On the one hand, it can reveal underlying cluster structure of data by the eigenvectors of the Laplacian matrix, on the other hand, the eigenvectors can serve as dimensionally reduced codes that preserve pair-wise data relation. The theory has found wide applications in unsupervised learning, including clustering [@von2007tutorial] (generally named spectral clustering, including, e.g., ratio cut (Rcut) [@chan1994spectral] and normalized cut (Ncut) [@shi2000normalized; @ng2002spectral]), and dimensionality reduction (e.g., Laplacian eigenmap (LE) [@belkin2003laplacian] and locality preserving projections (LPP) [@he2003locality]). Later, it develops as a popular paradigm in semi-supervised learning, including semi-supervised clustering [@Kamvar2003Spectral; @Kulis2005Semi] and semi-supervised classification [@Zhu2003Semi; @Zhou2004Learning; @Belkin2006Manifold; @Zhu2008Semi]. In semi-supervised learning, in an attempt to impose pair-wise data relation, the role of spectral graph usually appears as a “graph-regularization” term added to the other objectives.
Recently it has been discovered that, in the scope of unsupervised learning, spectral graph theory unifies a series of elementary methods of machine learning into a complete framework [@Hu2014Spectral]. The methods cover dimensionality reduction, cluster analysis, and sparse representation. They range from principal component analysis (PCA) [@jolliffe2002principal], K-means [@macqueen1967some], LE [@belkin2003laplacian], Rcut [@chan1994spectral], and a new spectral sparse representation (SSR) [@Hu2014Spectral]. It is revealed that these methods share inherent relations, they even become equivalent under an ideal graph condition. The framework also incorporates extended relations to conventional over-complete sparse representations [@Elad2010Sparse], e.g., [@olshausen1996emergence], method of optimal directions (MOD) [@Engan1999Method], KSVD [@aharon2006img]; manifold learning, e.g., kernel PCA [@scholkopf1998nonlinear], multidimensional scaling (MDS) [@cox2001multidimensional], Isomap [@tenenbaum2000global], locally linear embedding (LLE) [@roweis2000nonlinear]; and subspace clustering, e.g., sparse subspace clustering (SSC) [@elhamifar2013sparse], low-rank representation (LRR) [@liu2013robust].
However, as far as we know, spectral graph theory has not yet found applications in supervised classification, except in hybrid-model way where the relation is not inherent, e.g., the addition of certain classification objective with a graph-regularization term. It is interesting to know whether the theory plays a concrete role in supervised classification and which classifiers are related.
In supervised learning, linear regression and radial basis function network (RBFN) are two basic methods. Both of them are devoted to function fitting, including classification as special case. It is well-known that linear regression can be interpreted with Bayesian probability (see, e.g., [@bishop2006pattern]), and when used for classification (LRC), its link to linear discriminant analysis was already discovered [@Ye2007Least]. RBFN [@Powell1987Radial; @Broomhead1988Multivariable; @Moody1989Fast] and its normalized variant (nRBFN) [@Moody1989Fast; @Specht1991A] are classical neural networks well-known for their simple structures and universal function approximation capacities [@Park1991Universal; @Xu1994On; @Benaim1994On]. Among broad connections to many theories [@Blanzieri2003Theoretical], RBFN can be interpreted with Tikhonov regularization theory [@Poggio1990Networks], while nRBFN can be interpreted with kernel regression [@Specht1991A; @Xu1994On]. However, the above methods are hardly related to spectral graph theory before.
In classification application, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that [@Rifkin2004In; @Oyang2005Data; @Fern2014Do; @Que2016Back] the performance of RBFN can be comparable to support vector machine (SVM) [@Cortes1995Support]. Especially, in a comprehensive evaluation involving 179 classifiers and 121 data sets by [@Fern2014Do], RBFN ranks third, immediately following SVM.[^1] However, despite of bearing additional advantages, (n)RBFN did not receive wide applications as SVM. This situation may be attributed to: (1) the less sound theoretical background compared with SVM, (2) the basis selection problem involved in (n)RBFN design [@Chen1991Orthogonal; @Orr1995Regularization; @Scholkopf1997Comparing; @Oyang2005Data; @Que2016Back], and (3) the difficulty of parameter tuning. In this paper, in addition to exploring stronger theoretical background for (n)RBFN, to make (n)RBFN become practical tool, we propose a solution scheme for the basis selection and parameter setting problems.
Our Work
--------
In this paper, we uncover the concrete role of spectral graph theory in supervised classification, and find that LRC and nRBFN are inherently related to the theory. The tradeoff between fitting error and overfitting risk is a fundamental problem of classification. The theory provides us with a new insight into this problem under the context of LRC and nRBFN. With the theory, we establish the ideal working conditions for the two classifiers, which ensure not only zero fitting error but also low overfitting risk. When the conditions are not met exactly, the $\ell_2$-norm regularization can be applied to control overfitting, its effect is revealed under the spectral context. As a benefit, the regularization weight can be set in a principled and easy way. The followings are more detailed introduction.
In spectral clustering, we directly extract the cluster information from the eigenvectors of Laplacian matrix, i.e., recover the indicator vectors from the eigenvectors. However, in classification, the partition of data is assigned, and the indicator vectors are given, it seems not straightforward to see how spectral graph theory will work in this case. It turns out that we are to find the closest components in the eigenspace of Laplacian matrix to approximate the given indicator vectors. If the data is well-behaved, i.e., the given classes match the underlying clusters, then unsupervised clustering and supervised classification become consistent, and they unify under the spectral graph framework.
In this paper, we find that LRC and nRBFN are inherently related to spectral graph theory. Firstly, LRC will lay down some theoretical foundation, then nRBFN is derived via applying kernel trick on LRC. Broadly speaking, the data/feature matrix used by LRC/nRBFN shares the same eigenvectors with the Laplacian matrix, and we are to find the closest components in the eigenvectors to approximate the given indicator vectors. When an ideal graph condition is satisfied, which requires the classes being totally separated, the indicator vectors appear in the leading eigenspace of largest eigenvalues, and consequently zero fitting error is achieved. That is the inherent relation of LRC and nRBFN to spectral graph theory.
Although, zero fitting error is desirable, classification is more concerned with generalization performance. Striking a balance between low fitting error and low overfitting risk is a critical problem. Under the ideal graph condition, things are perfect, the fitting error is zero and the overfitting risk is low. From qualitative point of view, this is because the indicator vectors are found in the principal subspace. The principal subspace corresponds to stable features, as contrary to the minor subspace that corresponds to noisy features, especially when sampling is insufficient. For quantitative analysis, we define two concepts: the fitting error and the spectral risk. The spectral risk measures the deviation of the found components to the principal subspace, therefore it signals a warning of overfitting. The bounds of the two quantities for nRBFN and LRC are derived. A special result shows that the spectral risk of nRBFN is lower bounded by the number of classes–a quantity representing “problem complexity”, and upper bounded by the size of basis–a quantity representing “model complexity”. The upper bound indicates a tradeoff between fitting error and overfitting risk: larger basis implies lower error but higher risk.
In practice, the ideal condition cannot be met exactly, the leading eigenspace will deviate from the target indicator vectors. The found closest components may lie in minor subspace of small singular values. It is easily prone to noise, giving rise to increment of overfitting risk. It will be shown that the $\ell_2$-norm regularization can alleviate this problem. Its effect is explored under the spectral context. First, qualitatively, it drives the classifier to find the closest components in the principal subspace and discourages the opposite direction. Second, quantitatively, the two terms in the $\ell_2$-regularized objective are in one-one correspondence to the fitting error and the spectral risk, showing a tradeoff between the two quantities.
nRBFN is more powerful than LRC for its nonlinear kernel and significant risk bounds, we thus focus on nRBFN. To make nRBFN work in practice, we devise a basis selection strategy to address the main problem that hinders the wide applications of (n)RBFN. The strategy is based on soft K-nearest neighbors. It is easy to implement and the result is deterministic, in contrast to traditional K-means based strategy that depends on random initialization. Traditionally, setting the basis size is a troublesome problem. In our scheme, it is implicitly determined via a user-friendly threshold within range $(0,1]$. With this threshold, the basis size can be automatically determined according to the complexity of data distribution. We can also flexibly control the tradeoff between accuracy and computational cost via this threshold. Besides, when using $\ell_2$-norm regularization, the regularization weight can be set in a more principled way. In all, the parameter tuning is easy, leading to significant reduction of model selection time.
The contributions of the paper are as follows:
1. We have extended the spectral graph framework to the supervised classification domain. We found for the first time, to our knowledge, that spectral graph theory plays a concrete role in supervised classification. Two classifiers, LRC and nRBFN, corresponding to linear and nonlinear kernel respectively, turn out to be inherently related to the theory. With the theory, ideal working conditions for LRC and nRBFN are presented, which ensure not only zero fitting error but also low overfitting risk.
2. With the spectral graph theory, new insights into the overfitting problem as well as the effect of $\ell_2$-norm regularization are obtained. For quantitative analysis, two concepts, the fitting error and the spectral risk have been defined. The bounds of them for nRBFN and LRC have been derived. One result states that the spectral risk of nRBFN is lower bounded by the number of classes and upper bounded by the size of radial basis. In addition, it turns out that the two terms in the $\ell_2$-regularized objective are one-one correspondent to the fitting error and the spectral risk, revealing a tradeoff between the two quantities.
3. We have devised a basis selection strategy for (n)RBFN, so that nRBFN becomes easy to implement yet flexible. The performance of nRBFN is comparable to that of SVM, whereas the parameters of nRBFN are much easier to set, leading to significant reduction of model selection time.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:clustering\] briefly introduces spectral graph theory and reviews its rationale for clustering. Section \[sec:classification\] presents spectral-graph based classifications, including linear version LRC and kernel version nRBFN. Meanwhile, the ideal working conditions are introduced. In the cases of the conditions are not met exactly, Section \[sec:regularization\] introduces the $\ell_2$-norm regularization for LRC and nRBFN. Section \[sec:risk\] defines the fitting error and spectral risk, derives their bounds for nRBFN and LRC, and reveals the effect of $\ell_2$-norm regularization. Section \[sec:basis selection\] proposes the basis selection strategy. Section \[sec:experiment\] demonstrates the performance of nRBFN and empirically evaluates the fitting error and spectral risk. Section \[sec:related work\] introduces some related work. The paper is ended with further work in Section \[sec:future work\].
[**Notations**]{}. $A=[A_1,\dots,A_n]\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times n}$: data matrix with $n$ samples of dimension $p$. $F=[F_1,\dots,F_n]\in \mathbb{R}^{K\times n}$: indicator matrix for $n$ samples of $K$ classes. If the $i$th sample belongs to class $k$, then the $k$th entry of $F_i$ is one and the others are zero. $G=[G_1,\dots,G_r]\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times r}$: basis vectors of RBFN and nRBFN. ${\mathbf{1}}$: a vector of uniform value 1. $\operatorname{diag}(v)$: a diagonal matrix formed by vector $v$.
Spectral-graph Based Clustering: a Review {#sec:clustering}
=========================================
Given an undirected graph of $n$ vertices (data points), with the adjacency matrix defined to be a similarity matrix $W\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, measuring the pairwise similarities between data points, $W_{ij}=W_{ji}\geq 0$, the Laplacian matrix is defined as $L\doteq S-W$, where $S$ is a diagonal degree matrix with the diagonal being the sum of weights of each vertex, i.e., $S=\operatorname{diag}({\mathbf{1}}^TW)$. The Laplacian matrix has the following properties [@von2007tutorial].[^2]
1. It is positive semi-definite.
2. Vector ${\mathbf{1}}$ is always an eigenvector with eigenvalue zero.
3. Assume there are $K$ connected components in the graph, then the indicator vectors of these components (row vectors of $F$) span the eigenspace of eigenvalue zero.
These properties are exploited for clustering purpose [@von2007tutorial]. Assume we are to find $K$ clusters, if the ideal graph condition for clustering (Definition \[def:ideal clustering\]) [@Hu2014Spectral] holds (the condition implies the between-cluster weights are all zero: $W_{ij}=0$, if the $i$th and $j$th points are of different clusters), then we can compute the $K$ eigenvectors of $L$ with the smallest eigenvalues (zero), and then postprocess these eigenvectors to finish clustering. In practice, the $K$ components of the graph may not be completely disconnected. In this noisy case, the same procedure can still be applied, since the $K$ eigenvectors with the smallest eigenvalues become rotated noisy indicators, which may not differ much to their ideal ones. This is the working rationale of spectral clustering.
\[def:ideal clustering\] [**(ideal graph condition for clustering)**]{} Targeting for $K$ clusters, if there are exactly $K$ connected components in the graph, then the graph (or similarity matrix) is called ideal (with respect to $K$ clusters).
Finally, the eigenvectors of $L$ with eigenvalue zero (smallest) are the eigenvectors of $S^{-1}W$, called normalized Laplacian matrix, with eigenvalue one (largest) [@von2007tutorial].
Spectral-graph Based Classifications {#sec:classification}
====================================
In spectral clustering, we directly extract the cluster information from the eigenvectors of Laplacian matrix, i.e., recover the indicator vectors from the eigenvectors. However, in classification, the indicator vectors are given. It will be shown that we are to find the closest components in the eigenspace to approximate the indicator vectors. When an ideal condition is satisfied, the indicator vectors appear in the leading eigenspace, achieving zero fitting error and low overfitting risk.
Linear Version: Linear Regression for Classification (LRC) {#sec:lrc}
----------------------------------------------------------
We will show that the singular vectors of the data matrix are the eigenvectors of a Laplacian matrix. Thus the link to spectral graph theory is established. The Laplacian matrix is built by the inner product between data, i.e., linear kernel. In the following, we first introduce the basic formulation of LRC, then analyze it from the row-space view, this leads to the relation to spectral graph theory. Based on the theory, an ideal working condition for LRC is presented. Finally, we analyze LRC from the column-space view, which paves the way to nRBFN.
### Basic Formulation
Given data matrix $A$ (assume mean-removed, $A{\mathbf{1}}=0$) and the corresponding class labels, we convert the labels to an indicator matrix $F$, and define an augmented data matrix $\tilde{A}=\begin{bmatrix}\sqrt{\beta}{\mathbf{1}}^T\\A\end{bmatrix}$ [@Hu2014Spectral], where $\beta$ is a constant scalar that will be introduced later. The objective of LRC is to find a weight matrix $D$ so that the linear combinations of the columns of $D$ and the samples approximate the indicator vectors:[^3] $$\label{equ:lrc}
\min_{D}\, \sum_{i=1}^n
\|F_i-D\tilde{A}_i\|_2^2=\|F-D\tilde{A}\|_F^2.$$ Provided $\operatorname{rank}(\tilde{A})=p+1$, there is a unique closed-form solution: $D^*=F\tilde{A}^T(\tilde{A}\tilde{A}^T)^{-1}$ [@bishop2006pattern]. After $D^*$ is obtained, given a test sample $b$ (with mean removed as $A$), its label is determined by the maximum entry of $D^*\tilde{b}$: $$\label{equ:lrc b}
\mathop{\arg\max}_k\,
(D^*\tilde{b})_k.$$ It can be shown that the sum of $D^*\tilde{b}$ is always one.[^4] Besides, $D^*\tilde{b}$ is an approximation to the indicator vector. These endow $D^*\tilde{b}$ with a quasi-probability interpretation (may include negative values).
### Row-space View
It will be shown that LRC are to find the closest components in the data row-space to approximate the indicator vectors, and this relates to the spectral graph.
Substituting $D^*$ into (\[equ:lrc\]), we obtain $\|F-F\tilde{A}^T(\tilde{A}\tilde{A}^T)^{-1}\tilde{A}\|_F^2$. Note that $\tilde{A}^T(\tilde{A}\tilde{A}^T)^{-1}\tilde{A}$ is a projection matrix, and the projection subspace is spanned by the rows of $\tilde{A}$. In this view, to approximate $F$, LRC projects $F$ onto the row-space of $\tilde{A}$ and reconstructs. These facts are well-known. However, a natural question arises: does the row-space contain “ingredients” close to $F$, so that the reconstruction error is small? With spectral graph theory, we present an ideal condition under which the row-space of $\tilde{A}$ contains $F$. Define a similarity matrix $W\doteq \tilde{A}^T\tilde{A}$, and $$\label{equ:beta}
\beta\doteq -\min_{ij}\,(A^TA)_{ij}.$$ Since the data is mean-removed, we have $\min_{ij}\,(A^TA)_{ij}<0$,[^5] $\beta$ thus defined makes $W$ become nonnegative [@Hu2014Spectral]. The condition and theorem are as follows:[^6]
\[def:ideal classification\] [**(ideal graph condition for classification)**]{} If the weights between vertices of different classes are all zero, i.e., $\forall
i,j$, $W_{ij}=0$ if $F_i\neq F_j$, then the graph (or similarity matrix) is called ideal (with respect to the class labels).
\[theo:ideal lrc\] Given indicator matrix $F$, if $W$ satisfies the ideal graph condition for classification, then the row vectors of $F$ lie in the row-space of $\tilde{A}$ corresponding to the largest singular value ($\sqrt{\beta n}$), and therefore zero fitting error is achieved: $F=D^*\tilde{A}$.
$W$ such defined is a nonnegative symmetric matrix, hence it is a qualified similarity matrix. Because $A$ is mean-free, the degree matrix is $S=\operatorname{diag}({\mathbf{1}}^TW)=n\beta I$, and the Laplacian matrix $L\doteq S-W$ becomes $n\beta I-\tilde{A}^T\tilde{A}$. Assume the thin SVD [@golub1996matrix] of $A$ to be $U\Sigma V$, where the singular values are arranged in descending order, then [@Hu2014Spectral] $$\label{equ:svd tildeA}
\tilde{A}=\tilde{U}\tilde{\Sigma}\tilde{V}=\begin{bmatrix}1&\\&U\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\sqrt{\beta
n}&\\
&\Sigma\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}{\mathbf{1}}^T\\V\end{bmatrix},$$ Further, by $L=n\beta I-\tilde{A}^T\tilde{A}$, we obtain the spectral decomposition [@golub1996matrix] of $L$: $$\label{equ:sd L}
\begin{split}
L=
\begin{bmatrix}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}{\mathbf{1}}&V^T&\hat{V}^T\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0&&\\
&\beta nI-\Sigma^2&\\&&\beta
nI\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}{\mathbf{1}}^T\\V\\\hat{V}\end{bmatrix},
\end{split}$$ where $\hat{V}$ is the complement of $\tilde{V}$.
If the condition holds, by the third property of Laplacian matrix in Section \[sec:clustering\], the row vectors of $F$ lie in the eigenspace of $L$ with eigenvalue zero. In view of (\[equ:sd L\]) and (\[equ:svd tildeA\]), the eigenvectors of $L$ with the smallest eigenvalues are the right singular vectors of $\tilde{A}$ with the largest singular values. Thus, the row vectors of $F$ lie in the row-space of $\tilde{A}$ with the largest singular values (all equal $\sqrt{\beta n}$).
Note that the condition ensures not only perfect reconstruction but also that the target lies in the principal row-subspace of data, or principal components (PCs) in the language of PCA [@jolliffe2002principal]. This is important, because the PCs correspond to stable features, whereas the minor components usually correspond to noise, especially when sampling is insufficient. In some cases, zero training error can be achieved, however, the target may be found in the minor subspace, then generalization error can be large. That is the overfitting problem. We will return to this issue in later sections.
### Column-space View
Finally, we take a closer look at the vector $D^*\tilde{b}$, and understand the voting mechanism of LRC. The facts are routine. With (\[equ:svd tildeA\]), we have $D^*\tilde{b}=F\tilde{V}^T
\tilde{V}_b=\sum_{i=1}^n F_i(\tilde{V}_i^T\tilde{V}_b)$, where $\tilde{V}_b=\tilde{\Sigma}^{-1}\tilde{U}^T\tilde{b}$ are the normalized full PCs of $\tilde{b}$ and $\tilde{V}_i$ are those of $\tilde{A}_i$. The mechanism of class prediction becomes clear: the class of a sample is determined by the votes of the training set, where the indicator vectors $F_i$’s play the role of the votes, and the similarities between the training set and the sample serve as the weights assigned to the votes. Here, the similarity is measured by the inner product of PCs. For general data, this is not a good choice, and that is one of the limitations of LRC. We now introduce the more powerful kernel version, which measures the similarity based on Euclidean distance.
Kernel Version: Normalized RBF Network (nRBFN) {#sec:srbf}
----------------------------------------------
We will apply the kernel trick to LRC in two ways: a traditional way leads to RBFN,[^7] the other way leads to nRBFN. The function matrix used by RBFN is the similarity matrix, while that used by nRBFN is the normalized Laplacian matrix. Since the similarity matrix does not share the properties of Laplacian matrix, we cannot directly analyze RBFN by spectral graph theory, whereas the link of nRBFN to the theory is straightforward. In a following subsection, we introduce the routine basis reduction to reduce the size of the networks. After that, we interpret nRBFN from the row-space and column-space views, and analyze it with spectral graph theory. An ideal working condition in the context of basis reduction is introduced, and some properties of nRBFN are shown.
### RBFN {#sec:rbf}
We derive RBFN by applying kernel trick to LRC. The solution of (\[equ:lrc\]) can be rewritten as $D^*=(F\tilde{A}^T(\tilde{A}\tilde{A}^T)^{-2}\tilde{A})\tilde{A}^T$, which is a linear combination of the training data. If we assume $D=X\tilde{A}^T$, then (\[equ:lrc\]) turns into another objective $$\label{equ:F-XAA}
\min_{X}\, \|F-X\tilde{A}^T\tilde{A}\|_F^2.$$ Applying kernel trick on $\tilde{A}^T\tilde{A}$, we get $$\label{equ:rbf}
\min_{X}\, \|F-XW\|_F^2.$$ $W$ is a kernel matrix defined by some kernel function $W_{ij}=\phi(A_i,A_j)$. In LRC case, it is a linear function $\phi(A_i,A_j)=A_i^TA_j+\beta$. Among nonlinear ones, Gaussian kernel is most frequently used $\phi(A_i,A_j)=\exp\{-\|A_i-A_j\|_2^2/(2\sigma^2)\}$. (\[equ:rbf\]) is an RBFN [@Powell1987Radial; @Broomhead1988Multivariable; @Moody1989Fast], where the kernel function is viewed as radial basis function $\varphi(\|G_i-x\|)$:[^8] each column of $W$ corresponds to a sample $x$, while each row a basis vector $G_i$. Here, the basis $G$ consists of the whole training set, $G_i=A_i$. Assume $W$ has full rank, the solution of (\[equ:rbf\]) is $X^*=FW^{-1}$. Given a sample $b$, since $D^*\tilde{b}=X^*\tilde{A}^T\tilde{b}$, applying the same trick, the class of $b$ is decided by $$\label{equ:rbf b}
\mathop{\arg\max}_k\,(X^*W_b)_k,$$ where $(W_b)_i=\phi(A_i,b)$.
For RBFN, the ideal graph condition does not work, since the kernel matrix when served as similarity matrix does not possess the same properties as its Laplacian matrix. We are not sure whether $F$ lies in the principal subspace or minor subspace.
### nRBFN
We restart the derivation with kernel trick from another way, which will lead to nRBFN. By absorbing $\beta n$ into $X$, (\[equ:F-XAA\]) is equivalent to $$\label{equ:F-XAAbeta}
\begin{aligned}
&\min_{X}\,\|F-X\tilde{A}^T\tilde{A}(\beta n)^{-1}\|_F^2
=\min_{X}\,\|F-X\tilde{A}^T\tilde{A}\,\operatorname{diag}({\mathbf{1}}^T\tilde{A}^T\tilde{A})^{-1}\|_F^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\tilde{A}^T\tilde{A}\,\operatorname{diag}({\mathbf{1}}^T\tilde{A}^T\tilde{A})^{-1}=WS^{-1}$, which is the transpose of the normalized Laplacian matrix. Applying kernel trick and using Gaussian kernel, we obtain nRBFN: $$\min_{X}\,\|F-XWS^{-1}\|_F^2.$$ Assume $W$ has full rank, the solution is $X^*=FSW^{-1}$. Given a sample $b$, since $X^*\tilde{A}^T\tilde{b}(\beta
n)^{-1}=X^*\tilde{A}^T\tilde{b}({\mathbf{1}}^T\tilde{A}^T\tilde{b})^{-1}$, applying the same kernel trick, the class of $b$ is decided by $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathop{\arg\max}_k\,(X^*W_b({\mathbf{1}}^TW_b)^{-1})_k=\mathop{\arg\max}_k\,(X^*W_b/s_b)_k,
\end{aligned}$$ where $s_b$ is the sum of $W_b$.
Note that $WS^{-1}$ is a normalized similarity matrix. Each column of it sums to one, so is $W_b/s_b$. nRBFN was initially mentioned by [@Moody1989Fast] and later derived from probability density estimation and kernel regression by [@Specht1990Probabilistic; @Specht1991A; @Xu1994On]. It is also closely related to Gaussian mixture model [@Tresp1993Network]. However, the underlying spectral graph background seems not yet be discovered. Before the exploration, we deal with the basis reduction problem.
### Basis Reduction
In above, the bases of RBFN and nRBFN consist of the whole training set, which will lead to expensive computation. Traditionally, basis reduction is applied [@Que2016Back]. A smaller basis is chosen by some strategy (discussed in Section \[sec:basis selection\]). For the moment, we assume the basis $G=[G_1,\dots,G_r]$, $r<n$, is given. Now, $W$ is of size $r\times n$, and $W_{ij}=\phi(G_i,A_j)$. Denoting $$\tilde{W}\doteq WS^{-1}\in \mathbb{R}^{r\times n},$$ the formulation of basis-reduced nRBFN becomes $$\label{equ:srbf}
\min_{X}\,\|F-X\tilde{W}\|_F^2.$$
nRBFN and RBFN are special cases of linear regression, with sample vectors replaced by similarity vectors. Assume $W$ is of full rank, the solution of nRBFN is $X^*=F\tilde{W}^T(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T)^{-1}$ (that of RBFN is $X^*=FW^T(WW^T)^{-1}$). Given a sample $b$, in nRBFN its class is decided by $$\label{equ:srbf b}
\mathop{\arg\max}_k\,(X^*\tilde{W}_b)_k,$$ where $\tilde{W}_b\doteq W_b/s_b$, $W_b$ are the similarities between $b$ and the basis, and $s_b$ is the sum of $W_b$.
Hereafter, we focus on basis-reduced nRBFN.
### Row-space View and Column-space View to nRBFN {#sec:row-col srbf}
We will show the spectral graph theory underlying nRBFN, and introduce some basic properties as well as interpretations concerning nRBFN.
1\. From column-space view, we will show that, as LRC, the class prediction of nRBFN is also via voting mechanism. First, besides $\tilde{W}$ has a probability interpretation, the weight matrix $X^*$ also has a quasi-probability interpretation. We have
\[lem:1X\] Each column of the weight matrix $X^*$ sums to one: ${\mathbf{1}}^TX^*={\mathbf{1}}^TF\tilde{W}^T(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T)^{-1}={\mathbf{1}}^T$.
The row-space of $\tilde{W}$ contains ${\mathbf{1}}^T\in \mathbb{R}^{1\times n}$, because ${\mathbf{1}}^T\tilde{W}={\mathbf{1}}^T$. Thus, from the projection point of view, ${\mathbf{1}}^T\tilde{W}^T(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T)^{-1}\tilde{W}={\mathbf{1}}^T$. By this, ${\mathbf{1}}^TX^*\tilde{W}={\mathbf{1}}^T$. On the other hand, since $\tilde{W}$ has full rank, the solution of $x\tilde{W}={\mathbf{1}}^T$ is unique. However, both ${\mathbf{1}}^T\in \mathbb{R}^{1\times r}$ and ${\mathbf{1}}^TX^*$ are the solutions, so we conclude ${\mathbf{1}}^TX^*={\mathbf{1}}^T$.
Now considering (\[equ:srbf b\]), the class of sample $b$ is decided by the voting of the basis. Each basis vector keeps a vote $X^*_i$, and the weight assigned to the vote is the normalized similarity of $b$ to that basis vector $G_i$. In contrast to LRC, the votes are not indicator vectors, and the weights are not computed by inner product. Rather, the votes of the basis are gathered from another voting of the training data, $X^*_i=F(\tilde{W}^T(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T)^{-1})_i$. Note that ${\mathbf{1}}^T\tilde{W}^T(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T)^{-1}={\mathbf{1}}^T$, since ${\mathbf{1}}^TX^*={\mathbf{1}}^T$. We can expect that when a basis vector is more “reliable”, e.g., lying in the center of a class, the vote it keeps would concentrate in its class, whereas when lying in the overlapping region, the vote would be distributed more evenly. Generally, except under the ideal condition below, $X^*$ will include negative value, which represents objection.
2\. From row-space view, similar to LRC, nRBFN finds the closest subspace in the row-space of $\tilde{W}$ to approximate $F$. Again, an ideal condition ensuring perfect reconstruction exists. However, in the context of basis reduction, the graph should be generalized to a bipartite graph: one side of the vertices consists of the basis, the other side consists of the training set. We should assume the basis is a subset of the training set, and each class is represented by at least one basis vector. The original case where the basis consists of the whole training set is a special case of bipartite graph. Denoting $F_{G_i}$ to be the indicator vector of $G_i$, the condition is as follows:
\[def:ideal classification2\] [**(ideal bipartite-graph condition for classification)**]{} If the weights between basis vertices and data vertices of different classes are all zero, i.e., $\forall
i,j$, $W_{ij}=0$ if $F_{G_i}\neq F_j$, then the bipartite-graph (or similarity matrix) is called ideal (with respect to the class labels).
With these prerequisites, we have the following theorem indicating zero fitting error:
\[theo:ideal srbf\] Given indicator matrix $F$, if $W$ satisfies the ideal bipartite-graph condition for classification, then the row vectors of $F$ lie in the row-space of $\tilde{W}$, and zero fitting error is achieved: $F=X^*\tilde{W}$.
The proof of the theorem is manifest: the rows of $\tilde{W}$ corresponding to the same class sum to an indicator vector of that class.
When the condition holds, it can be proved that the votes $X^*$ become an indicator matrix. In this case the votes are ideal and very confident, since they concentrate in one class.
\[pro:X indicator\] If the ideal bipartite-graph condition for classification holds, $X^*$ becomes an indicator matrix. For basis vector $G_i$, $X^*_i=F_{G_i}$.
Without loss of generality, assume the training samples of the same class are arranged consecutively, then $\tilde{W}$ is block-diagonal, so is $(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T)^{-1}$. Further, $\tilde{W}^T(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T)^{-1}$ has the same nonzero blocks as $\tilde{W}^T$. Since $X^*_i=F(\tilde{W}^T(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T)^{-1})_i$, we see that $X^*_i$ is a linear combination of the indicator vectors of the same class as $G_i$, which means there is only one nonzero in $X^*_i$. By Lemma \[lem:1X\], we conclude that the nonzero value is one. Therefore, $X^*_i$ is an indicator vector of $G_i$.
When the condition does not hold exactly, that is when the classes have some overlapping but not heavy, negative values may present in $X^*$, but their magnitude should be small, because $X^*$ is a continuous function of $W$.
Unlike LRC case, whether $F$ lies in the leading row-subspace is less obvious. When the basis consists of the whole training set and the ideal condition is satisfied, by property of the normalized Laplacian matrix (Section \[sec:clustering\]), rows of $F$ are the left eigenvectors with the largest *eigenvalues*. We expect they are close to the leading row-subspace that corresponds to the largest *singular values*. For the general bipartite-graph case, please refer to Appendix \[sec:gap\] for detailed investigation. We present the main result below.
\[theo:F leading\] Under the ideal bipartite-graph condition for classification, the row vectors of $F$ become the right singular vectors of $\tilde{W}$ corresponding to the largest singular values, if and only if the row sums of $\tilde{W}$ are even within each class: $\sum_k \tilde{W}_{ik}=\sum_k \tilde{W}_{jk}$, $\forall i,j, F_{G_i}=F_{G_j}$.
The theorem suggests that when designing the model, a balanced system, which means the row sums of $\tilde{W}$ are as even as possible within each class, is preferred.
Hereafter, without confusion, we will simply refer the above three conditions as *ideal graph condition*.
Regularization for LRC and nRBFN {#sec:regularization}
================================
In practice, the ideal graph conditions are not easy to meet exactly. In this case, zero fitting error may not be achieved, and part of the found closest components may lie in the minor subspace. This will lead to the increment of overfitting risk. In this section, we introduce the traditional $\ell_2$-norm regularization, and qualitatively show its effect on controlling the overfitting risk from the spectral view. The regularized versions of LRC and nRBFN are what we will really apply in real world.
Regularized LRC {#sec:r lrc}
---------------
For LRC, the ideal graph condition is hard to meet, except perhaps for high-dimensional data: by the construction of $W$, the condition essentially requires that, after translating along a new dimension, different classes become orthogonal. Thus in general case, the leading row-subspace of $\tilde{A}$ may deviate much from $F$. LRC then searches the entire row-space to find a closest subspace to approximate $F$. The found subspace may correspond to small singular values, which may represent discriminative features or, more frequently, noise (e.g., due to insufficient sampling). In other words, LRC may deem the noisy components of data as the discriminative features for classification. Poor generalization ability can be expected.
In this regard, we would like to encourage LRC to search within the principal row-subspace. This can be achieved via $\ell_2$-norm regularization: $$\label{equ:lrc lambda}
\min_{D}\, \|F-D\tilde{A}\|_F^2+\lambda '\|D\|_F^2,$$ where $\lambda '>0$ is a scalar weight. The unique closed-from solution is $D^*=F\tilde{A}^T(\tilde{A}\tilde{A}^T+\lambda 'I)^{-1}$, regardless of the rank of $A$. The label of a new sample is decided as (\[equ:lrc b\]).
In this case, the reconstruction of the training set is $D^*\tilde{A}=F\tilde{A}^T(\tilde{A}\tilde{A}^T+\lambda
'I)^{-1}\tilde{A}$. Assume the SVD of $\tilde{A}$ to be $\tilde{U}\tilde{\Sigma}\tilde{V}$, then $\tilde{A}^T(\tilde{A}\tilde{A}^T+\lambda
'I)^{-1}\tilde{A}=\tilde{V}^T\Lambda \tilde{V}$, where $\Lambda$ is a diagonal matrix with $\Lambda_{ii}=\tilde{\sigma}_i^2/(\tilde{\sigma}_i^2+\lambda ')<1$. For those large singular values $\tilde{\sigma}_i\gg \lambda '$, $\Lambda_{ii}\approx 1$ so the principal subspace is preserved, while for those small ones $\tilde{\sigma}_i\ll \lambda '$, $\Lambda_{ii}\approx 0$ so the minor components are suppressed. In implementation, for the ease of setting $\lambda '$, we rewrite it to be $\lambda '=\lambda\|\tilde{A}\|_F^2$. Note that $\|\tilde{A}\|_F^2=\sum_{i} \tilde{\sigma}_i^2$, so the contrast between $\tilde{\sigma}_i^2$ and $\lambda'$ is easier to control. Back to the objective, $\|F-D^*\tilde{A}\|_F^2=\|F-F\tilde{V}^T\Lambda
\tilde{V}\|_F^2$. Now LRC projects $F$ onto the principal row-subspace and reconstructs. The reconstruction error may increase slightly, but overfitting is alleviated. A quantitative analysis will be conducted in Section \[sec:risk\].
Regularized nRBFN
-----------------
The ideal graph condition for nRBFN does not require orthogonality between the classes. Nevertheless, when the condition is not exactly met, to prevent nRBFN seeking the closest components in the minor subspace, we introduce regularization (the analysis follows LRC, and we omit): $$\label{equ:srbf lambda}
\min_{X}\, \|F-X\tilde{W}\|_F^2+\lambda ' \|X\|_F^2,$$ where $\lambda'=\lambda\|\tilde{W}\|_F^2$, and $\lambda>0$ is a scalar weight. The solution becomes $X^*=F\tilde{W}^T(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T+\lambda 'I)^{-1}$, regardless of the rank of $\tilde{W}$. The label of a sample $b$ is decided as (\[equ:srbf b\]).
Error and Risk Analysis {#sec:risk}
=======================
The tradeoff between fitting error and overfitting risk is an important problem of classification. In this section, from the spectral point of view, we quantitatively analyze this problem for LRC and nRBFN, and reveal the effect of $\ell_2$-regularization further. First, we define a quantitative criterion, the spectral risk, for the measurement of overfitting risk. The fitting error is also formally defined. Next, we analyze the un-regularized nRBFN and LRC in mainly ideal cases. The bounds of the two quantities will be derived. Finally, we investigate the $\ell_2$-regularization (independent of the ideal graph condition). We will show that the two terms in the $\ell_2$-regularized objective are one-one correspondent to the fitting error and spectral risk, and study the effect of $\ell_2$-regularization on trading off the error and risk.
Definitions of Spectral Risk and Fitting Error {#sec:definition error and risk}
----------------------------------------------
The definitions apply to linear regression, including LRC and nRBFN as special cases. We will define an absolute measure and a relative measure for both spectral risk and fitting error, the reasons will be clear later. The relative measures will be used as default definitions.
Let the linear regression problem be formulated as $$\label{equ:lr}
\min_{D}\, \|F-DA\|_F^2,$$ where $F\in \mathbb{R}^{K\times n}$ is any target matrix not limited to indicators, $A\in \mathbb{R}^{r\times n}$ ($r\leq n$) is any data matrix of full rank. The solution is $D^*=FA^T(AA^T)^{-1}$. To exclude meaningless case, we assume $D^*\neq {\mathbf{0}}$, which means $FA^T\neq {\mathbf{0}}$, i.e., the data is not orthogonal to the target.
### Spectral Risk
The spectral risk measures the deviation of the found components to the principal subspace. First, we define an absolute measure.
\[def:absrisk\] [**(absolute spectral risk)**]{} The absolute spectral risk is defined as $$\alpha \doteq \|D^*\|_F^2.$$
The justification can be understood by the following spectral expression. Assume the SVD of A to be $A=U\Sigma V$, then for problem (\[equ:lr\]), $D^*=FV^T\Sigma^{-1}U^T$, and we have
For linear regression problem (\[equ:lr\]), $$\label{equ:absrisk}
\alpha=\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{a_i^2}{\sigma_i^2},$$ where $a_i^2$ is the projection of the target onto $V_i$: $a_i^2\doteq \sum_{k=1}^K(F_kV_i^T)^2$, and $F_k$ is the $k$th row of $F$.
It implies that if the projections concentrate in the leading singular vectors, that is the closest components lie in the principal subspace, $\alpha$ will be small. Conversely, if they concentrate in the rear singular vectors, $\alpha$ will be large. Thus, as an absolute measure, $\|D^*\|_F^2$ is reasonable.
However, a meaningful range of the absolute measure cannot be determined. In order to cancel out the volume of data so that the measures between different data of the same model can be compared, we now define a relative measure by normalizing the projections and singular values.
\[def:risk\] [**(spectral risk)**]{} The relative spectral risk, simply called spectral risk, is defined as $$\gamma \doteq \frac{\|D^*\|_F^2\|A\|_F^2}{\|D^*A\|_F^2}.$$
For problem (\[equ:lr\]), by noting $\|A\|_F^2=\sum_{i=1}^r \sigma_i^2$ and $\|D^*A\|_F^2=\|FV^TV\|_F^2=\sum_{i=1}^r a_i^2$, we have
For linear regression problem (\[equ:lr\]), $$\label{equ:risk}
\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{\tilde{a}_i^2}{\tilde{\sigma}_i^2},$$ where $\tilde{a}_i^2\doteq a_i^2/\sum_{i=1}^r a_i^2$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_i^2\doteq \sigma_i^2/\sum_{i=1}^r \sigma_i^2$.
We can easily obtain the following range and bounds of $\gamma$:
\[pro:risk bounds\] The range of the spectral risk is $\gamma\geq 1$, and $$\label{equ:bound sigma}
1\leq \frac{1}{\tilde{\sigma}_1^2}\leq \gamma \leq \frac{1}{\tilde{\sigma}_r^2}.$$ The minimum value 1 is achieved, if and only if the data dimension is one, i.e., $r=1$.
The minimum bound implies that when we use the smallest basis having only one vector, the smallest risk is achieved. However, in this case, the fitting error can be quite large. There is a tradeoff between the fitting error and the spectral risk.
### Fitting Error
First of all, it should be made clear that the fitting error is distinct from the error rate of classification. The absolute measure of fitting error is defined straightforwardly:
\[def:abserror\] [**(absolute fitting error)**]{} The absolute fitting error is defined as $$f \doteq \|F-D^*A\|_F^2.$$
For problem (\[equ:lr\]), we have $f=\|F\|_F^2-\|D^*A\|_F^2=n-\sum_{i=1}^r a_i^2$. For reason that will be clear later, we define the relative measure to be:
\[def:error\] [**(fitting error)**]{} The relative fitting error, simply called fitting error, is defined as $$\epsilon\doteq \frac{\|F-D^*A\|_F^2}{\|D^*A\|_F^2}+1.$$
For problem (\[equ:lr\]), the definition is equivalent to $\epsilon\doteq \|F\|_F^2/\|D^*A\|_F^2$. It is easy to see that
\[pro:error\] For linear regression problem (\[equ:lr\]), $\epsilon=n/\sum_{i=1}^r a_i^2$. Its range is $\epsilon\geq 1$. The minimum value 1 is achieved if and only if the row-space of data completely covers the target, i.e., $D^*A=A$.
Error and Risk Bounds of nRBFN {#sec:risk srbf}
------------------------------
The ideal graph condition ensures zero fitting error and low overfitting risk, we will calculate the specific bounds for nRBFN (un-regularized), and then extend to the perturbation case where the condition is not satisfied exactly. We assume $F\tilde{W}^T\neq {\mathbf{0}}$, so that $X^*\neq {\mathbf{0}}$.
### Ideal Case
Let $r_k$ denote the size of basis for the $k$th class, and $n_k$ the number of training samples of that class. We have the following result:
\[theo:nrbfn ideal risk\] For nRBFN problem (\[equ:srbf\]), when the ideal graph condition is satisfied, the fitting error achieves the minimum value, $\epsilon=1$, and the spectral risk has the bounds $$\label{equ:srbf gamma}
\frac{r}{n}\sum_{k=1}^K \frac{n_k}{r_k}\leq \gamma \leq r.$$ The maximum risk is achieved when there is only one nonzero entry in each column of $\tilde{W}$. The minimum risk is approached when the entries in each column approach distributing uniformly within the corresponding class, it is achieved if and only if $r_k=1$ for all $k$.
By Theorem \[theo:ideal srbf\], when the condition holds, perfect reconstruction is achieved, i.e., $X^*\tilde{W}=F$, so $\|X^*\tilde{W}\|_F^2=n$, $f=1$. Besides, by Proposition \[pro:X indicator\], $X^*$ becomes an indicator matrix, so $\|X^*\|_F^2=r$. The spectral risk then equals $r\|\tilde{W}\|_F^2/n$, depending only on $\|\tilde{W}\|_F^2$. Recall that each column of $\tilde{W}$ sums to one. For a vector $x\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ with $\|x\|_1=1$, $1/\sqrt{p}\leq \|x\|_2 \leq 1$, the upper bound is obtained when there is only one nonzero entry in $x$, while the lower bound is obtained when the entries distribute uniformly, i.e., $x_i=1/p$. Therefore, we get $\sum_{k=1}^K n_k/r_k\leq\|\tilde{W}\|_F^2\leq n$. The lower bound cannot be reached except when $r_k=1$ for all $k$, otherwise, the rank of $\tilde{W}$ will not be full, violating the assumption.
If both $n_k$ and $r_k$ are uniform among the classes, i.e., $n_k=n/K$, $r_k=r/K$, for all $k$, (\[equ:srbf gamma\]) becomes $$K\leq \gamma \leq r.$$
The corollary conveys clear implications. It tells that in the ideal case the spectral risk is lower bounded by the number of classes–a quantity representing “problem complexity”, and upper bounded by the size of basis–a quantity representing “model complexity”. First, the lower bound implies that however the model is the spectral risk will never be lower than the problem complexity. As the number of classes increases, the spectral risk increases too. By Theorem \[theo:nrbfn ideal risk\], the risk approaches the minimum when the system is balanced, i.e., when the entries are uniform. This is a stronger condition than the uniform row-sum condition in Theorem \[theo:F leading\]. Although they analyze the deviation of $F$ to the principal subspace by different manners, Theorem \[theo:nrbfn ideal risk\] by divisive manner while Theorem \[theo:F leading\] by subtractive manner, the results are consistent. They both prefer a balanced system. Second, the upper bound implies a tradeoff between the fitting error and the overfitting risk: larger basis means lower error but higher risk. In addition, the size of basis also makes us recall the VC-dimension [@Vapnik2000The]–a classical measure of model complexity. Although the definitions are different, it happens that the VC-dimension of nRBFN (assuming the basis size is fixed, not a parameter) is also $r$. This shows some coincidence between the two concepts. Detailed comparisons are beyond the scope of the paper and we omit.
Although the conclusions hold for the ideal case, the theorem provides a foundation for the analysis of noisy case. We now explore.
### Perturbation Case {#sec:risk srbf perturbation}
We can deem the noisy case as perturbed from an ideal case, and then analyze it with matrix perturbation theory. As will be shown the noise is required to be only tiny.
Denote the noisy normalized similarity matrix to be $\tilde{W'}$, it can be decomposed as $\tilde{W'}=\tilde{W}+\Delta W$, where $\tilde{W}$ is an ideal normalized similarity matrix and $\Delta W$ is noise. Given $\tilde{W'}$, for the purpose of perturbation analysis, we do not need to know the true $\tilde{W}$. Constructing one will suffice. Among many choices, the simplest one is as follows: set the between-class entries of $\tilde{W'}$ to zero, and then normalize each column, this leads to a qualified $\tilde{W}$. Subsequently, the noise is determined, $\Delta W=\tilde{W'}-\tilde{W}$. It can be proved that, among all the choices of $\tilde{W}$, the noise induced by this manner is the minimum in $\ell_1$-norm sense. Details are omitted.
Before presenting the results, we introduce some notations. Let $$\xi\doteq \|\tilde{W}^\dag\|_2\|\Delta W\|_2,$$ where $\|\cdot\|_2$ for a matrix denotes the spectral norm, $\tilde{W}^\dag$ denotes the pseudo-inverse of $\tilde{W}$, which is equivalent to $\tilde{W}^T(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T)^{-1}$ in our case. Let $$\delta\doteq \|\Delta W\|_F/\|\tilde{W}\|_F,$$ $$n_\rho\doteq \sqrt{n_p/n_q},\quad\quad r_\rho\doteq \sqrt{r_a/r_b},$$ where $n_p=\max_k n_k$, $n_q=\min_k n_k$, $r_a=\max_k r_k$, and $r_b=\min_k r_k$. Finally, let $\epsilon'$ and $\gamma'$ be the fitting error and spectral risk of the noisy case respectively, and $\gamma$ the spectral risk of the case $\tilde{W}$. We have the following bounds for $\epsilon'$ and $\gamma'$.
\[theo:srbf pert risk\] For nRBFN problem (\[equ:srbf\]), assume $\tilde{W'}=\tilde{W}+\Delta W$, and $\tilde{W}$ is of full rank satisfying the ideal graph condition, if $$\label{equ:srbf cond}
\xi<1/n_\rho,$$ then $$\label{equ:srbf noisy error}
\epsilon'\leq \frac{n_\rho^2\xi^2}{(1- n_\rho\xi)^2}+1,$$ $$\label{equ:srbf noisy gamma}
\gamma'\leq \gamma(1+\delta)^2\Big{(}\frac{1+ r_\rho \xi}{1- n_\rho \xi}\Big{)}^2.$$
Denote the solution of the noisy case to be $X'$, and the ideal case $X$. For simplicity, denote $X'\tilde{W'}$ by $Y'$, and $X\tilde{W}$ by $Y$. Let the difference denote by $\Delta$, e.g., $\Delta X=X'-X$, $\Delta Y=Y'-Y$. We will apply the following results from matrix perturbation theory ([@David1997Numerical] Theorem 18.1): $$\frac{\|\Delta y\|_2/\|y\|_2}{\|\Delta W\|_2/\|\tilde{W}\|_2}\leq \frac{\kappa}{\cos \theta},
\quad\quad
\frac{\|\Delta x\|_2/\|x\|_2}{\|\Delta W\|_2/\|\tilde{W}\|_2}\leq \kappa+\frac{\kappa^2\tan \theta}{\eta},$$ where $x$ is any row of $X$, and $y$ is the corresponding row of $Y$. $\kappa$ is the condition number of $\tilde{W}$, $\kappa\doteq \|\tilde{W}\|_2\|\tilde{W}^\dag\|_2$. $\theta$ is the included angle between the target vector and its reconstruction $y$. $\eta\doteq \|x\|_2\|\tilde{W}\|_2/\|y\|_2$. In our context, $\tilde{W}$ satisfies the ideal condition, therefore $\theta=0$. The above results can be reduced to much simpler forms: $$\frac{\|\Delta y\|_2/\|y\|_2}{\|\Delta W\|_2/\|\tilde{W}\|_2}\leq \kappa,
\quad\quad
\frac{\|\Delta x\|_2/\|x\|_2}{\|\Delta W\|_2/\|\tilde{W}\|_2}\leq \kappa.$$ By the definitions of $\kappa$ and $\delta$, they lead to $$\label{equ:dy}
\|\Delta y\|_2/\|y\|_2\leq \xi,$$ $$\label{equ:dx}
\|\Delta x\|_2/\|x\|_2\leq \xi.$$ We now begin the proof.
First, we consider $\|Y'\|_F$, since both $\epsilon'$ and $\gamma'$ involve this denominator. $$\label{equ:Y'}
\|Y'\|_F\geq \|Y\|_F-\|\Delta Y\|_F=\|Y\|_F(1-\|\Delta Y\|_F/\|Y\|_F).$$ To apply (\[equ:dy\]), we have to convert the Frobenius norm of $Y$ to the $\ell_2$ norm of its rows $Y_k$’s. $$\begin{split}
\|\Delta Y\|_F/\|Y\|_F&=\sqrt{\frac{\sum_k \|\Delta Y_k\|_2^2}{\sum_k \|Y_k\|_2^2}}\\
&\leq \sqrt{\frac{K\|\Delta Y_u\|_2^2}{K\|Y_{l}\|_2^2}}\\
&= \|\Delta Y_u\|_2/\|Y_{l}\|_2\\
&=(\|Y_{u}\|_2/\|Y_{l}\|_2)(\|\Delta Y_{u}\|_2/\|Y_{u}\|_2),
\end{split}$$ where subscript $u=\arg\max_{k} \|\Delta Y_k\|_2$, and $l=\arg\min_{k} \|Y_k\|_2$. Note that $\tilde{W}$ satisfies the ideal condition, by Theorem \[theo:ideal srbf\], $Y=F$, and we have $$\label{equ:dy/y}
\begin{split}
\|\Delta Y\|_F/\|Y\|_F&\leq (\|F_{u}\|_2/\|F_{l}\|_2)(\|\Delta Y_{u}\|_2/\|Y_{u}\|_2)\\
&\leq \sqrt{n_{p}/n_{q}}(\|\Delta Y_{u}\|_2/\|Y_{u}\|_2)\\
&=n_\rho (\|\Delta Y_{u}\|_2/\|Y_{u}\|_2)\\
&\leq n_\rho \xi,
\end{split}$$ where the last line invokes (\[equ:dy\]). Substituting (\[equ:dy/y\]) into (\[equ:Y’\]), we obtain $$\label{equ:Y'2}
\|Y'\|_F\geq \|Y\|_F(1- n_\rho\xi).$$ By the assumption, $\xi<1/n_\rho$, we are sure $1- n_\rho\xi>0$ so that $\|Y'\|_F> 0$.
Second, using (\[equ:Y’2\]) and then (\[equ:dy/y\]), the fitting error can be estimated $$\begin{split}
\epsilon' =\frac{\|F-Y'\|_F^2}{\|Y'\|_F^2}+1
\leq \frac{\|F-Y-\Delta Y\|_F^2}{\|Y\|_F^2(1- n_\rho\xi)^2}+1
= \frac{\|\Delta Y\|_F^2}{\|Y\|_F^2(1- n_\rho\xi)^2}+1
=\frac{n_\rho^2\xi^2}{(1- n_\rho\xi)^2}+1.
\end{split}$$
Third, we consider $\|X'\|_F$. $$\label{equ:X'}
\|X'\|_F\leq \|X\|_F+\|\Delta X\|_F=\|X\|_F(1+\|\Delta X\|_F/\|X\|_F).$$ By Proposition \[pro:X indicator\], $X$ is an indicator matrix. Following the skill of the case $\|\Delta Y\|_F/\|Y\|_F$, we get $$\label{equ:dx/x}
\begin{split}
\|\Delta X\|_F/\|X\|_F&\leq (\|X_{u'}\|_2/\|X_{l'}\|_2)(\|\Delta X_{u'}\|_2/\|X_{u'}\|_2)\\
&\leq \sqrt{r_a/r_b}(\|\Delta X_{u'}\|_2/\|X_{u'}\|_2)\\
&=r_\rho (\|\Delta X_{u'}\|_2/\|X_{u'}\|_2)\\
&\leq r_\rho \xi.
\end{split}$$ where the last line invokes (\[equ:dx\]). Substituting (\[equ:dx/x\]) into (\[equ:X’\]), we obtain $$\label{equ:X'2}
\|X'\|_F\leq \|X\|_F(1+ r_\rho\xi).$$
Forth, using (\[equ:Y’2\]) and (\[equ:X’2\]), we can get the bound of $\sqrt{\gamma'}$. $$\begin{split}
\sqrt{\gamma'}&=\|\tilde{W'}\|_F\frac{\|X'\|_F}{\|Y'\|_F}\\
&\leq \|\tilde{W'}\|_F\frac{\|X\|_F(1+ r_\rho\xi)}{\|Y\|_F(1- n_\rho\xi)}\\
&=\frac{\|X\|_F\|\tilde{W}\|_F}{\|Y\|_F}\frac{\|\tilde{W'}\|_F}{\|\tilde{W}\|_F}\Big{(}\frac{1+ r_\rho\xi}{1- n_\rho\xi}\Big{)}\\
&\leq \sqrt{\gamma}\frac{\|\tilde{W}\|_F+\|\Delta W\|_F}{\|\tilde{W}\|_F}\Big{(}\frac{1+ r_\rho\xi}{1- n_\rho\xi}\Big{)}\\
&=\sqrt{\gamma}(1+\delta)\Big{(}\frac{1+ r_\rho\xi}{1- n_\rho\xi}\Big{)}.
\end{split}$$ Finally, (\[equ:srbf noisy gamma\]) is obtained.
Moreover, we have the following two corollaries.
\[coro:srbf risk\] $\delta\leq \xi$, and $$\label{equ:srbf noisy gamma2}
\gamma'\leq \gamma(1+\delta)^2\Big{(}\frac{1+ r_\rho \xi}{1- n_\rho \xi}\Big{)}^2\leq \gamma\frac{(1+r_\rho \xi)^4}{(1-n_\rho \xi)^2}.$$
Similar to the relation between the Frobenius norm and the $\ell_2$ norm in the proof of Theorem \[theo:srbf pert risk\], we can relate $\delta$ to $\xi$. Let the singular values of $\Delta W$ and $\tilde{W}$ in descending order to be $\tau_i$’s and $\sigma_i$’s respectively. By assumption, $\tilde{W}$ is of full rank, so $\sigma_r\neq 0$. Note that $\|\tilde{W}^\dag\|_2=1/\sigma_r$. We have $$\delta= \|\Delta W\|_F/\|\tilde{W}\|_F=\sqrt{\frac{\sum_i \tau_i^2}{\sum_i \sigma_i^2}}\leq \tau_1/\sigma_r=\|\Delta W\|_2\|\tilde{W}^\dag\|_2=\xi.$$ Further, $r_\rho\geq 1$, so $\delta\leq r_\rho\xi$, and (\[equ:srbf noisy gamma2\]) is obtained.
If the classes and basis are even, i.e., $n_\rho=1$, $r_\rho=1$, then the condition (\[equ:srbf cond\]) becomes $\xi<1$, and (\[equ:srbf noisy error\]), (\[equ:srbf noisy gamma\]) become $$\epsilon'\leq \frac{\xi^2}{(1- \xi)^2}+1,$$ $$\gamma'\leq \gamma(1+\delta)^2\Big{(}1+\frac{2\xi}{1-\xi}\Big{)}^2\leq \gamma\frac{(1+\xi)^4}{(1-\xi)^2}.$$
The above results suggest that, comparing with the ideal case, the fitting error and spectral risk increase by a factor of $n_\rho^2\xi^2/(1- n_\rho\xi)^2+1\geq 1$ and $(1+r_\rho \xi)^4/(1-n_\rho \xi)^2\geq 1$ respectively. When $\xi\rightarrow 0$, they approach 1. $\xi<1$ is a condition frequently appeared in the perturbation analysis of linear system [@Stewart1990Matrix]. We have reproduced it in our context (stemming from (\[equ:Y’2\])). $\xi$ measures the noise magnitude $\|\Delta W\|_2$ (i.e., the largest singular value of $\Delta W$) relative to the smallest singular value of $\tilde{W}$. In practice, $\xi<1$ requires the noise to be only tiny.
Error and Risk Bounds of LRC {#sec:risk lrc}
----------------------------
We derive the bounds for un-regularized LRC in the ideal case. The results are not as significant as those of nRBFN, so less emphasis is put. Denote $\bar{\zeta}\doteq \|A\|_F^2/n$ to be the mean squared length of original data, and $\zeta_\rho\doteq \max_i \|A_i\|_2^2/\min_i \|A_i\|_2^2$ to be the ratio between the maximum and minimum length, and $\theta_u$ to be the maximum included angle between original data pairs. We have
For LRC problem (\[equ:lrc\]), when the ideal graph condition is satisfied, the fitting error achieves the minimum value, $\epsilon=1$, and the spectral risk $$\label{equ:lrc gamma}
\gamma=1+\frac{\bar{\zeta}}{\beta},$$ $$\label{equ:lrc gamma bound}
1+\frac{1}{\zeta_\rho |\cos \theta_u|}\leq \gamma \leq 1+\frac{\zeta_\rho}{|\cos \theta_u|}.$$
We calculate $\gamma$ using the spectral expression $\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^r \tilde{a}_i^2/\tilde{\sigma}_i^2$. By Theorem \[theo:ideal lrc\], rows of $F$ are the leading singular vectors of $\tilde{A}$, corresponding to singular value $\sqrt{\beta n}$. It implies $\tilde{a}_1^2+\dots+\tilde{a}_K^2=1$ and $\tilde{a}_i=0$ for all $i>K+1$, and $\tilde{\sigma}_1^2=\dots=\tilde{\sigma}_K^2$. Thus, we have $\gamma=1/\tilde{\sigma}_1^2$. Since $\tilde{\sigma}_1^2=\beta n/\|\tilde{A}\|_F^2=\beta n/(\beta n+\|A\|_F^2)$, (\[equ:lrc gamma\]) is obtained. Next, by the definition of $\beta$ (\[equ:beta\]), assume $A_{i^*}$, $A_{j^*}$ achieve $\min_{i,j} A_i^TA_j$, then $\beta=-\|A_{i^*}\|_2\|A_{j^*}\|_2\cos \theta_u$, where $\theta_u>\pi/2$. Hence, $\bar{\zeta}/\beta=\bar{\zeta}/(\|A_{i^*}\|_2\|A_{j^*}\|_2|\cos \theta_u|)$, and (\[equ:lrc gamma bound\]) is easy to verify.
Effect of $\ell_2$-norm Regularization
--------------------------------------
First, we extend the previous definitions of fitting error and spectral risk to regularized linear regression, then we show the one-one correspondence between the two quantities and the regularized objective, and finally we study the effect of the regularization.
Let the regularized linear regression problem be $$\label{equ:rlr}
g(\tilde{D})=\min_{\tilde{D}}\, \|F-\tilde{D}A\|_F^2+\lambda' \|\tilde{D}\|_F^2,$$ where $\lambda '>0$.
The previous four definitions are extended trivially by replacing with the new $\tilde{D}^*$ of problem (\[equ:rlr\]). The spectral expressions are changed to be:
\[pro:rlr\] For regularized linear regression problem (\[equ:rlr\]), $$\alpha=\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{a_i^2\sigma_i^2}{(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')^2};\quad\quad
\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{\tilde{a'}_i^2}{\tilde{\sigma}_i^2},$$ where ${a'}_i^2\doteq a_i^2\sigma_i^4/(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')^2$, and $\tilde{a'}_i^2\doteq {a'}_i^2/\sum_i {a'}_i^2 $; $$f=n-\sum_{i=1}^r a_i^2 (1- \frac{{\lambda'}^2}{(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')^2});\quad\quad
\epsilon=\frac{n-\sum_i 2a_i^2\sigma_i^2\lambda'/(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')^2}{\sum_i a_i^2\sigma_i^4/(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')^2}.$$ The range of relative spectral risk is $\gamma\geq 1$, and $1\leq 1/\tilde{\sigma}_1^2\leq \gamma \leq 1/\tilde{\sigma}_r^2$. The minimum value 1 is achieved, if and only if $r=1$. The range of relative fitting error is $\epsilon>1$. If the row-space of data completely covers the target, then $\lim_{\lambda'\rightarrow 0} \epsilon=1$, but the minimum value 1 cannot be achieved unless $\lambda'=0$.
We prove the four spectral expressions, the remaining results are apparent. First, we have $\tilde{D}^*=FA^T(AA^T+\lambda'I)^{-1}=FV^T\Delta U^T$, where $\Delta$ is a diagonal matrix with $\Delta_{ii}=\sigma_i/(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')$, and $\tilde{D}^*A=FV^T\Lambda V$, where $\Lambda_{ii}=\sigma_i^2/(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')$.
$\alpha$ is easy to obtained by the expression of $\tilde{D}^*$, and then $$\begin{split}
\gamma&=\frac{\|\tilde{D}^*\|_F^2\|A\|_F^2}{\|\tilde{D}^*A\|_F^2}
=\frac{\Big{(}\sum_i a_i^2\sigma_i^2/(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')^2\Big{)}\Big{(}\sum_{i} \sigma_i^2\Big{)}}{\sum_i a_i^2\sigma_i^4/(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')^2}
=\frac{\Big{(}\sum_i {a'}_i^2/\sigma_i^2\Big{)}\Big{(}\sum_{i} \sigma_i^2\Big{)}}{\sum_i {a'}_i^2}
=\sum_{i}\frac{\tilde{a'}_i^2}{\tilde{\sigma}_i^2}.
\end{split}$$ Next, $f=\|F-FV^T\Lambda V\|_F^2=\|FV^T\Lambda' V\|_F^2+\|F\bar{V}^T\bar{V}\|_F^2$, where ${\Lambda'}_{ii}=\lambda'/(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')$ and $\bar{V}$ is the complement of $V$. By $\|FV^T\Lambda' V\|_F^2=\sum_i a_i^2{\lambda'}^2/(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')^2$ and $\|F\bar{V}^T\bar{V}\|_F^2=\|F\|_F^2-\|FV^TV\|_F^2=n-\sum_i a_i^2$, $f$ is obtained. Finally, based on the expressions of $\tilde{D}^*A$ and $f$, $\epsilon$ can be obtained.
Un-regularized linear regression is a special case of regularized linear regression. When setting $\lambda'=0$, all the above expressions reduce to the forms in Section \[sec:definition error and risk\].
Next, it is not hard to demonstrate the correspondence relationship.
The regularized linear regression achieves a tradeoff between fitting error and spectral risk: $$\label{equ:rlr abs}
g(\tilde{D}^*)=f+\lambda'\alpha,$$ $$\label{equ:rlr rel}
\frac{g(\tilde{D}^*)}{\|D^*A\|_F^2}=\epsilon+\lambda\gamma-1,$$ where $\lambda'=\lambda \|A\|_F^2$.
Remember that in Section \[sec:r lrc\], $\lambda'=\lambda \|A\|_F^2$ is set for the ease of parameter tuning. Here, coincidentally, it plays another role.[^9] The relationship (\[equ:rlr rel\]) is more intuitive, since both $\epsilon$ and $\gamma$ have the same normalized range, and are traded off via a weight $\lambda$. The value of (\[equ:rlr rel\]) can be compared between different data of the same model, while (\[equ:rlr abs\]) cannot.
Finally, we rigorously study the tradeoff effect from another perspective: how the fitting error and spectral risk change when we impose regularization?
\[theo:rlr D\] Compared with linear regression (\[equ:lr\]), the fitting error of regularized linear regression (\[equ:rlr\]) is increased, while the spectral risk is reduced. In precise, 1. $f(\tilde{D}^*)>f(D^*)$, 2. $\epsilon(\tilde{D}^*)>\epsilon(D^*)$, 3. $\alpha(\tilde{D}^*)<\alpha(D^*)$, 4. $\gamma(\tilde{D}^*)<\gamma(D^*)$ if $\{\sigma_i\}_{i\in \Omega}$ are not uniform ($|\Omega|>1$), where $\Omega$ is the index set of all nonzero projections $\Omega=\{j|a_j\neq 0,j=1,\dots,r\}$, $\gamma(\tilde{D}^*)=\gamma(D^*)$ otherwise.
Assertions 1 and 3 are easy to verify by comparing the spectral expressions in Proposition \[pro:rlr\] with those of when setting $\lambda'=0$. Assertion 2 can be established by noting $\epsilon(\tilde{D}^*)=f(\tilde{D}^*)/\|\tilde{D}^*A\|_F^2+1$, and the numerator increases while the denominator decreases. The final assertion 4 is less obvious, since both $\|\tilde{D}^*\|_F^2$ and $\|\tilde{D}^*A\|_F^2$ decrease. Some efforts have to be made.
First of all, if $\{\sigma_i\}_{i\in \Omega}$ are uniform, in particular $\Omega$ has only one member or $r=1$, it is clear that $\gamma(\tilde{D}^*)=\gamma(D^*)$. Next, we deal with the remaining case. Although ${a'}_i<a_i$ for all $i$, the ratios of decrement are different. Denote $d_i=\sigma_i^4/(\sigma_i^2+\lambda')^2$, observe that $d_1\geq d_2\geq\dots\geq d_r$ and there is at least one “$>$” among $\{d_i\}_{i\in\Omega}$. Focusing on $\tilde{a'}_i^2-\tilde{a}_i^2$, $$\tilde{a'}_i^2-\tilde{a}_i^2=\frac{a_i^2d_i}{\sum_i a_i^2d_i}-\frac{a_i^2}{\sum_i a_i^2}=a_i^2(\frac{d_i}{\sum_i a_i^2d_i}-\frac{1}{\sum_i a_i^2}).$$ $d_i/\sum_i a_i^2d_i-1/\sum_i a_i^2$, $i=1,\dots,r$ is a descending sequence. In the first term, $d_1/(a_1^2d_1+a_2^2d_2+\dots+a_r^2d_r)=1/(a_1^2+a_2^2(d_2/d_1)+\dots+a_r^2(d_r/d_1))> 1/\sum_i a_i^2$, since $d_1\geq d_i$ for all $i>1$ and $\{d_i\}_{i\in\Omega}$ are not uniform, thus $d_1/\sum_i a_i^2d_i-1/\sum_i a_i^2> 0$. Likewise, we can prove the last term $d_r/\sum_i a_i^2d_i-1/\sum_i a_i^2<0$. Assume the first $k$ terms are positive, and the remaining terms negative, finally we have $$\begin{split}
\gamma(\tilde{D}^*)-\gamma(D^*)=&\sum_{i}\frac{\tilde{a'}_i^2-\tilde{a}_i^2}{\tilde{\sigma}_i^2}\\
=&\sum_{p=1}^k \frac{a_p^2}{\tilde{\sigma}_p^2}(\frac{d_p}{\sum_i a_i^2d_i}-\frac{1}{\sum_i a_i^2})\;+\;\sum_{q=k+1}^r \frac{a_q^2}{\tilde{\sigma}_q^2}(\frac{d_q}{\sum_i a_i^2d_i}-\frac{1}{\sum_i a_i^2})\\
<&\frac{1}{\tilde{\sigma}_k^2}\sum_{p=1}^k a_p^2(\frac{d_p}{\sum_i a_i^2d_i}-\frac{1}{\sum_i a_i^2})
\;+\;\frac{1}{{\tilde{\sigma}_{k+1}^2}}\sum_{q=k+1}^r a_q^2(\frac{d_q}{\sum_i a_i^2d_i}-\frac{1}{\sum_i a_i^2})\\
=&\frac{c}{\tilde{\sigma}_k^2}-\frac{c}{\tilde{\sigma}_{k+1}^2}<0,
\end{split}$$ where $c=\sum_{p=1}^k a_p^2(\frac{d_p}{\sum_i a_i^2d_i}-\frac{1}{\sum_i a_i^2})>0$. Note that $\sum_{q=k+1}^r a_q^2(\frac{d_q}{\sum_i a_i^2d_i}-\frac{1}{\sum_i a_i^2})=-c$, since $\sum_{i}\tilde{a'}_i^2-\tilde{a}_i^2=0$.
The assertion 4 has some indications. If the singular values are totally different, the nonuniform condition must hold, and the spectral risk must strictly decrease. Conversely, if the singular values are totally uniform, including the special case $r=1$, the spectral risk will not decrease. It indicates that, not in all cases, employing regularization will help to improve the generalization performance. In a balanced system, where the singular values are uniform, regularization is not necessary. Although it is an exceptional case, this point is not easily observed by the traditional Bayesian view. A practical implication of the result is that if the fitting error is under control, designing a balanced system is preferable.
We highlight the spectral risk of the uniform case in the following corollary.
If the singular values of the data matrix are uniform, $\sigma_1=\sigma_2=\dots=\sigma_r$, then $\gamma(\tilde{D}^*)=\gamma(D^*)=r$, which goes linearly with the size of basis. In this case, the spectral risk is independent of the target vectors so long as they are not orthogonal to the data.
We encounter the spectral risk equaling to the basis size again. But the context here is different to that of Theorem \[theo:nrbfn ideal risk\]. This subsection’s results are general, independent of the ideal graph condition.
data $A\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times n}$, labels $Y\in
\mathbb{R}^{n}$, number of neighbors $k$, confidence threshold $t$ basis $G\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times r}$ Find the $k$ nearest neighbors of each sample, record their indices, and compute their distances $Q\in \mathbb{R}^{k\times n}$, where $Q_{ij}$ is the Euclidian distance of the $j$th sample to its $i$th neighbor Set the width of Gaussian kernel $\sigma=\Sigma_{i,j} Q_{ij}/(kn)$ Build the similarity matrix $W_{ij}=\exp\{-Q_{ij}^2/(2\sigma^2)\}$, $\forall i,j$ Normalize the columns of $W$ so that it becomes probability matrix $\tilde{W}=W\operatorname{diag}({\mathbf{1}}^TW)^{-1}$ For each sample, aggregate the probability of its neighbors that have the same label as it, resulting in a confidence vector $T\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ Choose the samples whose $T_j<t$ as the basis $G$ If there is any class missed, add the sample with the lowest confidence in this class to the basis
training data $A\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times n}$, labels $Y\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$, regularization weight $\lambda$, number of neighbors $k$, confidence threshold $t$ basis $G\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times r}$, width of Gaussian kernel $\sigma$, weight matrix $X\in \mathbb{R}^{K\times r}$ Find the basis via soft KNN $G=$SKNN$(A,Y,k,t)$ Compute pairwise distance $Q_{ij}=\|G_i-A_j\|_2$, $\forall i,j$ Set the width of Gaussian kernel $\sigma=\Sigma_{i,j} Q_{ij}/(rn)$ Build the kernel matrix $W_{ij}=\exp\{-Q_{ij}^2/(2\sigma^2)\}$, $\forall i,j$ Normalize the columns of the kernel matrix $\tilde{W}=W\operatorname{diag}({\mathbf{1}}^TW)^{-1}$ Convert the label vector $Y$ to indicator matrix $F$ Compute the weight matrix $X=F\tilde{W}^T(\tilde{W}\tilde{W}^T+\lambda\|\tilde{W}\|_F^2I)^{-1}$
test data $B\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times m}$, basis $G\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times r}$, width of Gaussian kernel $\sigma$, weight matrix $X\in \mathbb{R}^{K\times r}$ predicted labels $l\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ Build the kernel matrix $(W_B)_{ij}=\exp\{-\|G_i-B_j\|_2^2/(2\sigma^2)\}$, $\forall i,j$ Normalize the columns of the kernel matrix $\tilde{W}_B=W_B\operatorname{diag}({\mathbf{1}}^TW_B)^{-1}$ Compute the predicted indicator matrix $\hat{F}=X\tilde{W}_B$ Obtain the predicted labels $l_j=\mathop{\arg\max}_k\,\hat{F}_{kj}$, $\forall j$
Basis Selection Strategy {#sec:basis selection}
========================
To make nRBFN work, we have to settle the basis selection problem and associated parameter setting. Unfortunately, it is still an open question to find the optimal basis for (n)RBFN. In this paper, we are contented with a strategy that is easy to use yet can deliver good performance.
Traditionally, there are three problems (n)RBFN needs to deal with: (1) how to decide the basis size? (2) how to select the basis? (3) how to set the Gaussian width? Usually, the size of the basis is manually assigned, except for some incremental learning methods [@Chen1991Orthogonal; @Bugmann1998Normalized; @Huang2004An; @Yu2014An] which learn the basis vectors one by one. There are two kinds of methods for basis selection: one is gradient descent method [@Poggio1990Networks; @Karayiannis1999Reformulated; @Xie2012Fast], the other is sample-selection based method, including: (1) random selection of a subset of the training set, (2) clustering the data and using the cluster centers as the basis [@Moody1989Fast; @Bishop1991Improving; @Musavi1992On; @Que2016Back], and (3) incremental learning methods. Generally, the gradient descent methods are time-consuming and lose one of the main advantages of RBFN compared with traditional neural networks. The incremental learning methods are also expensive and complex. The most frequently applied basis selection strategy is the clustering based method, especially K-means, due to its efficiency. The Gaussian width can be set via some heuristics [@Moody1989Fast; @Schwenker2001Three; @Du2014Neural], e.g., the maximum distance between basis vectors, or learnt by gradient descent, or searched via model selection. It was reported that the performance is not so sensitive to this parameter [@Specht1990Probabilistic], especially for nRBFN [@Bugmann1998Normalized].
In this paper, we devise a strategy that chooses the samples near the boundaries of different classes as the basis. The basis size is determined by a confidence parameter that is much easier to set. The Gaussian width is set as the mean distance of the training set to the basis.
RBFN has its origin in function approximation. The basis is regarded as templates or stereotypical patterns. It is this view that leads to the clustering heuristics [@Scholkopf1997Comparing]. However, the classification problem is different from the general regression problem that is not concerned with the separability of classes. For classification, samples near the boundaries may deliver more crucial information for the separation of classes than those in the inner part. This has been investigated by [@Scholkopf1997Comparing; @Bugmann1998Normalized; @Oyang2005Data]. Usually, the idea is borrowed from SVM [@Cortes1995Support], where the boundary points are called support vectors.
The boundary points can be identified by their classification confidence. That is, for each sample, if the probability belonging to its labeled class is known, then a sample can be identified as boundary point if this probability is below some preassigned threshold. Soft KNN may be the simplest tool that meets this demand. The detailed algorithm is presented in Algorithm \[alg:sknn\]. Note the basis size is implicitly determined by the confidence threshold (within range (0,1\]), which is easy to set due to clear interpretation. In this way, on the one hand, the basis size can be determined according to the complexity of data distribution: when the classes overlap more, more samples are recruited as basis, vice versa. On the other hand, we can flexibly control the tradeoff between accuracy and resource burden: larger $t$ implies better accuracy but higher computational cost, vice versa.
Finally, the training and testing algorithms of nRBFN are shown in Algorithm \[alg:train srbf\] and Algorithm \[alg:test srbf\] respectively. The time complexity of SKNN is $O(n^2(p+\log n))$, dominated by the computation of Euclidean distance and search of nearest neighbors. The time complexity of training nRBFN excluding SKNN is $O(prn+r^2n)$, and the total is $O(n^2(p+\log n)+r^2n)$, generally dominated by SKNN. Lastly, the complexity of testing is $O((p+K)rm)$.
Experiments {#sec:experiment}
===========
The experiments consist of two parts: demonstrating the performance of nRBFN, and evaluating the error and risk of nRBFN and LRC.
The experiments are carried out on a set of benchmark data sets, shown in Table \[tab:srbf vs others\].[^10] The data sets include classical small data sets of UCI Machine Learning Repository [@Lichman:2013]: iris, wdbc, glass, sonar, wine; high-dimensional and small-sample-size gene data: colon, leukemia; human face images: ORL, AR, YaleB; high-dimensional and large-sample-size text data: TDT2, 20news; and large-sample-size hand-written digit images: USPS, MNIST. If the original data set does not have a training-testing split, we use the first half of each class as the training set, except glass, sonar, and YaleB, where random splits have been performed to avoid particular sample sequences. Following common practice, each face image of ORL, AR, and YaleB is normalized to unit length. The procedures are run on a server with 32GB memory and 24 cores CPU of 2.93GHz.[^11] In the results below, test error refers to the classification error on test set.
Performance of nRBFN
--------------------
We first evaluate the parameters of nRBFN, then compare the performance of nRBFN with some other algorithms.
### Evaluation of the Parameters {#sec:para}
We evaluate the influence of the three parameters of nRBFN, $\lambda$, $t$, and $k$, on the classification performance. The results on five representative data sets are shown in Figure [\[fig:para\]]{}. Three default values $\lambda=10^{-13}$, $t=0.9$, and $k=20$ are used. When one parameter varies, the others are fixed with the default values. We find that:
\(1) The test error generally decreases as $\lambda$ decreases, and reaches a plateau after $10^{-8}$. The exceptional case is iris, on which, due to insufficient sampling, larger $\lambda$ is needed to avoid noisy subspace. Nevertheless, the difference is not large. Considering methods using regularization are usually plagued by the problem of tuning the regularization weight, nRBFN shows a desirable feature: as a rule of thumb, $\lambda<10^{-8}$ generally delivers near-optimal result of nRBFN. Our experience showed that it also holds for the other data sets we have tested. This rule will be justified further from the error-and-risk perspective in Section \[sec:risk lambda t\]. Remember the actual regularization weight is $\lambda'=\lambda \|\tilde{W}\|_F^2$. It is adaptive to the data. The principles of this setting are provided by the row-space projection view and error-and-risk analysis. If $\lambda'$ is set as a whole, the above rule no long holds, and we have to search for the optimal value in a wide range.
\(2) The error steadily decreases as $t$ increases, as expected. Note, in essence, $t$ is not merely a parameter to be tuned, it is also a choice of ours. It virtually controls the tradeoff between accuracy and resource burden. Our experience suggests $t=0.9$ strikes a good balance for general data sets. It will be justified further in below experiments.
\(3) The performance is not sensitive to $k$. It becomes stable after $k\geq 8$.
The experiments show that the parameter setting of nRBFN is easy. $t$ is a matter of choice. $k$ has minor impact on the performance. There is only one parameter, $\lambda$, needed to be tuned, but its determination is not difficult. In the following, we fix $t=0.9$, $k=20$, and for each data set, $\lambda$ will be selected via 5-fold cross validation over three values $\{10^{-5},10^{-9},10^{-13}\}$.
### nRBFN v.s. Other Classification Algorithms
In this subsection, we compare the classification performance of nRBFN with some other algorithms. The results are shown in Table \[tab:srbf vs others\]. The involved algorithms include: (1) KNN (k=20), (2) LRC ($\lambda$ is selected via 5-fold cross validation over $10^{\{-13,-12,\dots,-2\}}$), (3) ROLS (regularized orthogonal least squares algorithm for RBFN) [@Chen1996Regularized] (a classical incremental learning method for basis selection, $\lambda$ is selected using the same scheme as nRBFN, $\sigma$ and basis size are provided by nRBFN), (4) RBFNnl (RBFN from Netlab toolbox) [@Nabney2003Algorithms] (a traditional RBFN that finds the basis via clustering–gaussian mixture model, without regularization, the width of Gaussian is set as the maximum distance between the basis vectors, bias parameters are included, basis size follows nRBFN), (5) nRNwr (nRBFN without regularization, using the same basis as nRBFN), (6) nRNrb (nRBFN with basis chosen randomly from the training set, basis size follows nRBFN), (7) SVM [@Chang2007LIBSVM] (Gaussian kernel, the weight $C$ is selected over $2^{\{-1,0,\dots,12\}}$ and $\sigma$ is selected over $1.4^{\{-4,-3,\dots,4\}}\times \sigma$ of nRBFN via 5-fold cross validation). Except RBFNnl and SVM, the others are implemented by us using MATLAB.
[|c|c|c|\*[8]{}[|c]{}|]{} data & size & \#classes & KNN & LRC & ROLS & RBFNnl & nRNwr & nRNrb & SVM & nRBFN\
iris & 4$\times$(75+75) & 3 & 5.3 & 18.7 & [**4.0**]{} & 5.3 & 6.7 & 5.3 & 5.3 & 5.3\
wdbc & 30$\times$(285+284) & 2 & 6.3 & 6.3 & 8.5 & 4.9 & 7.7 & 5.6 & [**4.6**]{} & 4.9\
glass & 9$\times$(109+105) & 6 & 39.0 & 43.8 & 36.2 & 67.6 & 50.5 & 36.2 & [**31.4**]{} & 38.1\
sonar & 60$\times$(105+103) & 2 & 39.8 & 23.3 & [**18.4**]{} & 22.3 & 21.4 & [**18.4**]{} & [**18.4**]{} & [**18.4**]{}\
wine & 13$\times$(90+88) & 3 & 33.0 & 3.4 & [**1.1**]{} & 5.7 & 6.8 & [**1.1**]{} & 2.3 & [**1.1**]{}\
colon & 2000$\times$(31+31) & 2 & 35.5 & [**16.1**]{} & [**16.1**]{} & [**16.1**]{} & [**16.1**]{} & [**16.1**]{} & [**16.1**]{} & [**16.1**]{}\
leukemia & 7129$\times$(38+34) & 2 & 41.2 & [**17.6**]{} & 20.6 & [**17.6**]{} & 20.6 & 20.6 & 23.5 & 20.6\
ORL & 1024$\times$(200+200) & 40 & 54.0 & [**7.5**]{} & 8.5 & 10.0 & 8.5 & 8.5 & 10.0 & 8.5\
AR & 1024$\times$(700+700) & 100 & 69.4 & [**6.9**]{} & 11.3 & 9.9 & 12.6 & 11.3 & 26.0 & 11.3\
YaleB & 1024$\times$(1209+1205) & 38 & 46.1 & 1.6 & [**1.2**]{} & 1.5 & [**1.2**]{} & [**1.2**]{} & 3.2 & [**1.2**]{}\
TDT2 & 36771$\times$(4703+4691) & 30 & 1.2 & - & - & [**0.9**]{} & 98.5 & 1.0 & 1.7 & 1.3\
20news & 26214$\times$(11314+7532) & 20 & 24.0 & - & - & 15.0 & 77.5 & 14.6 & 15.1 & [**14.3**]{}\
USPS & 256$\times$(7291+2007) & 10 & 8.2 & 12.6 & - & 5.0 & 5.0 & 5.2 & [**4.6**]{} & 4.9\
MNIST & 784$\times$(60000+10000) & 10 & 3.8 & 13.4 & - & 2.0 & 1.9 & 2.0 & [**1.5**]{} & 1.8\
The best scores spread across the table. It is hard for a method to dominate over all others on such data sets of diverse nature. However, when we compare them pair-wise, the advantage of nRBFN becomes prominent.
\(1) As a linear model, the performance of LRC is limited, as the ideal graph condition implies. It mainly preforms well on high-dimensional data where $p\geq n$, since in this case the rank of row space is full. Results on TDT2 and 20news are absent, since it fails to run on such big data.
\(2) The results of nRNwr are inferior to nRBFN, confirming the importance of regularization.
\(3) nRBFN generally outperforms ROLS, RBFNnl, and nRNrb, showing the effectiveness of the basis selection strategy of nRBFN. ROLS is resource-consuming, it is unable to run on big data sets. Note that it is hard for RBFNnl and nRNrb themselves to determine a suitable basis size. The strategy of nRBFN, which implicitly controls the size by a user-friendly confidence threshold, makes it much easier.
\(4) nRBFN generally obtains better results than SVM on these data sets. Since performance depends on the basis sizes, we list them in Table \[tab:basis size\]. The support vectors of SVM are found automatically, we note on the first ten smaller data sets, the bases found by nRBFN when setting $t=0.9$ have sizes roughly consistent with those of SVM. It means the basis size has been determined properly according to the complexity of data distribution: when the classes overlap more, more points will be selected as basis, and vice versa. When setting $t=0.9$, most of the uncertain points helpful for determining the classification boundaries have been included. For human face images, it is well-known that the data are clustered according to lightening, expressions, poses, rather than identity. For example, a left lightening cluster may include images from all identities. Thus, almost all points serve as basis. On the four larger sets, the bases obtained by nRBFN are more economical than those of SVM, however, the test error are not necessarily worse.
0.15in -0.1in
-0.1in
[|c||c||C[0.5cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}||C[0.5cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}|]{} &
& &\
& & SVM & nRBFN & SVM & nRBFN\
iris & 75 & [**36.0**]{} & 42.7 & 5.3 & 5.3\
wdbc & 285 & [**23.2**]{} & 25.6 & [**4.6**]{} & 4.9\
glass & 109 & [**74.3**]{} & 92.7 & [**31.4**]{} & 38.1\
sonar & 105 & [**59.0**]{} & 100.0 & 18.4 & 18.4\
wine & 90 & [**55.6**]{} & 82.2 & 2.3 & [**1.1**]{}\
colon & 31 & [**90.3**]{} & 100.0 & 16.1 & 16.1\
leukemia & 38 & [**86.8**]{} & 100.0 & 23.5 & [**20.6**]{}\
ORL & 200 & [**99.5**]{} & 100.0 & 10.0 & [**8.5**]{}\
AR & 700 & [**99.1**]{} & 100.0 & 26.0 & [**11.3**]{}\
YaleB & 1209 & [**95.3**]{} & 100.0 & 3.2 & [**1.2**]{}\
TDT2 & 4703 & 70.3 & [**27.8**]{} & 1.7 & [**1.3**]{}\
20news & 11314 & 79.5 & [**71.7**]{} & 15.1 & [**14.3**]{}\
USPS & 7291 & 32.5 & [**19.9**]{} & [**4.6**]{} & 4.9\
MNIST & 60000 & 30.4 & [**14.6**]{} & [**1.5**]{} & 1.8\
-0.1in
-0.1in
-0.1in
[|c||c||C[0.5cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}||C[0.7cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}|]{} &
& &\
& & SVM & nRBFN & SVM & nRBFN\
iris & 36.0 & 5.3 & 5.3 & - & -\
wdbc & 23.2 & [**4.6**]{} & 4.9 & - & -\
glass & 74.3 & [**31.4**]{} & 37.1 & - & -\
sonar & 59.0 & 18.4 & 18.4 & - & -\
wine & 55.6 & 2.3 & [**1.1**]{} & - & -\
colon & 90.3 & 16.1 & 16.1 & [**$<$0.1**]{} & 0.1\
leukemia & 86.8 & 23.5 & [**17.6**]{} & 0.2 & [**0.1**]{}\
ORL & 99.5 & 10.0 & [**8.0**]{} & 0.6 & [**0.1**]{}\
AR & 99.1 & 26.0 & [**11.1**]{} & 6.7 & [**0.8**]{}\
YaleB & 95.3 & 3.2 & [**1.4**]{} & 19.5 & [**1.4**]{}\
TDT2 & 70.3 & 1.7 & [**0.9**]{} & 77.2 & [**16.5**]{}\
20news & 79.5 & 15.1 & [**14.3**]{} & 263.1 & [**82.3**]{}\
USPS & 32.5 & [**4.6**]{} & 4.7 & [**18.4**]{} & 24.0\
MNIST & 30.4 & [**1.5**]{} & 1.6 & [**1289.1**]{} & 2455.3\
-0.1in
-0.2in
### nRBFN v.s. SVM with the Same Basis Size
Next, for a fair comparison between nRBFN and SVM, we let the basis size of nRBFN to be equal to the size of support vectors. This is done by choosing the specific number of samples with the lowest confidence as the basis. The other parameters are set as before. The results are shown in Table \[tab:srbf vs svm\]. In this test, nRBFN performs even better, and the time cost is comparable to that of SVM. Note that, the time cost does not include the part of cross validation. SVM usually needs to run hundreds of times during cross validation, while nRBFN only runs a dozen times.
### nRBFN with fixed parameters v.s. SVM
Finally, we test the performance of nRBFN with a fixed set of parameters ($\lambda=10^{-13}$, $t=0.9$, $k=20$). In this case, nRBFN involves no model selection, but the results are still not far from those of SVM, as Table \[tab:srbf fix lambda vs svm\] shows.
Empirical Evaluation of Error and Risk
--------------------------------------
In this section, we empirically evaluate the fitting error and spectral risk of nRBFN and LRC, and investigate their influence on the performance.
-0.1in
-0.1in
data SVM nRBFN
---------- -------------- --------------
iris [**5.3**]{} 8.0
wdbc [**4.6**]{} 5.3
glass [**31.4**]{} 35.2
sonar [**18.4**]{} 21.4
wine 2.3 [**1.1**]{}
colon 16.1 16.1
leukemia 23.5 [**20.6**]{}
ORL 10.0 [**8.5**]{}
AR 26.0 [**12.6**]{}
YaleB 3.2 [**1.2**]{}
TDT2 1.7 [**1.3**]{}
20news [**15.1**]{} 15.2
USPS [**4.6**]{} 4.9
MNIST [**1.5**]{} 1.8
: The effect of regularization in terms of error-and-risk: nRNwr (nRBFN without regularization) v.s. nRBFN. The data sets on which significant changes occur are marked with boldface.[]{data-label="tab:srbfwr vs srbf"}
-0.1in
0.1in -0.1in
-0.1in
--------------- ------- ------- ------- --------- --------- ------- -------
nRNwr nRBFN nRNwr nRBFN nRNwr nRBFN
[**iris**]{} 1e-09 1.022 1.044 9.7e+09 2.5e+06 6.7 5.3
[**wdbc**]{} 1e-09 1.045 1.106 2.6e+15 2.4e+06 7.7 4.9
[**sonar**]{} 1e-05 1.000 1.191 1.5e+06 5.5e+03 21.4 18.4
colon 1e-05 1.000 1.001 7.2e+02 6.0e+02 16.1 16.1
leukemia 1e-05 1.000 1.001 1.2e+03 1.0e+03 20.6 20.6
ORL 1e-09 1.000 1.000 5.5e+05 5.4e+05 8.5 8.5
[**AR**]{} 1e-09 1.000 1.014 9.2e+07 2.5e+07 12.6 11.3
YaleB 1e-13 1.000 1.000 1.4e+09 8.2e+08 1.2 1.2
USPS 1e-13 1.056 1.056 4.1e+08 4.1e+08 5.0 4.9
MNIST 1e-13 1.064 1.064 2.4e+10 1.6e+10 1.9 1.8
--------------- ------- ------- ------- --------- --------- ------- -------
: The effect of regularization in terms of error-and-risk: nRNwr (nRBFN without regularization) v.s. nRBFN. The data sets on which significant changes occur are marked with boldface.[]{data-label="tab:srbfwr vs srbf"}
-0.1in
-0.2in
### The Effect of Regularization: nRNwr v.s. nRBFN
We evaluate the effect of regularization through comparing nRNwr (nRBFN without regularization) and nRBFN. The results are shown in Table \[tab:srbfwr vs srbf\]. Due to rank deficiency ($\operatorname{rank}(\tilde{W})<r$), results of nRNwr on glass, wine, TDT2, and 20news are erroneous and not shown. According to the table, on the sets marked with bold face, regularization significantly reduces the spectral risk, mostly by orders of magnitude, while the fitting error is increased slightly, but not yet sacrificed much. On all these sets, the test error have been reduced. This demonstrates the effectiveness of regularization. On the other data sets, regularization affects not much. Since $\lambda$ has been selected for optimal performance, it implies that on these data sets the found row-subspaces by nRNwr probably contain discriminative features rather than noise. Note that, most of these data sets have large sample sizes, indicating sufficient sampling. Even though, regularization does not provide better result in this case, it does not undermine the performance–so long as $\lambda$ is set properly. Considering its capability in dealing with both insufficient and sufficient sampling cases, regularization should be applied.
### LRC v.s. nRBFN
We compare the fitting error ($\epsilon$), spectral risk ($\gamma$), the tradeoff ($\epsilon+\lambda\gamma$), and the test error between LRC and nRBFN, and study their influence on the performance. The results are shown in Table \[tab:lrc vs srbf\].
Theoretically, two factors act together contributing to the performance of nRBFN/LRC. One is the rank of basis/data row-space. Despite of the idea graph condition, larger rank implies better fitting capacity. For nRBFN, this can be controlled via $t$. In the extreme case of full rank, zero fitting error can be achieved (although spectral risk is not guaranteed). The other factor is the ideal graph condition. Despite that the rank may be low, so long as the condition is nearly met, both the fitting error and spectral risk will be low.
We analyze Table \[tab:lrc vs srbf\] by two parts. For the data sets from colon to AR, LRC performs equally or better than nRBFN. These data sets are distinct from the others in that the ranks of LRC and nRBFN are exactly the same, and are full. Since both the fitting error and spectral risk depend on the rank, the comparison between LRC and nRBFN is thus fair. The lower test error of LRC can be attributed to the lower spectral risk. Although nRBFN has lower fitting error, it has higher risk of overfitting. Note that, these data sets consist of the gene data and face images. For nRBFN, on these sets all samples are recruited as basis, indicating the classes overlap heavily. Consequently the ideal graph condition will not be met well and the spectral risk can be high. In addition, although the fitting error of LRC seem higher, we found that on these four data sets (plus YaleB) the classification error of both LRC and nRBFN are uniformly zero. All these support the lower test error of LRC.
For the data sets marked with boldface, nRBFN performs better. This can be attributed to the higher ranks and lower fitting error. As to the higher spectral risk, first, the spectral risk is proportionally related to the rank. Second, higher value of spectral risk does not mean error actually happened, but a warning is signalled. The found subspace may be noise or discriminative features. Third, the cross validation determined a much smaller weight to offset the spectral risk, so that the product $\lambda\gamma$ is generally below the magnitude of $10^{-2}$ for nRBFN ($10^{-1}$ for LRC). In contrast to the fitting error that is above 1, the weighted risk is quite small, and the tradeoff $\epsilon+\lambda\gamma\approx \epsilon$. On the one hand, it implies that the performance is overwhelmed by the fitting error. On the other hand, the large offset of nRBFN suggests that the risk warning has been ignored. The cross validation learnt that, after regularization, the warning does no harm, the found subspace was judged to be discriminative features. These analyses also apply to the previous four data sets, since the margins of test error are not large. We conclude nRBFN performs better overall. This is due to the consistently lower fitting error and not severe overfitting.
[|c||C[0.6cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}||C[0.5cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}||c|C[0.8cm]{}||C[0.6cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}||C[0.5cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}||C[0.5cm]{}|C[0.8cm]{}|]{}
& & & & & &\
& LRC & nRBFN & LRC & nRBFN & LRC & nRBFN & LRC & nRBFN & LRC & nRBFN & LRC & nRBFN\
[**iris**]{} & [**6.7**]{} & 42.7 & 1.39 & [**1.04**]{} & 1e-04 & [**1e-09**]{} & [**9e+00**]{} & 3e+06 & 1.39 & [**1.05**]{} & 18.7 & [**5.3**]{}\
[**wdbc**]{} & [**10.9**]{} & 25.6 & 3.38 & [**1.11**]{} & 1e-04 & [**1e-09**]{} & [**1e+03**]{} & 2e+06 & 3.49 & [**1.11**]{} & 6.3 & [**4.9**]{}\
[**glass**]{} & [**28.4**]{} & 92.7 & 2.09 & [**1.24**]{} & 1e-04 & [**1e-09**]{} & [**1e+02**]{} & 2e+07 & 2.10 & [**1.26**]{} & 43.8 & [**38.1**]{}\
[**sonar**]{} & [**29.5**]{} & 100.0 & 1.29 & [**1.19**]{} & 1e-03 & [**1e-05**]{} & [**5e+01**]{} & 5e+03 & 1.33 & [**1.25**]{} & 23.3 & [**18.4**]{}\
[**wine**]{} & [**34.4**]{} & 82.2 & 1.10 & [**1.07**]{} & 1e-08 & [**1e-13**]{} & [**3e+05**]{} & 1e+11 & 1.10 & [**1.08**]{} & 3.4 & [**1.1**]{}\
colon & 100.0 & 100.0 & 1.46 & [**1.00**]{} & 1e-03 & [**1e-05**]{} & [**3e+02**]{} & 6e+02 & 1.72 & [**1.01**]{} & 16.1 & 16.1\
leukemia & 100.0 & 100.0 & 1.16 & [**1.00**]{} & 1e-04 & [**1e-05**]{} & 2e+03 & [**1e+03**]{} & 1.40 & [**1.01**]{} & [**17.6**]{} & 20.6\
ORL & 100.0 & 100.0 & 1.44 & [**1.00**]{} & 1e-04 & [**1e-09**]{} & [**3e+03**]{} & 5e+05 & 1.76 & [**1.00**]{} & [**7.5**]{} & 8.5\
AR & 100.0 & 100.0 & 1.42 & [**1.01**]{} & 1e-05 & [**1e-09**]{} & [**2e+04**]{} & 2e+07 & 1.63 & [**1.04**]{} & [**6.9**]{} & 11.3\
[**YaleB**]{} & [**84.8**]{} & 100.0 & 1.14 & [**1.00**]{} & 1e-05 & [**1e-13**]{} & [**1e+04**]{} & 8e+08 & 1.25 & [**1.00**]{} & 1.6 & [**1.2**]{}\
[**USPS**]{} & [**3.5**]{} & 19.9 & 1.42 & [**1.06**]{} & 1e-04 & [**1e-13**]{} & [**1e+02**]{} & 4e+08 & 1.43 & [**1.06**]{} & 12.6 & [**4.9**]{}\
[**MNIST**]{} & [**1.3**]{} & 14.6 & 2.15 & [**1.06**]{} & 1e-03 & [**1e-13**]{} & [**6e+01**]{} & 2e+10 & 2.21 & [**1.07**]{} & 13.4 & [**1.8**]{}\
### How Error and Risk of nRBFN Change as $\lambda$ and $t$ Vary {#sec:risk lambda t}
The setting is the same as Section \[sec:para\], now we focus on the fitting error and spectral risk. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:risk lambda\] and Figure \[fig:risk t\].
We observe from Figure \[fig:risk lambda\] that: (a) As $\lambda$ decreases, the fitting error steadily decrease. This is as expected. What deserves notice is that the error of the five data sets coincidentally converge at the point $\lambda=10^{-8}$, and reach a plateau of around 1 thereafter. This is consistent with the test error in Figure \[fig:para:lambda\]. The convergences confirm the law of $\lambda$: as a rule of thumb, setting $\lambda<10^{-8}$ generally delivers near-optimal result of nRBFN. (b) For most data sets, after $\lambda<10^{-12}$, there exists a fairly stable converging range of spectral risk: $10^{8\sim10}$. This also holds for most other data sets not shown, especially large data sets. The cases of the two gene data are abnormal, they inherently have low spectral risk, variations can be observed only when $\lambda$ becomes large. (c), (d) The weighted spectral risk ($\lambda\gamma$) and its proportion to the tradeoff converge after some points of $\lambda$. They are not comparable to the fitting error.
Next, Figure \[fig:risk t\] shows that: (a) As $t$ increases, the fitting error steadily decrease, as expected. At $t=1$, all error converge close to 1, due to full ranks of the similarity matrices. The fitting capacity of nRBFN is a matter of choice. At $t=0.9$, the error have reached a suitable level, so setting $t=0.9$ as the default value meets general situation. (b) We observe that the spectral risk again converges to the range of $10^{8\sim10}$. The convergences of big data sets are smoother than those of smaller ones. (c), (d) The weighted spectral risk is again not comparable to the fitting error.
It should be noted that the definitions of relative measures are essential, the above laws would disappear, if we simply use the absolute measures.
Related Work {#sec:related work}
============
We discuss the related work of nRBFN, regularization, and generalization error.
1\. nRBFN. nRBFN is initially mentioned by [@Moody1989Fast] and later derived by [@Specht1990Probabilistic; @Specht1991A; @Xu1994On] from probability density estimation and kernel regression. It is also closely related to Gaussian mixture model [@Tresp1993Network]. Comparing with RBFN, nRBFN has a distinctive feature: in regions far from the samples, the output of RBFN will vanish due to the localized property of radial basis function, while that of nRBFN will not due to the normalization [@Bugmann1998Normalized]. Consequently, nRBFN provides better smoothness. Meanwhile, the universal approximation capacity is preserved [@Xu1994On; @Benaim1994On]. However, the connection of nRBFN to spectral graph theory is absent before.
2\. Regularization. The most classical viewpoint to regularization is from the Bayesian probability, see e.g., [@bishop2006pattern]. The regularization term corresponds to a prior distribution of the weights, while the error term corresponds to the conditional distribution of the target. However, in the Bayesian view, the effect of regularization on reducing overfitting is not as obvious as the spectral view. Moreover, how to set the regularization weight is unclear, and the uniform case that regularization does not help is not easily observed. Another viewpoint to regularization is from the Tikhonov regularization theory that is based on functional analysis, see e.g., [@Poggio1990Networks]. In this view, the regularization term corresponds to a constraint imposing some smoothness on the approximating function.
3\. Generalization error. Even though we are concerned with the generalization problem, this paper is limited to the study of overfitting risk. We did not investigate the problem of generalization error or expected risk.[^12] Both of these two concepts relate to the error of the approximating function with respect to the underlying data distribution. In classification application, they indicate the error of a classifier when dealing with new data. Results on this problem had been established both for RBFN [@Niyogi1996On; @Krzyzak1996Nonparametric; @Krzyzak1998Radial; @Que2016Back] and nRBFN [@Xu1994On; @Kegl2000Radial]. A typical result states that with probability greater than $1-\delta$, the generalization error of RBFN is upper bounded by $O(1/r)+O(\sqrt{(pr\log(nr)-\log \delta)/n})$ [@Niyogi1996On].
Future Work {#sec:future work}
===========
We mention some limitations of the paper as well as future work worthwhile to do.
Concerning the performance improvements of nRBFN: (1) The relation between the ideal graph condition and the basis selection is not yet investigated. Our motivation to develop the basis selection strategy and parameter setting scheme is to demonstrate the practical performance of nRBFN and provide a baseline algorithm that is easy to use. Searching the optimal basis that is consistent with the theory is an important direction of future work. (2) Optimized or approximated search of nearest neighbors, e.g., [@Muja2014Scalable], can be applied to address the bottleneck of speed improvement. (3) The basis can be further reduced, for there may be many boundary points highly overlapping. (4) Online basis learning can be considered [@Platt1991A], where the basis can be increased, updated, or pruned. It will enable (n)RBFN to handle large scale data.
Concerning the theoretical investigations: (1) The error-and-risk analysis of nRBFN in the perturbation case does not depend on the normality of the columns of similarity matrix. This implies that the analysis can serve as a foundation for the analysis of the other models, e.g., RBFN [@Que2016Back], ELM [@Huang2006Extreme]. Empirically, we found that when RBFN uses our basis selection strategy, it performs similarly to nRBFN and frequently even better. The perturbation analysis in this paper is limited to tiny noise. Extending the analysis from perturbation case to normal noise case has great practical significance. (2) How the two factors of basis size and ideal graph condition interact and contribute to the performance of nRBFN deserves further study. Many of the empirical laws observed in the experiments require explanations. (3) It will be interesting to compare the spectral risk with the VC dimension [@Vapnik2000The], the error-and-risk tradeoff with the structural risk minimization [@Vapnik2000The].
The Gap between $F$ and the Leading Row-subspace of $\tilde{W}$ {#sec:gap}
===============================================================
Under the ideal graph condition, we know the row-space of $\tilde{W}$ contains $F$. Now we study how much $F$ deviates from the leading row-subspace and when the gap is closed.
For simplicity, we consider one class, since under the ideal graph condition the blocks of matrices of different classes are independent of each other, the largest singular vectors of $\tilde{W}$ consist of the largest singular vectors of each block. We use lower case symbols $w\in \mathbb{R}^{r_k\times n_k}$, $f$, $x$ to denote the nonzero blocks of the $k$th class. Note, $f$ is a uniform row vector of 1. The deviation can be measured using the idea of the $\ell_2$ operator norm [@golub1996matrix]: $$\psi\doteq \max_{y\neq {\mathbf{0}}} \frac{\|y\tilde{w}\|_2^2}{\|y\|_2^2}-\frac{\|x^*\tilde{w}\|_2^2}{\|x^*\|_2^2}\geq 0,$$ On the one hand, by property of the $\ell_2$ operator norm, $\max_{y\neq {\mathbf{0}}} \|y\tilde{w}\|_2^2/\|y\|_2^2=\|u_1\tilde{w}\|_2^2/\|u_1\|_2^2=\|\sigma_1v_1\|_2^2/\|u_1\|_2^2=\sigma_1^2$, where $u_1$, $v_1$, and $\sigma_1$ denote the largest singular vectors and value of $\tilde{w}$. On the other hand, by Proposition \[pro:X indicator\], $x^*$ is a uniform row vector of 1, and $x^*\tilde{w}=f$. Thus, $$\psi=\sigma_1^2-n_k/r_k.$$ $\psi=0$ if and only if $\sigma_1^2=n_k/r_k$, i.e., $x^*$ and $f$ become the largest singular vectors. The remaining effort focuses on the estimation of $\sigma_1$. We have the following proposition:
For any nonnegative matrix $\tilde{w}\in \mathbb{R}^{r_k\times n_k}$ $(r_k\leq n_k)$ with each column sum normalized to 1, assume $\tilde{w}$ is of full rank, then
1. $n_k/r_k\leq \sigma_1^2 \leq z_{max}$, where $z_{max}$ is the maximal row sum of $\tilde{w}$.
2. $n_k/r_k=\sigma_1^2$ if and only if the row sums are even, i.e., $z_{max}=n_k/r_k$.
1\) The problem is resolved with the help of a closely related matrix, $\hat{W}\doteq Z^{-\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{W}$, where $Z$ is a diagonal matrix of the row sums of $\tilde{W}$. $\hat{W}$ is the component of a reduced Laplacian matrix, $\hat{L}\doteq I-\hat{W}^T\hat{W}$, that is also for dealing with the scalable problem of large graph construction [@Liu2010Large]. Under the ideal graph condition, $\tilde{W}$ is block-wise, so is the reduced similarity matrix $\hat{W}^T\hat{W}$, which implies $\hat{W}^T\hat{W}$ is ideal too. Therefore, $F$ is the smallest eigenvectors of $\hat{L}$ (eigenvalue 0), and equivalently, the largest right singular vectors of $Z^{-\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{W}$ (singular value 1). Denote $\hat{w}$ and $z$ to be the corresponding blocks of class $k$. We have $$\sigma_1^2=\sup_{y\neq {\mathbf{0}}} \frac{\|y\tilde{w}\|_2^2}{\|y\|_2^2}=\sup_{y\neq {\mathbf{0}}} \frac{\|yz^{\frac{1}{2}}\hat{w}\|_2^2}{\|y\|_2^2}.$$ Denote $y'=yz^{\frac{1}{2}}$, it turns into $$\sigma_1^2=\sup_{y'\neq {\mathbf{0}}} \frac{\|y'\hat{w}\|_2^2}{\|y'z^{-\frac{1}{2}}\|_2^2}\leq \sup_{y'\neq {\mathbf{0}}} \frac{\|y'\hat{w}\|_2^2}{z_{max}^{-1}\|y'\|_2^2}\leq z_{max}.$$ $z_{max}\doteq \max_{i} z_{ii}$. In the last inequality, we have used the fact that the largest singular value of $\hat{w}$ is 1.
2\) First, note that $n_k/r_k$ is also the mean of the row sums of $\tilde{w}$, since the sum of row sums is equal to the sum of column sums, which is $n_k$. Thus, if the row sums are even, then $z_{max}=n_k/r_k$. Consequently $n_k/r_k=\sigma_1^2$. Conversely, if $n_k/r_k=\sigma_1^2$, then it means $x^*$ and $f$ are the largest singular vectors, since $\|x^*\tilde{w}\|_2^2/\|x^*\|_2^2=n_k/r_k$. In this case, again by the property of operator norm, $$\sigma_1^2=\frac{\|\tilde{w}f\|_2^2}{\|f\|_2^2}=\frac{\sum_i z_{ii}^2}{n_k}\geq \frac{(\sum_i z_{ii})^2/r_k}{n_k}=\frac{n_k}{r_k}.$$ The equality holds, if and only if $z_{ii}$’s are even.
With this proposition, we immediately have
$$\psi \leq z_{max}-n_k/r_k.$$ $\psi=0$ if and only if the row sums are even, i.e., $z_{max}=n_k/r_k$.
By this proposition, we finally arrive at Theorem \[theo:F leading\].
[^1]: In that evaluation, the classifier ranking third is a kernel version of extreme learning machine (ELM) [@Huang2006Extreme], named “elm\_kernel\_m” in the evaluation, but we carefully checked the codes of “elm\_kernel\_m” and found that it is actually a classical RBFN that uses the whole training set as the basis. The only difference is that the target indicators are converted to be of values 1 (true class) and -1 (other classes). This RBFN is a special case of ELM.
[^2]: These properties are not shared by the similarity matrix.
[^3]: It is equivalent to the classical LRC where $\beta=1$ [@bishop2006pattern], since $\sqrt{\beta}$ can be absorbed into the first column of $D$. In implementation, we indeed use $\beta=1$.
[^4]: Referring to the proof of Lemma \[lem:1X\] in Section \[sec:row-col srbf\], it can be shown that ${\mathbf{1}}^TD^*=[1,0,\dots,0]$.
[^5]: Otherwise $A^TA{\mathbf{1}}\neq {\mathbf{0}}$ violating $A{\mathbf{1}}={\mathbf{0}}$.
[^6]: Note that the theory requires the data to be mean-removed, which may be ignored by traditional LRC.
[^7]: There is another standard way based on the reproducing kernel Hilbert space and representor theorem that leads to kernel classifier, see e.g., [@Rifkin2004In], but it cannot lead to nRBFN.
[^8]: Compared with some traditional RBFNs, the RBFN here, derived through kernel trick, does not append a constant vector ${\mathbf{1}}^T$ to $W$ and a bias vector to $X$.
[^9]: The correspondence is unexpected beforehand, especially (\[equ:rlr rel\]). When we conceiving the definitions of both absolute and relative spectral risk, they are actually inspired by the structure of the solution $D^*$ of regularized LRC, rather than by the objective. Only the relative fitting error is designed after the observation of the correspondence.
[^10]: The data sets come from <http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvmtools/datasets/> and <http://www.cad.zju.edu.cn/home/dengcai/Data/data.html>.
[^11]: The high-performance machine is used only for the purpose of convenience rather than necessity for the experiments.
[^12]: In the literature, see, e.g., [@Niyogi1996On], the “risk” of expected risk actually means error. A similar concept is empirical risk [@Vapnik2000The], actually it is training/fitting error. It should not be confused with the “risk” of overfitting/spectral risk in this paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'R. Gilli, E. Daddi, G. Zamorani, P. Tozzi, S. Borgani, J. Bergeron, R. Giacconi, G. Hasinger, V. Mainieri, C. Norman, P. Rosati, G. Szokoly, W. Zheng'
date: 'Received ... ; accepted ...'
title: 'The spatial clustering of X-ray selected AGN and galaxies in the Chandra Deep Field South and North '
---
Introduction
============
Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) represent one of the best tools to study the large scale structure of the Universe at intermediate-high redshifts, $z\sim 1-2$, i.e. at an epoch of intense structure formation where matter was undergoing the transition from the initially smooth state observed at the recombination ($z\sim1000$) to the clumpy distribution observed at present time (see e.g. Hartwick & Schade 1990). One of the most commonly used statistics to measure the clustering of a population of sources is the two-point correlation function $\xi(r)$, which measures the excess probability of finding a pair of objects at a separation $r$ with respect to a random distribution and is usually approximated by a power law $\xi(r)=(r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$. Under simple assumptions, the amplitude of the AGN correlation function can be used to estimate the typical mass of the dark matter halos in which AGN reside (Grazian et al. [@grazi04], Magliocchetti et al. [@maglio04]) and the typical AGN lifetimes (Martini & Weinberg [@marti01]).
The first attempts to measure AGN clustering date more than 20 years ago (Osmer [@osmer81]). Since then AGN clustering has been extensively studied and detected by means of optical surveys encompassing an increasing number of QSOs (Shanks et al. [@shank87], La Franca et al. [@lafra98], Croom et al. [@croom01], Grazian et al. [@grazi04]). Recently, the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ, Croom et al. [@croom01]) has provided the tightest constraints to QSO clustering, based on a sample of more than $10^4$ objects: the QSO correlation length and slope were found to be $r_0=5.7 \pm 0.5 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=1.56\pm 0.10$ at a median redshift of $\bar z=1.5$ and on comoving scales of $1-60 \:
h^{-1}$ Mpc. This result confirmed previous measurements and showed that QSO clustering at $z=1.5$ is comparable to that of local ($z \sim
0.05$) optically selected galaxies (Tucker et al. [@tuck97], Ratcliffe et al. [@rat98]). In addition, thanks to the large number of QSOs in their sample, Croom et al. ([@croom01]) were also able to investigate the evolution of QSO clustering with redshift, finding a marginal increase by a factor of 1.4 in the $r_0$ value from $z\sim0.7$ to $z\sim2.4$ for a flat cosmology with $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$.
Although optical surveys provide the largest AGN samples so far, they include almost exclusively unobscured-type 1 objects, since AGN candidates are mainly selected by means of UV excess techniques. Obscured-type 2 AGN might instead be efficiently selected by means of mid- and far-infrared surveys, since the nuclear UV radiation absorbed by the obscuring medium is expected to be re-emitted at longer wavelengths. Georgantopoulos & Shanks ([@geo94]) analyzed the clustering properties of a sample of $\sim 200$ local Seyfert galaxies ($z<0.1$) observed with IRAS and selected through their warm infrared colors. By comparing the observed number of independent pairs with that expected from a random sample distributed over the same scales, they measured a $\sim 3\sigma$ clustering signal for the total sample, finding marginal evidence that Seyfert 2 galaxies are more clustered than Seyfert 1s.
Perhaps the most efficient way to sample the obscured AGN population is through X-ray observations, especially in the hard band, where the nuclear radiation is less affected by absorption. Based on population synthesis models for the X-ray background (e.g. Comastri et al. [@comas95], Gilli et al. [@gilli01], Ueda et al. [@ueda03]), obscured AGN are believed to be a factor of $\gtrsim 4$ more abundant than unobscured ones and should therefore dominate the whole AGN population. Spatial clustering of X-ray selected AGN has been limited so far by the lack of sizable samples of optically identified X-ray sources. Boyle & Mo ([@boyle93]) studied the AGN at $z<0.2$ in the Einstein Medium Sensitivity Survey (EMSS, Stocke et al. 1991), without finding any positive clustering signal. Carrera et al. ([@carrera98]) considered the AGN in the ROSAT International X-ray Optical Survey (RIXOS, Mason et al. 2000) and in the Deep ROSAT Survey (DRS, Boyle et al. [@boyle94]), detecting only a weak ($\sim 2\sigma$) clustering signal on scales $<40-80\:h^{-1}$ Mpc for the RIXOS AGN subsample in the redshift range $z=0.5-1.0$. Significant clustering signal was instead detected from angular correlations by several Authors: Akylas et al. (2000), based on the ROSAT All Sky Survey (RASS, Voges et al. 1999); Vikhlinin & Forman ([@vikh95]) from a compilation of ROSAT PSPC deep pointings, and finally Giacconi et al. (2001) from the first 130 ksec observation of the [*Chandra*]{} Deep Field South (Rosati et al. 2002). Very recently Yang et al. ([@yang03]) have claimed that hard X-ray selected sources have an angular clustering amplitude ten times higher than that of soft X-ray selected sources. A high angular clustering amplitude for hard X-ray selected sources, consistent with that measured by Yang et al. ([@yang03]), has been also measured by Basilakos et al. ([@basil04]). In some cases (e.g. Vikhlinin & Forman 1995; Akylas et al. 2000; Basilakos et al. 2004) the angular clustering was converted to spatial clustering by means of the Limber’s equation, where an [*a priori*]{} redshift distribution has to be assumed. Unfortunately, because of the several uncertainties in its assumptions, this method has not provided stringent results: Akylas et al. ([@akylas00]) found $r_0=5-8\: h^{-1}$ Mpc, Vikhlinin & Forman ([@vikh95]) $r_0\gtrsim 5\: h^{-1}$ Mpc and Basilakos et al. ([@basil04]) $r_0\gtrsim 9\: h^{-1}$ Mpc.
To date, the only direct measurement of spatial clustering of X-ray selected AGN has been obtained from the ROSAT North Ecliptic Pole survey data (NEP, Gioia et al. [@gioia03]). From a sample of 219 soft X-ray selected AGN, Mullis et al. ([@mullis04]) measured a correlation length of $r_0=7.4^{+1.8}_{-1.9}\:h^{-1}$ Mpc with $\gamma$ fixed to 1.8. The median redshift of the NEP AGN contributing to the clustering signal is $\bar z\sim0.2$ (see also Mullis [@mullis01] for a preliminary version of that work). Because of the relatively short exposures in the NEP survey and the limited ROSAT sensitivity, only bright sources, with a surface density of the order of 3 deg$^{-2}$, were detected in this sample. In deeper samples, where the source surface density is higher, the clustering signal should be detected more easily since the spatial correlation function is a power law increasing at lower pair separations. In particular, deep pencil beam surveys are expected to provide the highest signal significance with the minimum number of identified objects.
The [*Chandra*]{} Msec surveys in the Deep Field South (CDFS, Rosati et al. 2002) and North (CDFN, Alexander et al. 2003) are in this respect the ideal fields to look at, with an X-ray source surface density of the order of $3000-4000$ deg$^{-2}$. The drawbacks are that these strong signals expected on small areas may be subject to substantial variance, well beyond the one implied by Poisson statistics (see Daddi et al. 2001 for a discussion of this effect in the case of angular clustering), so that the “real” amplitude of the correlation function would need a large set of measurements in independent fields to be reliably estimated. In addition, optical spectroscopy is challenging for a significant fraction of these X-ray sources with faint optical magnitude counterparts. We will address these points in the rest of the paper. A large spectroscopic identification program down to faint magnitudes ($R<25.5$) is underway in the CDFS (Szokoly et al. [@szoko04]) and in the CDFN (Barger et al. [@barger03]). To date, about 40-50% of the X-ray samples have been spectroscopically identified, revealing that, even at very low fluxes, AGN are still the most numerous sources populating the X-ray sky. Here we will take advantage of the spectroscopically identified sources in the CDFS and CDFN to measure and compare the spatial clustering of X-ray selected AGN in the two fields.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we summarize the X-ray and optical observations of the CDFS and CDFN and present the source catalogs used in our analysis. In Section 3 we describe the classification scheme adopted to divide sources into AGN or galaxies. In Section 4 we describe the methods used to estimate the projected correlation function of X-ray selected sources as well as the obtained results, which are then discussed in Section 5. Conclusions and prospects for future work are finally presented in Section 6.
Throughout this paper we will use a flat cosmology with $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$. Unless otherwise stated, we will always refer to comoving distances in units of $h^{-1}$ Mpc, where $H_0=100\;h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Luminosities are calculated using $h=0.7$.
![X-ray flux distribution for the total, AGN and galaxy sample observed in the 2Msec CDFN (upper panel) and 1Msec CDFS (lower panel). Only sources with robust spectroscopic redshift are considered. The source classification is based on the hardness ratio vs luminosity diagram described in Section 3 and shown in Fig. \[cls\] and \[cln\].[]{data-label="ftdist"}](aa1375.fig01.ps){width="9cm"}
![R magnitude distribution for the total, AGN and galaxy sample observed in the 2Msec CDFN (upper panel) and 1Msec CDFS (lower panel). Only sources with robust spectroscopic redshift are considered. The source classification is based on the hardness ratio vs luminosity diagram described in Section 3 and shown in Fig. \[cls\] and \[cln\].[]{data-label="rdist"}](aa1375.fig02.ps){width="9cm"}
X-ray and optical data {#xray}
======================
CDFS
----
The CDFS has been observed with 11 ACIS-I pointings for a total 1 Msec exposure (Rosati et al. [@rosati02]). X-ray sources have been detected down to limiting fluxes of $5.5\;10^{-17}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (hereafter cgs) and $4.5\;10^{-16}$ cgs in the soft (0.5-2 keV) and hard (2-10 keV) band, respectively. Overall, 307 sources have been detected in the soft band and 251 sources in the hard band for a total sample of 346 sources distributed over the whole 0.1 deg$^2$ field. The full X-ray catalog and the details of the detection process have been presented by Giacconi et al. ([@giac02]). The optical follow-up photometry was primarily performed using the FORS1 camera at the VLT (Szokoly et al. [@szoko04]). The combined R band data cover a $13.6 \times 13.6$ arcmin field to limiting magnitudes between 26 and 26.7. In the area not covered by FORS mosaics, we used shallower data from the ESO Imaging Survey (EIS, Arnouts et al. 2001). The optical identification process is described in Tozzi et al. ([@tozzi01]) and Giacconi et al. ([@giac02]). Optical spectroscopy for most of the X-ray counterparts with R$<24$ has been obtained with FORS1 during several observational runs at the VLT. About $\sim 20$ spectra of optically faint sources with $24<R<26$ were also collected. The details of the spectroscopic data reduction and analysis are presented in Szokoly et al. ([@szoko04]). So far 169 redshifts have been obtained. Quality flags have been assigned to the spectra, according to their reliability. Here we consider only the 127 X-ray point-like sources (excluding stars) with spectral quality flag $Q\geq2$, where two or more lines have been observed in the spectrum of the optical counterpart and the redshift determination is unambiguous. The X-ray flux and R band magnitude distribution for these sources are shown in the lower panels of Fig. \[ftdist\] and Fig. \[rdist\], respectively. We estimated the redshift accuracy by considering the $\sim 40$ sources with at least two independent redshift measurements, both with $Q\geq2$, obtained in different observing runs (see Table 5 of Szokoly et al. 2004). The distribution of the redshift differences has a relatively large dispersion of $\sigma(\Delta\:z)\sim0.005$. When removing two outliers with a $3\sigma$ clipping technique (both outliers are Broad Lines AGN for which a precise redshift determination is more difficult), the observed dispersion decreases to $\sigma(\Delta\:z)\sim0.003$, corresponding to an average uncertainty in a single redshift measurement of $\Delta\:z\sim0.003/\sqrt 2\sim0.002$.[^1] As shown in Fig. \[zcdfs\] the redshift distribution is dominated by two large concentrations of sources at z=0.67 and z=0.73, while other smaller peaks are also visible (see also Gilli et al. 2003), already demonstrating that X-ray sources in the CDFS are highly clustered. The final spectroscopic completeness is $\sim 35\%$. This fraction increases to 78% for the subsample of X-ray sources with optical counterparts brighter than R=24. We stress that in our measurements it is essential to consider only sources with small redshift errors, otherwise the clustering signal in redshift space would be removed. The typical measurement errors in the photometric redshifts of CDFS sources (Zheng et al. [@zheng04]) are of the order of $\Delta z\sim0.14$, corresponding to $\sim 270 h^{-1}$ Mpc comoving at the median CDFS redshift of 0.7. The above redshift uncertainty would significantly dilute the clustering signal in the considered field (which is dominated by redshift clustering) and therefore photometric redshifts cannot be used for our purposes.
![Redshift distribution for point-like X-ray sources in the CDFS in bins of $\Delta z = 0.02$. Only sources with robust spectroscopic redshift have been considered. The solid curve shows the selection function obtained by smoothing the observed redshift distribution. The inset shows the redshift distribution of CDFS sources as a function of their classification (see Section 3).[]{data-label="zcdfs"}](aa1375.fig03.ps){width="9cm"}
![Same as Fig. \[zcdfs\] but for CDFN sources.[]{data-label="zcdfn"}](aa1375.fig04.ps){width="9cm"}
CDFN
----
The [*Chandra*]{} Deep Field North (CDFN, Alexander et al. [@alex03], Barger et al. [@barger03]), which is centered on the Hubble Deep Field North (Williams et al. [@will96]), is the analog of the CDFS in the Northern hemisphere. The CDFN has been observed with 20 ACIS-I pointings for a total 2 Msec exposure. Limiting fluxes of $\sim 2.5\;10^{-17}$ cgs and $\sim1.4
\;10^{-16}$ cgs have been reached in the soft and hard band, respectively. A total sample of 503 X-ray sources (451 of which are detected in the soft band and 332 in the hard band) has been collected over an area of 0.13 deg$^2$. The full X-ray catalog is found in Alexander et al. ([@alex03]) and the details of the optical identification program have been published by Barger et al. ([@barger03]). The LRIS and DEIMOS instruments at the Keck telescope were primarily used for the optical follow-up of the X-ray sources. A few additional identifications were added by cross correlating the X-ray with the optical catalog of the Caltech Faint Galaxy Redshift Survey (Cohen et al. [@cohen00]) which covers the inner 50 arcmin$^2$ of the CDFN and has a spectroscopic completeness of about 90% down to R=24 in the Hubble Deep Field and to R=23 in the surrounding flanking fields. Most of the redshifts in the Barger et al. ([@barger03]) catalog have been obtained from spectra with multiple lines, and should be therefore comparable to the $Q\geq2$ redshifts of the CDFS catalog. We ignored the 13 CDFN sources for which the redshift estimate is not based on two or more emission/absorption lines (see Barger et al. 2003). No additional high quality redshifts were obtained by cross-correlating the X-ray catalog of Alexander et al. ([@alex03]) with the two recently published spectroscopic catalogs of the ACS-GOODS survey in the CDFN (Cowie et al. [@cowie04], Wirth et al. [@wirth04]). The final considered catalog includes 252 sources, corresponding to a spectroscopic completeness of $\sim 50$%. We estimated the typical redshift errors (not quoted in Barger et al. 2003) by comparing the common redshifts with high quality in the catalogs of Barger et al. ([@barger03]) and Cohen et al. ([@cohen00]). We found that the measurements in the two catalogs are in very good agreement, with essentially zero offset and a dispersion of $\sigma(\Delta z)\lesssim 0.002$, indicating that the redshift accuracy in each catalog is better than this value. The redshift distribution for the considered spectroscopic sample is shown in Fig. \[zcdfn\]. As in the case of the CDFS redshift distribution, several redshift spikes can be immediately identified, the most prominent of which at $z\sim 0.85$ and $z\sim
1.02$ (see Barger et al. 2003).
![The “classification diagram”, i.e. hardness-ratio vs. observed 0.5-10 keV luminosity, for the CDFS sources.[]{data-label="cls"}](aa1375.fig05.ps){width="9cm"}
Although the general shape of the CDFN redshift distribution peaks at $z\sim 0.7-0.8$, similarly to that observed in the CDFS (see e.g. the smoothed curves in Fig. \[zcdfs\] and \[zcdfn\]), a few differences can be noticed between the two. One obvious effect is produced by the several spikes which trace structures at different redshifts. More interestingly, the fraction of low redshift sources is higher in the CDFN than in the CDFS. As an example, 28% of CDFN sources lay at $z<0.5$, while the corresponding fraction in the CDFS is 17%. This difference can be readily explained by the deeper CDFN exposure, which is able to pick up the faint X-ray emission of nearby normal and starburst galaxies (see the next Section and the insets of Fig. \[zcdfs\] and \[zcdfn\]). The X-ray flux and R band magnitude distributions for the CDFN sources with good redshift estimate considered in this paper are shown in the upper panel of Fig. \[ftdist\] and Fig. \[rdist\], respectively. Due to the higher exposure time, in the CDFN the source flux distribution has a larger fraction of objects at faint fluxes ($f_{0.5-10 keV}\lesssim
10^{-15}$ cgs) with respect to that observed in the CDFS [^2]. As mentioned above, most of these faint sources are classified as galaxies. The R-band magnitude distributions are instead more similar, with most of the spectroscopically confirmed sources in the range $19<R<24$ in both samples, confirming that the spectroscopic observations have been equally deep in both fields.
![Same as Fig. \[cls\] but for CDFN sources.[]{data-label="cln"}](aa1375.fig06.ps){width="9cm"}
Source classification
=====================
In order to measure the clustering properties of different populations, we classified our sources following the scheme presented by Szokoly et al. ([@szoko04]) for CDFS sources, where X-rays are the main tool to infer informations on the physical nature of each object. We somewhat simplified that scheme by avoiding the luminosity distinction between type-2 AGN/QSOs and between type-1 AGN/QSOs. Our adopted classification scheme can be then summarized as follows:
------------ --- ---------------------------------------
type-1 AGN : $HR<-0.2$ $and$ log$L_{0.5-10}\geq42$
type-2 AGN : $HR\geq-0.2$
galaxy : $HR<-0.2$ $and$ log$L_{0.5-10}<42$,
------------ --- ---------------------------------------
where $HR=(H-S)/(H+S)$ is the X-ray hardness ratio, i.e. the difference between the hard ($H$) and soft ($S$) band counts normalized to the total counts, and $L_{0.5-10}$ is the observed 0.5-10 keV luminosity in units of erg s$^{-1}$.
The cut at $HR=-0.2$ between type-1 and type-2 AGN is motivated by the fact that most of the AGN with broad optical lines (31/32) lay below this limit, while the majority of narrow line AGN (16/21) are found above it. The adopted classification scheme is admittedly crude, but it can be considered a reasonable approach when dealing with sources with faint optical spectra, for which detailed line diagnostics is difficult.
To keep a uniform classification criterion in the two field, we applied the above scheme also to CDFN sources (see also Hasinger 2003). As a consistency check, we computed the X-ray hardness ratio for CDFN sources based on the soft and hard counts presented in the Alexander et al. ([@alex03]) catalog, and verified that also for this sample objects with broad optical lines have $HR\lesssim-0.2$ as in the CDFS.
![Distribution on the sky of CDFS sources with robust redshift measurements. Different source classes are represented with different symbols as labeled. The box indicates the $6.7 \times
4.8$ arcmin region covered by the K20 survey (Cimatti et al. [@cima02]). The dashed circle of 8 arcmin radius is the region with higher ($\sim 50\%$) spectroscopic completeness.[]{data-label="imas"}](aa1375.fig07.ps){width="9cm"}
![Same as Fig. \[imas\] but for CDFN sources. Symbols are as in the previous Figure. The 4 arcmin radius circle approximately shows the area covered by the Hubble Deep and Flanking fields (Cohen et al. [@cohen00]).[]{data-label="iman"}](aa1375.fig08.ps){width="9cm"}
The adopted “classification diagram”, i.e. the hardness ratio vs. X-ray luminosity plot, is shown in Fig. \[cls\] and \[cln\] for the CDFS and CDFN sources, respectively, and the classification breakdown is shown in Table 1 (only sources with $L_{0.5-10}>10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ are considered, see Section 4.2). We point out that the significantly higher fraction of galaxies found in the 2Msec CDFN with respect to the 1Msec CDFS is due to the twice longer exposure of the CDFN. As shown in Fig. \[cln\], the line at log$L_{0.5-10}=42$ appears to sharply divide a smooth source distribution into two distinct classes (galaxies and type-1 AGN). It is therefore likely that each class contain some misclassified objects. Indeed, part of the soft sources with log$L_{0.5-10}<42$ might harbour a low luminosity AGN and, on the other hand, galaxies with intense star formation might have X-ray luminosities exceeding log$L_{0.5-10}=42$. Nonetheless, the fraction of misclassified objects should be of the order of a few percent in each class and therefore we do not expect any significant impact on our clustering measurements.
Sample Type 1 Type 2 Gal
------------ -------- -------- -----
CDFS 45 52 27
2Msec CDFN 89 71 80
1Msec CDFN 79 60 37
: Source classification breakdown. Only sources with $L_{0.5-10}>10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ are considered.
The spatial distributions of the X-ray sources in the CDFS and CDFN as a function of their spectroscopic classification are shown in Fig \[imas\] and \[iman\], respectively. As it is evident in Fig \[iman\], most of the CDFN galaxies are found in the center of the field, where the X-ray sensitivity is highest. When applying the above classification scheme to the 189 CDFN sources with robust redshift measurement detected in the first 1Msec exposure (Brandt et al. [@brandt01], Barger et al. [@barger02]), we found that, while the number of AGN drops by $\sim 15\%$, the number of galaxies drops by more than a factor of $\sim 2$, i.e. from 80 to 37. Then, when accounting for the different spectroscopic completeness, the number of galaxies found in the 1Msec CDFN is in agreement with that found in the CDFS. We also caution the reader that the ratio between type-2 and type-1 AGN one might derive from Table 1 is a lower limit rather than the real ratio in these deep X-ray fields: first of all, the optical identifications are largely incomplete and the fraction of type-2 AGN is expected to be higher among unidentified sources, which are on average harder than those already identified (we indeed verified that in both fields the type-2/type-1 ratio increases towards faint R magnitudes); second, the number of obscured sources misclassified as type-1, as defined on the basis of the here adopted classification, is likely to be higher than the number of unobscured sources misclassified as type-2. This can be seen for example in Fig. 9 of Tozzi et al. ([@tozzi01]) where it is shown how the observed hardness ratio decreases with redshift for a given value of the obscuring column density $N_H$. In Gilli et al. ([@gilli03]) we classified an X-ray source as AGN with slightly different criteria from those adopted here. In particular, we considered to be AGN those sources satisfying at least one of the following conditions: $L_{0.5-10}>10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$, $HR>0$, $f_x/f_R>0.1$, where $L_{0.5-10}$ is the observed 0.5-10 keV luminosity and $f_x/f_R$ is the ratio between the 0.5-10 keV flux and the R band flux (see Section 4.1 of Gilli et al. 2003 for details). We verified that the two classification criteria provide very similar results. Indeed, $\sim
97\%$ of the sources classified as AGN by one method are also classified as AGN by the other.
The spatial correlation function
================================
Analysis techniques
-------------------
The most widely used statistics to measure the clustering properties of a source population is the two point correlation function $\xi(r)$, defined as the excess probability of finding a pair with one object in the volume $dV_1$ and the other in the volume $dV_2$, separated by a comoving distance $r$ (Peebles 1980):
$$dP = n^2[1+\xi(r)]dV_1dV_2$$
A related quantity, which is what we actually measure in this paper, is the so-called projected correlation function:
$$w(r_p) = \int_{-r_{v0}}^{r_{v0}} \xi(r_p, r_v)dr_v,$$
where $\xi(r_p, r_v)$ is the two point correlation function expressed in terms of the separations perpendicular ($r_p$) and parallel ($r_v$) to the line of sight as defined in Davis & Peebles ([@dp83]) and applied to comoving coordinates. The advantage of using the integral quantity $w(r_p)$ rather than directly estimating the two point correlation function in redshift space $\xi(s)$ is that $w(r_p)$ is not sensitive to distortions introduced on small scales by peculiar velocities and errors on redshift measurements. If the real space correlation function can be approximated by a powerlaw of the form $\xi(r)=(r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$ and $r_{v0}= \infty$ then the following relation holds (Peebles [@peeb80]):
$$w(r_p) =A(\gamma) r_0^{\gamma} r_p^{1-\gamma},$$
where $A(\gamma)=\Gamma(1/2)\Gamma[(\gamma-1)/2]/\Gamma(\gamma/2)$ and $\Gamma(x)$ is the Euler’s Gamma function. $A(\gamma)$ increases from 3.68 when $\gamma=1.8$ to 7.96 when $\gamma=1.3$.
![Measured correlation length $r_0$ and slope $\gamma$ as a function of $r_{v0}$, i.e. the integration limit on $w(r_p)$ (see Eq.3), for the total samples in the CDFN (filled circles) and CDFS (open circles). We choose $r_{v0}=10\:h^{-1}$ Mpc as our integration radius. For lower $r_{v0}$ values the correlation signal is not fully recovered, while for higher values the noise increases.[]{data-label="rov"}](aa1375.fig09.ps){width="9cm"}
A practical integration limit $r_{v0}$ has to be chosen in Eq. 2 in order to maximize the correlation signal. Indeed, one should avoid too large $r_{v0}$ values which would mainly add noise to the estimate of $w(r_p)$. On the other hand too small scales, comparable with the redshift uncertainties and with the pairwise velocity dispersions, (i.e. the dispersion in the distribution of the relative velocities of source pairs), should also be avoided since they would not allow to recover the whole signal. A redshift uncertainty of $\Delta z \lesssim 0.002$ (the typical value observed in our samples) corresponds to comoving scales below $6.7\:h^{-1}$ Mpc at all redshifts. The average velocity dispersion measured by Cohen et al. ([@cohen00]) for the redshift spikes observed in the Hubble Deep and Flanking fields is of the order of 400 km $s^{-1}$, corresponding to $\Delta z\sim 0.002$ at $z\sim 0.7$. At these redshifts the pairwise velocity dispersion should be of the same order. Indeed, the value measured in the local Universe ($500-600$ km $s^{-1}$; Marzke et al. [@marzke95], Zehavi et al. [@zehavi02]) is expected to decrease by $\sim 15\%$ at a redshift of 0.7 (see e.g. the $\Lambda$CDM simulations by Kauffmann et al. [@kauff99]). We further checked that the velocity dispersion measured for the redshift structures of X-ray sources in the CDFS and CDFN corresponds typically to $\lesssim 10\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. To search for the best integration radius $r_{v0}$ we measured $w(r_p)$ for the CDFS and CDFN total samples for different $r_{v0}$ values ranging from 3 to $100\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. The obtained correlation length and slope as a function of $r_{v0}$ are shown in Fig. \[rov\]. We note that $r_{0}$ decreases for $r_{v0}$ values smaller than $10\:h^{-1}$ Mpc, showing that the signal is not fully recovered. For $r_{v0}$ values greater than $10\:h^{-1}$ Mpc $r_{0}$ does not vary significantly, but the errorbars are higher. This behaviour, which is more evident for the CDFS sample, is similar to that observed by Carlberg et al. ([@carl00]) for the galaxies in the CNOC2 sample (Yee et al. [@yee00]). The slope of the correlation is rather constant over most of the $r_{v0}$ range. For the CDFN sample a steepening of $\gamma$ is observed at $r_{v0}=50-90\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. However, at these large radii, the errors are large and the measured slope is consistent within $<2\sigma$ with the value obtained for $r_{v0}=10\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. We therefore consider the observed steepening as a fluctuation which is not statistically significant and in the following we will fix $r_{v0}$ to $10\:h^{-1}$ Mpc.
To measure $\xi(r_p, r_v)$ we created random samples of sources in our fields and measured the excess of pairs at separations $(r_p, r_v)$ with respect to the random distribution. We used the minimum variance estimator proposed by Landy & Szalay (1993), which is found to have a nearly Poissonian variance:
$$\xi(r_p, r_v) = \frac{aDD(r_p, r_v)-2bDR(r_p, r_v)+RR(r_p, r_v)}{RR(r_p, r_v)},$$
where DD, DR and RR are the number of data-data, data-random and random-random pairs at separations $r_p \pm \Delta r_p$ and $r_v \pm
\Delta r_v$, $a=n_r(n_r-1)/n_d(n_d-1)$ and $b=(n_r-1)/2n_d$, where $n_d$ and $n_r$ are the total number of sources in the data and random sample, respectively.
Both the redshift and the coordinate $(\alpha, \delta)$ distributions of the identified sources are potentially affected by observational biases. In particular, the redshift distribution may be biased by the presence of a limiting magnitude beyond which spectroscopic redshifts can not be obtained. The $(\alpha, \delta)$ distribution, on the other hand, is affected by at least two biases: the X-ray bias, due to the non-uniform X-ray sensitivity limits over the field of view, and the spectroscopic bias, due to the positioning of the masks within the field and of the slits within the masks. For this reason special care has to be taken in creating the sample of random sources. The redshifts of these sources were randomly extracted from a smoothed distribution of the observed one. This procedure should include in the redshift selection function the same biases affecting the observed distribution. We assumed a Gaussian smoothing length $\sigma_z = 0.3$ as a good compromise between too small smoothing scales (which suffer from significant fluctuations due to the observed spikes) and too large scales (where on the contrary the source density of the smoothed distribution at a given redshift might be not a good estimate of the average observed value). We verified that our results do not change significantly when using a smoothing length in the range $\sigma_z =
0.2-0.4$. The smoothed redshift distributions adopted for our simulations, shown in Fig. \[zcdfs\] and \[zcdfn\] for the CDFS and CDFN, respectively, have very similar shapes peaking at $z\sim0.7$. We assumed that the clustering amplitude is constant with redshift and did not try to estimate clustering variations at different redshifts. Indeed, the clustering signal in a given redshift interval will strongly depend on small variations in the choice of the interval boundaries, which might include or exclude prominent redshift spikes from the interval, hence producing extremely high fluctuations in the $r_0$ vs. $z$ measurements. Since the X-ray sensitivity varies across the field of view, in particular with off-axis angle, we checked if there are significant differences in the redshift distribution of sources as a function of their off-axis angles. In particular we compared the distributions of sources inside and outside a given off-axis angle with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (hereafter KS) test. We repeated the KS test for several source subsamples (e.g. AGN, galaxies) in the CDFS and CDFN and for different off-axis angles. With the exception of the galaxies in the CDFN, for which the average redshift at off-axis angles below 4 arcmin is found to be significantly higher than that outside this region, we do not find any significant difference in the other subsamples. In the following we will then generate the redshift distribution for the random samples by simply smoothing the total distribution observed in each subsample. The case of CDFN galaxies will be discussed in detail in Section 4.2.2.
The coordinates ($\alpha,\delta$) of the random sources were extracted from the coordinate ensemble of the real sample, thus reproducing on the random sample the same uneven distribution on the plane of the sky of the real sources (e.g. in both the CDFS and CDFN the X-ray sources were identified preferentially at the center of the field). This procedure, if anything, would dilute the correlation signal, since it removes the effects of angular clustering. We note however that we do not expect a strong signal from angular clustering in these deep pencil-beam surveys, where the radial coordinate spans a much broader distance than the transverse coordinate and the clustering signal should be dominated by redshift clustering (see the tests with random coordinates in the next section).
The source density adopted in the random samples is a factor of 50-100 larger than that of the data sample depending on its size. More details on the chosen way to construct the random source sample, as well as several checks on its validity will be discussed in the next Section.
We binned the source pairs in interval of $\Delta{\rm log}\,r_p$=0.4 and measured $w(r_p)$ in each bin. The resulting datapoints were then fitted by a power law of the form given in Eq. 3, and the best fit parameters $\gamma$ and $r_0$ were determined via $\chi^2$ minimization. Given the small number of pairs which fall into some bins (especially at the smallest scales), we used the formulae of Gehrels ([@gehre86]) to estimate the 84% confidence upper and lower limits, containing the 68% confidence interval (i.e. $1\sigma$ errorbars in Gaussian statistics). It is well known that Poisson errorbars underestimate the uncertainties on the correlation function when source pairs are not independent, i.e. if the considered objects generally appear in more than one pair. In the samples considered here, this is indeed the case at scales $r_p\gtrsim 1\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. On the other hand, bootstrap resampling techniques (e.g. Mo, Jing & Börner [@mo92]), which are often used to circumvent this problem, may substantially overestimate the real uncertainties. We tested bootstrap errors for our samples, finding that the uncertainties on the correlation function parameters increase by a factor of $\sim 2$ with respect to the Poissonian case. In the following we will simply quote $r_0$ and $\gamma$ together with their $1\sigma$ Poisson errors, bearing in mind that the most likely uncertainty lay between the quoted number and its double.
Results
-------
### CDFS
We first considered the correlation function of all CDFS sources regardless of their classification. We excluded from the sample only stars and extended X-ray sources associated to galaxy groups/clusters. In addition we excluded from our calculations 3 low luminosity sources with $L_{0.5-10}<10^{40} $ erg s$^{-1}$, in which the X-ray emission might be due to a single off-nuclear Ultra Luminous X-ray source in the host galaxy (ULX, see e.g. Fabbiano 1989) rather than to the global star formation rate or to the active nucleus. We note that Hornschemeier et al. ([@horn04]) found 10 ULX candidates, all of them with $L_{0.5-10}\lesssim10^{40} $ erg s$^{-1}$, in the combined CDFS + CDFN sample covered by the GOODS survey. Although ULX likely do not represent the whole source population below $10^{40} $ erg s$^{-1}$, we nevertheless prefer to apply this luminosity cut since only a few sources are lost and the considered sample should be cleaner. Overall, we are left with a sample of 124 sources.
![Projected correlation functions for the total X-ray samples in the CDFN (filled circles) and CDFS (open circles). Errors are $1\sigma$ Poisson confidence intervals. The best fit power laws are shown as dashed lines.[]{data-label="sall"}](aa1375.fig10.ps){width="9cm"}
The correlation function was measured in the redshift range $z=0-4$ (median redshift $\bar z\sim0.7$) and on scales $r_p=0.16-20\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. Here and in the following samples a power law fit is found to be an adequate representation of the data. For the total CDFS sample we obtained a fully acceptable value of $\chi^2/dof=6.2/4$. The best fit correlation length is $r_0 = 8.6 \pm
1.2\: h^{-1}$ Mpc. The slope of the correlation, $\gamma=1.33 \pm
0.11$, is flatter than that commonly observed for optically selected AGN and galaxies ($\gamma\sim1.6-1.8$, e.g. Le Fevre et al. 1996; Croom et al. 2001). Based on the error on $r_0$ from this two-parameters fit, we conservatively estimate the clustering signal to be detected at the $\sim 7 \sigma$ level. We verified that projected separations above $0.16\:h^{-1}$ Mpc correspond to angular separations above 5 arcsec for sources in the considered redshift range. Although the FWHM of the [*Chandra*]{} Point Spread Function degrades with off-axis angle, it is still smaller than this value within 8 arcmin from the center of the field, where $\sim 90\%$ of our X-ray sources reside. Therefore, at the considered projected scales we do not expect any strong bias against pairs with small angular separations, which may artificially flatten the observed correlation slope. In addition we checked if there is any bias against close pairs because e.g. of the constraints on the slit positioning on the masks used for optical spectroscopy. At any given separation we then computed the ratio between the number of pairs in which both sources have robust spectroscopic redshift and the total number of pairs at the same angular separation. In fact, this ratio is rather constant, decreasing by only $\sim 25\%$ at our smallest angular scales below $\sim 20$ arcsec: this has some effects only at the smallest $r_p$ bins (at $z=0.7$, the median redshift of our sample, 20 arcsec correspond to $\sim 0.17\:h^{-1}$ Mpc) where the clustering signal has large uncertainties. Therefore no significant effects on the overall best fit $\gamma$ value are expected. The projected correlation function of the total CDFS sample is shown in Fig. \[sall\].
![AGN projected correlation functions in the CDFN (filled circles) and CDFS (open circles). Errors are $1\sigma$ Poisson confidence intervals. The best fit power laws are shown as dashed lines.[]{data-label="sagn"}](aa1375.fig11.ps){width="9cm"}
We checked how much these results depend on the choice of the random control sample. In particular we have relaxed the assumption of placing the random sources at the coordinates of the real sources, which might remove some signal due to angular clustering. As said above it is not appropriate to randomly distribute the control sources in the full field of view, since i) the X-ray sensitivity decreases from the center to the outskirts of the field, and ii) the masks used for optical spectroscopy have been placed preferentially in the center of the field. As a first check we limited our analysis to the 110 sources within a circle with a radius of 8 arcmin from the center, where the optical coverage is highest and the X-ray exposure map is constant within $\sim 20\%$ across most of the field, with the exception a few narrow stripes with lower sensitivity due to the gaps among ACIS-I CCDs (see e.g. Fig. 3 of Giacconi et al. 2002). Accordingly, the sources of the control sample were randomly placed within this 8 arcmin circle. The best fit correlation length and slope measured for this CDFS subsample were found to be $r_0=9.0\pm1.1\:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=1.38\pm0.14$, in excellent agreement with the previously quoted values. We can therefore estimate that the suppression in the clustering amplitude produced by the use of the real coordinates is only of the order of a few percent.
As a further, more refined, check we created a probability distribution map for the random sources, where the probability of finding a source at a given position is proportional to the number of real sources with measured redshift around that position. The map was obtained by repeatedly smoothing the distribution of real sources on the sky with a 20 arcsec boxcar (5 iterations). Random sources were then placed in the field according to the created probability map. This approach has the advantage of fully accounting for observational biases, avoiding at the same time the removal of angular clustering from the measured signal. Even in this case we found a high correlation length and a flat slope ($r_0=9.1 \pm 1.0\:h^{-1}$ Mpc; $\gamma=1.36 \pm 0.10$), in agreement with the above derived values. In the light of these checks, in the following we will then simply place the random sources at the coordinates of the real sources, considering for each AGN or galaxy subsample $only$ the positions of the sources in that subsample.
Prompted by previous claims (Yang et al. [@yang03]), we checked if there is any difference in the clustering properties of soft and hard X-ray selected sources. The best fit parameters obtained for the 109 soft X-ray selected sources are $r_0=7.5\pm 1.4\:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=1.34 \pm0.14$, while for the 97 hard selected sources we obtained $r_0=8.8 \pm 2.3\:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=1.28 \pm
0.14$. Since the correlation length and slope are correlated, and large uncertainties arise from the limited size of the samples, we fixed $\gamma$ to a common value to best evaluate any possible difference in the clustering amplitude. When fixing $\gamma$ to 1.3, we found $r_0=7.5 \pm 0.6\:h^{-1}$ Mpc for the soft sample and $r_0=9.1 \pm 0.8\:h^{-1}$ Mpc for the hard sample, which therefore appears to be only marginally more clustered. [^3]
![Projected correlation functions for AGN (circles) and galaxies (triangles) in the CDFN. Errors are $1\sigma$ Poisson confidence intervals. The best fit power laws are shown as dashed lines.[]{data-label="saga"}](aa1375.fig12.ps){width="9cm"}
![Projected correlation functions for type 1 AGN (filled circles) and type 2 AGN (open circles) in the CDFN. Errors are $1\sigma$ Poisson confidence intervals. The best fit power laws are shown as dashed lines.[]{data-label="satt"}](aa1375.fig13.ps){width="9cm"}
We then considered only the 97 sources classified as AGN finding best fit values ($r_0=10.3 \pm 1.7\:h^{-1}$ Mpc, $\gamma=1.33 \pm 0.14$) similar to those observed in the total sample (as it could be expected since AGN represent the vast majority of the identified sources). The AGN correlation function is shown in Fig. \[sagn\]. Furthermore, we separated the total AGN sample into type 1 and type 2 AGN (45 and 52 objects, respectively) according to the classification diagram of Section 3, without finding significant differences in their clustering properties (see Table 2). Because of the low statistics (only 27 objects) we cannot put significant constraints to the galaxy correlation function.
Given the large errors introduced by low statistics, we fixed the slope of the correlation function to $\gamma=1.4$ to search for any difference in the $r_0$ values among different populations. The adopted value is consistent with the average slopes measured in the CDFS and in the CDFN. As expected, the $r_0$ values measured for the various subsamples agree with those already obtained by assuming $\gamma$ as a free parameter, but have smaller errors. A summary of the measurements performed in this Section is given in Table 2. We finally checked our results by fixing the slope of the correlation to $\gamma=1.8$ which is the value commonly observed in galaxy samples at low redshifts (Davis & Peebles [@dp83], Carlberg et al. [@carl00]): while the fit is significantly worse, the best fit $r_0$ values increase by only 15%.
[lrccrcr]{} Sample& N& $\bar z$& ${\rm log}L_{0.5-10}$& $r_0$ & $\gamma$& $r_0(\gamma=1.4)$\
&&&&\[$h^{-1}$ Mpc\]&&\[$h^{-1}$ Mpc\]\
\
Total & 124& 0.73& 43.0& $8.6 \pm 1.2$& $1.33 \pm 0.11$& $9.1 \pm 0.6$\
Soft X-ray selected & 109& 0.73& 43.0& $7.5 \pm 1.4$& $1.34 \pm 0.14$& $7.6 \pm 0.7$\
Hard X-ray selected & 97& 0.75& 43.3& $8.8 \pm 2.2$& $1.28 \pm 0.14$& $9.8 \pm 0.8$\
AGN & 97& 0.84& 43.2& $10.3 \pm 1.7$& $1.33 \pm 0.14$& $10.4 \pm 0.8$\
type 1 & 45& 1.03& 43.6& $9.1 \pm 3.3$& $1.46 \pm 0.33$& $10.1^{+1.8}_{-2.2}$\
type 2 & 52& 0.73& 42.8& $10.5 \pm 2.2$& $1.40 \pm 0.21$& $10.7^{+1.3}_{-1.6}$\
galaxies & 27& 0.44& 41.0& …& …&…\
\
Total & 240& 0.84& 42.4& $4.2 \pm 0.4$& $1.42 \pm 0.07$& $4.1 \pm 0.2$\
Soft X-ray selected & 228& 0.84& 42.5& $4.0 \pm 0.4$& $1.42 \pm 0.08$& $4.1 \pm 0.3$\
Hard X-ray selected & 149& 0.90& 43.0& $5.2 \pm 1.0$& $1.36 \pm 0.13$& $5.0 \pm 0.5$\
AGN & 160& 0.96& 43.0& $5.5 \pm 0.6$& $1.50 \pm 0.12$& $5.1^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$\
type 1 & 89& 1.02& 43.5& $6.5 \pm 0.8$& $1.89 \pm 0.23$& $5.6^{+0.8}_{-1.0}$\
type 2 & 71& 0.87& 42.7& $5.1 \pm 1.3$& $1.52 \pm 0.27$& $4.7^{+0.8}_{-1.0}$\
galaxies & 80& 0.45& 41.3& $4.0 \pm 0.7$& $1.36 \pm 0.15$& $4.4^{+0.2}_{-0.6}$\
### CDFN
Most of the considerations made for the CDFS sample are also valid for the CDFN sample. In particular a similar uneven distribution on the field of the identified sources can be noticed in Fig. \[iman\], so we kept placing the sources of the random sample at the coordinates of the real sources.
We first measured the correlation length for all the CDFN sources excluding from our sample only objects with $L_{0.5-10}<10^{40} $ erg s$^{-1}$ (i.e. possible ULX), leaving a final sample of 240 sources. Although no detailed information on the fraction of extended sources is given in Alexander et al. ([@alex03]), the detection procedure adopted for the 2Msec CDFN data should be optimized for point-like sources. In Alexander et al. ([@alex03]) it is indeed mentioned that only a few sources are likely to be really extended; their presence in the considered sample should therefore not affect significantly our results.
We used again the redshift range $z=0-4$ since only two sources are beyond $z=4$. The best fit parameters of the correlation function, measured at a median redshift $\bar z\sim0.8$ are $r_0 = 4.2 \pm 0.4
\:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=1.42 \pm 0.07$. Based on the error on $r_0$, the clustering signal is then detected at the $\sim 10 \sigma$ level. While the slope is similar to that found in the CDFS, the clustering amplitude is significantly smaller. The projected correlation function of the total CDFN sample is shown in Fig. \[sall\], where it is also compared with that obtained for the total CDFS sample.
Also in the CDFN we verified that the results do not change significantly when limiting the calculation to the sources within 8 arcmin from the center (80% of the full sample) and placing the control sources randomly within this area. Also in this field the clustering properties of various subsamples are consistent with each other like for example those of soft and hard X-ray selected sources (228 and 149 objects in the two subsamples, respectively), and those of AGN (160 objects) and galaxies (80 objects). The best fit clustering parameters for the various samples are quoted in Table 2. The projected correlation function of CDFN AGN is compared with that of CDFS AGN in Fig. \[sagn\] and with that of CDFN galaxies in Fig. \[saga\].
As mentioned in Section 4.1, the average redshift of CDFN galaxies seems to be higher in the center of the field than in the outer regions. By means of a KS test we verified that the redshift distributions of galaxies within and beyond 4 arcmin from the center (38 and 42 objects, respectively) differ at $>3.5 \sigma$ level. To check the possible effects on the measured correlation function, we generated a first random sample by only considering the positions and redshift distribution of the inner sources and a second random sample by considering only the redshifts and coordinates of the outer sources, and we finally pasted the two samples into one. In this way, the outer sources of the random sample have on average lower redshifts than the inner sources, as observed in the real sample. The galaxy correlation function measured using this refined random sample is found to be in excellent agreement with the previous measurement.
Finally, we searched for any possible difference in the clustering properties of type 1 AGN (89 objects) and type 2 AGN (71 objects). Although type 1s seem to have a higher best fit correlation length and a steeper slope than type 2s ($r_0 = 6.5 \pm 0.8 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=1.89 \pm 0.23$ vs $r_0 = 5.1 \pm 1.3 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=1.52 \pm 0.27$), the two subsamples agree within the errors (Fig. \[satt\]).
Again, we checked our results by fixing $\gamma$ to 1.4. Although the $r_0$ have now smaller errors, we did not find any additional difference in the clustering properties of the various source populations. Finally, we checked our results by fixing the correlation slope to $\gamma=1.8$ finding that the measured $r_0$ values increase by $\sim 15\%$ as also seen in the CDFS. A summary of the measurements performed in this Section is given in Table 2.
Discussion
==========
The variance of the clustering amplitude
----------------------------------------
The X-ray exposure in the CDFN is twice that in the CDFS. It is therefore possible, in principle, that different populations with different clustering properties are being sampled in the two fields at the respective limiting fluxes. Indeed, as it can be easily seen in Table 2, the median luminosity for the total source populations of the CDFN is lower than that of the CDFS. This effect is primarily due to the raise of the galaxy population at very faint X-ray fluxes (see Fig. \[ftdist\] and Section 3). The median luminosities for the AGN samples are nonetheless very similar in the CDFS and in the CDFN. We performed a test by measuring the correlation function only for the CDFN sources already detected in the first Msec catalog (Brandt et al. [@brandt01]), which should guarantee an equal X-ray depth for the CDFS and CDFN samples. For the sample of 189 1Msec CDFN sources with robust spectroscopic redshift we found essentially the same correlation length and slope found in the total 2Msec CDFN sample. Therefore, the variance in $r_0$ between the CDFS and the CDFN cannot be ascribed to the different depth of the X-ray observations. We note that the redshift selection function obtained for the 1Msec CDFN is almost identical to that obtained for the CDFS. Also, as shown in Section 2, no systematic differences appear in the follow-up programs of optical spectroscopy, with optically faint source being equally observed in both fields. As assessed by a KS test, the R magnitude distributions for the sources in our two samples (i.e. those with robust redshift measurements, Fig. \[rdist\]) are indistinguishable, although there is a marginal hint that the fraction of sources with $R>24$ is slightly higher in the CDFS than in the 2Msec CDFN ($14\pm4\%$ and $9\pm2\%$, respectively). When considering the R magnitudes of the CDFN sources in the 1Msec catalog, these are distributed as in the CDFS (again checked with a KS test) and the fraction of faint ($R>24$) sources is identical to that of the CDFS. Therefore, the variance in the clustering amplitude cannot be explained by differences in the optical spectroscopy depth. As a final – perhaps redundant – test, it has been directly checked that the clustering amplitude in the two fields does not vary when considering only sources with $R<24$.
In addition, we checked the R-K colors of our sources. In both fields AGN are on average redder than galaxies. Indeed, AGN follow galaxy color tracks (see Szokoly et al. 2004 and Barger et al. 2003) but lay at higher redshifts than galaxies, where galaxy tracks are redder. This can be understood by considering that, since the majority of the AGN have low luminosities and are in many cases obscured, the optical light is dominated by the contribution of the host galaxy. When comparing the R-K color distribution of the sources in the CDFS and in the CDFN we observed a very similar shape. This, combined with the uncertainties in the R-K color determination, does not allow us to remark any possible difference between the two fields.
We note that about 1/3 of the identified CDFS sources lay within the two prominent spikes at $z=0.67$ and $z=0.73$. In the CDFN, although several redshifts spikes are observed, there are no such prominent structures. The two most populated spikes in the CDFN (at $z=0.84$ and $z=1.02$) indeed contain only about 1/8 of the total identified sources. As a check we measured the projected correlation function for the total CDFS sample excluding the sources in the two redshift spikes at $z=0.67$ and $z=0.73$, finding $r_0=3.8^{+1.3}_{-2.7}\:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=1.44\pm0.37$ ($r_0=3.6\pm0.9\:h^{-1}$ Mpc when fixing $\gamma$ to 1.4) in good agreement with the values measured for the total CDFN sample (see Fig. \[nosp\]). We can therefore conclude that most of the extra-clustering signal in the CDFS is due to these two structures. We also verified that in the CDFN the clustering amplitude and slope do not change significantly when removing the two most populated spikes at $z=0.84$ and $z=1.02$.
![Projected correlation function for the total CDFN sample (filled circles) and the CDFS sample obtained by excluding sources in the two spikes at z=0.67 and z=0.73 (open circles). Errors are $1\sigma$ Poisson confidence intervals. The best fit power laws are shown as dashed lines.[]{data-label="nosp"}](aa1375.fig14.ps){width="9cm"}
We should also investigate if the observed variance might be induced by the high spectroscopic incompleteness of the CDFN and CDFS samples. When looking at the photometric redshifts (e.g. Zheng et al. 2004, Barger et al. 2003), it can be easily shown that unidentified objects lay on average at higher redshifts than spectroscopically identified objects. The median redshift for the unidentified CDFS sources (including photo-z and low quality spectro-z) is indeed 1.15 (1.40 when considering photo-z only), to be compared with 0.73, the median redshift of the sources with high quality spectra. In the CDFN the median redshift for unidentified sources is 1.17 (1.23 when considering only photo-z), to be compared with the median value of 0.84 for the sources already identified. One of the most prominent redshift spikes in the CDFN is at z=1.02 (see Fig. \[zcdfn\]), while the most prominent structures in the CDFS are at $z\sim 0.7$. One might then speculate that the CDFN spike at z=1.02 is more incomplete than the CDFS spikes. Since at $z\sim0.7-1$ it is difficult to identify sources with weak optical emission lines or sources with absorption line dominated spectra, these should be the main population missing from the spectroscopic samples. In the CDFS, where the information on the optical spectra and classification is fully available, we verified that the best fit parameters of the correlation function do not vary significantly when excluding from the sample sources with absorption line dominated spectra or only weak emission lines. Therefore, spectroscopic incompleteness does not seem a viable argument to explain the different clustering amplitude between the CDFS and CDFN, which is rather due to genuine cosmic variance. We note that large field to field variance might indicate a strong clustering level, whose “real” amplitude can be assessed only with several measurements on independent fields. In principle, the likelihood of obtaining a given $r_0$ value for X-ray selected AGN in deep-pencil beam surveys could be estimated by sampling several times a cosmological volume obtained from N-body simulations, like e.g. the “Hubble Volume Simulations” by the Virgo Consortium (see Frenk et al. 2000 and references therein). Unfortunately, this method requires several assumptions on AGN formation and evolution within dark matter halos and needs careful and extensive tests to evaluate all the possible effects on the clustering amplitude of the considered objects. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this paper and will be the subject of future work.
An easier task, instead, is to see if the reported differences in the number counts of the [*Chandra*]{} Deep Fields (e.g. Yang et al. [@yang03], Bauer et al. [@bauer04]) are consistent with the fluctuations produced by the correlation lengths $r_0=5-10\:h^{-1}$ Mpc that we measure. Very recently Bauer et al. ([@bauer04]) have revisited the logN-logS relations in the CDFS and CDFN finding general agreement between the two fields, the maximum discrepancy (significant at the $\sim 4\sigma$ level) being $\sim 40\%$ for hard sources at the faintest fluxes ($f_{2-10}\sim
4\:10^{-15}$ cgs; see their Fig. 5). Since we are considering sources detected at the same limiting flux, the difference in the observed surface density corresponds to a volume density difference of the same entity. The expected cosmic variance in a given volume as a function of the amplitude and slope of the correlation function can be estimated using Eq. 3 of Somerville et al. ([@some04]), which is a rearrangement of Eq. 60.3 by Peebles ([@peeb80]). Within comoving effective volumes as those surveyed by each [*Chandra*]{} Deep Field ($\sim 2\:10^5 h^{-3}$ Mpc$^3$) and for a correlation slope $\gamma=1.4$, the expected cosmic variance is 30% and 50% for $r_0=5\:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $r_0=10\:h^{-1}$ Mpc, respectively. Therefore, we conclude that the reported differences in the number counts between the CDFS and the CDFN are fully consistent with the correlation lengths measured in this paper.
Comparison with clustering of other X-ray samples
-------------------------------------------------
Despite several efforts in the past years, only recently it has been possible to directly measure the spatial clustering of X-ray selected AGN. Carrera et al. ([@carrera98]) found only a $2\sigma$ detection in the ROSAT International X-ray Optical Survey (RIXOS, Mason et al. 2000) on scales $<40-80\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. Interestingly, the $2\sigma$ signal detected in the RIXOS refers to the subsample of sources in the redshift range 0.5–1.0, where the biggest structures in the CDFN and CDFS are also detected. The lack of clustering signal at $z<0.5$ and $z>1$ might be due to the small volume sampled and to the falling sensitivity of the RIXOS, respectively. More recently, Mullis et al. ([@mullis04]) have measured the spatial correlation function of soft X-ray selected AGN in the ROSAT NEP survey (their clustering detection is at the $\sim 4\sigma$ level). Using the same cosmology adopted here, they found a correlation length of $r_0\sim7.4\pm1.8\:h^{-1}$ Mpc ($\gamma$ fixed to 1.8) for source pairs at a median redshift $\bar z = 0.22$ and in the scale range $5-60\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. Also, when accounting for the different cosmology adopted here, the correlation length of the RASS sources at a median redshift $z=0.15$, measured by Akylas et al. ([@akylas00]) through angular clustering and Limber’s equation, should be increased to $r_0=6.6\pm 1.6\:h^{-1}$ Mpc [^4]. The correlation lengths measured at lower redshifts in the NEP and RASS surveys are intermediate values between those observed in the CDFS and in the CDFN. We stress that the comparison between the [*Chandra*]{} Msec surveys and the NEP and RASS survey should be done with the due care since they are sampling different luminosity regimes, and AGN clustering is expected to be a function of luminosity if this correlates with the mass of the dark halo in which the AGN resides (e.g. Kauffmann & Haenelt [@kauff02]). The median 0.5-10 keV luminosity of the NEP AGN (converted from the 0.5-2 keV luminosity by assuming a spectrum with photon index 2) is indeed log$L_{0.5-10}=44.4$, i.e. $\sim 20$ times higher than the median luminosity in the CDFS and CDFN. The above consideration remarks how the [*Chandra*]{} Msec surveys are sampling a population of AGN with rather low luminosities, for which no information on clustering at $z\sim 1$ was available so far. Another possible warning is that we are comparing the soft X-ray selected AGN in the NEP and in the RASS with the CDFS and CDFN AGN, which were selected both in the soft and hard band. However we did not observe any significant difference in the clustering properties of soft and hard X-ray selected AGN within each field. In Fig. \[roz\] we show the correlation length of X-ray selected AGN in the above mentioned surveys as a function of redshift. Due to the variance in $r_0$ measured in the CDFS and CDFN, no conclusion can be drawn on the evolution (if any) of the clustering amplitude with redshift.
![Correlation length $r_0$ as a function of redshift for different samples of X-ray selected AGN. From the lowest to the highest redshift: RASS (Akylas et al. [@akylas00]); NEP (Mullis et al. [@mullis04]); CDFS and CDFN (this work).[]{data-label="roz"}](aa1375.fig15.ps){width="9cm"}
Comparison with clustering of optically selected QSOs
-----------------------------------------------------
The best constraints on the clustering of optically selected QSOs have been derived from the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ, Croom et al. 2001). Based on a sample of $> 10^4$ objects Croom et al. ([@croom01]) measured a QSO correlation length and slope of $r_0=5.7 \pm 0.5 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma=1.56\pm 0.10$ at a median redshift of $z=1.5$ and on scales $1-60 \: h^{-1}$ Mpc comoving (using the same cosmology adopted here). In addition, thanks to the large number of QSOs in their sample, Croom et al. ([@croom01]) were also able to investigate the QSO clustering in different redshift slices. The correlation length measured in their two lowest bins, at a median redshift comparable with that of CDFS and CDFN AGN, is of the order of $r_0=4.7 \pm 0.9 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc (for a fixed slope of $\gamma=1.56$), which is comparable with the correlation length measured for the CDFN AGN. Again, a fully meaningful comparison is hampered by the different luminosity regimes sampled by the 2QZ and the [*Chandra*]{} Msec surveys. Assuming a standard QSO SED (Elvis et al. 1994), the characteristic absolute magnitude of 2QZ QSOs at $z=0.9$, $M_{b_j}\sim-24.15$ (derived from the 2QZ luminosity function of Croom et al. 2004), can be converted into an X-ray luminosity of log$L_{0.5-10}=44.7$, well above the average values of CDFN and CDFS AGN. In the local Universe the clustering of optical QSO has been recently measured by Grazian et al. ([@grazi04]) by means of the Asiago-ESO/RASS QSO survey (AERQS) which selects the most rare and luminous objects with $B<15$ mag. These Authors measured a rather high correlation length of $r_0=8.6 \pm 2.0 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc at a median redshift of $\sim 0.1$ and on scales $1-30 \: h^{-1}$ Mpc comoving (again for a fixed slope of $\gamma=1.56$). The average 0.5-10 keV luminosity of their QSO sample can be estimated to be log$L_{0.5-10}=44.4$. The AERQS and the 2QZ data have been compared with QSO clustering evolution models (Matarrese et al. [@mata97], Moscardini et al. [@mosc98]) based on the Press-Schechter formalism for the evolution of the dark matter halo mass function. In fact, Grazian et al. ([@grazi04]) and Croom et al. ([@croom01]) derive a minimum mass for the dark matter halos where QSO reside of $M_{DMH}\sim 10^{13}\:h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$. Due to the present large uncertainties it is not yet possible to put significant constraints to clustering evolution models with X-ray selected AGN. We just note here that clustering of X-ray AGN is consistent with models with $M_{DMH}\sim 10^{13}\:h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$ if the low $r_0$ value measured in the CDFN is typical at $z\sim1$. On the other hand, if the $r_0$ value measured in the CDFS has to be considered as typical, then $M_{DMH}$ can be as high as $10^{14}\:h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$.
Comparison with galaxy clustering
---------------------------------
Gilli et al. ([@gilli03]) found that about $70-80\%$ of the high significance peaks seen in the redshift distribution of K-band selected sources in a sub-area of the CDFS (the area covered by the K20 survey, see Fig. \[imas\]; Cimatti et al. 2002), have a corresponding peak in the X-rays. This implies that X-ray and K-band selected sources are tracing the same underlying structures. Also, it might be speculated from these samples that AGN clustering is similar to that of early type galaxies, whose detection rate is higher in K-band rather than in optically selected samples. The measurements of the spatial correlation function for the AGN in the CDFS seem to be in agreement with this idea, since the measured AGN correlation length is found to be similar to that of Extremely Red Objects with $R-K>5$ (EROs) at $z\sim1 $, which are thought to be the progenitors of early type galaxies (Daddi et al. [@daddi01]). Such a high clustering amplitude is however not observed for the AGN in the 2Msec CDFN, for which $r_0$ is of the order of $5-6\:h^{-1}$ Mpc. If we then consider the AGN correlation length to be in the range 5-10 Mpc, this is still consistent with AGN at $z\sim1$ to be generally hosted by early type galaxies. Indeed Coil et al. (2003) have recently measured the correlation length of a sample of $\sim 2000$ R-band selected galaxies at $z=0.7-1.25$ in the DEEP2 survey. With these good statistics they were able to obtain an accurate measure of the correlation function of early-type and late-type galaxies separately (the latter being more numerous by a factor of $\sim 4$), finding $r_0=6.61\pm1.12\:h^{-1}$ Mpc for early type galaxies and $r_0=3.17\pm0.54\:h^{-1}$ Mpc for late type galaxies. Interestingly enough, on scales of $r_p=0.25-8\:h^{-1}$ Mpc, i.e. very similar to those adopted in this paper, the slope of the correlation function for early-type galaxies is found to be rather flat, $\gamma=1.48\pm0.06$, in agreement with that measured for the AGN in the CDFS and in the CDFN (note however that Guzzo et al. ([@guzzo07]) found $\gamma=2.0\pm0.1$ for local early type galaxies). On the contrary the correlation slope for late-type galaxies is found to be significantly steeper ($\gamma=1.68\pm0.07$). To summarize, our results are consistent with the idea that at $z\sim 1$ the population of AGN with typical X-ray luminosity of $10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ is preferentially hosted by early-type galaxies. However, other deep X-ray pointings in separate fields are needed to measure the average clustering of X-ray selected AGN and get more stringent results.
Conclusions and future work {#conclusions}
===========================
We have measured the projected correlation function $w(r_p)$ of X-ray selected AGN and galaxies in the 2Msec [*Chandra*]{} Deep Field North and in the 1Msec [*Chandra*]{} Deep Field South on scales $\sim 0.2-10 \:h^{-1}$ Mpc. A significantly different amplitude for AGN clustering has been observed in these $\sim 0.1$ deg$^2$ fields, the correlation length $r_0$ measured in the CDFS being a factor of $\sim 2$ higher than in the CDFN. The observed difference does not seem to be produced by any observational bias, and is therefore likely due to cosmic variance. In both fields the slope of the correlation function is found to be flat ($\gamma\sim 1.3-1.5$), but consistent within the errors with that measured for optically selected QSO (Croom et al. [@croom01]). The extra correlation signal present in the CDFS is primarily due to the two prominent spikes at $z=0.67$ and $z=0.73$ containing about 1/3 of the identified sources. Indeed, although significant redshifts spikes are also observed in the CDFN, they are less prominent than those observed in the CDFS. In the CDFN we were also able to measure the clustering properties of X-ray selected galaxies, which have been found to be similar to those of AGN in the same field. Finally, within each field, we did not find significant differences between the clustering properties of hard X-ray selected and soft X-ray selected sources, or, similarly, between type-1 and type-2 AGN.
Significant improvements in the measurements of the AGN spatial correlation function and then in the understanding of the large scale structures in the X-ray sky is expected from the on going observations of the Extended [*Chandra*]{} Deep Field South (E-CDFS, PI N. Brandt) and of the COSMOS-XMM field (PI G. Hasinger). The E-CDFS is a deep-and-wide survey consisting of 4 [*Chandra*]{} 250 ksec ACIS-I pointings arranged in a square centered on the Msec CDFS. The final covered area will be $\sim 0.3$ deg$^2$, i.e. a factor of 3 higher than that covered by the Msec CDFS, with average sensitivities of $1\;10^{-16}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the soft band and $1\;10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the hard band. This will allow to significantly enlarge the sample and reduce statistical uncertainties introduced by the small CDFS field of view in the measurements of the clustering of Seyfert-like AGN with average log$L_{0.5-10}=43$ erg s$^{-1}$. A detailed study of clustering of high-luminosity X-ray selected AGN will be instead performed by the wide area COSMOS-XMM survey, consisting of a mosaic of 25 XMM short pointings (32 ksec each) covering a total 2.2 deg$^2$ field with a sensitivity of $1\;10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the soft band and $4\;10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the hard band. The two projects are complementary and should constrain the clustering properties of X-ray selected AGN as a function of redshift and luminosity.
We warmly thank Chris Mullis for useful discussions and for sharing with us his results in advance of publication. The anonymous referee is acknowledged for providing several comments which improved the presentation of this work. RG acknowledges support from the Italian Space Agency (ASI) under grant I/R/057/02.
Alexander, D.M., Bauer, F.E., Brandt, W.N., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 539
Akylas, A., Georgantopoulos, I., Plionis, M. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1036
Arnouts, S., Vandame, B., Benoist, C., et al. 2001, A&A, 379, 740
Boyle, B.J., & Mo, H.J. 1993, MNRAS, 260, 925
Boyle, B. J., Shanks, T., Georgantopoulos, I., Stewart, G. C., Griffiths, R. E. 1994, MNRAS, 271, 639
Barger, A.J., Cowie, L.L., Brandt, W.N., Capak, P., Garmire, G.P., Hornschemeier, A.E., Steffen, A.T., Wehner, E.H. 2002, AJ, 124, 1839
Barger, A.J., Cowie, L.L., Capak, P., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 632
Basilakos, S., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, L79
Bauer, F.E., Alexander, D.M., Brandt, W.N., et al. 2004, AJ, in press (astro-ph/0408001)
Brandt, W.N., Alexander, D.M., Hornschemeier, A.E., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2810
Carlberg, R.G., et al. 2000, ApJ, 542, 57
Carrera F.J., Barcons, X., Fabian, A.C., Hasinger, G., Mason, K.O., McMahon, R.G., Mittaz, J.P.D., Page, M.J. 1998, MNRAS, 299
Cimatti, A., Mignoli, M., Daddi, E., et al. 2002, A&A, 392, 395
Cohen, J.G., Hogg, D.W., Blandford, R., et al. 2000, ApJ, 538, 29
Coil, A.L., et al. 2003, ApJ, 609, 525
Comastri, A., Setti, G., Zamorani, G., Hasinger, G. 1995, A&A, 296, 1
Cowie, L.L., Barger, A.J., Hu, E.M., Capak., P., Songaila, A. 2004, AJ, 2004, 127, 3137
Croom, S.M., Shanks, T., Boyle, B.J., Smith, R.J., Miller, L., Loaring, N.S., Hoyle, F. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 483
Croom, S.M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1397
Daddi, E., et al. 2001, A&A, 376, 825
Davis, M., & Peebles, P.J.E. 1983, ApJ, 267, 465
Elvis, M. et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1
Fabbiano, G., 1989, ARA&A, 27, 87
Frenk, C.S., Colberg, J.M., Couchman, H.M.P. et al. 2000, astro-ph/0007362
Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336
Georgantopoulos, I., & Shanks, T. 1994, MNRAS, 271, 773
Giacconi, R., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P., Nonino, M., Hasinger, G., Norman, C., Bergeron, J., Borgani, S., Gilli, R., Gilmozzi, R. & Zheng, W. 2001, , 551, 624
Giacconi, R., Zirm, A., Wang, J., Rosati, P., Nonino, M., Tozzi, P., Gilli, R., Mainieri, V., Hasinger, G., Kewley, L., Bergeron, J., Borgani, S., Gilmozzi, R., Grogin, N., Koekemoer, A., Schreier, E., Zheng, W., Norman, C. 2002, , 139, 369
Gilli, R., Salvati, M., & Hasinger, G. 2001, A&A, 366, 407
Gilli, R., Cimatti, A, Daddi, E., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 721
Gioia, I., Henry, J.P., Mullis, C.R., et al. 2003, ApJS, 149, 29
Grazian, A., Negrello, M., Moscardini, L., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 592
Guzzo, L., Strauss, M.A., Fisher, K.B., Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M.P. 1997, ApJ, 489, 37
Hartwick, F.D.A. & Schade, D. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 437
Hasinger, G. in the Proceedings of “The Restless High Energy Universe”, Nucl. Physics B. Suppl. Series, E.P.J. Van den Heuvel, J.J.M. in’t Zand, and R.A.M.J. Wijers (Eds.) (astro-ph/0310804)
Hornschemeier, A.E., Alexander, D.A., Bauer, F.E., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L147
Kauffmann, G., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 529
Kauffmann, G., & Haehnelt, M.G. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 529
La Franca, F., Andreani, P., & Cristiani, S., 1998, ApJ, 497, 529
Landy, S.D., & Szalay, A.S. 1993, ApJ, 412, 64
Le Fevre, O., Hudon, D., Lilly, S. J., Crampton, David, Hammer, F., Tresse, L. 1996, ApJ, 461, 534
Magliocchietti, M., Maddox, S.J., Hawkins, E., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1485
Martini, P., & Weinberg, D.H. 2001, ApJ, 547, 12
Marzke, R.O., Geller, M.J., Da Costa, L.N., Huchra, J.P. 1995, AJ, 110, 477
Mason, K. O., Carrera, F. J., Hasinger, G., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 456
Matarrese, S., et al. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 115
Mo, H.J., Jing, Y.P., & Börner, G. 1992, ApJ, 392, 452
Moscardini, L., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 95
Mullis, C.R. 2001, Ph.D. thesis, University of Hawaii
Mullis, C.R., Henry, J.P., Gioia, I.M., et al. 2004, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0408304)
Osmer, P.S., 1981, ApJ, 247, 762
Peebles, P.J.E. 1980, The Large Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)
Ratcliffe, A., Shanks, T., Parker, Q.A., Fong, R. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 173
Rosati, P., Giacconi, R., Gilli, R., Hasinger, G., Kewley, L., Mainieri, V., Nonino, M., Norman, C., Szokoly, G., Wang, J. X., Zirm, A., Bergeron, J., Borgani, S., Gilmozzi, R., Grogin, N., Koekemoer, A., Schreier, E., Zheng, W. 2002, , 566, 667
Shanks, T., Fong, R., Boyle, B.J., Peterson, B.A. 1987, MNRAS, 277, 739
Somerville, R.S., Lee, K., Ferguson, H.C., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L171
Stocke, John T., Morris, Simon L., Gioia, I. M., Maccacaro, T., Schild, R., Wolter, A., Fleming, Thomas A., Henry, J. P. 1991, ApJS, 76, 813
Szokoly, G., Bergeron, J., Hasinger, G., et al. 2004, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/0312324)
Tozzi, P., Rosati, P., Nonino, M., Bergeron, J., Borgani, S., Gilli, R., Gilmozzi, G., Hasinger, G., Grogin, N., Kellerman, K., Kewley, L., Koekemoer, A., Norman, C., Schreier, E., Shaver, P., Wang, J.X., Zheng, W., Zirm, A. & Giacconi, R. 2001, , 562, 42
Tucker, D. L., Oemler, A., Jr., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 1997, MNRAS, 285, L5
Ueda, Y., Akiyama, M., Ohta, K., Miyaji, T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 886
Vikhlinin, A., Forman, W. 1995, ApJ, 455, L109
Voges, W., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 389
Williams, R.E., et al. 1996, AJ, 112. 1335
Wirth, G.D., Willmer, C.N.A., Amico, P., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 3121
Yang, Y., Mushotzky, R. F., Barger, A. J., Cowie, L. L., Sanders, D. B., Steffen, A. T. 2003, ApJ, 585, L85
Yee, H.K.C., et al. 2000, ApJS, 130, 258
Zehavi, I., Blanton, M.R., Frieman, J.A., et al. 2002, ApJ, 571, 172
Zheng, W., et al. 2004, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/0406482)
[^1]: We note that the value of 0.005 quoted by Szokoly et al. ([@szoko04]) as the typical uncertainty in the redshift determination is a conservative $\sim3\sigma$ boundary.
[^2]: It is worth noting that the 0.5-10 keV flux of the faintest CDFS sources ($f_{0.5-10 keV}\lesssim 10^{-16}$ cgs) is likely to be underestimated in Fig. \[ftdist\]. Indeed, since in the CDFS no X-ray photometry was performed in the total X-ray band, the 0.5-10 keV flux is obtained by simply summing the flux in the soft and in the hard band. Therefore, for sources detected in the soft band only (most of which are at the faintest fluxes), the 0.5-10 keV flux simply corresponds to the 0.5-2 keV flux, and some residual flux above 2 keV is lost. On the contrary, in the CDFN the X-ray photometry has been performed also in the total 0.5-10 keV band even for sources not detected in the 2-10 keV band, whose total flux is then always higher than the soft flux.
[^3]: For consistency with the other subsamples considered in this paper, we quote in Table 2 the $r_0$ values obtained by fixing the slope to $\gamma=1.4$ rather than to $\gamma=1.3$. Results are essentially unchanged.
[^4]: At $z=0.15$ the average comoving separations in the $\Lambda$ dominated cosmology adopted here are larger by $\sim 10\%$ with respect to the Einstein - De Sitter cosmology adopted by Akylas et al. (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We demonsrtate electrical spin injection and detection in [*n*]{}-type Ge ([*n*]{}-Ge) at room temperature using four-terminal nonlocal spin-valve and Hanle-effect measurements in lateral spin-valve (LSV) devices with Heusler-alloy Schottky tunnel contacts. The spin diffusion length ($\lambda$$_{\rm Ge}$) of the Ge layer used ($n \sim$ 1 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$) at 296 K is estimated to be $\sim$ 0.44 $\pm$ 0.02 $\mu$m. Room-temperature spin signals can be observed reproducibly at the low bias voltage range ($\le$ 0.7 V) for LSVs with relatively low resistance-area product ($RA$) values ($\le$ 1 k$\Omega$$\mu$m$^{2}$). This means that the Schottky tunnel contacts used here are more suitable than ferromagnet/MgO tunnel contacts ($RA \ge$ 100 k$\Omega$$\mu$m$^{2}$) for developing Ge spintronic applications.'
author:
- 'Michihiro Yamada,$^{1}$[^1] Makoto Tsukahara,$^{1}$ Yuichi Fujita,$^{1}$ Takahiro Naito,$^{1}$ Shinya Yamada,$^{1,2}$ Kentarou Sawano,$^{3}$ and Kohei Hamaya$^{1,2}$[^2]'
title: 'Room-temperature spin transport in $n$-Ge probed by four-terminal nonlocal measurements'
---
Owing to the future intrinsic limits of downsizing of silicon-based conventional complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) transistors, novel devices with additional functionalities should be developed. Spin-based electronics (spintronics) is expected to enhance device performances because of its nonvolatility, reconstructibility, low power consumption, and so forth.[@Igor; @Hirohata; @Taniyama; @Yuasa; @Tanaka] To introduce the use of spintronics into the Si-based semiconductor industry, it will become important to explore spintronic technologies compatible with Si.[@Jansen1; @Appelbaum; @Jonker; @Si_HamaGr; @Suzuki; @Ishikawa] In recent years, germanium has been attracting much attention as a channel material for next-generation CMOS transistors because its electron and hole mobility are twice and four times as large as those in Si, respectively.[@Kuzum; @Zhang1]
In line with this research, there have been many studies to date on the development of spintronic technologies using Ge.[@Zhou; @KAIST; @Ge_Hama1; @Ge_Hama2; @Ge_Hama3; @AIST; @Jamet] For heavily doped [*n*]{}-Ge (10$^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$$\le n \le$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$), the spin diffusion length ($\lambda$$_{\rm Ge}$) at room temperature, one of the key parameters in Ge spintronics, has been reported by some experimental methods. First, the value of $\lambda$$_{\rm Ge}$ at room temperature was estimated to be 0.68 $\mu$m from three-terminal Hanle-effect measurements of CoFe/MgO/[*n*]{}-Ge devices.[@KAIST] Next, by analyzing the detected inverse-spin-Hall voltage in Py/[*n*]{}-Ge/Pd devices, a room-temperature $\lambda$$_{\rm Ge}$ value of 0.66 $\mu$m was expected,[@Dushenko_PRL] which is similar to that in Ref. [@KAIST]. However, there is no report on the room-temperature $\lambda$$_{\rm Ge}$ estimated from four-terminal nonlocal spin-valve and Hanle-effect measurements although this is the most reliable method for exploring spin transport in nonmagnets.[@Johnson; @Jedema; @Kimura; @Lou_NatPhys]
Here, we report on room-temperature four-terminal nonlocal spin signals and Hanle-effect curves obtained under parallel and anti-parallel magnetization configurations of Co$_{2}$FeAl (CFA) Schottky tunnel contacts in [*n*]{}-Ge-based lateral spin-valves (LSVs). This means that generation, manipulation, and detection of pure spin currents in [*n*]{}-Ge are reliably demonstrated at room temperature by all-electrical means for the first time. The $\lambda$$_{\rm Ge}$ value of the [*n*]{}-Ge layer used here ($n \sim$ 1 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$) is estimated to be $\sim$ 0.44 $\pm$ 0.02 $\mu$m. Room-temperature spin signals can be observed for LSVs with relatively low resistance-area product ($RA$) values ($\le$ 1 k$\Omega$$\mu$m$^{2}$), which are much lower than that of ferromagnet/MgO tunnel contacts in the low bias voltage range in room-temperature Ge spintronics.[@KAIST; @Jamet] This study will pave a way to develop spintronic applications with Ge technologies.
First, the growth of Ge layers used in this study for spin transport is explained. We formed an undoped Ge(111) layer ($\sim$28 nm) grown at 350 $^\circ$C (LT-Ge) on a commercial undoped Si(111) substrate ($\rho$ $\sim$ 1000 $\Omega$cm), followed by an undoped Ge(111) layer ($\sim$70 nm) grown at 700 $^\circ$C (HT-Ge).[@Sawano_TSF] As the spin transport layer, we grew a 140-nm-thick phosphorous (P)-doped $n$-Ge(111) layer (doping concentration $\sim$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$) by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) at 350 $^\circ$C on top of the HT-Ge layer. The carrier concentration ($n$) in the $n$-Ge(111) layer was estimated to be $n \sim$ 1 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$. Because the HT-Ge layer on LT-Ge/Si(111) has $p$-type conduction and a relatively high resistivity (high spin resistance) compared to the spin transport ($n$-Ge) layer, we can ignore the spin diffusion into the HT-Ge layer. To promote the tunneling conduction of electron spins through the Schottky barriers,[@Ge_Hama2; @Ge_Hama1; @Ge_Hama3] a P $\delta$-doped Ge layer ($n^{+}$-Ge) with an ultra thin Si insertion layer was grown on top of the spin-transport layer.[@MYamada] As the spin injector/detector, we used Co$_{2}$FeAl (CFA) grown by low-temperature MBE because it is relatively simple to grow compared to Co$_{2}$FeAl$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$, which was previously reported in Ref. [@Ge_Hama3]. Here CFA is also expected to exhibit relatively high spin polarization.[@Sukegawa] Detailed growth procedures have been published elsewhere.[@SYamada]
![(Color online) (a) Schematic diagram of a lateral four-terminal device with Co$_{2}$FeAl/[*n*]{}$^{+}$-Ge contacts. (b) Four-terminal nonlocal magnetoresistance curve at 296 K. Inset shows $J-V$ curves of the Co$_{2}$FeAl/[*n*]{}$^{+}$-Ge spin injector and detector at 296 K. ](Fig1.eps){width="8"}
Figure 1(a) shows a schematic illustration of the fabricated LSVs for four-terminal nonlocal measurements.[@Johnson; @Jedema; @Kimura] Two different CFA/$n$-Ge contacts with 0.4 $\times$ 5.0 $\mu$m$^{2}$ and 1.0 $\times$ 5.0 $\mu$m$^{2}$ in size were fabricated by conventional electron beam lithography and Ar-ion milling. The edge-to-edge distances $d$ between the CFA/$n^{+}$-Ge contacts were measured to be 0.24 to 0.55 $\mu$m. Representative current-voltage characteristics ($J-V$ curves) of the fabricated CFA/$n^{+}$-Ge Schottky tunnel contacts are shown in the inset of Fig. 1(b). Because there is no rectifying behavior, we can judge that the tunneling conduction of electrons through the CFA/$n$-Ge interfaces is demonstrated irrespective of the influence of the strong Fermi level pinning at the metal/$n$-Ge interface.[@Dimoulas] By applying in-plane magnetic fields ($B$$\rm_{y}$), four-terminal nonlocal magnetoresistance ($\Delta$$R$$_{\rm NL}$ $=$ $\Delta$$V$$_{\rm NL}$/$I$) curves are measured at $I$ = -2 mA at room temperature (296 K), as shown in the main panel of Fig. 1(b). Here the negative sign of $I$ ($I$ $<$ 0) means that spin-polarized electrons are injected from CFA into $n$-Ge. Evident hysteretic behavior of $\Delta R_{\rm NL}$, depending on the magnetization configuration between the two CFA contacts, can be observed even at room temperature. These features can be reproducibly observed in many LSVs, as shown in the discussion below. For the presented LSV ($d =$ 0.24 $\mu$m), the amplitude of the spin signal, $|\Delta$$R$$_{\rm NL}|$, is approximately 0.54 m$\Omega$ at room temperature.
By applying out-of-plane magnetic fields ($B$$\rm_{z}$), we also measure four-terminal nonlocal Hanle-effect curves under parallel and anti-parallel magnetization states between the CFA electrodes. In Fig. 2(a), we can see clearly nonlocal Hanle-effect curves, indicating precession of the pure spin currents in the [*n*]{}-Ge layer at room temperature, for both the parallel and antiparallel magnetization states in an LSV having $d =$ 0.5 $\mu$m. This is the first observation of four-terminal nonlocal Hanle-effect curves at room temperature in [*n*]{}-Ge, that were detected entirely by electrical means. According to the one-dimensional spin drift diffusion model,[@Lou_NatPhys; @Jedema] the four-terminal nonlocal Hanle-effect curves can be expressed as follows. $$\Delta R_{\rm NL}(B_{\rm z}) = \pm A{ {\int_0^{\infty}}{\phi(t)}{\rm cos}({\omega}_{L}t){\exp\left(-\frac{t}{\tau_{\rm Ge}}\right)}dt},$$ where $A =$ ${\frac{{P_{\rm inj}}{P_{\rm det}}{\rho_{\rm Ge}}D}{S}}$, $\phi(t) =$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{4{\pi}Dt}}{\exp\left(-\frac{L^{2}}{4Dt}\right)}$, $\omega$$_{L}$ (= $g$$\mu$$_{\rm B}$$B$$_{z}$/$\hbar$) is the Larmor frequency, $g$ is the electron $g$-factor ($g$ = 1.56) of Ge,[@Vrijen] $\mu$$_{\rm B}$ is the Bohr magneton, $P_{\rm inj}$ and $P_{\rm det}$ are the spin polarizations of electrons in [*n*]{}-Ge, $\rho_{\rm Ge}$ is the resistivity ($\rho$$_{\rm Ge} \sim$ 1.9 m$\Omega$cm), $S$ is the cross section ($S =$ 0.98 $\mu$m$^{2}$) of the [*n*]{}-Ge layer used here, and $L$ is the center-to-center distance between the spin injector and detector ($L =$ 1.2 $\mu$m). The solid curves presented in Fig. 2(a) indicate the results fitted to Eq.(1). In consequence, the $\tau$$_{\rm Ge}$ and $D$ values are determined to be 0.25 ns and 7.2 cm$^{2}$/s, respectively. Here the influence of the contact-induced spin relaxation on the Hanle analysis of our LSVs can be ignored because the $\tau$$_{\rm Ge}$ value obtained using Eq. (5) in Ref. [@Brien_PRB] was nearly equivalent to that obtained using Eq. (1). In addition, according to the relation $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ $=$ $\sqrt{D\tau_{\rm s}}$, we can calculate a $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ value of 0.42 $\mu$m at room temperature for the $n$-Ge layer used here. In Fig. 2(b), we also investigate the $d$ dependence of $|\Delta$$R$$_{\rm NL}|$ for evaluating $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ using the following equation, $|\Delta R_{\rm NL}|$ $=$ ${\frac{|{P_{\rm inj}|}|{P_{\rm det}|}{\rho_{\rm Ge}}{\lambda_{\rm Ge}}}{S}}{\exp\left(-\frac{d}{\lambda_{\rm Ge}}\right)}$. Here we use LSVs other than that shown in Fig. 2(a) because we should confirm the reliability of the $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ value estimated from the same$n$-Ge layer. As a result, we can obtain a $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ value of 0.46 $\mu$m. From both the Hanle effect and $d$ dependence analyses, we regard $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ at room temperature as 0.44 $\pm$ 0.02 $\mu$m, which is slightly different from the values obtained in previous room-temperature works.[@KAIST; @Dushenko_PRL]
Recently, by utilizing a Co-based Heusler alloy as a spin injector and detector, we have obtained large and reliable spin signals at low temperatures and gained insight into the spin relaxation mechanism in [*n*]{}-Ge from low temperature to near room temperature.[@Ge_Hama3] Theoretical analyses revealed that the spin relaxation mechanism in [*n*]{}-Ge (10$^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$$\le n \le$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$) at low temperatures is dominated by donor-driven intervalley spin-flip scattering.[@Ge_Hama3; @Song_PRL] It should be noted that, however, at room temperature, the phonon-induced intervalley spin-flip scattering cannot be ignored.[@Ge_Hama3] Considering both contributions to $\tau$$_{\rm Ge}$, we can theoretically calculate a room temperature $\tau$$_{\rm Ge}$ value of $\sim$ 0.2 ns,[@Ge_Hama3] which leads to a $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ of 0.45 $\mu$m. The experimentally obtained data in this study ($\lambda_{\rm Ge} =$ 0.44 $\pm$ 0.02 $\mu$m) are consistent with the above theoretical $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ value. In terms of the theoretical spin relaxation mechanism,[@Song_PRL] the estimated $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ value in this study is more reliable than those estimated by other methods.[@KAIST; @Dushenko_PRL]
A comparison of $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ and $\lambda_{\rm Si}$ at room temperature shows that the obtained $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ is obviously smaller than the reported $\lambda_{\rm Si}$ ( $\sim$ 1.0 $\mu$m).[@Ishikawa] For both Ge and Si, although the spin relaxation mechanism is dominated by the donor-driven and phonon-induced intervalley spin-flip scattering predicted theoretically[@Song_PRL] and experimentally,[@Ge_Hama3; @Ishikawa] the contributions of the Bohr radius and spin-orbit coupling in Ge to the spin scattering rate are relatively large compared to those in Si. Therefore, reducing the donor concentration in [*n*]{}-Ge might be important to enhance $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$ at room temperature in future.
From the results shown in Fig. 2, the spin polarization created in [*n*]{}-Ge can be expected. Figure 3 shows a plot of room-temperature spin polarization, $\sqrt{P_{\rm inj}P_{\rm det}}$, versus the $RA$ value in the low bias voltage range ($\le$ 1.0 V) for various LSV devices. We cannot see the effect of the $RA$ value of the used contacts on the spin polarization created in [*n*]{}-Ge. Here, for LSVs with $RA$ $\sim$ 1 k$\Omega$$\mu$m$^{2}$, the $|\Delta R_{\rm NL}|$ values were reliably observable, and this range was much lower than that in previous room-temperature works.[@KAIST; @Jamet] We note that the use of our Schottky tunnel barriers with inserted $\delta$-doped layers[@Ge_Hama3] enables us to simultaneously demonstrate room-temperature spin transport and low $RA$ spin injection/detection. This technique will open a way to develop Ge spintronic applications with low power consumption. We will comment on this point later. Unfortunately, the spin polarization created in [*n*]{}-Ge is still small, $\sqrt{P_{\rm inj}P_{\rm det}} \sim$ 0.01, as shown in Fig. 3. According to the conventional spin diffusion theory,[@Fert] the ratio of $RA$ ($=$ $r_{\rm b}$) to $r_{\rm N}$ is important for obtaining a large the spin signal in an LSV with tunnel barriers, where $r_{\rm N}$ = $\rho_{\rm Ge}$ $\times$ $\lambda_{\rm Ge}$. Here, because $r_{\rm N}$ is estimated to be $\sim$ 8.4 $\Omega$$\mu$m$^{2}$ in this study, $RA$/$r_{\rm N}$ is $\sim$ 10$^{2}$, which is not an optimum condition.[@Fert] To enhance the spin signals in our LSVs, it might be important to control the $RA$ value toward $\sim$10 $\Omega$$\mu$m$^{2}$ by engineering the ferromagnet/[*n*]{}$^{+}$-Ge junctions. However, we have to consider the spin absorption effect at the low-$RA$ interface in future. Although the bulk spin polarization of CFA electrodes is expected to be high,[@Sukegawa] the quality of the CFA electrode near the heterointerface may not be sufficient to achieve device applications. If the bulk spin polarization of the low-temperature grown CFA near the interface is degraded,[@Lazarov] we should improve the spin polarization created in [*n*]{}-Ge by achieving high-quality ordered structures. In the study of GaAs-based LSVs, the spin injection/detection efficiency has reportedly be improved by using high-quality Co-based Heusler alloys.[@Bruski; @Crowell; @Tezuka; @Uemura_PRBR] To obtain even higher spin signals at room temperature in Ge-based LSVs, we should further improve the quality of the Co-based Heusler alloys on Ge.
Finally, we comment on the technical advantage of using Schottky tunnel barriers for Ge spintronic applications. According to our previous works,[@Hamaya_FLP] high-quality Heulser-alloy/Ge heterointerfaces grown by low-temperature MBE can reduce the influence of the strong Fermi level pinning on the Schottky barrier height. For such Heulser-alloy/[*n*]{}-Ge junctions, we can apply a developed P $\delta$-doping technique[@MYamada] to reduce the width of the Schottky barrier. By utilizing both methods for Schottky tunnel junctions, we can realize high-quality Heulser-alloy/Ge contacts with relatively low $RA$ values ($\le$ 1 k$\Omega$$\mu$m$^{2}$).[@MYamada; @Ge_Hama3] For ferromagnet/MgO/[*n*]{}-Ge junctions, on the other hand, there are many reports on the use of the barrier layers (1 $-$ 2 nm) to obtain relatively high $RA$ values ($\ge$ 100 k$\Omega$$\mu$m$^{2}$) in the low bias voltage range ($\le$ 1.0 V). In addition, complete Fermi level depinning cannot be observed yet by inserting crystalline MgO barriers between bcc-ferromagnets and [*n*]{}-Ge.[@Zhou_FLP] For these reasons, our Schottky tunnel barriers are more effective than ferromagnet/MgO barriers for simultaneously demonstrating room-temperature spin transport and low $RA$ contacts in the Ge spintronic devices.
In summary, we reported on room-temperature four-terminal nonlocal spin signals and Hanle-effect curves obtained under parallel and anti-parallel magnetization states of Co$_{2}$FeAl (CFA) Schottky tunnel contacts in [*n*]{}-Ge-based LSVs. Using the analyses of the Hanle-effect curves and $d$-dependent nonlocal spin signals, we extracted a room temperature $\lambda$$_{\rm Ge}$ value of $\sim$ 0.44 $\pm$ 0.02 $\mu$m for [*n*]{}-Ge ($n \sim$ 1 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$). We note that room-temperature spin signals can be observed for LSVs with a relatively low $RA$ of $\sim$ 1 k$\Omega$$\mu$m$^{2}$, which is much lower than that of ferromagnet/MgO tunnel contacts obtained in previous room-temperature works.[@Jamet; @KAIST] This study will pave a way to develop Ge spintronic applications with low power consumption.
This work was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (No. 16H02333) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas ‘Nano Spin Conversion Science’ (No. 26103003) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). M.Y. acknowledges scholarships from the Toyota Physical and Chemical Research Institute Foundation. Y.F. acknowledges JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.
[99]{} I. Žutić, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 323 (2004). S. Yuasa and D. D. Djayaprawira, J. Phys. D [**40**]{}, R337 (2007). M. Tanaka and S. Sugahara, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices [**54**]{}, 961 (2007). T. Taniyama, E. Wada, M. Itoh and M. Yamaguchi, NPG Asia Mater. [**3**]{}, 65 (2011). A. Hirohata and K. Takanashi, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. [**47**]{}, 193001 (2014).
I. Appelbaum, B. Huang, and D. J. Monsma, Nature (London) [**447**]{}, 295 (2007); I. Appelbaum, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A [**369**]{}, 3554 (2011). O. M. J. van’t Erve, A. T. Hanbicki, M. Holub, C. H. Li, C. Awo-Affouda, P. E. Thompson, and B. T. Jonker, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**91**]{}, 212109 (2007). S. P. Dash, S. Sharma, R. S. Patel1, M. P. Jong and R. Jansen, Nature [**462**]{}, 491 (2009); R. Jansen, Nature Mat. [**11**]{}, 400 (2012). Y. Ando [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**94**]{}, 182105 (2009); Y. Ando [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Exp. [**3**]{}, 093001 (2010); Y. Ando [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**99**]{}, 132511 (2011); K. Hamaya [*et al.*]{}, J. Appl. Phys. [**113**]{}, 17C501 (2013). T. Sasaki, T. Oikawa, T. Suzuki, M. Shiraishi, Y. Suzuki, and K.Tagami, Appl. Phys. Exp. [**2**]{}, 053003 (2009); T. Suzuki, T. Sasaki, T. Oikawa, M. Shiraishi, Y. Suzuki, and K. Noguchi, Appl. Phys. Exp. [**4**]{}, 023003 (2011); T. Sasaki, Y. Ando, M. Kameno, T. Tahara, H. Koike, T. Oikawa, T. Suzuki and M. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. Applied [**2**]{}, 034005 (2014). Y. Saito [*et al.*]{}, J. Appl. Phys. [**115**]{}, 17C514 (2014); Y. Saito [*et al.*]{}, J. Appl. Phys. [**117**]{}, 17C707 (2015); M. Ishikawa [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 115302 (2017). D. Kuzum, A. J. Pethe, T. Krishnamohan, and K. C. Saraswat, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices [**56**]{}, 648 (2009). R. Zhang, T. Iwasaki, N. Taoka, M. Takenaka, and S. Takagi, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices [**59**]{}, 335 (2012).
Y. Zhou, W. Han, L.-T. Chang, F. Xiu, M. Wang, M. Oehme, I. A. Fischer, J. Schulze, R. K. Kawakami, and K. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 125323 (2011); L.-T. Chang, W. Han, Y. Zhou, J. Tang, I. A. Fischer, M. Oehme, J. Schulze, R. K. Kawakami, and K. L. Wang, Semicond. Sci. Technol. [**28**]{}, 015018 (2013). H. Saito, S. Watanabe, Y. Mineno, S. Sharma, R. Jansen, S. Yuasa, and K. Ando, Solid State Commun. [**151**]{}, 1159 (2011); A. Spiesser, H. Saito, R. Jansen, S. Yuasa, and K. Ando, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 205213 (2014). K-R. Jeon, B-C. Min, Y-H. Jo, H-S. Lee, I-J. Shin, C-Y. Park, S-Y. Park, and S-C. Shin, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 165315 (2011). K. Kasahara [*et al.*]{}, J. Appl. Phys. [**111**]{}, 07C503 (2012); K. Hamaya [*et al.*]{}, J. Appl. Phys. [**113**]{}, 183713 (2013). A. Jain [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 106603 (2012); J.-C. Rojas-Sánchez [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B. [**88**]{}, 064403 (2013). K. Kasahara [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Exp. [**7**]{}, 033002 (2014); M. Kawano [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**109**]{}, 022406 (2016). Y. Fujita [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 245302 (2016); M. Yamada [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 161304(R) (2017); Y. Fujita [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Applied [**8**]{}, 014007 (2017). S. Dushenko, M. Koike, Y. Ando, T. Shinjo, M. Myronov, and M. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 196602 (2015). M. Johnson and R. H. Silsbee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{}, 1790 (1985). F. J. Jedema, H. B. Heersche, A. T. Filip, J. J. A. Baselmans, and B. J. van Wees, Nature [**416**]{}, 713 (2002). T. Kimura and Y. Otani, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**19**]{}, 165216 (2007). X. Lou, C. Adelmann, S. A. Crooker, E. S. Garlid, J. Zhang, K. S. M. Reddy, S. D. Flexner, C. J. Palmstr[ø]{}m, and P. A. Crowell, Nat. Phys. [**3**]{}, 197 (2007). K. Sawano, Y. Hoshi, S. Kudo, K. Arimoto, J. Yamanaka, K. Nakagawa, K. Hamaya, M. Miyao, and Y. Shiraki, Thin Solid Films [**613**]{}, 24 (2016). M. Yamada, K. Sawano, M. Uematsu, and K. M. Itoh, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**107**]{}, 132101 (2015); M. Yamada, Y. Fujita, S. Yamada, T. Kanashima, K. Sawano, and K. Hamaya, Mat. Sci. Semicon. Proc., 2017 (in press); doi: 10.1016/j.mssp.2016.07.025.
W. Wang, H. Sukegawa, R. Shan, S. Mitani and K. Inomata, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**95**]{}, 182502 (2009); Z. Wen, H. Sukegawa, S. Kasai, M. Hayashi, S. Mitani and K. Inomata, Appl. Phys. Exp. [**5**]{}, 063003 (2012).
S. Yamada [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**105**]{}, 071601 (2014); Tanikawa [*et al.*]{}, Thin Solid Films [**557**]{}, 390 (2014).
A. Dimoulas, A. Toriumi, and S. E. Mohney, MRS bulletin [**34**]{}, 522 (2009).
R. Vrijen, E. Yablonovitch, K. Wang, H. W. Jiang, A. Balandin, V. Roychowdhury, T. Mor, and, D. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 012306 (2000).
L. O’Brien, D. Spivak, N. Krueger, T. A. Peterson, M. J. Erickson, B. Bolon, C. C. Geppert, C. Leighton, and P. A. Crowell, Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 094431 (2016).
Y. Song, O. Chalaev, and H. Dery, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 167201 (2014).
A. Fert, J.-M. George, H. Jaffrès, and R. Mattana, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices [**54**]{}, 921 (2007).
Z. Nedelkoski, B. Kuerbanjiang, S. E. Glover, A. Sanchez, D. Kepaptsoglou, A. Ghasemi, C. W. Burrows, S. Yamada, K. Hamaya, Q. Ramasse, P. Hasnip, T. Hase, G. Bell, A. Hirohata, and V. Lazarov, Sci. Rep. [**6**]{}, 37282 (2016).
T. Saito, N. Tezuka, M. Matsuura and S. Sugimoto, Appl. Phys. Express [**6**]{}, 103006 (2013). P. Bruski, S. C. Erwin, J. Herfort, A. Tahraoui, and M. Ramsteiner, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 245150 (2014). T. Uemura, T. Akiho, Y. Ebina, and M. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 140410(R) (2015). T. A. Peterson, S. J. Patel, C. C. Geppert, K. D. Christie, A. Rath, D. Pennachio, M. E. Flatté, P. M. Voyles, C. J. Palmstrøm, and P. A. Crowell, Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 235309 (2016).
K. Yamane [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**96**]{}, 162104 (2010); K. Kasahara [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 205301 (2011); K. Kasahara [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**104**]{}, 172109 (2014). Y. Zhou, W. Han, Y. Wang, F. Xiu, J. Zou, R. K. Kawakami, and K. L. Wang, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**96**]{}, 102103 (2010).
[^1]: E-mail address: michihiro@ee.es.osaka-u.ac.jp
[^2]: E-mail address: hamaya@ee.es.osaka-u.ac.jp
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
Introduction
============
There is now considerable experimental evidence that the cuprate high $T_c$ superconductors exhibit the simple power law temperature dependences predicted by the quasiparticle picture for their thermodynamic and transport properties at temperatures well below $T_c$. For example, penetration depth measurements find that the superfluid density exhibits a low-temperature clean-limit linear-in-T temperature dependence [@har93], in agreement with theory [@pro91]. The NMR relaxation rate exhibits the expected $T^3$ temperature dependence [@mar93]. The predicted effect of impurities in giving rise to a universal thermal conductivity [@lee93; @gra96] has been confirmed [@tai97]. The clean-limit specific heat varying as $T^2$ appears to have been observed [@mol97; @wri99]. Even the electrical transport relaxation rate observed in microwave conductivity experiments [@hos99], which had resisted explanation for some time, has now been explained in terms of a quasiparticle picture [@wal00].
Whether or not the Fermi-liquid parameterization of the coefficients of the above power law temperature dependences is quantitatively accurate is at present an open question. A recent study correlating these different coefficients [@chi00] concludes that the quasiparticle model may be successful here also provided a Fermi-liquid interaction factor multiplying the superfluid density is treated as an adjustable parameter. Some remarks at the end of this article address the question of whether or not the experimentally determined value of this adjustable parameter has a physically reasonable value. The answer to this question should help to assess the validity of the quasiparticle picture of the low temperature properties of high T$_c$ superconductors. Recent debate on correctness of the quasiparticle picture is also occurring in connection with ARPES experiments [@kam00; @val99], and in connection with the role of phase fluctuations of the complex order parameter in the determination of the temperature dependence of the superfluid density [@car99].
A principal goal of this article is to develop a Fermi-liquid theory applicable to superconductors with anisotropic Fermi surfaces, Fermi-liquid interactions, and energy gaps, and to apply it to the $d$-wave superconductors at temperatures well below the critical temperature $T_c$. This theory will then be used to develop formulae, including Fermi-liquid corrections, for the London penetration depth, the spin susceptibility and the magnetic field contribution to the density of states and specific heat (observable in the mixed state). The approach used here is a relatively elementary phenomenological one, similar in spirit to that of Landau’s original article [@lan57] and its extension to superconductors by Betbeder-Matibet and Nozières [@bet69], and it is hoped that it will be of pedagogical interest. An important aspect of the extension of the Landau theory of Fermi liquids to superconductors is the introduction of an appropriate dependence of the energy functional on the superfluid momentum. The classic articles of Larkin [@lar63] and of Leggett [@leg65] used a more formal correlation function approach than is used here. Other studies of Fermi-liquid interactions in unconventional superconductivity include Refs. .
It should be emphasized that Fermi-liquid theory is known not to give an adequate description of the normal-state properties of the high $T_c$ superconductors. Thus, in the application of the results of this article to high-temperature superconductors, it is only the properties of the superconducting state at temperatures well below the critical temperature $T_c$ that will be considered as being possibly explicable in terms of Fermi-liquid theory.
The potential importance of Fermi-liquid interactions in renormalizing the superfluid density in the case of $d$-wave superconductors has been emphasized in Refs. and . The calculations of Fermi liquid properties in these articles were carried out within the framework of models with isotropic Fermi surfaces and Fermi-liquid interactions, but with $d$-wave energy gaps, and they demonstrated the existence of a factor renormalizing the superfluid density that was given in terms of the isotropic Fermi-liquid interaction parameter $F_1^s$. In a preliminary account of the present work [@wal00b] a similar factor renormalizing the superfluid density was found, but expressed as a ratio of two different types of velocities (i.e. roughly speaking as an effective mass ratio). By using the Landau effective mass relation [@lan57] known to be valid for Galilean invariant systems, these two results could be seen to be equivalent, but the relation between the two results for the case of systems with an underlying crystal lattice was far from clear, and has been the subject of some discussion and controversy. Similarly, the expression used to calculate the current (analogous to Eq. \[Jsup\] below) in Ref. has been controversial. For these reasons, the basic ideas of the approach to the Fermi-liquid theory of anisotropic superconductors used in this article are outlined in some detail in Sections II and III below. The formula developed below for the penetration depth is shown the be in agreement with the results of Larkin [@lar63] and of Leggett [@leg65] for $s$-wave superconductors with isotropic Fermi surfaces and Fermi-liquid interactions, and with those of Refs. and for $d$-wave superconductors with isotropic Fermi surfaces and Fermi-liquid interactions. The result below for the low-temperature penetration depth for $d$-wave superconductors is also valid for the case of anisotropic Fermi surfaces and Fermi-liquid interactions. A formula applicable to this case has also been developed independently and stated in Ref. , which finds a result expressed in terms of parameters that are different from those in our formula; there is thus the possibility that these two results are not equivalent, as a result of the absence of a generalization of the Landau effective mass relation to the case of an anisotropic Fermi surface.
The renormalization of generalized external fields by Fermi-liquid interactions in a $d$-wave superconductor at low temperatures has an interesting symmetry property. This manifests itself when the quasiparticle energies are separated into parts that are ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetric and ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric combinations of the energies of the $+k\uparrow$ and $-k\downarrow$ states. (The calligraphic letters ${\mathcal{S}}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$ are used here to emphasize the difference with the more usual definition of the symmetric and antisymmetric combinations with respect to $+k\uparrow$ and $+k\downarrow$ states common in normal state analyses, e.g. see Eq. 1.32 of Ref. .) In the presence of Fermi-liquid interactions, the ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetric and ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric corrections to the quasiparticle energies obey integral equations that are independent of each other, and they are renormalized differently. This leads to the fact that the ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetric external fields exhibit strong Fermi-liquid renormalization effects to which quasiparticles from the entire Fermi surface contribute (cf. Ref. ), while the the ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric external fields exhibit relatively weak temperature-dependent renormalizations that arise from the nodal quasiparticles only, and that can often be neglected.
Temperature gives a ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetric correction to the quasiparticle energy because $+k\uparrow$ and $-k\downarrow$ states are affected in the same way by temperature. A superfluid flow generates an ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric correction since the components of $+k$ and $-k$ along the superfluid velocity have opposite signs. Also the Zeeman interaction generates an ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric correction because the spin $\uparrow$ and spin $\downarrow$ contributions to the energy have opposite signs. Thus the superfluid density and the magnetic susceptibility are negligibly renormalized by Fermi-liquid interactions, while the effects of temperature (although relatively small) are strongly renormalized by Fermi-liquid interactions.
Hamiltonian and Current Density
===============================
The Hamiltonian describing a system of electrons in a periodic lattice potential $V_{per}({\bf r})$, a magnetic field described in terms of a vector potential ${\bf A(r)}$, and interaction through an electron-electron interaction ${\mathcal H}_{int}$ is $${\mathcal H} = \int d^3 r \Psi_\sigma ^\dagger ({\bf r}) H_0
\Psi_\sigma({\bf r}) + {\mathcal H}_{int}
\label{Ham}$$ where $$H_0 = \frac{1}{2m}\left ( -i\hbar \nabla + {\bf p}_s \right )
+ V_{per}({\bf r}) - \mu
\label{H_0}$$ and $${\bf p}_s = \hbar \nabla (\theta/2) - \frac{e}{c} {\bf A}.
\label{p_s}$$ Note that a term $-\mu N$ has been included in $\mathcal{H}$. Also, the current density operator is given by $$\hat{\bf J}({\bf r}) = \frac{e}{2m}
\left\{
\left[(-i\hbar \nabla + \bf{p}_s)\Psi_\sigma ({\bf r}) \right ] ^\dagger
\Psi_\sigma ({\bf r}) + {\rm h.c.}
\right\}
\label{cur}$$ where h.c. indicates the Hermitian conjugate of the preceding term. The above four equations are probably more commonly written as above but with $\theta = 0$. The substitution $\Psi_\sigma ({\bf r}) \rightarrow
\Psi_\sigma ({\bf r})e^{i\theta/2}$ in the more common form of these equations yields the equations as written. In the superconducting state, ${\bf p}_s$, which is a gauge-invariant quantity, will be interpreted as the superfluid momentum. In calculations of the penetration depth in the London limit below, ${\bf p}_s$ can be assumed to be uniform.
The thermodynamic potential $\Omega$ and the equilibrium density operator $\rho$ are given by $$\Omega = - k_B T {\rm ln} \left( {\rm tr} e^{-\beta \mathcal{H}}
\right),\ \
\rho = \frac{e^{-\beta \mathcal{H}}}{{\rm tr} e^{-\beta \mathcal{H}}}.
\label{Omega}$$ It is easily seen that the average value of the current density operator, defined by ${\bf J(r)} = {\rm tr} \rho {\bf \hat{J}(r)}$, can be calculated by taking the functional derivative of the thermodynamic potential $\Omega$ with respect to the vector potential $\bf A(r)$, i.e. $${\bf J(r)} = -c \delta \Omega / \delta {\bf A(r)}.
\label{JbyA}$$ If the current density is homogeneous, which will be the case of direct interest below, it can be calculated by using the formula $${\bf J} = \frac{1}{V} \int d^3 r {\rm tr} \rho {\bf \hat{J}(r)}
=\frac{e}{V} \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial {\bf p}_s}.
\label{Jbyp}$$
The energy eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian $H_0$ for ${\bf p}_s = 0$, which describes a single electron in a periodic lattice potential, form energy bands with the allow states characterized by a wave vector ${\bf k}$ lying in the first Brillouin zone. Subsequent discussion will consider only a single energy band, whose energy spectrum is described by the function $\varepsilon^b(\hbar{\bf k})$. The general problem of the energy spectrum of an electron in an external magnetic field is quite complex, but for sufficiently weak magnetic fields, i.e. a sufficiently slowly varying vector potential, a quasiclassical approximation can be developed which gives the energy spectrum of a single band of electrons in the form $\varepsilon^b_k ({\bf p}_s)$ = $\varepsilon^b(\hbar {\bf k} + {\bf p}_s)$[@lif]. The single-band Hamiltonian envisaged in this article thus has the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal H}^b & = & \sum_{k \sigma}
\varepsilon^b_k({\bf p}_s) c^\dagger_{k \sigma} c_{k \sigma} +
\nonumber \\
& & \frac{1}{2V} \sum_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4 \sigma_1 \sigma_2}
V_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4}c^\dagger_{k1 \sigma_1} c^\dagger_{k2 \sigma_2}
c_{k3 \sigma_2} c_{k4 \sigma_1}.
\label{Hband}\end{aligned}$$ The interaction term has been constructed so as to be isotropic in spin space (i.e. no spin-orbital interactions are considered), and momentum conservation to within a reciprocal lattice vector is implicitly assumed.
Fermi-liquid liquid theory for anisotropic superconductors
==========================================================
As an introduction to Fermi-liquid theory for superconductors, a Hartree-Fock-BCS approximation is developed. This gives an approximation for the parameters occurring in the Fermi-liquid theory which has some interest, and also serves to give an indication of the structure expected for a full Fermi-liquid model. The Hartree-Fock-BCS approximation follows from averaging the Hamiltonian of Eq. \[Hband\] over a BCS type of state, i.e. by assuming a state in which the excitations are independent Bogoliubov quasiparticles. This gives, for the average energy (minus $\mu N$) $$\begin{aligned}
E = \langle H^b \rangle & = & \sum_{k\sigma} \varepsilon^b_k({\bf p}_s)
n_{k\sigma}
+ \frac{1}{2V} \sum_{k\sigma k^\prime \sigma^\prime}
f_{k k^\prime}^{\sigma \sigma^\prime}
n_{k\sigma}n_{k^\prime \sigma^\prime} +
\nonumber \\
& & \frac{1}{V} \sum_{k k^\prime} g_{k k^\prime} W_k^\ast W_{k^\prime}
\label{HFBCS}\end{aligned}$$ where $$f_{k k^\prime}^{\sigma \sigma^\prime} = V_{k k^\prime k^\prime k}
- \delta_{\sigma \sigma^\prime} V_{k k^\prime k k^\prime}, \ \
g_{k k^\prime} = V_{k \bar{k} k^\prime \bar{k^\prime}}
\label{fg}$$ with $\bar{k} = -k$ and $$n_{k \sigma} = \langle c^\dagger_{k \sigma} c_{k \sigma} \rangle, \ \
W_k = \langle c_{k \uparrow} c_{-k \downarrow} \rangle.
\label{nW}$$
In Fermi-liquid theory, the energy is written in terms of the ground state energy, plus a contribution due to excitations from the ground state. Thus, in Eq. \[HFBCS\] put $n_{k\sigma} = n^0_{k} + \delta n_{k\sigma}$, where $n^0_{k}$ is the ground state value of $n_{k\sigma}$ in the superconductor. This gives the average energy in the form $$\begin{aligned}
E & = & E_0 ({\bf p}_s) + \sum_{k\sigma}
\varepsilon_{k\sigma}({\bf p}_s)
\delta n_{k\sigma} + \nonumber \\
& & \frac{1}{2V} \sum_{k\sigma k^\prime \sigma^\prime}
f_{k k^\prime}^{\sigma \sigma^\prime}
\delta n_{k\sigma} \delta n_{k^\prime \sigma^\prime} +
\frac{1}{V} \sum_{k k^\prime} g_{k k^\prime} W_k^\ast W_{k^\prime}.
\label{EFL}\end{aligned}$$ Here $$\varepsilon_{k}({\bf p}_s)
= \varepsilon_{k} + {\bf v^t_k\cdot p}_s.
\label{eps}$$
In the Hartree-Fock-BCS approximation the energy of a quasiparticle $\varepsilon_k$ in the absence of other excited quasiparticles, and what is called here the electrical transport velocity ${\bf v}^t_k$, are given by $$\varepsilon_{k} = \varepsilon^b_k + \frac{1}{V} \sum_{k^\prime \sigma^\prime}
f_{k k^\prime}^{\sigma \sigma^\prime} n^0_{k^\prime}, \ \
{\bf v}^t_k = \frac{1}{\hbar}
\frac{\partial \varepsilon^b_k}{\partial {\bf k}}.
\label{ek}$$ Notice from Eq. \[ek\] that in the Hartree-Fock-BCS approximation the quasiparticle energy, and hence the quasiparticle velocity ${\bf v}_k = \hbar^{-1}\partial \varepsilon_k/\partial {\bf k}$, are changed from the bare band energy and band velocity by a term due to the electron-electron interaction, but that the transport velocity is unchanged by the electron-electron interaction.
Consider a band kinetic energy of the form $\varepsilon^b_k = p^2/2m_b$ (in this case the effect of the periodic potential is represented by replacing the free electron mass $m$ by a band mass $m_b$) so that the basic one-electron states are the plane waves $exp(i{\bf k \cdot r})$. Also assume an electron-electron interaction $v({\bf r}_1 - {\bf r}_2)$. Then the Hartree-Fock approximation to $f_{k k^\prime}^{\sigma \sigma^\prime}$ will have the form $f^{\sigma \sigma^\prime}({\bf k - k^\prime})$. In this case the equation for ${\bf v}_k$ obtained from the first of Eqs. \[ek\] can be transformed into the relation $${\bf v}_k = {\bf v}_k^b - \frac{1}{V} \sum_{k^\prime}
f^{\sigma \sigma^\prime}({\bf k - k^\prime})
\frac{\partial n^0_{k\prime}}{\partial \varepsilon_{k^\prime}}
{\bf v}_{k^\prime}
\label{Lemr}$$ The model just described has the property of Galilean invariance, although for particles of mass $m_b$ rather than the free electron mass, and Eq. \[Lemr\] is the Landau effective mass relation that follows from this property [@lan57]. For wave vectors ${\bf k}$ on the Fermi surface, ${\bf v}^b_k = \hbar {\bf k}/m_b$, while the relation ${\bf v}_k = \hbar {\bf k}/m^\ast$ defines the quasiparticle effective mass $m^\ast$. In the general case of an anisotropic Fermi surface, where the quasiparticle interaction function $f_{k k^\prime}^{\sigma \sigma^\prime}$ depends separately on ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf k}^\prime$, no relation analogous to Eq. \[Lemr\] can be derived. By using ${\bf v}_k = \hbar^{-1}\partial \varepsilon_k/\partial {\bf k}$ and the Hartree-Fock result Eq. \[ek\], an integral equation is found that presumably can be solved to find ${\bf v}_k$ in terms of ${\bf v}_k^b$ and the Fermi-liquid interaction parameters if these are known at all points within the Fermi surface, but it is not clear that this would be a useful approach for a more general Fermi-liquid theory.
For models that are isotropic and Galilean invariant it is a known exact result (e.g. not restricted to the Hartree-Fock approximation just discussed) that the transport velocity is not renormalized by electron-electron interactions, and hence that the transport velocity is $\hbar {\bf k}/m$ where m is the free electron mass when there is no periodic potential, or the so-called crystalline mass $m_b$ in a model in which the effect of the periodic potential is represented by replacing the free electron mass by the crystalline mass in the kinetic energy [@bet69]. Thus the electrical transport velocity is quite a different quantity from the quasiparticle velocity.
If the electron-electron interactions are sufficiently strong, the Hartree-Fock-BCS approximation is not adequate. Nevertheless, the energy $E$ of the system can be expected to have the same form as in Eqs. \[EFL\] and \[eps\], and with the parameters $f_{k k^\prime}^{\sigma \sigma^\prime}$, $g_{k k^\prime}$, $\varepsilon_k$ and ${\bf v}^t_k$ subject to the constraints of symmetry but otherwise to be treated as unknown parameters, some of which might be determined from measured experimental properties. Also, the ground state energy, which must be an even function of ${\bf p}_s$, is parameterized in the form $$E_0({\bf p}_s) = E_0(0) + \frac{1}{2} V\sum_{\alpha \beta} S_{\alpha \beta}
p_{s\alpha} p_{s\beta}
\label{E0}$$
An assumption implicit in this approach to the Fermi-liquid theory of superconductors is that the normal-state quasiparticle properties are not changed much in the superconducting state [@bet69], given that the maximum gap is much smaller than the Fermi energy. This assumption is fulfilled more strongly for conventional superconductors than for the high T$_c$ superconductors which will be the principal interest below. However, in the investigation below of the properties of high superconductors at temperatures much lower that the maximum gap, the gap will be approximately constant, and this assumption should not give difficulties.
The distribution function can be written [@bet69] as the two by two Hermitian matrix $$\hat{n}_k = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
n_{k\uparrow} & W_k^\ast \\
W_k & 1-n_{k\downarrow}
\end{array} \right]
\label{n}$$ so that the variation of the energy (Eq. \[EFL\]) with respect to variations in the distribution function is $$\delta E = \sum_k tr ( \hat{\tilde{\varepsilon}}_k \delta \hat{n}_k).
\label{deltaE}$$ Here the matrix representing the quasiparticle energy in the presence of other quasiparticles is given by $$\hat{\tilde{\varepsilon}}_k = \left [
\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{\varepsilon}_{k\uparrow}({\bf p}_s) &\Delta_k^\ast \\
\Delta_k &
-\tilde{\varepsilon}_{k\downarrow}({\bf p}_s)
\end{array} \right ]
\label{ehat}$$ where $\tilde{\varepsilon}_{k\sigma}({\bf p}_s) =
\varepsilon_{k\sigma}({\bf p}_s)
+\delta \varepsilon_{k\sigma}$, in which $$\delta \varepsilon_{k\sigma} =
+\frac{1}{V} \sum_{k^\prime \sigma^\prime}
f_{k k^\prime}^{\sigma \sigma^\prime}
\delta n_{k^\prime \sigma^\prime};
\label{deltae}$$ also, $$\Delta_k = \frac{1}{V} \sum_k g_{kk^\prime} W_{k^\prime}.
\label{Delta}$$
The entropy of the Fermi liquid is $$S = -k_B \sum_k tr [( \hat{n}_k ln \hat{n}_k
+ (1-\hat{n}_k)ln(1-\hat{n}_k)]
\label{entropy}$$ and the thermodynamic potential is $\Omega = E - TS$ (recall that E includes the term $-\mu N$). Minimizing the thermodynamic potential with respect to variations in the distribution function yields the equilibrium distribution function, which is $$\hat{n}_k = [exp(\hat{\tilde{\varepsilon}}_k/k_B T) + 1]^{-1}.
\label{neq}$$
Now consider the derivation of a general expression for the current density in a superconductor by using Eq. \[Jbyp\]. It should be noted the the thermodynamic potential depends on ${\bf p}_s$ implicitly through the dependence of the distribution function on ${\bf p}_s$, and explicitly through the dependence of $E_0({\bf p}_s)$ and $\varepsilon_{k}({\bf p}_s)$ in Eq. \[EFL\] on ${\bf p}_s$. Because the condition for equilibrium is that the derivative of $\Omega$ with respect to the distribution function is zero, the implicit dependence of the distribution function on ${\bf p}_s$ can be ignored in applying Eq. \[Jbyp\]. The current density from Eq. \[Jbyp\] is thus $$J_\alpha = e \sum_\beta S_{\alpha \beta}p_{s\beta}
+ \frac{e}{V} \sum_{k\sigma} v^t_{k\alpha} \delta n_{k\sigma}
\label{Jsup}$$ The first term is a temperature-independent contribution due to the flow of the condensate, and the second is the contribution of the excited quasiparticles.
Renormalization of external fields – basic equations
====================================================
When an external field is applied to a Fermi liquid, it excites quasiparticles, and these quasiparticles renormalize the contribution of the external field to the quasiparticle energy. This is the effect that must be evaluated in order to evaluate such effects as the screening of an external magnetic field by the superconductor (and hence the penetration depth), and the spin susceptibility.
The quasiparticle Hamiltonian describing the excitations of the superconducting state has the following form: $${\mathcal{H}} = \sum_k
\begin{array}{cc}
[c_{k \uparrow}^\dagger & c_{-k \downarrow}]
\end{array}
\left[ \begin{array}{cc}
\zeta_k +\lambda_k & \Delta_k \\
\Delta_k & -\zeta_k + \lambda_k
\end{array} \right]
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
c_{k \uparrow} \\
c_{-k \downarrow}^\dagger
\end{array} \right].
\label{H}$$ where the two by two matrix is the matrix $\hat{\tilde{\varepsilon}}_k$ of Eq. \[ehat\] generalized to include arbitrary external fields, and reorganized into ${\mathcal S}$ymmetric and ${\mathcal A}$ntisymmetric components. Here $\zeta_k = \varepsilon_k + \delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{S}} +
h_k^{\mathcal{S}}$, $\lambda_k = \delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{A}} +
h_k^{\mathcal{A}}$, and $\Delta_k$ is the momentum-dependent gap function appropriate for $d$-wave symmetry, which is taken to be real. An important step in the analysis, as described qualitatively above, is the separation of the excitation energies into ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetric and ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric parts defined by $$\delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{A}} = \frac{1}{2}
\left[ \delta\varepsilon_{k\uparrow} -
\delta\varepsilon_{-k\downarrow} \right],\ \
\delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{S}}
= \frac{1}{2}\left[ \delta\varepsilon_{k\uparrow}
+ \delta\varepsilon_{-k\downarrow} \right].
\label{saqpint}$$
The quantities $h_k^{\mathcal{A}}$ and $h_k^{\mathcal{S}}$ in $\mathcal{H}$ represent generalized external fields. For example, the case of an external magnetic field acting on the orbital motion of the electrons corresponds to the external field $h_k^{\mathcal{A}} = {\bf v}^t_k \cdot {\bf p}_s,\ h_k^{\mathcal{S}}
= 0$ (cf. Eq. \[eps\]). The case of an external magnetic field H acting on the spin degrees of freedom is described by taking $h_k^{\mathcal{A}}
= \mu_B H,\ h_k^{\mathcal{S}} = 0$. In both of these cases, the magnetic field acts only on the ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric mode, and has no effect on the ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetric mode of excitation.
In addition to causing changes in the energy of a quasiparticle (as in Eq. \[deltae\]), excited quasiparticles can give rise to changes in the gap function [@bet69]. There are however no changes that are linear in the superfluid momentum, and this effect will therefore be neglected. (This follows from Eqs. \[Hdiagonal\] and \[gap\]. See also Ref. .)
The diagonalization of the Hamiltonian of Eq. \[H\] gives $${\mathcal{H}} =
\sum_{k\sigma} E_{k, \sigma} \gamma_{k, \sigma}^\dagger
\gamma_{k, \sigma},\ \
E_{k, \sigma} = E_{\sigma k}
+ \sigma(\delta \varepsilon_{\sigma k}^{\mathcal{A}}
+ h_{\sigma k}^{\mathcal{A}})
\label{Hdiagonal}$$ where $\sigma = \pm 1$, $E_k = \sqrt{\zeta_k^2 + \Delta_k^2}$, and the $\gamma_{k, \sigma}^\dagger$ are operators creating Bogoliubov quasiparticles.
Later, the energy $E_k^{(0)} = \sqrt{\xi_k^2 + \Delta_k^2}$ describing the quasiparticle spectrum in the absence of other excited quasiparticles is also used. For a $d$-wave superconductor, the quasiparticle energy can be parameterized [@lee93] in the neighborhood of the Fermi-surface nodal points (see Fig. \[fig1\]) as $E_k^{(0)}
= \sqrt{(p_1 v_F)^2 + (p_2 v_2)^2}$, where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are components of the momentum relative to the nodal point in directions perpendicular and parallel to the Fermi line. At low temperatures, only quasiparticles close to these four points can be thermally excited.
Using Eq. \[deltae\] in Eq. \[saqpint\] and keeping only terms up to linear order in the $\delta \varepsilon$’s and $h$’s yields the integral equations $$\delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{S}} = \frac{2}{V}
\sum_{k^\prime} f^{(+)}_{k k^\prime}
\left[ \frac{\varepsilon_{k^\prime}}{E_{k^\prime}^{(0)}}
f(E_{k^\prime}^{(0)})
-\frac{\Delta_{k^\prime}^2}{E_{k^\prime}^{(0)3}}
(\delta \varepsilon_{k^\prime}^{\mathcal{S}}
+ h_{k^\prime}^{\mathcal{S}}) \right]
\label{S}$$ and $$\delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{A}} = \frac{2}{V}\sum_{k^\prime}
f^{(-)}_{k k^\prime} \frac{\partial f}{\partial E_{k^\prime}^{(0)}}
\left(\delta \varepsilon_{k^\prime}^{\mathcal{A}}
+ h_{k^\prime}^{\mathcal{A}} \right),
\label{A}$$ where interaction parameters $f^{(\pm)}_{k k^\prime}$ (in contrast to the more conventionallly defined[@pin89] parameters $f^{s,a}_{k k^\prime}$) are defined by $$f^{(\pm)}_{k k^\prime} = \frac{1}{2}(f^{\sigma \sigma}_{k k^\prime}\pm
f^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}_{k,-k^\prime}),\ \
f^{s,a}_{k k^\prime} = \frac{1}{2} (f^{\sigma \sigma}_{k k^\prime}
\pm f^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}}_{k k^\prime}).
\label{fsa}$$ In applying these equations to a copper-oxide plane of a high T$_c$ superconductor, the volume $V$ should be replaced by the area $L^2$. Also, $f(\varepsilon)=[exp(\varepsilon/k_BT)+1]^{-1}$.
The gap equation can be found from Eqs. \[nW\], \[Delta\] and \[Hdiagonal\], to be $$\Delta_k = \frac{1}{2V} \sum_{k^\prime} g_{kk^\prime}
\frac{\Delta_{k^\prime}}{E_{k^\prime}}
[1-f(E_{k^\prime 1}) - f(E_{-k^\prime,-1})].
\label{gap}$$
Penetration depth for isotropic $s$-wave superconductors
========================================================
The formalism just developed can be tested by deriving a formula for the penetration depth in the London limit for the case of a not necessarily translationally invariant model having an isotropic Fermi surface, Fermi liquid interactions and energy gap, and comparing the results with those obtained in the classic articles by Larkin[@lar63] and by Leggett[@leg65]. To do this, consider Eq. \[A\] with the external field $h_k^{\mathcal{A}} = {\bf v}^t_k \cdot {\bf p}_s$ describing the interaction of the orbital motion of the quasiparticle with a magnetic field. Because $h_k^{\mathcal{A}}$ is odd in [**k**]{}, the parameter $f^{(\pm)}_{k k^\prime}$ can be transformed into $f^s_{k k^\prime}$. Also, for an isotropic Fermi surface $$\varepsilon_k = \hbar(k-k_F)v_F,\ \
f^{s,a}_{k k^\prime} = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} f^{s,a}_\ell P_{\ell}
[cos({\bf k\cdot k^\prime}/k_F^2)].
\label{fsal}$$ The solution to the integral equation \[A\] now gives the renormalized value of the external field $h^{\mathcal A}_k = {\bf v}^t_k \cdot {\bf p}_s$ as $$h^{\mathcal A}_k + \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal A}_k =
{\bf v}^t_k \cdot {\bf p}_s/
[1 + \frac{1}{3}F_1^sf(T)]
\label{deltaeiso}$$ where $$F_1^s = 2\nu(0) f_1^s ,\ \
f(T) = -\frac{1}{\nu (0) V}\sum_k
\frac{\partial f}{\partial E_k^{(0)}},
\label{defF}$$ and $\nu(0) = k_F^2/(2\pi^2\hbar v_F)$. The quantity $f(T)$ can be regarded[@leg65] as an “effective density of single-particle levels” near the Fermi surface relative to the normal-state value $\nu(0)$. Note that $f(T_c) = 1$ and $f(0) = 0$. The contributions $\delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{S}}$ to the quasiparticle energy will be assumed to be negligible because of the presence of the factor $\varepsilon_k$ on the right hand side of Eq. \[S\].
A more restricted isotropic model is now considered in which, following Betbeder-Matibet and Nozières[@bet69], the band energy is assumed to have the form $\varepsilon_k^b = \hbar^2 k^2/(2m_b)$, i.e. the effect of the underlying periodic potential is simulated by introducing a crystalline mass $m_b$ in the place of the free electron mass. The important thing here is that the kinetic energy is quadratic in momentum, which is a necessary condition for Galilean invariance. Secondly, it should be noted that the assumption of isotropy (rotational invariance with respect to arbitrarily placed rotation axes) automatically implies invariance with respect to an arbitrary translation, since a product of two rotations about different but parallel axes through equal but opposite angles is equivalent to a translation. Thus isotropy implies translational invariance, and these symmetries, coupled with a kinetic energy quadratic in momentum imply Galilean invariance. Hence the Landau effective mass relation [@lan57] corresponding to non-interacting particles of mass $m_b$ applies, which yields $v^t_F = v_F(1 + F_1^s/3)$. This relation will be used to eliminate $v^t_F$ from future formulae.
Now using Eq. \[deltaeiso\] together with Eq. \[Jsup\] yields, for the inverse square London penetration depth, $$\frac{1}{\lambda_L^2} =
\frac{4e^2 k_F^2 v_F}{3\pi \hbar c^2}
(1+\frac{F_1^s}{3})
\left[ 1 - (1 + \frac{F_1^s}{3}) \frac{f(T)}{1+\frac{1}{3}F^s_1 f(T)}
\right].
\label{lambdaiso}$$ It is the second term in Eq. \[Jsup\] (i.e. the quasiparticle contribution to the current) that gives the second term in the square brackets in the above equation (which is the temperature dependent contribution to the inverse square penetration depth). The temperature independent first term in the square brackets in the above equation, i.e. unity, should contain a factor $S_{\alpha \beta}$ (from the first term in Eq. \[Jsup\]). This factor $S_{\alpha \beta}$ has been eliminated by imposing the condition that the inverse square penetration depth should go to zero at $T = T_c$ where $f(T_c) = 1$.
Eq. \[lambdaiso\] for the penetration depth can be seen to be identical to the result of Larkin[@lar63] at $T=0$, and to Eq. 70 of Leggett [@leg65] at general $T$ in the superconducting state. The model analyzed in this section is perhaps not, however, identical to the models used in those articles. For example Leggett states that he considers a model that is isotropic, but at the same time states that translational invariance is not assumed while recognizing that this can only be an approximation. Thus, the basic assumptions of our work and those of Refs. and , while related, may be somewhat different. Fortunately the end results agree.
Application to $d$-wave Superconductors
=======================================
Now consider a $d$-wave high-temperature superconductor modeled by a single copper-oxide plane having a Fermi surface such as that shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. From Eq. \[A\], which determines the ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric corrections to the quasiparticle energies, it is clear that only the values of $\delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{A}}$ and $h_k^{\mathcal{A}}$ at the Fermi surface nodes are relevant to the low energy properties (i.e. when $k_B T$ is much less than the maximum gap). Also, the solutions of Eq. \[A\] can be classified according to the irreducible representation of the point group $C_{4v}$ (or 4mm) describing a tetragonal copper-oxide plane of a high T$_c$ superconductor, the independent solutions being $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_{A_g} &=&
\left( \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_1 +
\delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_2
+ \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_3
+ \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_4 \right) /4 \nonumber \\
\delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_{xy} &=&
\left( \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_1
- \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_2
+ \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_3
- \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_4 \right) /4 \nonumber \\
\delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_{Ex} &=&
\left( \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_1
- \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_2
- \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_3
+ \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_4 \right) /4 \nonumber \\
\delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_{Ey} &=&
\left( \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_1
+ \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_2
- \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_3
- \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{A}}_4 \right)/4
\label{irreps}\end{aligned}$$ where the indices 1,2,3 and 4 refer to the four nodes in the excitation spectrum, as defined in Fig. \[fig1\]. The external fields $h^{\mathcal{A}}_k$ at the nodes can be similarly classified.
The solution of Eq. \[A\] now gives the renormalized $h_{\Gamma}^{\mathcal{A}}$ as $$h_{\Gamma}^{\mathcal{A}} + \delta \varepsilon_{\Gamma}^{\mathcal{A}}(T)
= h_{\Gamma}^{\mathcal{A}}/[1 + F^{\mathcal{A}}_{\Gamma}(T)]
\label{delta_e}$$ with $F^{\mathcal{A}}_{\Gamma}(T) = f^{\mathcal{A}}_{\Gamma}
ln(2) k_B T/(2\pi \hbar^2 v_F v_2)$. For $d$-wave superconductors, the quantity $v_F$ is the magnitude of the quasiparticle velocity at a node, as discussed following Eq. \[Hdiagonal\]. Also, $\Gamma$ represents any of the irreducible representations present in Eqs. \[irreps\]. The $f^{\mathcal{A}}_{\Gamma}$’s are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\mathcal{A}}_{A_g}
&=& f^a_{11} + f^a_{13} + 2 f^a_{12} \nonumber \\
f^{\mathcal{A}}_{xy}
&=& f^a_{11} + f^a_{13} - 2 f^a_{12} \nonumber \\
f^{\mathcal{A}}_{E} &=& f^s_{11} - f^s_{13}.
\label{fGamma}\end{aligned}$$ where $f^a_{12}$ for example is $f^a_{k k^\prime}$ for $k$ and $k^\prime$ at nodes 1 and 2, respectively. Note from Eq. \[delta\_e\] that a condition for the stability of the superconducting Fermi liquid is that $[1 + F^{\mathcal{A}}_{\Gamma}(T)] > 0$. Thus there is the possibility that the superconducting Fermi liquid will become unstable as the temperature is raised; this is perhaps of interest because of the non Fermi-liquid behavior of the normal state of the high T$_c$ superconductors.
It is also useful to use Eq. \[S\] to obtain an idea of how the ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetrical external fields are renormalized by Fermi-liquid interactions. First assume that there are no ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetrical external fields other than temperature, i.e. $h_k^{\mathcal{S}} = 0$ (as is the case for the external magnetic fields of most interest in this article, which are purely ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetrical). Then the only term driving a nonzero contribution to $\delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{S}}$ is the term on the right hand side proportional to $f(E_{k^\prime}^{(0)})$. This term is proportional to $T^3$, thus giving a $\delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{S}}
\propto T^3$, and will not be important in contributing to the properties of interest at the temperatures satisfying $k_B T \ll \Delta_0$ ($\Delta_0$ is the maximum gap). Thus the temperature-dependent contribution to $\delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{S}}$ will be neglected by putting $f(E_{k^\prime}^{(0)})$ on the right hand side of Eq. \[A\] equal to zero. In so far as the contributions to $\delta \varepsilon_k^{\mathcal{S}}$ driven by $h_k^{\mathcal{S}}$ are concerned, it is clear from Eq. \[S\] that a knowledge of the Fermi-liquid interaction on the entire Fermi surface is required to calculate them, and that $\delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{S}}_k$ must be determined on the entire Fermi surface (cf. Ref. ). To obtain a rough idea of the nature of the solutions, consider a circular Fermi surface of radius $k_F$ and look for a solution of $A_g$ symmetry by considering a Fermi liquid interaction $f^{(+)}_{k k\prime} = f^{\mathcal{S}}_{A_g}$, independent of $k$ and $k^\prime$, and a ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetrical external field $h^{\mathcal{S}}_{A_g}$ independent of $k$. The solution, which is also independent of $k$ on the Fermi surface, gives the renormalized $h^{\mathcal{S}}_{A_g}$ as $$h^{\mathcal{S}}_{A_g} + \delta \varepsilon^{\mathcal{S}}_{A_g} =
h^{\mathcal{S}}_{A_g}/[1+ F^{\mathcal{S}}_{A_g}],
\label{SAg}$$ where $F^{\mathcal{S}}_{A_g} = f^{\mathcal{S}}_{A_g} k_F/(\pi \hbar v_F)$. In contrast to the ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetrical Fermi liquid parameters $F^{\mathcal{A}}_{\Gamma}(T)$ obtained above, which go to zero linearly with temperature in the superconducting state in the clean limit (and hence have a dependence on temperature $T$ explicitly indicated), the ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetrical Fermi liquid parameter $F^{\mathcal{S}}_{A_g}$ is temperature independent and of approximately the same magnitude as the corresponding normal state Fermi liquid parameter. The same can be seen to be true of the ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetrical Fermi liquid parameters corresponding to other irreducible representations of $C_{4v}$. Note that the ratio of the ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetrical to the ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetrical Fermi-liquid $F$ parameters is $F^{\mathcal{A}}/F^{\mathcal{S}} \approx
(f^{\mathcal{A}}/f^{\mathcal{S}})[k_B T/(\hbar k_F v_2)]$.
penetration depth
-----------------
As noted above, the presence of a superfluid momentum contributes an ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetrical external field to the Hamiltonian of Eq. \[H\]. This external field corresponds to the E irreducible representation of $C_{4v}$ with the $p_{sx}$ and $p_{sy}$ components of ${\bf p}_s$ corresponding to the components $Ex$ and $Ey$ of Eq. \[irreps\]. The temperature-dependent quasiparticle contribution to the current density is thus easily evaluated using Eq. \[Jsup\] with Eqs. \[Hdiagonal\], \[delta\_e\] and \[fGamma\]. The result is ${\bf J}_{qp} = \eta_{qp} {\bf p}_s$ where $$\eta_{qp}(T) = -\frac{2 ln2 e (v^t_F)^2 k_B T}
{[1 + F^{\mathcal{A}}_E(T)]\pi \hbar^2 \bar{d} v_F v_2}.
\label{rho}$$ Here, $v^t_F$ is the magnitude of the electrical transport velocity at a node, and $\bar{d}$ is the average spacing of the copper-oxide planes. Note that the Fermi liquid correction does not alter the clean-limit linear-in-T contribution to the $\eta_{qp}(T)$, but rather makes a $T^2$ contribution (using $(1+F)^{-1} \approx (1 - F + ...)$). Thus there are no external field renormalization corrections to the experimentally measured linear in $T$ contribution to inverse square penetration depth. Hence the low temperature London penetration depth $\lambda$ is given by
$$\frac{1}{\lambda_L(T)} = \frac{1}{\lambda^2(0)}
- \frac{8 ln2 e^2}{c^2 \hbar^2 \bar{d}} \alpha^2 \frac{v_F}{v_2} k_BT
+ ...
\label{lambda}$$
where $\alpha = (v^t_F/v_F)$.
For an isotropic Fermi surface and isotropic Fermi-liquid interactions, ${\bf v}^t_k = {\bf v}_k(1+\frac{1}{2}F_1^s)$, as described in the above discussion of isotropic $s$-wave superconductors (except for the factor $\frac{1}{2}$ which arises due to our consideration here of a two-dimensional plane). By making use of this result, the result of Eq. \[lambda\], specialized to the case of an isotropic Fermi surface and Fermi-liquid interactions, can be seen to agree with the results of Refs. and . A formula for the penetration depth for the anisotropic case has been derived independently in Ref. . In their result, our parameter $v^t_F$ is replaced by an expression depending on $v_F$ and on the Fermi-liquid interaction paramenters $f^{\sigma \sigma^\prime}_{k k^\prime}$. The methods of this article can not make a connection between these two different expressions.
Spin susceptibility
-------------------
The renormalization of the spin susceptibility due to Fermi-liquid interactions can be calculated in a similar way. The Zeeman interaction of the spin of an electron with the magnetic field contributes an ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric external field of $A_g$ symmetry to the Hamiltonian. It follows that the magnetic moment per unit area of a copper oxide plane is $$M = -\frac{\mu_B}{L^2} \sum_k \left[f(E_{k,1}) - f(E_{k,-1}) \right]
= \chi H
\label{M}$$ where $$\chi (T) = \frac{\chi_0 (T)}{1 + F^{\mathcal{A}}_{A_g}(T)},\ \
\chi_0 (T) = \frac{\mu_B^2 ln 2 k_B T}{\pi \hbar^2 v_F v_2}.
\label{chi}$$ Note that here also the low-temperature clean-limit linear in T magnetic susceptibility is not changed by Fermi-liquid interactions. These affect only terms of order $T^2$ and higher in the susceptibility.
Mixed-state density of states and specific heat
-----------------------------------------------
In the clean limit for a $d$-wave superconductor, the quasiparticle density of states at zero energy in a magnetic field [@vol93] of magnitude $H$ normal to the copper-oxide planes varies as $H^{1/2}$. Electron-electron interactions affect the magnitude of this $H^{1/2}$ contribution to the density of states (and hence to the low-temperature specific heat) and this effect will now be calculated.
It follows from Eqs. \[Hdiagonal\] and \[delta\_e\] that the zero-energy density of states in a single copper-oxide plane of a $d$-wave superconductor in a magnetic field (characterized by the superfluid momentum ${\bf p}_s$) is $$\begin{aligned}
N(0)& = &\left\langle 2\int \frac{d^2 k}{(2\pi)^2}
\delta(E_k^{(0)} + ({\bf v}_k^t \cdot {\bf p}_s)/
[1 + F^{\mathcal{A}}_E(T)] ) \right\rangle
\nonumber \\
% \delta(E_k^{(0)} + {\bf v}_k^t \cdot {\bf p}_s) \right]
% \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{4 \langle |{\bf v}_F^t \cdot {\bf p}_s| \rangle}
{\pi\hbar^2 v_F v_2[1 + F^{\mathcal{A}}_E(T)]}
\label{N(0)}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf v}_F^t$ is the value of ${\bf v}_k^t$ for ${\bf k}$ at a node. Here it is assumed that the superconductor is in the mixed state, and the angular brackets indicate an average of the superfluid momentum ${\bf p}_s$ over a unit cell of the vortex lattice. This density of states will give rise to a low-temperature specific heat varying linearly with temperature $T$. As in the evaluation of the low-temperature contribution to the penetration depth above, the quantity $F^{\mathcal{A}}_E(T)$ (which represents the renormalization of the external field ${\bf v}_k^t \cdot {\bf p}_s$ by the Fermi-liquid interactions), can be neglected as it varies linearly with $T$ and will contribute only to the next order $T^2$ contribution to the specific heat. Eq. \[N(0)\] can thus be seen to differ from previous work [@vol93; @kub98] only by the factor $\alpha = v_F^t/v_F$, which takes into account the different effects of the electron-electron interaction on the electrical transport velocity and the quasiparticle velocity. (This factor $\alpha$ is the same $\alpha$ that appears in the penetration depth formula, Eq. \[lambda\], above.) Thus, the equation for the clean-limit specific heat per unit volume in a magnetic field used in Ref. (see also Refs. and ) becomes $$\frac{C_{el}}{T} = K\frac{4 k_B^2}{3 \hbar \bar{d}}\frac{\alpha}{v_2}
\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{\Phi_0}}\sqrt{H}.
\label{CH}$$ The factor K is a numerical factor of order unity that depends on the way that ${\bf p}_s$ (which is a function of position in the vortex lattice) is averaged over its position coordinate.[@vol93; @kub98]
In the absence of a magnetic field, there are no Fermi-liquid corrections to the low-temperature specific heat, which is given by the well-known result [@chi00] $$C_{el} = 18\zeta (3)k_B^3 T^2/(\pi \bar{d} \hbar^2 v_F v_2).
\label{C}$$
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
This article has developed an elementary phenomenological approach to the evaluation of equilibrium Fermi liquid effects in superconductors with anisotropic Fermi surfaces and energy gaps. The approach is somewhat different from that used in a number of other articles, but gives a formula for the penetration depth that is in agreement with the results of Refs. , , and for the case of isotropic Fermi surfaces and Fermi-liquid interactions. This article extends these results to systems with anisotropic Fermi surfaces and Fermi-liquid interactions. A classification of the external fields in a superconductor into what have been called above ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetric and ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric external fields was introduced. In $d$-wave superconductors the ${\mathcal{S}}$ymmetric external fields (including temperature) exhibit strong Fermi-liquid renormalization effects to which quasiparticles from the entire Fermi surface contribute (cf. Ref. ), while the the ${\mathcal{A}}$ntisymmetric external fields (including the magnetic fields that act on both the orbital and spin degrees of freedom of the quasiparticles) exhibit relatively weak temperature-dependent renormalizations that arise from the nodal quasiparticles only, and that can often be neglected.
Eq. \[lambda\] above for the London penetration depth has exactly the same form as Eq. 6 of Ref. , which finds (from a detailed analysis of a number of experiments) $\alpha^2 = (v_F^t/v_F)^2 =$ 0.43 for Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_8$ and $\alpha^2 = (v_F^t/v_F)^2 =$ 0.46 for YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7 - \delta}$. This implies a value of the electrical transport velocity $v^t_F$ at a nodal point significantly smaller than quasiparticle velocity $v_F$.
To appreciate the significance of this result concerning the ratio of $v_F^t$ to $v_F$, some idea of the expected relative magnitudes of $v_F^t$ and $v_F$ must be obtained. Recall that the model studied in this article is that of a single band of electrons interacting with each other and with a periodic potential. All of the interactions of the electrons in this single band with electrons in other bands or with the ion cores are incorporated into the underlying periodic potential. The solution of the problem of an electron in this periodic potential in the absence of any electron-electron interactions gives what was called the bare band energy $\varepsilon^b_k$ and the bare band velocity ${\bf v}^b_k = \hbar \partial \varepsilon_k / \partial {\bf k}$. At this level of approximation the quasiparticle velocity and the electrical transport velocity are the same, and equal to the bare band velocity. Now if electron-electron interactions are added in the Hartree-Fock approximation, the band energy, the Fermi surface, and the quasiparticle velocity will all be modified, but the electrical transport velocity remains equal to the bare band velocity. Furthermore, if the electron-electron interactions are considered in a higher order of approximation in an isotropic model, there will be further changes to the quasiparticle velocity, but the electrical transport velocity will still remain equal to the bare band velocity [@bet69]. Two studies of the effective mass ratio $m^\ast/m$ in an electron-gas model in a high-density approximation have been summarized in Fig. 10 of Ref. . (For an isotropic electon gas model the effective masses are defined by $v_F = p_F/m^\ast$ and $v_F^t = p_F/m$.) These studies show that for high densities $m^\ast/m$ is less than unity by up to 5%, but when the density is decreased the ratio of $m^\ast/m$ becomes greater than unity, by up to 10% for the range of parameters studied. Thus, at lower densities, where stronger correlation effects are expected (because the ratio of the potential energy to the kinetic energy in the electron gas becomes larger), the quasiparticle becomes heavier, i.e. tends to move more slowly, as would naively be expected. It is not easy to fit the experimental results on high $T_c$ superconductors quoted above into the framework of these results. The experimental result implies an effective mass ratio $m^\ast/m$ less than unity. Effective mass ratios less than unity (but by a maximum of 5%) are found in Ref. , but only in the higher density and relatively less strongly correlated electron gases. This does not seem to fit very well with the idea of electron correlations that are strong enough to lead to an antiferromagnetic Mott insulating state in the high $T_c$ materials for certain doping levels. It is probably to be expected that high-density electron gas ideas are not particularly useful in understanding the high $T_c$ materials.
Another potentially relevant study is that of Ref. , which has calculated the ratio of the quasiparticle effective mass to a bare band mass in a model relevant to high $T_c$ superconductors (see their Eq. (9) and surrounding discussion). However the band mass there is envisaged as being derived from a energy band structure closely related to that determined by photoemission spectroscopy, and presumably already includes some effects of the electron-electron interactions. Thus it is not clear how this quantity might be related to the electrical transport velocity which is required for an interpretation of the penetration depth measurements in the formula given above. It is nevertheless of interest to note in Fig. 5 of Ref. that electron interaction effects produce a slight band broadening, which goes in the right direction of accounting for the observed value of $\alpha$.
Fermi-liquid corrections to the spin susceptibility, and to the magnetic field induced zero-energy density of states have also been evaluated above for $d$-wave superconductors at temperatures much less that $T_c$.
acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank A. J. Millis for a number of helpful emails, and to acknowledge stimulating discussions with A. C. Durst, P. A. Lee, M. Randeria, and L. Taillefer. The hospitality of P. Nozières, and the Theory Group of the Institut Laue Langevin, where much of this work was done, is much appreciated, as is the support of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
W. N. Hardy, D. A. Bonn, D. C. Morgan, R. Liang, and K. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3999 (1993).
M. Prohammer and J. P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. [**43**]{}, 5370 (1991).
J. A. Martindale, S. E. Barrett, K. E. O’Hara, C. P. Slichter, W. C. Lee and D. M. Ginsberg , Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 9155 (1993).
P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1887 (1993).
M. J. Graf, S-K. Yip, J. A. Sauls and D. Rainer, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 15147 (1996).
L. Taillefer, B. Lussier, R. Gagnon, K. Behnia and H. Aubin, Phys Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 483 (1997).
K. A. Moler, D. L. Sisson, J. S. Urbach, M. R. Beasley, A. Kapitulnik, D. J. Baar, R. Liang, and W. N. Hardy Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 3954 (1997).
D. A. Wright, J. P. Emerson, B. F. Woodfield, J. E. Gordon, R. A. Fisher and N. E. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1550 (1999).
A. Hosseini, R. Harris, Saeid Kamal, P. Dosanjh, J. Preston, Ruixing Liang, W. N. Hardy, and D. A. Bonn, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 1349, (1999).
M. B. Walker and M. F. Smith, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 11285, (2000).
M. Chiao, R. W. Hill, C. Lupien, L. Taillefer, P. Lambert, R. Gagnon, P. Fournier, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 3554-3558 (2000).
A. Kaminski, J. Mesot, H. Fretwell, J. C. Campuzano, M. R. Norman, M. Randeria, H. Ding, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki, and H. Hoechst, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 1788 (2000).
T. Valla et al., Science [**285**]{}, 2110 (1999).
E. W. Carlson, S. A. Kivelson, V. J. Emery, and E. Manousakis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 612 (1999).
L. D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JETP [**3**]{}, 920 (1957).
O. Betbeder-Matibet and P. Nozières, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**51**]{}, 392 (1969).
A. I. Larkin, Sov. Phys. JETP [**19**]{}, 1478 (1964).
A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. [**140**]{}, A1869 (1965).
F. Gross, B. S. Chandrasekhar, D. Einzel, K. Andres, P. J. Hirschfeld, H. R. Ott, J. Beuers, Z. Fisk and J. L. Smith, Z. Phys. B [**64**]{}, 175 (1986).
D. Xu, S. K. Yip, and J. A. Sauls, Phys. rev. B [**51**]{}, 16233 (1995).
A. J. Millis, S. M. Girvin, L. B. Ioffe and A. I. Larkin, J. Phys. Chem Solids [**59**]{}, 1742 (1998).
A. C. Durst and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 1270 (2000) .
M. B. Walker, cond-mat/0007177
A. Raramekanti and M. Randeria, cond-mat/00011109.
D. Pines and P. Nozières, [*Theory of Quantum Liquids - Volume I*]{}, Addison Wesley (1989).
E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii, [*Statistical Physics, Vol. II*]{}, (Pergamon Press, 1991).
G. Volovik, JETP Lett. [**58**]{},469 (1993).
C. Kübert and P. J. Hirschfeld, Solid State Commum. [**105**]{}, 459 (1998).
D. J. Scalapino, in [Superconductivity]{}, edited by R. D. Parks (Dekker, 1969), Vol. I, p. 449.
P. Monthoux and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 6069 (1993).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We give a unified proof of the existence of turbulence for some classes of continuous interval maps which include, among other things, maps with periodic points of odd periods $> 1$, some maps with dense chain recurrent points and densely chaotic maps.
[[**Keywords**]{}: (doubly) turbulent maps, chain recurrent points, densely chaotic maps, omega-limit sets]{}
[[**AMS Subject Classification**]{}: 37D45, 37E05]{}
author:
- |
Bau-Sen Du\
Institute of Mathematics Academia Sinica Taipei 10617, Taiwan dubs@math.sinica.edu.tw
title: What make them all so turbulent
---
Let $I$ be a compact interval in the real line and let $f : I \to I$ be a continuous map. It is well-known that [**[@ba; @bc; @bl; @du; @ru]**]{} if (a) there exist a point $c$ and an odd integer $n > 1$ such that $f^n(c) \le c < f(c)$ or $f(c) < c \le f^n(c)$, or (b) $f$ has dense periodic points and $f^2(a) \ne a$ for some point $a$, or (c) there is a point whose $\omega$-limit set with respect to $f$ contains a fixed point $z$ of $f$ and a point $\ne z$, or (d) $f$ is densely chaotic, i.e., the set $LY(f) = \{ (x, y) \in I \times I : \limsup_{n \to \infty} |f^n(x) - f^n(y)| > 0$ and $\liminf_{n \to \infty} |f^n(x) - f^n(y)| = 0 \}$ is dense in $I \times I$, then $f^2$ is turbulent (and $f$ has periodic points of all even periods). Since turbulent maps are known [**[@bc]**]{} to be topologically semi-conjugate, on some compact invariant subsets, to the shift map on two symbols which is a typical model for chaotic dynamical systems, these maps $f^2$ (and so $f$) are chaotic. When we examine closely the above 4 conditions, we find that none is implied by [*all*]{} other three (see Figures 1 & 2). So, what do they have in common which make them all so turbulent? In this note, we answer this question by a simple result (Theorem 1) which extends Proposition 3 on page 122 of [**[@bc]**]{}.
{width="6cm" height="5cm"}
{width="6cm" height="5cm"}
Let $J$ be a compact interval in $I$. If there exist two compact subintervals $J_0$ and $J_1$ of $J$ with at most one point in common such that $f(J_0) \cap f(J_1) \supset J_0 \cup J_1$, then we say that $f$ is turbulent on $J$ (and on $I$) [**[@bc]**]{}. If there exist two compact subintervals $K$ and $L$ of $I$ with at most one point in common such that $f$ is turbulent on $K$ and on $L$, then we say that $f$ is doubly turbulent on $I$.
[**Theorem 1.**]{}
*Let $f$ be a continuous map from $I$ into itself and let $x_0$ be a point in $I$. Then exactly one of the following holds:*
- If there exist a point $c$ in the orbit $O_f(x_0) = \{ x_0, f(x_0), f^2(x_0), \cdots \}$ of $x_0$ and an integer $n \ge 2$ such that $f^n(c) \le c < f(c)$ or $f(c) < c \le f^n(c)$, then at least one of the following holds:
- There exist a fixed point $z$ of $f$ and a compact subinterval $K$ of $I$ such that (i) $c \in K$, (ii) $f^2(K) \subsetneq K$, (iii) $K$ contains no fixed points of $f$, and (iv) $K$ and $f(K)$ lie on opposite sides of $z$, in particular, the iterates of $c$ with respect to $f$ are “jumping” alternately around the fixed point $z$;
- $f$ has periodic points of all even periods and $f^2$ is doubly turbulent.
- If $x_i = f^i(x_0)$ for all $i \ge 0$, then either for some $m > 0$ the sequence $< x_n >_{n \ge m}$ converges monotonically to a fixed point of $f$ or there exist a fixed point $\hat z$ of $f$ and a strictly increasing sequence $0 \le n_0 < n_1 < n_2 < \cdots$ of integers such that if $x_0 < x_1$ (if $x_0 > x_1$ then all inequalities below are reversed) then
$$x_0 < x_1 < \cdots < x_{n_0-1} \quad < x_{n_1} < x_{n_1+1} < \cdots < x_{n_2-1} \quad < x_{n_3} < x_{n_3+1} < \cdots < x_{n_4-1} \quad < \cdots < \hat z$$ $$< \cdots < x_{n_5-1} < \cdots < x_{n_4+1} < x_{n_4} \quad < x_{n_3-1} < \cdots < x_{n_2+1} < x_{n_2} \quad < x_{n_1-1} < \cdots < x_{n_0+1} < x_{n_0}$$ and if $p = \lim_{i \to \infty} x_{n_{2i+1}}$ and $q = \lim_{i \to \infty} x_{n_{2i}}$ then $p \le \hat z \le q$ and, $f(p) = q$ and $f(q) = p$.
In particular, $x_0$ is asymptotically periodic of period 1 or 2, i.e., there is a periodic point $y$ of $f$ with $f^2(y) = y$ such that $\lim_{n \to \infty} |f^n(x_0) - f^n(y)| = 0$.
[*Proof.*]{} If the hypothesis of [*(A)*]{} fails, then it is clear that [*(B)*]{} holds. Now, assume that $f^n(c) \le c < f(c)$ for some point $c$ in $O_f(x_0)$. If $f(c) < c \le f^n(c)$, the proof is similar. Let $X = \{ f^i(c) : 0 \le i \le n-1 \}$. Let $a = \max \{ x \in X : f(x) > x \}$ and let $b$ be any point in $X \cap [a, f(a)]$ such that $f(b) \le a$. Then $c \le a$. Let $z$ be a fixed point of $f$ in $[a, b]$ and let $v$ be a point in $[a, z]$ such that $f(v) = b$. So, $f^2(v) = f(b)$ and $\max \{ c, f^2(v) \} \le a \le v < z < b = f(v)$. Let $z_0 = \min \{ v \le x \le z : f^2(x) = x \}$. Then $f(x) > z$ and $f^2(x) < x$ for all $v \le x < z_0$. We have three cases to consider:
Case 1. If $f^2(x) < z_0$ for all $\min I \le x \le v$, then $f^2(x) < z_0 \le z < f(x)$ for all $\min I \le x \le z_0$. Let $t$ be a point in $(v, z_0)$ such that $t > f^2(x)$ for all $\min I \le x \le t$. Let $K = [\min I, t]$. Then $c \in [\min I, v] \subset K$, $f^2(K) \subset [\min I, t) \subsetneq K$, $K$ contains no fixed points of $f$, and $K$ and $f(K)$ lie on opposite sides of $z$.
Case 2. If the point $d = \max \{ \min I \le x \le v : f^2(x) = z_0 \}$ exists and $\min \{ f^2(x) : d \le x \le z_0 \}$ $= s > d$, then $f(x) > z \ge z_0 > f^2(x) \ge s$ for all $d < x < z_0$. Let $\tilde t$ be a point in $(v, z_0)$ such that $\tilde t > f^2(x)$ for all $s \le x \le v$. Let $K = [s, \tilde t]$. Then $K$ contains no fixed points of $f$, $K$ and $f(K)$ lie on opposite sides of $z$ and $f^2(K) \subset [s, \tilde t) \subsetneq K$. Furthermore, for some $2 \le k \le n$, $f^{k-1}(c) = b$ and so, $f^k(c) = f(b) = f^2(v) \in f^2(K) \subset K$. Consequently, $f^k(c) \in K$. Since $f(K \cup f(K)) \subset K \cup f(K)$ and $n \ge k$, we have $f^n(c) = f^{n-k}(f^k(c)) \in K \cup f(K)$. Since $f^n(c) \, (\le c \le v) < z$, this forces $f^n(c) \in K$. Since $\tilde t \in [s, \tilde t] = K$ and $f^n(c) \le c \le v < \tilde t$, this in turn implies that $c \in K$.
Case 3. If both the point $d = \max \{ \min I \le x \le v : f^2(x) = z_0 \}$ and the point $u_1 = \min \{ d \le x \le z_0 : f^2(x) = d \}$ exist, then $f(x) > z \ge z_0 > f^2(x)$ on $(d, z_0)$ and $f^2([d, u_1]) \cap f^2([u_1, z_0]) \supset [d, z_0] = [d, u_1] \cup [u_1, z_0]$. In particular, $f^2$ is turbulent on $[d, z_0] \subset [\min I, z]$. Furthermore, since $u_1 = \min \{ d \le x \le z_0 : f^2(x) = d \}$, we have $d < f^2(x) < z_0$ on $(d, u_1)$. Let $p_1$ be any point in $(d, u_1)$ such that $f^2(p_1) = p_1$. Let $u_2 = \min \{ d \le x \le p_1 : f^2(x) = u_1 \}$. Then $d < (f^2)^2(x) < z_0$ on $(d, u_2)$. Let $p_2$ be any point in $(d, u_2)$ such that $(f^2)^2(p_2) = p_2$. Inductively, we obtain points $d < \cdots < p_n < u_n < \cdots < p_2 < u_2 < p_1 < u_1 < z_0$ such that $u_n = \min \{ d \le x \le p_{n-1} : (f^2)^{n-1}(x) = u_1 \}$, $d < (f^2)^n(x) < z_0$ on $(d, u_n)$ and $(f^2)^n(p_n) = p_n$. Since $f(x) > z \ge z_0$ on $(d, z_0)$, we have $f^i(p_n) < z_0 < f^j(p_n)$ for all even $i$ and all odd $j$ in $[0, 2n]$. So, each $p_n$ is a period-$(2n)$ point of $f$. This confirms that $f$ has periodic points of all [*even*]{} periods. Finally, since $d$ is the largest point in $[\min I, z_0)$ such that $f^2(d) = z_0$, $f$ must map the endpoints of $[d, z_0]$ [*into*]{} the endpoints of $f([d, z_0])$ and no points $x$ in $(d, z_0)$ can satisfy $f(x) = f(d)$ or $f(x) = f(z_0)$. Consequently, if $f(d) > f(z_0)$ (if $f(d) < f(z_0)$, the proof is similar), then $f([d, z_0]) = [f(z_0), f(d)]$ and, for some $\hat s \le d$, $f((f(z_0), f(d)) = f^2((d, z_0)) = [\hat s, z_0) \supset [d, z_0)$. Let $e$ be a point in $(f(z_0), f(d))$ such that $f(e) = d$. Then $f^2([f(z_0), e]) \cap f^2([e, f(d)]) \supset [f(z_0), f(d)] = [f(z_0), e] \cup [e, f(d)]$. Furthermore, if $f(d) = f(z_0)$ and $f([d, z_0]) = [r, f(d)]$ for some point $r > z$ (if $f(d) = f(z_0)$ and $f([d, z_0]) = [f(d), r]$, the proof is similar), then since $f([r, f(d)]) = f^2([d, z_0]) \supset [d, z_0]$, there exists a point $u$ in $[r, f(d))$ such that $f(u) = d$. Since $f^2([u, f(d)]) \supset f([d, z_0]) = [r, f(d)]$, there exists a point $w$ in $(u, f(d))$ such that $f^2(w) = r$. Therefore, $f^2([u, w]) \cap f^2([w, f(d)]) \supset [r, f(d)] \supset [u, f(d)] = [u, w] \cup [w, f(d)]$. In either case, $f^2$ is turbulent on $[z, \max I]$. This, combined with the above, shows that $f^2$ is doubly turbulent on $I$. [$\square$]{}
In Part[*(A)(1)*]{} of the above result, the compact interval $K$ is not an ordinary one. It is one with the following 4 properties that (i) $c \in K$; (ii) $f^2(K) \subsetneq K$; (iii) $K$ contains no fixed points of $f$; and (iv) $f(K) \cap K = \emptyset$. By choosing the appropriate point $c$, it is the violation of one of these properties that establishes the following result in which [*(2)*]{} and [*(4)*]{} are generalizations of (b) and (d) above respectively.
[**Corollary 2.**]{}
*Each of the following statements implies that $f$ has periodic points of all even periods and $f^2$ is doubly turbulent:*
- There exist a point $c$ and an odd integer $n > 1$ such that $f^n(c) \le c < f(c)$ or $f(c) < c \le f^n(c)$, in particular, $f$ has a periodic point of odd period $> 1$;
- The chain recurrent points of $f$ are dense in $I$ and $f^2(a) \ne a$ for some point $a$ in $I$ (recall that a chain recurrent point is a point $x$ which satisfies that for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$ there exist a finite sequence of points $x_i, 0 \le i \le n$ such that $x_0 = x = x_n$ and $|f(x_i) - x_{i+1}| < {\varepsilon}$ for all $0 \le i \le n-1$. Note that if $x_0$ is a chain recurrent point of $f$ with $f(x_0) < x_0$ ($f(x_0) > x_0$ respectively), then by discussing the three cases similar to those three in the above proof of Theorem 1 with $x_0$ replacing $z_0$, we can obtain (see Lemma 32 on page 150 of [**[@bc]**]{}) a point $c$ such that $f(c) < c < f^2(c) = x_0$ ($x_0 = f^2(c) > c > f(c)$ respectively));
- The $\omega$-limit set $\omega_f(b)$ of some point $b$ in $I$ contains a fixed point $z$ of $f$ and a point $\ne z$;
- There is a point in $I$ which is not asymptotically periodic of period 1 or 2 and the set $\{ (x, y) : \liminf_{n \to \infty} |f^n(x) - f^n(y)| = 0 \}$ is dense in $I \times I$, in particular, $f$ is densely chaotic;
- There is a point $c$ in $I$ such that $$\limsup_{n \to \infty} |f^n(c) - f^{n+1}(c)| > 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \liminf_{n \to \infty} |f^n(c) - f^{n+1}(c)| = 0.$$
The following result can be proved similarly.
[**Theorem 3.**]{}
*If there exist a fixed point $z$ of $f$ and a point $c$ of $I$ such that $f(c) < c < z$ or $z < c < f(c)$, then at least one of the following holds:*
- $f$ has a proper compact interval $J$ in $I$ such that $c \in J$, $f(J) \subsetneq J$ and $z \notin J$;
- $f$ is turbulent and has periodic points of all periods.
Consequently, if (1) there exist a fixed point $z$ of $f$, a point $c$ of $I$ and an integer $n \ge 2$ such that $f(c) < c < z \le f^n(c)$ or, $f^n(c) \le z < c < f(c)$, or $(f(c) - z)/(c - z) > 1$ and $z \in \omega_f(c)$; or (2) the chain recurrent points of $f$ are dense in $I$ and $f$ has at least two fixed points and $f(a) \ne a$ for some point $a$ in $I$, then $f$ is turbulent and has periodic points of all periods.
[99]{} M. Barge and J. Martin, Dense periodicity on the interval, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**94**]{}(1985), 731-735.*
L. Block and W. Coppel, [*Dynamics in One Dimension*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1513, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.
A. M. Blokh, On sensitive mappings of the interval, *Uspekhi Mat. Nauk [**37**]{}(1982), 189-190. (Russian). English translation *Russ. Math. Surv. [**37**]{}(1982), 203-204.**
B.-S. Du, A simple proof of Sharkovsky’s theorem revisited, *Amer. Math. Monthly [**114**]{} (2007), 152-155.*
S. Ruette, Dense chaos for continuous interval maps, *Nonlinearity [**18**]{} (2005), 1691-1698.*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'W. Nowotny'
- 'S. Höfner'
- 'B. Aringer'
date: 'Received; accepted'
subtitle: Molecular line profile variations of long period variables
title: Line formation in AGB atmospheres including velocity effects
---
[Towards the end of the evolutionary stage of the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) the atmospheres of evolved red giants are considerably influenced by radial pulsations of the stellar interiors and developing stellar winds. The resulting complex velocity fields severely affect molecular line profiles (shapes, time-dependent shifts in wavelength, multiple components) observable in near-infrared spectra of long period variables. thereby study the mass loss process.]{} [With the help of model calculations the complex line formation process in AGB atmospheres was explored with the focus on velocity effects. Furthermore, we aimed for atmospheric models which are able to quantitatively reproduce line profile variations found in observed spectra of pulsating late-type giants.]{} [Models describing pulsation-enhanced dust-driven winds were used to compute synthetic spectra under the assumptions of chemical equilibrium and LTE. For this purpose, we used molecular data from line lists for the considered species and solved the radiative transfer in spherical geometry including the effects of velocity fields. Radial velocities (RV) derived from Doppler-shifted (components of) synthetic line profiles provide information on the gas velocities in the line-forming region of the spectral features. In addition, we made use of radial optical depth distributions to give estimates for the layers where lines are formed and to illustrate the effects of velocities in the line formation process.]{} [Assuming uniform gas velocities for all depth points of an atmospheric model we estimated the conversion factor between gas velocities and measured RVs to $p$=$u_{\rm gas}$/$RV$$\approx$1.2–1.5. On the basis of dynamic model atmospheres and by applying our spectral synthesis codes we investigated in detail the finding that various molecular features in AGB spectra originate at different geometrical depths of the very extended atmospheres of these stars. We show that the models are able to quantitatively reproduce the characteristic line profile variations of lines sampling the deep photosphere (CO $\Delta v$=3, CN) of Mira variables and the corresponding discontinuous, S-shaped RV curve. The global velocity fields (traced by different features) of typical long-period variables are also realistically reproduced. In addition, we present a model showing variations of CO $\Delta v$=3 line profiles comparable to observed spectra of semiregular variables and discuss that the non-occurence of line doubling in these objects may be due to a density effect.]{} [The results of our line profile modelling are another that the dynamic models studied here ]{}
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
Stars on the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) represent objects of low to intermediate main sequence mass ($\approx$0.8–8$M_{\odot}$) in a late evolutionary phase. While they exhibit low effective temperatures ($<$3500K), their luminosities can reach values of up to a few 10$^4\,L_{\odot}$ at the tip of the AGB, placing them in the upper right corner of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. Compared to the atmospheres of most other types of stars the outer layers of these evolved red giants have remarkable properties (see e.g. the review by Gustafsson & Höfner [@GustH04], below GH04).
In the cool and very extended atmospheres (extensions of the same order as the radii of the stars; up to a few 100$R_{\odot}$), molecules can form. Their large number of internal degrees of freedom results in a plethora of spectral lines. Thus, molecules significantly affect the spectral appearance of late-type giants at visual and infrared wavelengths (IR; e.g. Lançon & Wood [@LancW00], Gautschy-Loidl et al. [@GaHJH04], GH04, Aringer et al. [@AGNML09]).
On the upper part of the AGB, the stars become instable to strong radial pulsations. This leads to a pronounced variability of the emitted flux with amplitudes of up to several magnitudes in the visual (e.g. Lattanzio & Wood [@LattW04]). Since the variations occur on long time scales of a few 10 to several 100 days, pulsating AGB stars are often referred to as *long period variables* (LPVs). In the past, different types of LPVs were empirically classified according to the regularity of the light change and the visual light amplitude: Mira variables (regular, $\Delta V$$>$2.5$^{\rm m}$), semiregular variables (SRVs, poor regularity, $\Delta V$$<$2.5$^{\rm m}$), and irregular variables (irregular, $\Delta V$$<$1–2$^{\rm m}$). Major advances in our understanding of the pulsation of AGB stars were achieved by exploiting the data sets of surveys for microlensing events (MACHO, OGLE, EROS), which produced a substantial number of high-quality lightcurves for red variables as a by-product. According to the pioneering work in this field by Wood et al. ([@WAAAA99]) and Wood ([@Wood00]), and to a number of subsequent studies (e.g. Lebzelter et al. [@LebSM02c], Ita et al. [@ITMNN04a], [@ITMNN04b]) it is probably more adequate to characterise LPVs according to their pulsation mode than to their light change in the visual as it was done historically. From observational studies during recent years (see e.g. Lattanzio & Wood [@LattW04]) it appears that stars start to pulsate (as SRVs) in the second/third overtone mode (corresponding to sequence A in Fig.1 of Wood [@Wood00]) and switch then to the first overtone mode (sequence B). Light amplitudes are increasing while the stars evolve and finally become Miras. In this stadium they pulsate in the fundamental mode (sequence C) and show highly periodic light changes. Observational evidence for this evolution scenario was found for LPVs in the globular cluster 47Tuc by Lebzelter et al. ([@LWHJF05b]) and Lebzelter & Wood ([@LebzW05d]).
The pulsating stellar interior of an AGB star severely influences the outer layers. The atmospheric structure is periodically modulated, and in the wake of the emerging shock waves dust condensation can take place. Radiation pressure on the newly formed dust grains (at least in the C-rich case, cf. Sect.\[s:DMAgenrem\]) leads to the development of a rather slow (terminal velocities of max. 30kms$^{-1}$) but dense stellar wind with high mass loss rates (from a few 10$^{-8}$ up to 10$^{-4}$$M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$; e.g. Olofsson [@Olofs04]).
As a consequence of these dynamic processes – pulsation and mass loss – the atmospheres of evolved AGB stars eventually become even more extended than non-pulsating red giants in earlier evolutionary stages. The resulting atmospheric structure strongly deviates from a hydrostatic configuration and shows temporal variations on global and local scales (Sect.\[s:modelling\]). The complex, non-monotonic velocity fields with relative macroscopic motions of the order of 10kms$^{-1}$ have substantial influence on the shapes of individual spectral lines (Doppler effect). Observational studies have demonstrated that time series high-resolution spectroscopy in the near IR (where AGB stars are bright and well observable) is a valuable tool to study atmospheric kinematics throughout the outer layers of pulsating and mass-losing red giants (e.g. Hinkle et al. [@HinHR82], from now on HHR82, or Alvarez et al. [@AJPGF00]). Radial velocities (RV) derived from Doppler-shifts of various spectral lines provide clues on the gas velocities in the line-forming regions of the respective features. A detailed review on studies of line profile variations for AGB stars (observations and modelling) can be found for example in Nowotny ([@Nowot05], below N05).
In two previous papers (Nowotny et al. [@NAHGW05]+[@NoLHH05], from now on PaperI and PaperII, respectively) we investigated whether observed variations of line profiles can be comprehended with state-of-the-art dynamic model atmospheres. We were able to show that the used models allow to qualitatively reproduce the behaviour of spectral lines originating in different regions of the extended atmospheres. The work presented here can be regarded as an extension of the previous two papers about line profile modelling. The aim is to shed light on the intricate line formation process within the atmospheres of evolved red giants with an emphasis on the velocity effects (Sects.\[s:lineformation\], \[s:velocityeffects\], \[s:simulating\] and \[s:when-linedoubling\]). In addition, we report on our efforts to achieve realistic models, which are able to reproduce line profile variations and the derived RVs even quantitatively (Sects.\[s:realistic\] and \[s:COdv3SRVs\]).
Model atmospheres and spectral synthesis {#s:modelling}
========================================
General remarks {#s:DMAgenrem}
---------------
Modelling the cool and very extended atmospheres of evolved AGB stars remains challenging due to the intricate interaction of different complicated phenomena (convection, pulsation, radiation, molecular and dust formation/absorption, acceleration of winds). Dynamic model atmospheres are constructed to simulate and understand the physical processes (e.g. mass loss) occuring in the outer layers of AGB stars. In particular they are needed if one is interested in reproducing the complex and temporally varying atmospheric structures that form the basis for radiative transfer calculations, which allows us to simulate observational results (spectra, photometry, etc.).
For our line profile modelling we used dynamic model atmospheres as described in detail by Höfner et al. ([@HoGAJ03]; DMA3), Gautschy-Loidl et al. ([@GaHJH04]; DMA4), N05 or PapersI+II. These models represent the scenario of pulsation-enhanced dust-driven winds (cf. Sects.4.7+4.8 of GH04). They provide a consistent and realistic description from the deep and dust-free photosphere (dominated by the pulsation of the stellar interior) out to the dust-forming layers and beyond to the stellar wind region at the inner circumstellar envelope (characterised by the cool, steady outflow). This is accomplished by a combined and self-consistent solution of hydrodynamics, frequency-dependent radiative transfer and a detailed time-dependent treatment of dust formation and evolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W S M
------------------------ ----------------- ------- --------------------- ---------------------
$L_\star$ \[$L_{\odot}$\] 7000 10000 7000
$M_\star$ \[$M_{\odot}$\] 1.0 1.0 1.5
$T_\star$ \[K\] 2800 2600 2600
$[$Fe/H$]$ \[dex\] 0.0 0.0 0.0
C/O *by number* 1.4 1.4 1.4
$R_\star$ \[$R_{\odot}$\] 355 493 412
\[*AU*\] 1.65 2.29 1.92
log $g_\star$ –0.66 –0.94 –0.61
$P$ \[d\] 390 490 490
$\Delta u_{\rm p}$ \[kms$^{-1}$\] 2 4 6
$f_{\rm L}$ 1.0 2.0 1.5
$\Delta m_{\rm bol}$ \[mag\] 0.21 0.86 1.07
$\langle\dot M\rangle$ \[$M_{\odot}\ – 4.3$\cdot$10$^{-6}$ 2.5$\cdot$10$^{-6}$
$yr$^{-1}$\]
$\langle u \rangle$ \[kms$^{-1}$\] – 15 7.5
$\langle f_c$$\rangle$ – 0.28 0.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Characteristics of the dynamic atmospheric models for pulsating, C-rich AGB stars (for a detailed description see text and DMA3) used for the modelling.
\[t:dmaparameters\]
Notes: Listed are (i) parameters of the hydrostatic initial model, (ii) quantities derivable from these parameters, (iii) attributes of the inner boundary (piston) used to simulate the pulsating stellar interior as well as the resulting bolometric amplitude $\Delta m_{\rm bol}$, and (iv) properties of the resulting wind. The notation was adopted from previous papers (DMA3, DMA4): $P$, $\Delta u_{\rm p}$ – period and velocity amplitude of the piston at the inner boundary; $f_L$ – free parameter to adjust the luminosity amplitude at the inner boundary; $\langle\dot M\rangle$, $\langle u \rangle$ – mean mass loss rate and outflow velocity at the outer boundary; $\langle f_c$$\rangle$ – mean degree of condensation of carbon into dust at the outer boundary. The radial coordinates in this work are plotted in units of the corresponding stellar radii $R_\star$ of the hydrostatic initial models, calculated from their luminosities $L_\star$ and temperatures $T_\star$ (as given in the table) via the relation $L_\star$=4$\pi$$R_\star^2$$\sigma$$T_\star^4$.
As a result of deep-reaching convection (dredge-up), nucleo-synthesis products can be mixed up from the stellar interior of AGB stars, resulting in a metamorphosis of the molecular chemistry of the whole atmosphere (e.g. Busso et al. [@BusGW99], Herwig [@Herwi05]). The most important product of all the nuclearly processed material mixed up is carbon $^{12}$C. As a consequence, the stars can turn from oxygen-rich (C/O$<$1) to carbon-rich (C/O$>$1) during the late AGB phase. The resulting so-called *carbon stars* (C stars) can be found close to the tip of the AGB in observed colour-magnitude diagrams (e.g. Nowotny et al. [@NoKOS03]). The drastic change of the atmospheric chemical composition is not only relevant for the observable spectral type of the star (changing from M to C), it is also crucial for the formation of circumstellar dust.
Observational studies revealed a rich mineralogy in the dusty outflows of O-rich objects (e.g. Molster & Waters [@MolsW03] and references therein). Unfortunately, the dust formation process is theoretically not fully understood. Many physical and chemical details of the process are still not clear, which would be necessary for a fully consistent numerical treatment. In addition to the lack of a grain formation theory, there is an ongoing debate concerning the underlying physics of the driving mechanism (Woitke [@Woitk06b]+[@Woitk07], Höfner [@Hoefn07], Höfner & Andersen [@HoefA07]). A potential solution was recently suggested by Höfner ([@Hoefn08]).
Things are quite different for C-rich stars, where we find a rather simple composition of the circumstellar dust. A very limited variety of dust species were identified by their spectral features (e.g. Molster & Waters [@MolsW03]), as for example SiC (prominent feature at $\approx$11$\mu$m) or MgS (broad emission band around 30$\mu$m). The most important species is amorphous carbon dust, though. Not producing any distinctive spectral feature, grains of carbon dust represent the dominating condensate and play a crucial role from the dynamic point of view (mass loss process). Amorphous carbon fulfills the relevant criteria for a catalyst of dust-driven winds: (i) made up of abundant elements, (ii) simple and efficient formation process, (iii) refractory, i.e. stable at high temperatures ($\approx$1500K), (iv) large radiative cross section around 1$\mu$m in order to absorb momentum. Moreover, the formation and evolution of amorphous carbon dust grains can be treated numerically in a consistent way by using moment equations as described in Gail & Sedlmayr ([@GailS88]) and Gauger et al. ([@GauGS90]). As a consequence of this, atmospheric models for C-rich AGB stars with dusty outflows were quite successfully calculated and applied in the past by different groups (see the overviews given by Woitke [@Woitk03] or Höfner et al. [@HGANH04]), among them the models used in this work.
Models for atmospheres and winds {#s:DMAsused}
--------------------------------
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
Following the previous remarks, we concentrated in this study on model atmospheres for C-type LPVs for our line profile modelling, because these models contain a more consistent prescription of dust formation.[^1] However, the velocity effects on line profiles are of general relevance, and a comparison with observational results of stars with other spectral types (e.g. $\chi$Cyg) should be justified. This is especially the case for CO lines because of the characteristic properties of this molecule (e.g. Sect.2.2 in PaperI). Table\[t:dmaparameters\] lists the parameters and the resulting wind properties of the dynamic models used in this work.
The starting point for the calculation is a hydrostatic initial model, which is very similar to classical model atmospheres (Fig.1 in DMA3), as for example those calculated with the MARCS-Code (Gustafsson et al. [@GEEJN08]). These initial models are characterised by a set of parameters as listed in the first part of Table\[t:dmaparameters\]. They are dust-free and rather compact in comparison with fully developped dynamical structures (e.g. Fig.\[f:structure\]). The effects of pulsation of the stellar interior are then simulated by a variable inner boundary $$\label{e:pistonmovement}
R_{\rm in}(t)=R_{\rm in}(0)+\frac{\Delta u_{\rm p}P}{2\pi}\sin\left(\frac{2\pi}{P}t\right) .$$ This so-called moves sinusoidally with a period $P$ and a velocity amplitude $\Delta u_{\rm p}$. Assuming a constant radiative flux at the inner boundary, the luminosity $L_{\rm in}(t)$ varies like $\propto$$R_{\rm in}^2(t)$ for the models presented in DMA3. The assumptions for the inner boundary were slightly adapted for the latest generation of models as discussed in DMA4: an additional free parameter $f_{\rm L}$ was introduced so that the luminosity at the inner boundary varies like $$\label{e:flfunction}
\frac{L_{\rm in}(t)-L_{\rm 0}}{L_{\rm 0}} = f_{\rm L}\left(\frac{R_{\rm in}^2(t)-R_{\rm 0}^2}{R_{\rm 0}^2}\right) ,$$ where $L_{\rm 0}$ and $R_{\rm 0}$ are the values at the inner boundary of the hydrostatic initial model ($L_{\rm 0}$=$L_\star$, by definition, and $f_{\rm L}$=1 corresponds to the previously used case of constant flux at the inner boundary).[^2] The luminosity variation amplitude of the model can be adjusted thereby independent of the mechanical energy input by the piston. This allows us to tune the bolometric amplitudes $\Delta m_{\rm bol}$ to resemble more closely the values derived from observational studies. Figure\[f:structureSRV\]a shows the variability of the luminosity $L$ of one dynamic model as an example.
As described in detail in DMA3, the models can be divided into two sub-groups according to their dynamical behaviour:\
- pulsating model atmospheres where no dust forms
- models developing pulsation-enhanced dust-driven winds.
*Model W* (directly taken from DMA3 where it is denoted by l70t28c14u2) represents a typical example for the first type of dynamical models. Figure\[f:massenschalenW\] shows the temporal evolution of mass layers in different atmospheric depths for such a dust-free, pulsating atmosphere. A mild pulsation is simulated by the small amplitude of the piston in this case. However, the matter is not ejected far enough so that dust formation is made possible by the low temperatures. There is no dust-driven outflow, and pulsation is the sole reason for atmospheric dynamics. The outer boundary follows the movement of the upper atmospheric layers in the case of models without mass loss. A shock wave arises once in every pulsation period, causing the layers to follow more or less ballistic trajectories. The resulting completely periodic behaviour can be recognised in Fig.\[f:massenschalenW\]. The atmospheric structure for different phases throughout a pulsational period is shown in Fig.\[f:structureSRV\]. Varying around the hydrostatic configuration, the dynamic model does not resemble it at any point.
The atmospheres of LPVs become qualitatively different with the occurence of dust and the development of a stellar wind. The other models listed in Table\[t:dmaparameters\], namely *models S* and *M*, represent examples for this second type of dynamic model atmospheres. Again, shock waves are triggered by the pulsating stellar interior and propagate outwards. The difference arises because efficient dust formation can take place in the wake of the shock waves (post-shock regions with strongly enhanced densities at low temperatures). Radiation pressure on the newly formed dust grains results in an outflow of the outer atmospheric layers. This behaviour is demonstrated in Fig.\[f:massenschalenM\], which shows the characteristic pattern of the moving mass layers with model M as an example. While the models without mass loss stay rather compact compared to the hydrostatic initial model (Fig.\[f:structureSRV\]), the models that develop a wind are inflated by it and become much more extended than the corresponding initial model. Numerically, a transmitting outer boundary – allowing outflow; fixed at 20–30$R_{\star}$ – is used for the latter type of dynamic model atmospheres. Spatial structures of model M are shown in Fig.\[f:structure\], demonstrating the strong influence of dust formation on the atmospheric extension. The models S and M exhibit quite a moderate dust formation process, which leads to a smooth transistion of the velocity field from the pulsating inner layers to the steady outflow of the outer layers (see the velocity structure plots in Fig.9 of PaperI and Fig.\[f:structure\] in this work). In contrast, the model applied in Sect.6.1 of PaperII is a representative of a group of models with a more extreme dust formation. Not every emerging shock wave leads to the formation of dust grains (cf. Fig.2 in DMA3) and the velocity field in the dust-forming region may look very different for similar phases of different pulsation periods. Pronounced dust shells arise from time to time and propagate outwards (see the structure plot in Fig.10 of PaperII).
We refer to H[ö]{}fner et al. ([@HoGAJ03]) for more details about the numerical methods and the atmospheric models.
The specific models used {#s:DMAsusedspecific}
------------------------
Model S was already used extensively in the previous PapersI+II to study line profile variations. Its parameters (listed in Table.\[t:dmaparameters\]) were chosen to resemble the Mira SCep, as this is the only Mira with an extensive time series of high-resolution spectroscopy and derived RVs (Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\]). Table1 of PaperII lists properties for this object as compiled from the literature for comparison. Model S should not be taken as a specific fit for SCep, though. A discussion of the difficulties when relating dynamic model atmospheres to certain objects can be found in Sect.3 of PaperII (or Sect.2.1.4 in N05). However, there is evidence that the model reproduces the outer layers of this star reasonably well. There are some properties listed in the mentioned tables which can be compared directly and agree to some extent (e.g. $L$, $P$, $\dot M$, $u_{\rm exp}$). In addition, low-resolution synthetic spectra in the visual and IR computed on the basis of model S resemble observed spectra (ISO, KAO) of SCep fairly well as it was shown by Gautschy-Loidl et al. ([@GaHJH04]; their Sect.5.1).
Model M was the (so far) last model of a small parameter study we carried out subsequent to PapersI+II. The intention was not to find a model fitting a certain target of observations better, but to change the model parameters in order to reproduce one particular observational aspect: namely the velocity variations in the inner, dust-free photosphere resulting in a rather uniform RV curve for CO $\Delta v$=3 lines in spectra of Miras as discussed in Sect.\[s:largerampl\] and shown in Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-allMiras\]. The comparison of the global velocity field of this model M with observational results in Sect.\[s:globalvelfield\] is still done on a qualitative basis, though. Confronting RV measurements (Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\]) with the corresponding synthetic values (Fig.\[f:rvsmodelM\]) provides some general information of how realistic the velocity structures of the model are. However, a direct and quantitative comparison of stellar and model parameters is not feasible at the moment due to limitations on the observational side (very small number of stars observed extensively, often only rough estimates for properties of targets) as well as on the modelling side (only C-rich models, laborious process to get a RV diagramm as Fig.\[f:rvsmodelM\]) as discussed in Sect.\[s:globalvelfield\].
While investigating synthetic CO $\Delta v$=3 line profile variations based on a few dynamical models available at that time, we found model W reproducing the observed behaviour of SRVs (Sect.\[s:COdv3SRVsobs\]) with similarities to WHya (increased $\Delta RV$). In Sect.\[s:COdv3modelW\] we will make a comparison of observational and modelling results only for this very selected aspect. Relating model W (C-rich chemistry) and the M-type LPV WHya to constrain the parameters of this star is even less possible than for the before mentioned case of model M, and was not intended.
Calculating synthetic line profiles {#s:synthesis}
-----------------------------------
For the spectral synthesis we followed the numerical approach as described in detail in N05 (Sect.2.2) and also in PapersI+II. The modelling procedure of dynamic model atmospheres (see DMA3) yields some immediate results, like mass loss rates $\dot M$, terminal velocities of the winds $v_\infty$, or degrees of dust condensation in the outflows $f_c$. In addition, it provides snapshots of the time-dependent atmospheric structure ($\rho$, $T$, $p$, $u$, etc.) at several instances of time (e.g. Figs.\[f:structureSRV\]+\[f:structure\]). These represent the starting point for the aspired spectral synthesis, accomplished in a two-step process as described below.
The first step, calculating opacities based on a given atmospheric structure, was accomplished with the COMA code, a description of which can be found in Aringer ([@Aring00]), Gautschy-Loidl ([@Gauts01]), or N05. Informations on recent updates and the latest version can be found in Gorfer ([@Gorfe05]), Lederer & Aringer ([@LedeA09]), Aringer et al. ([@AGNML09]). Element abundances for the spectral synthesis were used in consistency with the hydrodynamic models of solar composition. We adopted the values from Anders & Grevesse ([@AndeG89]), except for C, N and O where we took the data from Grevesse & Sauval ([@GrevS94]). This agrees with our previous work (e.g. Aringer et al. [@AHWHJ99], Aringer et al. [@AGNML09]) and results in $Z_{\odot}$$\approx$0.02. Subsequently, the carbon abundance was increased according to the C/O of the models. Abundances and ionisations of various atoms and formed molecules for all layers of the atmospheric model were calculated with equilibrium chemistry routines (for a detailed discussion and an extensive list of references we refer to Lederer & Aringer [@LedeA09]). The depletion of carbon in the gas phase due to consumption by dust grain formation is also taken into account by the COMA code. Examples for the resulting partial pressures can be found in Fig.\[f:pp\]. Subsequently, opacities for every radial depth point and the chosen wavelength grid were computed. Several opacity sources were considered, the most important one being the molecules for which the line profiles are to be studied. Their contribution to the opacities were computed by using line lists and under the following assumptions: (i) conditions of LTE, (ii) a microturbulence velocity of $\xi$=2.5kms$^{-1}$, and (iii) line shapes described by Doppler profiles. Assuming LTE conditions, level populations can be computed from Boltzmann distributions at the corresponding gas temperature $T$. The opacity $\kappa_{\nu}$ at a given frequency $\nu$ for a certain transition from state $m$ to state $n$ can then be written as $$\label{e:kappaLL}
\kappa_{\nu}\ =\ \frac{N\pi e^2}{m_{\rm e} c} \ \frac{gf}{Q(T)} \ \textnormal{e}^{-E_0/kT} \left( 1-\textnormal{e}^{-h\nu_0/kT}\right) \varphi(\nu) ,$$ with the number density of relevant particles $N$, the charge $e$ and mass $m_e$ of the electron, the speed of light $c$, the Boltzmann constant $k$, and the energy $h\nu_0$ of the respective radiation. The partition function $Q(T)$ is the weighted sum of all possible states. $E_0$ represents the excitation energy of the level $m$ (from ground state) and $gf$ is the product of the statistical weight $g_{(m)}$ of the level times the oscillator strength $f_{(m,n)}$ of the transition. Line lists usually contain frequencies $\nu_0$ (or in practice wavenumbers), excitation energies $E_0$, and $gf$ values together with informations for line identification. In order to reproduce the line shapes in a realistic way, a broadening function $\varphi(\nu)$ for the line profile was introduced with $$\int^{\infty}_{0}\varphi(\nu) \ \mathrm{d}\nu=1 \ .$$ Only the effects of thermal broadening (first term in Eq.\[e:dopplerwidth\]) and the non-thermal contribution of microturbulent velocities (second term in Eq.\[e:dopplerwidth\]) are taken into account by COMA, whereas other effects (e.g. natural and pressure broadening, macroturbulence) are neglected. We refer to Sect.2.2.2 of N05 for details. The resulting Doppler profiles can be described by a (Gaussian) broadening function $$\varphi(\nu)=\frac{1}{\Delta_\nu \sqrt{\pi}} \ \textnormal{e}^{-\left(\frac{\nu-\nu_0}{\Delta_\nu}\right)^2} ,$$ with a Doppler width $\Delta_\nu$ given by $$\label{e:dopplerwidth}
\Delta_\nu=\frac{\nu_0}{c} \ \sqrt{\frac{2\mathcal{R}T}{\mu}+\xi^2} ,$$ where $\mathcal{R}$ is the gas constant, $\mu$ the molecular weight, and $\xi$ the microturbulent velocity. An updated set of references for the line lists of all molecular species used by the current version of COMA can be found in Lederer & Aringer ([@LedeA09]). In this work we made use of the list of Goorvitch & Chackerian ([@GoorC94]) for CO and the CN line list of J[ø]{}rgensen & Larsson ([@JorgL90]). We utilised the same molecular lines as in PapersI+II, their respective properties are summarised in Table\[t:chosenlines\]. In addition, molecules affecting the spectra pseudo-continuously (mainly C$_2$H$_2$) were considered by an opacity of constant value for the considered spectral range (cf. Sect.5.1. in PaperI or N05). Furthermore, continuum absorption coefficients are determined by COMA (Lederer & Aringer [@LedeA09]) as well as the opacity due to dust grains of amorphous carbon. For the latter we used the data of Rouleau & Martin ([@RoulM91]; set AC) and computed the resulting dust absorption[^3] under the assumption of the small particle limit of the Mie theory (grain sizes much smaller than relevant wavelengths $\leadsto$ opacities proportional to the total amount of condensed material, but independent of grain size distribution; cf. DMA3, Höfner et al. [@HoefnD92]).
In the second step of the spectral synthesis, the previously calculated data array of opacities $\kappa_{\nu}$($\lambda$,r) for all depth and wavelengths points was utilised to solve the radiative transfer (RT). As the thickness of the line-forming region in AGB atmospheres is large compared to the stellar radii, it is necessary to treat the RT in spherical geometry. In addition, the complex velocity fields (pattern of outflow and infall as for example shown in Fig.\[f:structure\]) in AGB atmospheres severely affect the line shapes in the resulting spectra (observed or synthetic, e.g. Fig.\[f:complexlineformation\]), and it is essential to include the influence of relative macroscopic velocities in this step of the spectral synthesis. Thus, a code for solving spherical RT, which takes into account velocity effects, is used to model line profiles and their variations. The RT code used in this work (Windsteig [@Winds98]) follows the numerical algorithm described in Yorke ([@Yorke88]).
It is necessary to choose spectral resolutions that are high enough to sample individual spectral lines with a sufficient number of wavelength points. This is especially important for synthesising the often quite complex line profiles for stars with pronounced atmospheric dynamics, like those that are the topic of this work. Therefore, all spectra are calculated with an extremely high resolution of $R$=$\lambda/\Delta\lambda$=300000 and were then rebinned to $R$=70000 for comparison with observed FTS spectra. Furthermore, the synthetic spectra shown below were normalised relative to a computation with only the continuous opacity taken into account ($F$/$F_{\rm cont}$).
Our aim is to infer information about atmospheric velocity fields from shifts in the wavelength of (components of) spectral lines. For this purpose, RVs were calculated by using the rest wavelength of the respective line and the formula for Doppler shift. For an easy comparison of our modelling results with observations, we adopted the naming convention for velocities of observational studies (positive for material moving away from the observer and negative for matter moving towards the observer). Thus, outflow from the star results in blue-shifted lines and negative RVs, while infalling matter revealed by red-shifted lines leads to positive RVs. In general, the RVs resulting from observations were combined into one composite lightcycle and then plotted repeatedly for better illustration (e.g. Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-allMiras\]). For the modelling we computed spectra and derived RVs throughout one pulsation period and replicate the values beyond this interval (e.g. Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-modelsMS\]).
Following the convention of PapersI+II, *bolometric phases* $\phi_{\rm bol}$ within the lightcycle in luminosity (Fig.\[f:structureSRV\]a) will be used throughout this work to characterise the modelling results (atmospheric structures, synthetic spectra, derived RVs, etc.) with numbers written in *italics* for a clear distinction from the visual phases $\phi_{\rm v}$, which are usually used to denote observational results (with $\phi_{\rm v}$=0 corresponding to phases of maximum light in the visual). For a discussion of the relation between the two types of phase informations, namely $\phi_{\rm bol}$ and $\phi_{\rm v}$, we refer to Appendix\[s:phaseshift\].
Throughout this work (e.g. the lower panel of Fig.\[f:kappatauauswahl\] and all similar plots in the following), the radial optical depth $\tau_{\nu}$(r) is computed by radially integrating inwards[^4] for a given wavelength point $$\label{e:optdepth}
\tau_{\nu}(r)=\int^{r}_{r_{\rm max}} [\kappa_{\nu,\rm cont}(r')+\kappa_{\nu,\rm lines}(r')+\kappa_{\nu,\rm dust}(r')]\,\, \rho(r')\, \mathrm{d}r'$$ and is then plotted with dotted lines. For the opacities $\kappa_{\nu}(r)$, all relevant sources (continuous, molecular/atomic, dust) are included. If velocity effects are taken into account, optical depths are calculated with the opacities at all depth points Doppler-shifted according to the corresponding gas velocity there and then plotted with solid lines. The optical depth of $\tau_{\nu}$$\approx$1 provides clues on the approximate location of atmospheric layers where radiation of a certain frequency $\nu$ (or the corresponding wavelength $\lambda$) originates.
--------------------------------- --------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------
designation $\sigma / wn$ \[cm$^{-1}$\] $\lambda$ \[$\mu$m\]
CN $\Delta v$=–2 red 1–3 Q$_2$4.5 4871.3400 2.0528
CO $\Delta v$=3 5–2 P30 6033.8967 1.6573
[*CO $\Delta v$=2 high-exc.*]{} [*2–0 R82*]{} [*4321.2240*]{} [*2.3142*]{}
CO $\Delta v$=2 low-exc. 2–0 R19 4322.0657 2.3137
CO $\Delta v$=1 1–0 R1 2150.8560 4.6493
--------------------------------- --------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------
: Different molecular features and the properties of the specific lines used for the line profile modelling here (and in PapersI+II).
\[t:chosenlines\]
Notes: The lines were chosen according to the criteria given in Sect.5.1 of PaperI. The values given here correspond to the rest wavelengths or central frequencies $\nu_0$ as used in Eq.(\[e:kappaLL\]). Throughout this work we will use only a low-excitation first overtone CO line (i.e. CO 2–0 R19) denoted by CO $\Delta v$=2, while the high-excitation line CO 2–0 R82 is merely listed for completeness as it was used in PapersI+II. This distinction is necessary as the two types of lines (at least the ones used by HHR82 and similar studies) behave differently in kinematics studies (see Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\]).
Line formation in the extended atmospheres of evolved red giant stars {#s:lineformation}
=====================================================================
This section is concerned with the fact that different molecular spectral features visible in spectra of AGB stars originate at different atmospheric depths and the examination of this with numerical methods.
Typical main sequence stars exhibit relatively compact photospheres, and the radiation in different wavelengths originates at roughly the same geometrical atmospheric depths with a rather well defined temperature (e.g. Sect.4.3.1 in GH04). For example, the relative thickness of the flux-forming region where the spectrum is produced in our Sun amounts to $\Delta R_{\rm phot,\odot}/R_{\odot}$$\approx$4$\cdot$10$^{-4}$ (cf. N05). The often used parameter effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$ represents a mean temperature in the layers of the thin photosphere, from where almost all photons can escape.
In contrast, estimating the atmospheric extensions $\Delta R_{\rm atm,\star}$ in the case of AGB stars is much more difficult. The outer boundaries of these objects are hard to define (as discussed by GH04 in their Sect.4.1) due to the shallow density gradients related to the low surface gravities $g_\star$, intensified by the dynamic processes of pulsation and mass loss. GH04 give estimates of for the parameter $\Delta R_{\rm atm,\star}$/$R_{\star}$. For the dynamic models used here (Sect.\[s:DMAsused\]), one could for example consider the region of dust formation at $\approx$2$R_{\star}$, where the onset of the stellar wind takes place (cf. Fig\[f:structure\]) as an outer boundary of the atmosphere. This results in $\Delta R_{\rm atm,\star}$/$R_{\star}$$\approx$1. Whatever value one adopts, it is clear that the thickness of an AGB atmosphere is of the same order as the stellar radius, which is quite different from normal main sequence stars. With these extremely extended atmospheres, the wavelength-dependent geometrical radius can vary by a few 100$R_{\odot}$ (equivalent to a few *AU*) or more. Also the related gas temperatures can cover a wide range from $\approx$5000K down to a few hundred Kelvin (N05).
In general, molecular lines do not originate in a well-defined and narrow region, but are formed over a more or less wide range in radius. Nevertheless, there have been attempts to constrain the approximative line forming region in radius and temperature for different molecular features with similar dynamical model atmospheres as used here. The results – which should be regarded as rough estimates rather than definite borders, though – are compiled e.g. in Table1.2 of N05. There are only a few molecular bands (e.g. CN or C$_2$), which are solely formed in the deep, warm layers of the photosphere. Most of the strong features (e.g. H$_2$O, HCN, C$_2$H$_2$) originate in the cool, upper layers of the atmosphere because of the small dissociation energies of the (polyatomic) molecules in combination with the high $gf$ values. It is interesting that there are examples for bands formed in a relatively narrow region, as e.g. the ones of C$_3$, which is due to the interplay between molecular formation and dissociation probabilities (Gautschy-Loidl [@Gauts01], Fig.\[f:pp\]). The special role of CO and the corresponding features will be discussed in detail below. To sum this up, the emerging spectrum (across the whole spectral range from the visual to the IR) of an AGB star is formed over a large radial range with diverse physical conditions, which is quite different from the scenario for the Sun as sketched above.
Moreover, not only spectral features of different molecules originate at varying radial atmospheric depths, but also different lines of the same molecular species can show this effect. This is especially pronounced in the case of CO lines and will be investigated below on the basis of one (arbitrarily chosen) phase of model S. The upper panel of Fig.\[f:pp\] shows the corresponding atmospheric structure[^5] at the phase $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.0*.
There are a few factors that are decisive for the line intensities and for the locations ($r$, $T_{\rm gas}$) of the line forming regions of molecular features in AGB atmospheres:
1. the atmospheric structure itself ($r$-$T$-$p$)
2. the relative abundance (i.e. partial pressure) of the considered molecular species at certain depth points within the atmosphere (formation/depletion)
3. the properties of the respective line (excitation energy $E_{\rm exc}$, strength of the transition $gf$)
4. possibly other opacity sources (local continuous opacity, other molecular lines, dust opacity, pseudo-continuous molecular contributions)
5. influence due to the relative macroscopic velocity fields.
Several studies demonstrated in the past that the atmospheric structure ($\rightarrow$i.) has substantial impact on spectral features. Compared with hydrostatic model atmospheres, dynamic models have enhanced densities in cool upper layers (Fig.\[f:structure\]). This results in a change of molecular abundance and decreased or increased intensities of molecular features (as outlined in Sects.4.7.5 and 4.8.3.2 of GH04). Examples for this effect would be the SiO bands at 4$\mu$m (Fig.5 of Aringer [@AHWHJ99]), the H$_2$O bands around 3$\mu$m (Fig.9 in DMA3), or the combined feature of C$_2$H$_2$ and CN at $\approx$14$\mu$m (Sect.4 of DMA4).
The lower panel of Fig.\[f:pp\] demonstrates the differences in relative abundance ($\rightarrow$ii.) for various molecules throughout the whole atmosphere. Plotted are the partial pressures for different molecular species resulting from the evaluation under the assumption of chemical equilibrium by the COMA code. CN is a typical representative for species which form in deep photospheric layers below $\approx$1.5$R_{\star}$. Values of 2400–5000K for the gas temperatures in the line forming regions were assigned to this species by Gautschy-Loidl ([@Gauts01]). In contrast, C$_2$H$_2$ shows a quite different behaviour. As they are very sensitive to temperature (dissociation), these molecules can be found from $\approx$1.2$R_{\star}$ on outwards, Gautschy-Loidl lists temperatures of $<$2400K. C$_3$ represents a fairly extreme example. Its formation requires at the same time high densities for high enough collision probabilities with low temperatures in order not to dissociate. This is met only in a rather narrow region around temperatures of 2000K. The density variations due to the propagating shock wave (for this phase at a radius slightly larger than 1$R_{\star}$) also are of importance, as can be seen in the partial pressures. From $\approx$0.8$R_{\star}$ inwards the abundances of all species decrease as molecules are dissociated for temperatures higher than 5000K.
Figure\[f:pp\] illustrates also that CO is an outstanding molecular species concerning its relative abundance. Due to its high dissociation energy (11.1eV), CO is stable and the most abundant species (of those shown; not included in this figure is e.g. the by far most abundant molecular species H$_{\rm 2}$) at all depth points of the atmospheric model. For some molecules – like CN or even more C$_3$ – the limited range with significant large partial pressures sets constraints on the line forming region. However, CO is present and abundant across the whole atmosphere, and the properties of individual spectral lines ($\rightarrow$iii.), namely the excitation energy $E_{\rm exc}$ and the strength of the transition $gf$, become important. The excitation energy $E_0$ of the lower level of a certain transition $m$$\rightarrow$$n$ determines at which temperatures (i.e. atmospheric depths) the levels are populated so that an absorption can occur at all. In addition, the strength of the transition determines the intensity of the line and thus also the atmospheric depth were $\tau_{\nu}$$\approx$1 is reached. Compare Sect.\[s:synthesis\] and Eq.(\[e:kappaLL\]) in this context. Also the relative abundance is present in this equation by the quantity $N$.
To study these effects for the lines chosen for our line profile modelling (cf. Table\[t:chosenlines\], Fig.\[f:linespecifica\]), we used the atmospheric structure shown in Fig.\[f:pp\] and calculated different quantities. Note that velocity effects were neglected for all subsequent computations of this subsection. The results are plotted in Fig.\[f:kappatauauswahl\]. The upper panel of this plot shows the molecular absorption (absorption per mol of the material of the corresponding molecular species), illustrating how one individual molecule of a given species would absorb radiation of the wavelength of the corresponding line at all atmospheric depth points. Level populations are computed by Boltzmann distributions for the respective temperature (LTE). The increasing $gf$ values from second overtone ($\Delta v$=3) to first overtone ($\Delta v$=2) and to fundamental ($\Delta v$=1) CO lines (cf. Fig.\[f:linespecifica\]) are reflected in the increasing molecular absorption. The middle panel of Fig.\[f:kappatauauswahl\] shows the actual absorption coefficient (absorption per gram of the whole stellar material) due to the respective molecular line, where the relative abundance of the species comes in. This can be recognised by the decrease for all $\kappa_{\nu}$ values with higher temperatures or the steep decrease for the CN line below 2000K where the partial pressure of CN severely drops (Fig.\[f:pp\]). Plotted in the middle panel is the opacity due to the CO or CN lines only. In combination with all other contributions (continuous, other molecular species, dust; $\rightarrow$iv.), these opacities serve as input for the RT or can be used to calculate radial optical depths as shown in the lower panel of Fig.\[f:kappatauauswahl\]. The quantities $\kappa_{\nu}$ and $\tau_{\nu}$ for the central/rest wavelength of the respective lines (cf. line profiles in Fig.\[f:complexlineformation\] plotted grey) are shown here, no velocity effects are taken into account. It can clearly be seen that $\tau_{\nu}$$\approx$1 is reached in a wide temperature range between $\approx$300K and $\approx$3000K, corresponding to in this case. While for the CN line the limited region of high enough partial pressure *and* the line parameters are crucial for the line formation, only the latter is relevant for CO lines. Different rotation-vibration band systems of CO originate in quite separated regions within the stellar atmosphere. Therefore and because of other important effects (cf. Sect.2.2 of PaperI), the spectral lines of CO play a major role in the research on AGB atmospheres, especially for kinematic studies.
The contributions of different opacity sources to the resulting radial optical depths are illustrated in Fig.\[f:tauaufgedroeselt\] for the model atmosphere used (Fig.\[f:pp\]). The upper panel of this plot shows that the strong fundamental CO line is the dominant source at its central/rest wavelength over almost the whole extended atmosphere. Only in the hot layers below the photosphere the continuous opacity takes over, while the dust plays a neglectable role in general. The panel below shows the same quantities for the chosen second overtone CO line. Because of its properties (lower $gf$ value and higher $E_{\rm exc}$ $\rightarrow$ lower line intensity compared to the $\Delta v$=1 line; cf. the spectrum in Fig.\[f:linespecifica\]), this molecular line provides the main contribution to the total optical depth only in the layers of $\approx$2–4000K. From $\approx$5000K inwards the continuous opacity represents the major source again, although to a somewhat lower extent (minimum of absorption due to the H$^-$ ion around 1.6$\mu$m; e.g. GH04) compared to the former case ($\approx$4.65$\mu$m). On the other hand, the absorption due to grains of amorphous carbon dust is stronger in the wavelength region of CO $\Delta v$=3 lines (cf. Fig.1 of Andersen et al. [@AndLH99]) as reflected in the dust optical depths. Still, the absorption features are visible in the synthetic spectra because of the moderate mass loss of the used model S (Tab.\[t:dmaparameters\]). This changes for higher mass loss rates, the intensities of molecular features decrease as the corresponding line forming regions are hidden by optically thick dust shells.
Figure\[f:linespecifica\] illustrates that the same type of CO lines (fundamental, first or second overtone), but from different vibrational bands can have very different values of $E_{\rm exc}$ and $gf$. Not only leading to variations in line intensities (lower panel), it also has a strong impact on the absorption coefficients and optical depths as discussed above. This is demonstrated in Fig.\[f:kappatauvielzahl\], where the radial optical depths are plotted for the variety of lines from different vibrational bands used for Fig.\[f:linespecifica\]. Going to higher vibrational quantum numbers leads to weaker lines and line formation regions located at higher temperatures ($T_{\rm gas}$), i.e. further inside the atmosphere. One may suppose that these differences should also be reflected in the dynamic effects (line profile variations, derived RVs) if other lines than those used for our line profile modelling (Table\[t:chosenlines\]; chosen to be similar to observational studies) are considered.
The remaining factor ($\rightarrow$v.) concerning the line formation process, namely the important point of the influence of velocity fields, will be the main issue in the next sections. Velocity effects are most relevant for line profiles in spectra of evolved red giants.
The influence of velocity fields {#s:velocityeffects}
================================
The previous section covered the line formation process within the extended AGB atmospheres with emphasis on the aspects of atmospheric structures, molecular abundances, and properties of molecular lines. Now, we will introduce another important item relevant for the line formation in the atmospheres of long-period variables. Representing *the* major topic of this work, atmospheric velocity fields with relative macroscopic motions of the order of 10kms$^{-1}$ are decisive for the resulting profiles of individual spectral lines. This is illustrated below by numerical computations for selected examples of increasing complexity. Compare also Mihalas ([@Mihal78]; Sect.14) in this context for a discussion of the theoretical background.
The simple case {#s:factorp}
---------------
The first example is shown in Fig.\[f:dopplershift\], representing the most simple case conceivable for illustration purposes. For this, we used the hydrostatic initial atmospheric structure of model W (cf. Table\[t:dmaparameters\]). Based on this atmospheric structure, synthetic line profiles for a selected CO $\Delta v$=2 line (Table\[t:chosenlines\]) were calculated under the assumption of uniform velocity fields, i.e. spherically symmetric outflow or infall with one constant radial velocity for every atmospheric depth point. This leads to profiles shifted to the blue or red, according to the assumed outflow or infall, respectively. However, due to projection effects the gas velocities do not convert directly into observed Doppler-shifts and the measured RVs are always smaller. The shapes of the absorption features change obviously, they become broader and more cone-like but less deep. This effect is increasing with higher velocities. In addition, a weak emission is appearing, Doppler-shifted in the opposite way than the absorption component. This model represents an extended red giant star with outer layers that are not optically thick. Therefore also the surrounding material can significantly contribute to the spectrum, leading to this typical profile of PCygni-type when velocity effects are accounted for.
A correction factor *p* is needed to connect RVs of Doppler-shifted spectral features with actual gas velocities in the corresponding line forming region by $u_{\rm gas}$=$p$$\cdot$$RV$. Several studies (e.g. Willson et al. [@WilWP82], Scholz & Wood [@SchoW00]) investigated in the past the size of $p$, as outlined in Sect.4.6 of PaperII. We also derived values for *p* for the line profiles shown in Fig.\[f:dopplershift\]. For this purpose, the assumed gas velocities $u_{\rm gas}$ were divided by radial velocities $RV$ as measured from the deepest point of the line profile. The results, summarised in Table\[t:factorp\], are consistent with the findings from the literature listed above (and more recent results concerning Cepheids by Nardetto et al. [@NMMFG07] or Groenewegen [@Groen07]). By applying the same method to a hydrostatic MARCS model atmosphere from Aringer ([@Aring00]) resembling the star Arcturus (K1.5III), we found values reaching up to $p$$\approx$1.5 (see Sect.3.4 of N05).
------------------ ------------------ ------
$u_{\rm gas}$ $RV$ $p$
$[$kms$^{-1}$$]$ $[$kms$^{-1}$$]$
5 3.90 1.28
10 8.10 1.24
20 16.70 1.20
30 23.85 1.26
40 32.05 1.25
------------------ ------------------ ------
: Conversion factors *p* as derived from the line profiles shown in Fig.\[f:dopplershift\].
\[t:factorp\]
In some cases, the shapes of observed spectral lines may appear relatively similar to those shown in Fig.\[f:dopplershift\]. One example is given in the right panel of Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-WHyavgl\] with the profiles of lower resolution based on model W. In general, however, the velocity fields in AGB atmospheres are more complex than uniform velocity fields and the resulting line profiles show – especially for high spectral resolutions – effects beyond shifts in wavelength. This will be examined below. The estimation of the conversion factor $p$ can also be hindered as illustrated in Sect.\[s:remarkvels\].
Consistent dynamical AGB star spectra {#s:realworld}
-------------------------------------
The second example is shown in Fig.\[f:asymmetry\], where we present a synthetic CO $\Delta v$=3 line profile based on one selected phase of model W ($\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.48*; part of the results in Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-WHyavgl\]). The velocity structure of the chosen phase in the upper panel shows infall for all atmospheric points. However, the velocities are quite diverse and not even monotonic, especially in the line forming region of the second overtone CO lines below $\approx$1$R_{\star}$ (cf. Sect.\[s:when-linedoubling\]). The smearing of opacity due to varying Doppler-shifts at different depths leads to a clearly asymmetric shape of the absorption line, as shown in the insert of the lower panel. This is in addition illustrated by plots of the radial optical depth at wavelengths corresponding to the line center (A), the line wing (B), and a (pseudo-)continuum point next to the line (C) in the lower panel. The bulk of the opacity in the relevant layers is red-shifted and the deepest point of the spectral line (B) is located at $RV$=3.55kms$^{-1}$ if velocities are taken into account. The layers directly below the emerging shock wave ($<$0.95$R_{\star}$) contribute most to the wavelengths marked with (A) and (B). In addition, there is a strongly enhanced absorption at wavelengths corresponding to $RV$$\approx$8kms$^{-1}$ (C). This is contributed by layers with log$\rho_{\rm gas}$$<$–11.5gcm$^{-3}$ (cf. Sect.3.3.1 in N05) slightly outwards the step in density at $\approx$0.95$R_{\star}$ and leads to the destorted line profile.
For the third example concerning the influence of atmospheric velocities on line profiles we refer to Sects.\[s:tracemove\] and \[s:when-linedoubling\], where we discuss the effects of a shock wave propagating through the line forming region of CO $\Delta v$=3 lines. This may not only result in asymmetric line shapes, but also in the phenomenon of line doubling for certain cases (Fig.\[f:when-doubling\]).
For the fourth example we now turn to low-excitation CO $\Delta v$=2 lines and the example which can be found in Fig.3 of PaperI. Compared to the second overtone CO lines, which originate in a relatively narrow depth range, these first overtone CO lines are formed throughout the dust-forming region with contributions from many layers with diverse velocities (PaperI). Therefore the observed and the synthetic spectra show complex, multi-component line profiles, as discussed in detail in PapersI+II. Furthermore, the redistribution of opacity caused by atmospheric velocity fields may also influence the region of line formation of the strongest component. This was exemplified in Sect.5.3 of PaperI for the results of the synthetic CO 2–0 R19 line profile for one phase of model S.
Simulating line profile variations {#s:simulating}
==================================
It turned out in the past that high-resolution (near-IR) spectrospcopy and the study of line profile variations represents the most promising tool to trace the kinematics in AGB atmosphere (e.g. GH04; their Sects.4.8.3.1-2). This is exemplified in Fig.\[f:complexlineformation\] with the help of modelling results.
Probing different atmospheric depths {#s:probing}
------------------------------------
In their Sect.4.8.1, GH04 pointed out that the atmosphere of an evolved AGB star (pulsating and mass-losing) can be subdivided into three distinctive regions: the deep and dust-free photospheric layers dominated by the pulsating stellar interior the region of dust formation where the stellar wind is triggered (zone *B*), and finally the region of steady outflow at the inner circumstellar envelope (zone *C*). These differ strongly from the dynamic point of view. Our dynamical model atmospheres show a similar behaviour, as can be recognised in Fig.\[f:complexlineformation\] or Fig.\[f:massenschalenM\].
Observational spectroscopic studies (e.g. HHR82) demonstrated that individual spectral lines exhibit quite different line forming regions and can be used to gather information (e.g. velocity fields) concerning the above mentioned zones. Molecular lines of CO in the NIR proved to be especially useful in this context as discussed in Sect.2.2 of PaperI or Sect.1.3.2 of N05. A notable amount of high-resolution spectroscopy data of LPVs was collected during the past thirty years, basically by Hinkle, Lebzelter and collaborators. For a detailed review of the results and a comprehensive compilation of references we refer to Sect.1.3 of N05. From these investigations, it is known that second overtone ($\Delta v$=3), first overtone ($\Delta v$=2), and fundamental ($\Delta v$=1) vibration-rotation CO lines roughly probe GH04’s zones *A*, *B*, and *C*. Hinkle and collaborators derived excitation temperatures for certain types of lines by curve-of-growth analyses. The estimated temperatures in the regions of line formation for CO $\Delta v$=3/2/1 lines amount to approximately 2000–4500/800–1200/300K.
In PapersI+II we studied the line formation including velocity effects for various molecular features (cf. Table\[t:chosenlines\]) on the basis of the same dynamic model atmospheres as used in this work (Sect.\[s:modelling\]). This led to the conclusion that the models from DMA3 are able to reproduce the finding that various spectral features originate at different geometrical depths within the atmosphere. We estimated the temperatures in the line-forming region of CO $\Delta v$=3/2/1 lines to be about 2200–3500/800–1500/350–500K (PaperI), which agrees well with the values derived from observations. Sampling atmospheric layers comparable to the three zones specified by GH04, the synthetic line profiles of the different CO lines show quite different shapes if velocity effects are taken into account in the spectral synthesis. Figure\[f:complexlineformation\] illustrates the strong influence of atmospheric velocities at different depths with characteristic CO line profiles from our model calculations. It also demonstrates how the gas velocities convert into radial velocities, measured by the wavelength shifts of the deepest points of the complex line profiles.
Tracing atmospheric movements over time {#s:tracemove}
---------------------------------------
Repeatedly studying one selected line profile in (observed) spectra and deriving RVs allows us to investigate the movement of the atmospheric layers where the respective feature is formed.
A prominent example are the often used second overtone vibration-rotation CO lines, which can be found in NIR spectra at $\lambda$$\approx$1.6$\mu$m. As they are well suited to sample the inner photospheric layers where the movements are ruled by the pulsation, CO $\Delta v$=3 lines show a quite typical behaviour (HHR82) for Mira variables.[^6] This is exemplified in the left panel of Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-HHRvgl\] with a time-series of line profiles (average of 10-20 unblended lines) of the S-type Mira $\chi$Cyg for various phases $\phi_{\rm v}$ during the lightcycle. Repeating in the same way every pulsation period, the following characteristic pattern is found.[^7] A blue-shifted component becomes visible before light maximum ($\phi_{\rm v}$$\approx$0.8). With increasing intensity it moves towards the red, crossing $RV$=0 at around $\phi_{\rm v}$$\approx$0.4. Then the component becomes weaker again and disappears red-shifted shortly after the next light maximum ($\phi_{\rm v}$$\approx$0.1). This behaviour leads to the characteristic discontinuous, S-shaped RV curve as shown for example in Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-allMiras\]. The occurrence of line doubling at phases around the visual maximum is usually interpreted by shock waves passing through the line-forming region (Fig.1 of Alvarez et al. [@AJPGF00], HHR82, N05). Based on a thorough analysis of these CO $\Delta v$=3 lines (RVs, excitation temperatures, column densities), HHR82 were able to derive a quite detailed picture of the photospheric structure being affected by the propagating shock wave as well as of the properties of the shock front itself (emergence, progress, velocities, etc.) in their Sect.VIa.
In Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-HHRvgl\] we compare our modelling results (C-rich model) with observed spectra of the well studied S-type Mira $\chi$Cyg, as the spectroscopic monitoring of such CO $\Delta v$=3 lines for is hampered by several problems (severe contamination by mainly CN and C$_2$ in the H-band, availability of targets and instruments for long time series, etc.). Assuming that the principal behaviour should be similar for all spectral types (because of the unique role CO; cf. Sect.4.4.5 in GH04), such a comparison seems justifiable. In contrast to the results presented in PaperI, we neglected the contribution of other molecular opacity sources (C-bearing molecules, see PaperI for details) for the synthetic line profiles shown in Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-HHRvgl\] for an easier comparison. As described in detail in PapersI+II, we succeeded to reproduce the observed fact that CO $\Delta v$=3 lines trace the inner pulsating layers of the atmosphere by our modelling approach. Nevertheless, there remained some shortcomings concerning the synthetic line profiles based on model S. For example, the components of doubled lines are not as clearly separated as in the observations. We also find quite complicated line shapes (at least for the highest spectral resolutions) during phases where observations show a transition of one component from blue- to red-shifts (e.g. phases $\phi_{\rm v}$=0.57 and $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.33* in Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-HHRvgl\]). This was the motivation for further efforts, the outcome of which will be discussed in Sect.\[s:realistic\].
Towards realistic models for Miras {#s:realistic}
==================================
In PapersI+II we were able to show that the used dynamic model atmospheres allow us to qualitatively reproduce the characteristic behaviour of spectral features sampling different atmospheric regions by consistent calculations. However, we also pointed out (Sect.6 in PaperII) the shortcomings of the used model S and listed aims for subsequent modelling efforts (reasonable velocity amplitudes in the deep photosphere or global velocity variations in quantitative agreement with observed stars). Below, we try to vary the input parameters of the model (Table\[t:dmaparameters\]) to get even more realistic atmospheric structures. The results of this preliminary parameter study is the topic of the next two subsections.
The pulsating layers (CO $\Delta$v=3 and CN lines) {#s:largerampl}
--------------------------------------------------
The first and foremost aim for the fine-tuning of model parameters was a dynamic model that exhibits an amplitude of the gas velocities within the pulsating layers that is closer to what is found in observations.
Hinkle et al. ([@HinSH84]; HSH84) state that though Miras are “clearly individuals” concerning the behaviour of CO $\Delta v$=3 lines (differences in phases of line-doubling, range and phase-dependency of $T_{\rm exc}$, shapes and scales of column densities, differences in total RV amplitudes), they still share some characteristic features. The most important one is the behaviour of the line profiles as sketched in Sect.\[s:tracemove\] and Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-HHRvgl\], resulting in the common shape of the velocity variations. Lebzelter & Hinkle ([@LebzH02a]) presented a compilation of measured RVs for most of the Miras studied at that time (by Hinkle, Lebzelter and collaborators) in one plot, which has been adopted here in Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-allMiras\]. It appears that Miras have a rather universal RV curve with discontinuities around maximum phases and a part where velocity increases linearly from blue- to red-shifts (negative to positive RVs) through minimum light. The RV amplitude (difference between minimum and maximum values) amounts to for all objects. This uniform picture seems to be valid over a wide range of effective temperatures, periods, (probably) metallicities and for different atmospheric chemistries. The last one was actually found only for stars, as measuring CO $\Delta v$=3 lines in carbon star spectra proves to be challenging (Barnbaum & Hinkle [@BarnH95]).
As it is a common feature of all Miras, realistic model calculations need to reproduce the discussed RV curve of Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-allMiras\]. Our original model S was able to fulfill this qualitatively (cf. Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-modelsMS\]). However, the step in gas velocity at the location of the shock was too small. Therefore, the splitting of CO $\Delta v$=3 lines appeared too weak ($\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.75* in Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-HHRvgl\]) and the derived velocity amplitude was too low ($\Delta RV$$\approx$14km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$). Model M, the result of our small parameter study, was tuned to fit this aspect. Among the several modified parameters the increased piston velocity amplitude $\Delta u_{\rm p}$ is of particular importance. This led to a more realistic variability of the atmospheric structure in the inner parts. The difference between post-shock outflow velocity and pre-shock infall velocity can reach values close to the estimate of $\approx$34km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ given by Scholz & Wood ([@SchoW00]; summarised in PaperII), as can be seen in Fig.\[f:structure\] for $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.72*. The synthetic CO $\Delta v$=3 line profiles look similar to those shown in Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-HHRvgl\], the RV curve – shown in Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-modelsMS\] – appears much more like the observational results in Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-allMiras\], though.[^8] Model M is able to reproduce this fundamental characteristic of Miras even quantitatively. Although we needed to apply an arbitrary phase shift of $\Delta\phi$=0.3 to the synthetic RV curve in Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-modelsMS\] to achieve agreement in phase with the observations in Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-allMiras\], the discontinuous RV curve resembles observations concerning the S-shape, the line doubling interval, the zero-crossing phase, the asymmetry w.r.t. $RV$=0 (infall velocities larger than outflow velocities as observed for most Miras), and – mainly – the velocity amplitude $\Delta RV$ of $\approx$21kms$^{-1}$.
Hinkle & Barnbaum ([@HinkB96]; HB96) demonstrated how to circumvent the difficulties in observing CO $\Delta v$=3 lines in C star spectra by investigating spectral features of CN in the NIR. Also sampling the inner photosphere of a Mira, they show a similar behaviour as second overtone CO lines (Sect.\[s:tracemove\], Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-HHRvgl\]). This can be recognised from the line profiles (left panel of Fig.\[f:cn2mueprofiles-modelM\]), which repeat in the same way every lightcycle and the deriveable RV curves (right panel of Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\]). On the basis of the improved model M, we synthesised CN line profiles following the approach of PaperI. The results of the modelling for selected phases are shown in the middle and right panel of Fig.\[f:cn2mueprofiles-modelM\]. It becomes immediately apparent that compared to the profiles calculated with the previous model S (see Fig.5 in PaperI), the new line profiles reproduce observations much more realistically. Although substructures may be identified at the highest resolution of $R$=300000 (as for model S), the characteristic pattern of lines sampling the deep pulsating layers is clearly visible, especially when rebinned down to the lower spectral resolution of 70000. The transition of one component from blue- to red-shift ($\phi_{\rm bol}$$\approx$*0.9*$\leadsto$*0.5*) is much smoother. Pronounced line-doubling is found due to the more extreme velocity gradient across the shockfront. The splitting into two well separated components during certain phases can be recognised in Fig.\[f:cn2mueprofiles-modelM\] for $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.72* (compare the corresponding velocity structure of the model in Fig.\[f:structure\]). The more realistic atmospheric structure of model M is also reflected in the RVs derived from the synthetic CN lines. The resulting discontinuous RV curve – included in Fig.\[f:rvsmodelM\] – shows the same S-shape[^9] as the corresponding one from CO $\Delta v$=3 lines. The small phase shift between these two RV curves suggests that the line-forming region of CN lines lies somewhat further away from the centre of the star and the shock wave passes through at a later phase of the pulsation cycle.[^10] The velocity amplitude for the synthetic CN lines of $\Delta RV$$\approx$22kms$^{-1}$ resembles nicely the value of 22.3 found for SCep by HB96 (previously, we found $\approx$13.5kms$^{-1}$ for model S). The above mentioned arbitrary phase shift of $\Delta\phi$=0.3, which is needed to align the synthetic RV curve with the observed one in Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\], appears plausible here as well. It is remarkable that the RV curve of SCep is extending to more negative velocities w.r.t. the CMRV, while the modelling results are – in agreement with observational as well as synthetic CO $\Delta v$=3 velocities – shifted to more positive values.
Note that the stronger piston of the improved model M ($\Delta u_{\rm p}$=6kms$^{-1}$ instead of 4kms$^{-1}$ for cf. Table\[t:dmaparameters\]) results only in slightly higher outflow velocities, while the maximum infall velocities are increased considerably, as can be seen in Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-modelsMS\]. The reason for this effect is the larger surface gravity (log$g_\star$) of compared to model S. Thus, the increase in total velocity amplitude $\Delta RV$ is mostly due to the faster infalling material.
The global velocity field {#s:globalvelfield}
-------------------------
{width="17cm"}
Simultaneous spectroscopic monitoring of various spectral features originating in different layers and for several instances of time (e.g. during a pulsation period) enables us to trace the evolution of the global velocity field throughout the outer layers of an AGB star and thereby the mass loss process.
Extensive time series IR spectrocopy, which is needed to characterise the overall atmospheric dynamics, is available only for a few stars (limited availability of high-resolution IR spectrographs, demanding observations over years due to the long periods). Investigated with sufficient coverage in phase and spectral range (i.e. line types) were mainly the O-rich Mira RLeo, the S-type Mira $\chi$Cyg, and the C-rich Mira SCep (N05). HHR82 presented a fundamental study on $\chi$Cyg. Their time series of NIR spectra and RVs derived from different spectral features revealed remarkable details about the atmospheric motions of this star.[^11] Although dealing with an S-type star, the results can be considered to be representative for Miras in general due to the singular role of the CO molecule (e.g. Sect.4.4.5 in GH04) and the resulting presence in atmospheres of objects of all spectral types. Obtained radial velocities from HHR82 are compiled and plotted in the left panel of Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\], supplemented with measurements of the expansion velocity of the circumstellar envelope (CSE) for comparison. There is only one C-type Mira, namely SCep, for which a similar plot can be produced. The right panel of Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\] shows the corresponding RVs compiled from HB96 and Barnbaum ([@Barnb92b]), as well as again the range of CSE outflow velocities coming from radio observations of molecular emission lines.[^12] While CO $\Delta v$=3, CN and CO $\Delta v$=2 high-excitation lines sample the regularly pulsating layers of the deep photosphere, CO $\Delta v$=2 low-excitation lines are formed in the dust-forming layers. CO $\Delta v$=1 and selected atomic lines (e.g. KI at 7698.96Å) probe the outermost wind region.
In Fig.\[f:rvsmodelM\] the RV results of our line profile modelling based on model M are shown, aiming also for a global mapping of the dynamics throughout the atmosphere. As already described in detail in the previous section, the new model M proves to be rather realistic concerning the velocity variations in the deep atmospheric layers (governed by the periodic pulsations) and the resulting line profile variations of molecular features originating there (i.e. CO $\Delta v$=3, CN).
Observed low-excitation CO $\Delta v$=2 lines were found to probe the dust-forming region (PaperI, Sect.\[s:tracemove\]) and show broadened, asymmetric line shapes (e.g. Fig.3 in HB96). The multi-component profiles appear to be blends of a few contributions, which are at the highest resolutions currently available not separable individually though (no pronounced line splitting), and the temporal variations are not related to the lightcycle (cf. PapersI+II). Although all investigated Miras have in common that the RV (measured from the deepest point of the main component) variations of these lines are not at all periodic (at least on the time scales of the observations), the behaviour can be somewhat different depending on the object considered. For $\chi$Cyg the RVs of CO $\Delta v$=2 low-excitation lines always stay close to the CMRV (Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\]). For other stars, as for example RVir (Lebzelter et al. [@LebHH99]) or SCep (Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\]), the velocities show moderate variations around the CMRV with amplitudes of up to $\approx$15km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ (in any case lower than the amplitudes of CO $\Delta v$=3 lines though). Line profiles of the rather special star IRC+10216 (dense and optically thick dust shell resulting from pronounced mass loss) are clearly blue-shifted indicating only outflowing material (Fig.9 of Winters et al. [@WiKGS00]). These varying behaviours may result from the fact that velocities in the line-forming layers are rather sensitive to the respective stellar parameters and the wind-acceleration process. In addition, optical depth effects will have some influence. Synthetic CO $\Delta v$=2 line profiles based on show – apart from some temporally varying asymmetries, which can be interpreted as minor photospheric contributions – a strong main component, which appears blue-shifted at all phases. The slow but quite steady outflow velocity of $\approx$–5km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ (Fig.\[f:rvsmodelM\]) points towards a line formation in layers where the atmospheric material is already accelerated and variations due to shock waves are low (Fig.\[f:structure\]).[^13] In principle it could also be that the onset of the stellar wind in model M occurs in a too smooth way and the velocity variations in the dust-forming region are too small compared to a Mira like SCep, which seems unlikely for model M, though (cf. Fig.\[f:structure\]).
However, general statements on the dynamics in the dust-forming regions of Miras based on high-resolution spectroscopy appear to be not within reach at the moment due to limitations on the observational as well as on the modelling side. For the former we are confronted with a very small number of observed targets (cf. Sect.1.3.2.2 in N05), sometimes sparsely sampled in pulsation phase, showing a variety of behaviours (e.g. Lebzelter et al. [@LebHH99]). As such low-excitation CO $\Delta v$=2 lines are formed over a wide radial range within the stellar atmosphere, we face an intricate line formation process (influence of velocity fields, different origins) and, thus, complex line profiles. These are very sensitive to the atmospheric structure ($\rho$-$T$-$u$) and the occuring amount of dust, which are both strongly depending on the properties of the star (stellar parameters, pulsation characteristics). In addition, there may be (phase-dependent) deviations from spherical symmetry (e.g. Woitke [@Woitk06a], Freytag & Höfner [@FreyH08]) and various layers of different (projected) velocities contributing to the emerging spectrum. In contrast to the general behaviour of CO $\Delta$v=3 lines in Mira spectra (Sect.\[s:largerampl\]), a cycle-to-cycle or object-to-object comparison of first overtone lines does not deliver such a uniform pattern. The individuality of different AGB stars is even more prononunced in the remarkable velocity variations derived from spectral features in the 4$\mu$m range (Lebzelter et al. [@LebHA01]). We found similar effects by our modelling, although we only used three models to compute synthetic first overtone CO lines. While models S and M exhibit a rather steady dust formation and CO $\Delta$v=2 velocities with almost no temporal variations, things become quite different for the model presented in Sect.6.1 of PaperII (designated model S1 in N05). This model shows pronounced cycle-to-cycle variations of dust formation resulting in outwards propagating dust shells (cf. Fig.10 in PaperII or Fig.3.17 in N05), and thus remarkably changing velocity fields in the region of line formation for this type of CO lines. It will need further systematic studies – covering a large number of observational targets as well as models over a reasonable parameter range – to end up with a more general picture of the behaviour of CO $\Delta$v=2 low-excitation lines and its relation to the corresponding parameters of the stars or models.[^14]
Although observational studies of CO $\Delta v$=1 lines are difficult due to severe telluric absorption, these lines still proved to be useful, as they originate in the cool wind region of evolved red giants. Only very few spectroscopic studies (e.g. Bernat [@Berna81]) dealt with these fundamental mode lines, all of them finding clearly blue-shifted spectral lines (also with multiple absorption components or PCygni-type profiles). The results of the small time series of spectra for $\chi$Cyg obtained by HHR82 are included in Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\], showing similar blue-shifts for every instance of time. We find the same behaviour for the synthetic line profiles based on the improved model M. The line shapes look very similar to those based on model S (Fig.8 in PaperI), although with some asymmetric distortion resulting in RVs (derived from the deepest point of the absorption), which are higher than the actual outflow velocities of the model. The derived RVs of (Fig.\[f:rvsmodelM\]) compare rather well to the values of $\chi$Cyg and other Miras, while the C-type Mira SCep appears to have an outflow velocity higher by a factor of $\approx$2, placing this star on the upper end of the velocity distribution for optical C stars (e.g. Olofsson et al. [@OlEGC93]+[@Olofs04], Ramstedt et al. [@RaSOL06]).
Our line profile modelling has now reached a state where we can conclude that the dynamic model atmospheres show global velocity structures that are in general quite close to real pulsating and mass-losing AGB stars. In particular, the characteristic and univsersal behaviour of lines originating in the pulsating inner photosphere (CO $\Delta v$=3, CN) can now realistically be reproduced by our models. The next step would be to fit in addition the velocities in regions where other types of lines originate (simultaneously with one model for a given object). However, such a tuning of the models to achieve a specific fit for a certain star appears to be difficult. Apart from the problems on the observational side (insufficient determination of stellar parameters like luminosity, mass or C/O; sparsely available RV data from high-resolution spectroscopy) and the questionable relation between dynamic models and observed targets (cf. Sect.3 in PaperII), the modelling itself sets limits to the tuning efforts. The quite time-consuming process from a given set of model parameters (Table\[t:dmaparameters\]) to an RV diagram (Fig.\[f:rvsmodelM\]) will impede the fitting procedure. Still, the outcomes of line profile studies can provide important constraints (in addition to photometry, low-resolution spectra, interferometry, etc.) for a detailed study of selected AGB stars.
CO $\Delta$v=3 line profiles of SRVs and Miras {#s:COdv3SRVs}
==============================================
Observed line profile variations of SRVs {#s:COdv3SRVsobs}
----------------------------------------
The behaviour of second overtone CO lines in spectra of SRVs is somewhat different from those of Mira variables (Sect.\[s:tracemove\]). Time-series spectroscopy of a few selected objects and results on radial velocities were published by Hinkle et al. ([@HinLS97]), Lebzelter ([@Lebze99a]) and others (cf. Tables1.4 and 1.5 in Nowotny [@Nowot05]). It appears that there is no RV curve uniformly shaped for all SRVs as it was found for Miras. The velocity variations with time can be smooth, continuous and regular to different degrees. In a simple approach one would assume that irregular RV variations reflect irregularities in the pulsation of the interior (which are also supposed to be the reason for the irregular elements in the light curves of SRVs) in combination with optical depth effects. The RVs are not strictly periodic, velocity values do not repeat from one period to the next. That only Doppler-shifted profiles but no line doubling can be found at any phase represents the clearest distinction from Miras. Semiregular variables have significantly smaller RV amplitudes (difference between maximum and minimum RV) than Miras, most objects studied show only variations in the range of a few km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$. Only very few exceptions show amplitudes of 10–15km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ (among them WHya, cf. Sect.\[s:whya\]). Hinkle et al. ([@HinLS97]) state that all LPVs have random velocity variations of the order of a few km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ (as possible explanations they list large-scale convective phenomena, atmospheric turbulence, non-radial pulsation, random changes in the periods of the stars, etc.), “masking the intrinsic RV variations” due to pulsation in which we are interested here. As they have the same order of magnitude as the low amplitudes of SRVs caused by pulsation, these random RV variations are more relevant for such stars compared to Miras. From curve of growth analyses Hinkle et al. ([@HinLS97]) deduced that CO $\Delta v$=3 lines exhibit roughly constant excitation temperatures over the lightcycle (typically 3300–3400K) with variations of less than 200K. Conspicuous is – and this is another important difference to Miras – that the velocity distributions of the SRVs studied by Hinkle et al. ([@HinLS97]) and Lebzelter ([@Lebze99a]) are clearly asymmetric w.r.t. the systemic velocity $RV$=0, but in the opposite way. Negative offsets of several km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ from the CMRV were found, the second-overtone lines appear blue-shifted for most or even all of the lightcycle. This means that only outflow is observed, while no infalling material is seen in the spectra. The authors discuss possible explanations for this puzzling result. Among several reasons (long secondary periods, etc.), effects of convection were proposed as a solution. From observations of our Sun we know that the interplay between the intensity of granules and velocity fields can result in an overall blue-shift. On the surface of late-type giants large convective cells are expected to occur (e.g. Freytag & Höfner [@FreyH08]). This could provide an explanation for velocity asymmetries (convective blue-shift). The question was later resumed by Lebzelter & Hinkle ([@LebzH02b]), who did not observe time series of individual stars, but rather chose a statistical approach by obtaining data at two epochs for a quite substantial sample of SRVs. The resulting velocities, together with some older measurements from time series of individual stars can be found in their Fig.2. Again, the majority of the measurements are shifted w.r.t. the CMRV. Nevertheless, Lebzelter & Hinkle rule out that variable convective cells on the surface are the sole reason for variability in these stars (some measurements show red-shifted lines with $RV$$>$$CMRV$), indicating that we observe a mixture of pulsation, convection and long period variations still to be clarified. Also temperature effects may play a role (only layers with certain temperatures lead to spectral lines, but may be observable only at certain phases).
Although the asymmetric velocity distribution is not yet fully understood and no typically shaped RV curve for all SRVs was found, Fig.2 of Lebzelter & Hinkle ([@LebzH02b]) suggests the following general behaviour (as pointed out by the authors). RV variations have on average amplitudes of 3–4km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ with most positive velocities around phases of light minimum ($\phi_{\rm v}$$\approx$0.5) and most negative values around light maximum ($\phi_{\rm v}$$\approx$0.0). The whole distribution appears blue-shifted by $\approx$1km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$. The velocity variations may be rather continuous, and line doubling does not occur.[^15]
It is interesting to note that the latter does not necessarily mean that there are no pulsation-induced shock waves. For some SRVs, as e.g. WCyg in Hinkle et al. ([@HinLS97]), the hydrogen lines of the Balmer series show up in emission during some light cycles (which is a clear indication for shocks; e.g. Richter et al. [@RichW01]+[@RWWBS03] and the summarised references therein), even though no doubled lines can be found. We will show by means of model calculations that this behaviour can be reproduced by one of our dynamic model atmospheres.
The semiregular variable WHya {#s:whya}
-----------------------------
One star, namely the M-type SRV WHydrae, is singled out here, as it will play a role for the following comparison with model W. Radial velocity variations derived from CO $\Delta$v=3 lines were analysed by Hinkle et al. ([@HinLS97]) and Lebzelter et al. ([@LHWJF05a]). This object appears somewhat strange concerning its attributes. Although some irregularities in the shape of the lightcurve and the visual amplitude were found, it appears to be more like a Mira variable from its light variation ($P$=361$^{\rm d}$, $\Delta V$=3.9$^{\rm m}$). This is also supported by its location on sequence C (fundamental mode pulsators) in P-L-diagrams (Lebzelter et al. [@LHWJF05a]). Based on the limited sample of measurements, Hinkle et al. speculated that also the velocity variations could be interpreted by a Mira-like behaviour. This was ruled out later by Lebzelter et al. ([@LHWJF05a]) using their extended series of spectroscopic observations. From the resulting plot of RVs versus phase, shown in Fig.\[f:RVcurveWHya\], WHya has clearly to be assigned to the group of (large amplitude) SRVs. It shows a rather periodic, continuous and almost sinusoidal RV curve. No line doubling could be detected. Still, the velocity amplitude of $\approx$15km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ is clearly larger than the average for SRVs. WHya exhibits a well pronounced intrinsic RV variation, perceivable even on top of the (above discussed) random variations. It was suspected by Hinkle et al. ([@HinLS97]) that this star could be in a transition from the SRV stage to the Mira stage, an evolutionary scenario that was introduced with the detailed studies of pulsation of AGB stars (cf. Sect.\[s:intro\]). Later, Lebzelter et al. ([@LHWJF05a]) concluded that a higher mass might be the reason for the remarkable velocity behaviour (no line doubling and small $\Delta RV$ compared to typical Miras also pulsating in the fundamental mode).
Synthetic line profiles and radial velocities {#s:COdv3modelW}
---------------------------------------------
While studying synthetic high-resolution spectra on the basis of different dynamic model atmospheres, we found that model W (described in detail in Sect.\[s:DMAsused\]) is able to reproduce the behaviour of CO $\Delta v$=3 lines in spectra of SRVs – particularly of WHya. This model of a pulsating atmosphere was computed with a rather low piston amplitude of $\Delta u_{\rm p}$=2km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$. No dust-formation takes place in the outer layers, and thus no stellar wind can develop. Also, WHya shows only a very low mass loss rate of $\dot M$$\approx$2$\cdot$10$^{-8}$$M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ (Hinkle et al. [@HinLS97]). It shall however explicitly be noted that the stellar parameters of (the C-rich) model W were not chosen to resemble (the O-rich star) WHya. Still, a comparison of this one certain aspect – the RV variations of CO lines – will be made, as the model reproduces the behaviour characteristic also for all other SRVs observed so far (Sect.\[s:COdv3SRVsobs\]).
The resulting synthetic line profiles for a representative number of phases during the lightcycle are plotted in the two right panels of Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-WHyavgl\]. Whenever the corresponding profiles of the observed FTS spectra were available, they are also plotted for comparison in the left panel. The figure demonstrates that the CO $\Delta v$=3 lines only show a single blue- or red-shifted component as well as rather asymmetric line profiles at highest resolution ($R$=300000) due to the non-monotonic velocity field of the atmosphere (the extreme case of phase $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.48* was investigated in detail in Sect.\[s:realworld\] and Fig.\[f:asymmetry\]). RVs derived from the deepest point of the line profiles are drawn in Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-modelW\]. The plot shows that our model W is able to reproduce the principal behaviour of semiregular variables as sketched in Sect.\[s:COdv3SRVsobs\] (maximum RVs around light minimum, no line doubling). Concerning the asymmetry w.r.t. $RV$=0 as well as the velocity amplitude ($\Delta RV$$\approx$8km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ for model W), the synthetic RV curve is more similar to the observed data of WHya in Fig.\[f:RVcurveWHya\] than to the general behaviour of SRVs shown in Fig.2 of Lebzelter & Hinkle ([@LebzH02b]), though. Only a small difference in phase may be suspected, so that the bolometric phases of the model lag behind the visual phases of the observations by 0.1–0.2.
Shock waves and the occurrence of line doubling {#s:when-linedoubling}
-----------------------------------------------
As discussed in Sect.\[s:COdv3SRVsobs\], observational studies of semiregular variables – in contrast to Miras – did not find doubled CO $\Delta v$=3 lines for any phase during the light cycle. This behaviour is somewhat astonishing as one would generally expect shock waves in pulsating atmospheres, and also Balmer emission lines were observed in spectra of selected SRVs without CO line doubling. However, we found the same result for line profiles based on model W as discussed in the previous section. In Fig.\[f:when-doubling\] the puzzling fact shall be explored with the help of our modelling tools. For selected phases of model W (left panels) and model S (right panels), we present in this figure the atmospheric structure (gas velocities and the corresponding densities) together with the resulting CO line profiles and the radial optical depth at significant wavelength points within the synthetic spectra (A/B/C).
{width="17cm"}
For the model without mass loss in the left panels, a shock front can be seen in the velocity structure around 1$R_\star$. Nevertheless, only a blue-shifted and slightly asymmetric component with $RV$=–2.65km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ (B) from behind the front shows up in the line profile. Practically no red-shifted component is formed. The very weak one, which can be vaguely discerned in the synthetic spectrum at $RV$$\approx$10km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ (C), would certainly not be recognisable in observed spectra. The reason for this is the sharp drop in density in front of the shock wave where the necessary gas velocities would be available. The optical depths at wavelength points redder than the rest wavelength of the respective line are not large enough so that a component would become visible in the spectrum.[^16] Although model W shows infall velocities of up to $\approx$14km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$, these are not translated into the spectrum as the related outer layers do not contribute to the formation of the spectral line. As discussed in Sect.3.3.1 of N05, the gas densities of the model needed to form an individual component of the used CO $\Delta v$=3 line have to be higher than which is not met for the phase of model W displayed in Fig.\[f:when-doubling\].
However, this requirement is fulfilled for the phase of model S shown in the right panels of the figure. Due to the formation of dust and the resulting wind, the atmospheric structure differs somewhat in the region around 1$R_\star$, which is relevant for the line formation of CO $\Delta v$=3 lines. The layers in front of the innermost shock front show smaller velocities compared to model W, but the densities are enhanced by roughly one order of magnitude. Therefore also the infalling material contributes to the spectrum formation. The non-zero velocities of the model result in a redistribution of opacity and decreased optical depth for the rest wavelength (A). A distinct blue-shifted component with $RV$=–5km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ (B) arises from a narrow region (marked with a blue diamond) behind the shock front located at 0.9$R_\star$, similar to the previous case of model W. Moreover, a clear increase of optical depth in the layers in front of the shock (marked with a red parallelogram) can be recognised in the lower right panel for the radial plot corresponding to wavelength point C if velocity effects are taken into account. This leads to an additional red-shifted component at $RV$=7.9km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$. Altogether, two separated components can clearly be seen in the synthetic spectrum based on this phase of model S.
The phenomenon of line doubling is therefore not a matter of the occurrence of shock waves but rather depends on the question if there is infalling material with high enough densities to produce optical depths which are necessary to give rise to a second component in the line profile. By a comparison of Figs.\[f:massenschalenW\], \[f:structureSRV\] and \[f:co16mueprofiles-WHyavgl\] it can be understood that the complex temporal variation of the atmospheric structure of model W (due to the pulsation) does not lead to a second line component at any time during the light cycle. For $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.99* there is only outflow, and a blue-shifted component arises. At the later phase of $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.16* the density gradient becomes less steep, and the gas velocities slightly vary around 0km$\cdot$s$^{-1}$. As they are formed over a relatively wide range, the spectral line becomes asymmetric, but does not show a pronounced shift. By the time of $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.48*, the density structure shows a significant steplike decrease due to the emerging shockwave. Still, all of the infalling layers contribute to the resulting line profile (cf. discussion in Sect.\[s:realworld\] and Fig.\[f:asymmetry\]), which appears red-shifted. After this, the outflowing layers behind the shock become more and more important due to the ever increasing densities. At the same time, the infalling layers in front of the shock loose their influence because of the dramatic decrease in density. At no phase the model shows a clear velocity difference $\Delta u_{\rm gas}$ together with relevant densities in the outer layers. Thus, no line splitting can be found, as exemplified in Fig.\[f:when-doubling\] for the phase $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.68*.
Remarks on different velocities {#s:remarkvels}
===============================
We note that the derived $\Delta RV$ of the two components of a doubled line profile does not provide information concerning the propagation velocity of the shock wave $u_{\rm front}$, but reflects the difference in velocity $\Delta u_{\rm gas}$ of the outflowing gas behind the shock front and of the infalling matter in front of it. This will be illustrated on the basis of model M. With the help of the plot of moving mass shells in Fig.\[f:massenschalenM\] the shock propagation velocity[^17] can be estimated to d$R$/d$\phi_{\rm bol}$$\approx$1.5$R_\star$/cycle leading to $u_{\rm front}$$\approx$10.16kms$^{-1}$. On the other hand, a typical velocity difference of the model at the location of the shock amounts to $\Delta u_{\rm gas}$$\approx$29kms$^{-1}$ (cf. Fig.\[f:structure\]), if we take the line doubling phase $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.72* (Figs.\[f:cn2mueprofiles-modelM\]+\[f:rvsmodelM\]) as an example.
However, the most negative values for $RV$ derived from e.g. CO second overtone lines (Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-modelsMS\]) provide a hint on the shock wave velocity $u_{\rm front}$. At least a lower limit can be given. For example, we find $RV$$\approx$–6.25kms$^{-1}$ for the blue-shifted component of such a line at phase $\phi_{\rm bol}$=*0.93* of model M.[^18] Multiplying this with a reasonable conversion factor $p$ (Sect.\[s:factorp\]) leads to gas velocities close to the maximum outflow of –9.6kms$^{-1}$ behind the shock front (compare the velocity structure for this phase in Fig.\[f:structure\]c with the shock located at $\approx$1.25$R_\star$), the latter being interrelated with $u_{\rm front}$.
Another type of velocity, which can be studied with the help of our models, is the movement of the formed dust shells. Considering the one recognisable at $\approx$3–5$R_{\star}$ in Fig.1 of PaperI we can estimate d$R$/d$\phi_{\rm bol}$$\approx$1.296 or a shell velocity of $u_{\rm shell}$$\approx$10.5kms$^{-1}$.
Summary
=======
The outer layers of evolved red giants during the AGB phase differ strongly from the atmospheres of most other types of stars. Due to pulsations of the stellar interior and the development of a stellar wind, AGB atmospheres are far from hydrostatic equilibrium and the atmospheric structures show strong local variations (spatially and temporally). This leads to a complex line formation process. Many layers at different geometrical depths and with various conditions contribute significantly to the finally observable spectra, which are dominated by numerous molecular absorption features.
Going to high spectral resolutions for studies of individual spectral lines, the complicated velocity fields become especially important. Relative macroscopic motions with gas velocites of the order of 10kms$^{-1}$ heavily influence line profiles and their evolution in time. Doppler-shifts of spectral features (or components of a line) represent an indicator for kinematics in the atmospheric regions where the lines are formed. Thus, spectroscopic monitoring of molecular lines originating at different atmospheric depths allows us to trace the overall dynamics and explore the process of mass loss in AGB stars.
On the basis of a typical atmospheric structure and by assuming chemical equilibrium as well as LTE, we studied the influence of the parameters ($E_{\rm exc}$ and $gf$) of spectral features on the respective estimated line-forming region within the atmosphere (Sect.\[s:lineformation\]). This is of particular importance for the different rotation-vibration bands of CO, which play an important role in the course of kinematics studies.
We proceeded with the second aspect of this paper, namely the modelling of line profiles with the help of state-of-the-art dynamic model atmospheres. For this purpose, we used models which represent a numerical simulation of the most widely accepted (at least for C-rich stars) scenario of pulsation-enhanced dust-driven winds. Atmospheric structures at certain instances of time were used as input for the spectral synthesis, for which we assumed conditions of LTE as well as equilibrium chemistry. A spherical RT code was applied that accounts for velocity effects.
Spectroscopic observations of Mira variables revealed quite characteristic line profile variations over the light cycle for spectral features probing the inner dust-free atmospheric layers where the atmospheric movements are ruled by the pulsating stellar interiors. We were able to tune the input parameters of a dynamic model (model M) so that we could quantitatively reproduce the – apparently universal – discontinuous RV curve (line doubling at phases of light maximum, S-shape, amplitude, asymmetry) of CO $\Delta v$=3 (and CN) lines, which can be interpreted as a shock wave propagating through the region of line formation (Sect.\[s:largerampl\]). To match observed RV curves of these lines with synthetic ones based on model M we needed to introduce a phase shift of $\Delta\phi$$\approx$0.3 between bolometric phases $\phi_{\rm bol}$ and visual ones $\phi_{\rm v}$ so that the former would lag behind the latter (in agreement with photometric results).
In observed spectra of SRVs the same spectral lines show a different behaviour. Although there seems to be no general RV curve for this type of stars (as for Miras), a RV distribution peaking around phases of light minimum and no line doubling is commonly found. Synthetic line profile variations (Sect.\[s:COdv3modelW\]) computed on the basis of a pulsating model atmosphere (model W; no wind) are able to reproduce this and compare well to observational results of the semiregular variable WHya (showing an almost negligible mass loss of $\dot M$$\approx$2$\cdot$10$^{-8}$$M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$). The same model was used to investigate the phenomenon of line doubling (Sect.\[s:when-linedoubling\]). We argue that a shock wave propagating through the line forming region may not be sufficient for the occurence of doubled lines in every case. Large enough optical depths in the infalling layers may be necessary for a second, red-shifted component to be visible in the spectra. This could be an explanation for the fact that for some stars we find observational evidences for shock waves in their atmospheres (emission lines), but do not observe doubled CO $\Delta v$=3 lines.
The connection between gas velocities in the line-forming region and RVs derived from Doppler-shifted spectral lines was examined by means of artificial velocity fields (Sect.\[s:factorp\]). On the basis of a hydrostatic initial model and under the assumption of a constant value for $u_{\rm gas}$ at every depth point of the atmosphere we found conversion factors $p$ of We also point out possible difficulties for relating measured RVs with real gas velocities (e.g. inferring the velocity difference across a shock front from doubled lines) due to the complicated line formation process.
In summary the models studied in this work represent the outer layers of pulsating AGB stars with or without mass loss quite realistically. At least for the C-rich case, the dynamic model atmospheres approach quantitative agreement with observations. One important aspect in the comparison of modelling results with observational findings are line profile variations in high-resolution spectra. Agreement in the velocity variations of various molecular NIR features sampling different regions within AGB atmospheres can provide information on the interrelation of pulsation and mass loss or set constraints on the acting mass loss mechanism. In addition, this may be a criterion to constrain stellar parameters of a model.
Although selected observed dynamic aspects (CO $\Delta v$=3 lines in Mira spectra) are reproduced very well by the atmospheric models and also the global velocity field resembles what can be derived from observations of typical long period variables, a fine-tuning of the model parameters to fit certain objects appears to be more difficult due to the complex dependence on several parameters.
In contrast to the encouraging results for the second overtone lines of CO in both Miras and SRVs, the case of CO first overtone lines is a lot less clear-cut both from the observational and the theoretical point of view. These lines are presumably formed within the dust formation and wind acceleration region, and they display quite different types of behaviour in the few well-observed stars, with a considerable spread in variability. A similarly varied picture – probably an indication of the dynamical complexity of the corresponding layers – emerges from the models that we have analysed in detail here and in earlier papers. In particular, model M (which reproduces the second overtone lines nicely) shows basically no variations of the first overtone lines. We are, however, confident that further tuning of stellar parameters can produce a model which shows the typical behavior observed for second overtone lines and, at the same time, more pronounced variations in the first overtone lines.
A detailed comparison of phase-dependent line profiles derived from models with observations is presently limited by uncertainties in the relation between bolometric and visual lightcurves. Bolometric phases – which are quite directly coupled to global atmospheric dynamics (pulsation and resulting shocks) – are a natural choice for discussing model features. Observations, on the other hand, usually are given in terms of visual phases, as bolometric variations are not directly accessible. In principle, visual phases can be derived for the models, but they may depend strongly on details of dust processes (grain opacities can dominate in the visual range for C-stars, cf. Appendix\[s:phaseshift\]), which may have only a weak connection with the dynamical phenomena we want to probe by studying the line profiles. A more comprehensive discussion of photometric model properties and their observed counterparts will be the topic of a separate paper.
The observational results (RV data as well as FTS spectra of $\chi$Cyg, SCep, and WHya) were kindly provided by Th. Lebzelter and K. Hinkle. Sincere thanks are given to Th. Lebzelter and J. Hron for careful reading and fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the *Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung* (FWF) under project numbers P18939–N16 and P19503–N16 as well as the Swedish Research Council. BA acknowledges funding by the contract ASI-INAF I/016/07/0. We thank the referee, Peter Woitke, for several valuable comments.
Alvarez, R., Jorissen, A., Plez, B., et al. 2000, A&A, 362, 655
Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 53, 197
Andersen, A.C., Loidl, R., & Höfner, S. 1999, A&A, 349, 243
Aringer, B., Höfner, S., Wiedemann, G., et al. 1999, A&A, 342, 799
Aringer, B. 2000, PhD thesis, University of Vienna, Austria
Aringer, B., Höfner, S., Wiedemann, G., et al. 1999, A&A 342, 799
Aringer, B., Girardi, L., Nowotny, W., et al. 2009, A&A, 503, 913
Barnbaum, C. 1992a, ApJ, 385, 694 (B92a)
Barnbaum, C. 1992b, AJ, 104, 1585
Barnbaum, C., & Hinkle, K.H. 1995, AJ, 110, 805
Bernat, A.P. 1981, ApJ, 246, 184
Bessell, M.S., & Brett, J.M. 1988, PASP, 100, 1134
Bessell, M.S. 1990, PASP, 102, 1181
Bujarrabal, V., Gomez-Gonzalez, J., & Planesas, P. 1989, A&A, 219, 256 (BGP89)
Busso, M., Gallino, R., & Wasserburg, G.J. 1999, ARA&A 37, 239
Dickinson, D.F., Reid, M.J., Morris, M., & Redman, R. 1978, ApJL, 220, L113 (DRM78)
Freytag, B., & Höfner, S. 2008, A&A, 483, 571
Gail, H.-P., & Sedlmayr, E. 1988, A&A, 206, 153
Gauger, A., Gail, H.-P., & Sedlmayr, E. 1990, A&A, 235, 345
Gautschy-Loidl, R. 2001, PhD thesis, University of Vienna, Austria
Gautschy-Loidl, R., Höfner, S., J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G., & Hron, J. 2004, A&A, 422, 289 (DMA4)
Goorvitch, D., & Chackerian, C.Jr. 1994, ApJS, 91, 483
Gorfer, M. 2005, Master thesis, University of Vienna, Austria
Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A.J. 1994, in *Molecules in the Stellar Environment*, IAU Coll. 146, ed. U.G. J[ø]{}rgensen, Lecture Notes in Physics 428, Springer, p. 196
Groenewegen, M.A.T. 2007, A&A, 474, 975
Gustafsson, B., & Höfner, S. 2004, in *Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars*, ed. H.J. Habing, H. Olofsson, Springer, ch.4, p.149 (GH04)
Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951
Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A 43, 435
Hinkle, K.H., Hall, D.N.B., & Ridgway, S.T. 1982, ApJ, 252, 697 (HHR82)
Hinkle, K.H., Scharlach, W.W.G., & Hall, D.N.B. 1984, ApJ Suppl., 56, 1 (HSH84)
Hinkle, K.H., & Barnbaum, C. 1996, AJ, 111, 913 (HB96)
Hinkle, K.H., Lebzelter, T., & Scharlach, W.W.G. 1997, AJ, 114, 2686
Höfner, S., & Dorfi, E. 1992, A&A, 265, 207
Höfner, S., Gautschy-Loidl, R., Aringer, B., & J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G. 2003, A&A, 399, 589 (DMA3)
Höfner, S., Gautschy-Loidl, R., & Aringer, B., et al. 2005, in Proc. of ESO Workshop *High-resolution IR spectroscopy in Astronomy*, ed. H.U. Käufl, R. Siebenmorgen, A. Moorwood, ESO Astrophysics Symposia, Springer, p.269
Höfner, S. 2007, in *Why Galaxies Care About AGB Stars*, ed. F. Kerschbaum, C. Charbonnel, B. Wing., ASP Conf. Ser., 378, 145
Höfner, S., & Andersen, A.C. 2007, A&A, 465, L39
Höfner, S. 2008, A&A, 491, L1
Ita, Y., Tanabe, T., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2004a, MNRAS, 347, 720
Ita, Y., Tanabe, T., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2004b, MNRAS, 353, 705
Jeong, K.S., Winters, J.M., Le Bertre, T., & Sedlmayr, E. 2003, A&A, 407, 191
J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G., & Larsson, M. 1990, A&A, 238, 424
Kerschbaum, F., Lebzelter, T., & Lazaro, C. 2001, A&A, 375, 527
Knapp, G.R., Young, K., Lee, E., & Jorissen, A. 1998, ApJS, 117, 209 (KYL98)
Lançon, A., & Wood, P.R. 2000, A&AS, 146, 217
Lattanzio, J.C., & Wood, P. 2004, in *Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars*, ed. H.J. Habing, H. Olofsson, Springer, ch.2, p.23
Lebzelter, T. 1999, A&A, 351, 644
Lebzelter, T., Hinkle, K.H., & Hron, J. 1999, A&A, 341, 224
Lebzelter, T., Hinkle, K.H., & Aringer, B. 2001, A&A, 377, 617
Lebzelter, T., & Hinkle, K.H. 2002a, in *Radial and Nonradial Pulsations as Probes of Stellar Physics*, IAU Coll. 185, ed. C.Aerts, T.R.Bedding, J.Christensen-Dalsgaard, ASP Conf. Series, 259, 556
Lebzelter, T., & Hinkle, K.H. 2002b, A&A, 393, 563
Lebzelter, T., Schultheis, M., & Melchior, A.L. 2002c, A&A, 393, 573
Lebzelter, T., Hinkle, K.H., Wood, P.R., Joyce, R.R., & Fekel, F.C. 2005a, A&A, 431, 623
Lebzelter, T., Wood, P.R., Hinkle, K.H., Joyce, R.R., & Fekel, F.C. 2005b, A&A, 432, 207
Lebzelter, T., & Wood, P.R. 2005, A&A, 441, 1117
Lederer, M.T., & Aringer, B. 2009, A&A, 494, 403
Lockwood, G.W., & Wing, R.F. 1971, ApJ, 169, 63
Lockwood, G.W. 1972, ApJS, 24, 375
Loup, C., Forveille, T., Omont, A., & Paul, J.F. 1993, A&AS, 99, 291 (LFO93)
Mattsson, L., Wahlin, R. & Höfner, S. 2010, A&A, 509, A14
Mihalas, D. 1978, *Stellar atmopsheres* (2nd edition), (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Company)
Molster, F.J., & Waters, L.B.F.M. 2003, in Astromineralogy, ed. Th. Henning, Springer, p.121
Nardetto, N., Mourard, D., Mathias, Ph., et al. 2007, A&A, 471, 661
Neri, R., Kahane, C., Lucas, R., Bujarrabal, V., & Loup, C. 1998, A&AS, 130, 1 (NKL98)
Nordlund, [Å]{}. 1984, in *Methods in radiative transfer*, ed. W. Kalkofen, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p.211
Nowotny, W., Kerschbaum, F., Olofsson, H., Schwarz, H.E. 2003a, A&A, 403, 93
Nowotny, W., Aringer, B., Gautschy-Loidl, R., et al. 2003b, in *Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres*, ed. N.E. Piskunov, W.W. Weiss, D.F. Gray, IAU Symp. 210, F3
Nowotny, W. 2005, *The Dynamic Atmospheres of Red Giant Stars. Spectral Synthesis in High Resolution*, PhD thesis, University of Vienna, Austria (N05)
Nowotny, W., Aringer, B., Höfner, S., Gautschy-Loidl, R., & Windsteig, W. 2005a, A&A, 437, 273 (PaperI)
Nowotny, W., Lebzelter, T., Hron, J., & Höfner, S. 2005b, A&A, 437, 285 (PaperII)
Olofsson, H., Eriksson, K., Gustafsson, B., & Carlström, U. 1993, ApJSS, 87, 267 (OEG93)
Olofsson, H., Lindqvist, M., Nyman, L.-Å., & Winnberg, A. 1998, A&A, 329, 1059 (OLN98)
Olofsson, H. 2004, in *Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars*, ed. H.J. Habing, H. Olofsson, Springer, ch.7, p.325
Ramstedt, S., Schöier, F.L., Olofsson, H., & Lundgren, A.A. 2006, A&A, 454, L103 (RSOL06)
Richter, He., & Wood, P.R 2001, A&A, 369, 1027
Richter, He., Wood, P.R, Woitke, P., Bolick, U., & Sedlmayr, E. 2003, A&A, 400, 319
Rouleau, F., & Martin, P.G. 1991, ApJ, 377, 526
Scholz, M., & Wood, P.R. 2000, A&A, 362, 1065
Smith, B.J., Price, S.D., & Moffett, A.J. 2006, AJ, 131, 612
Whitelock, P., Marang, F., & Feast, M. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 728
Willson, L.A., Wallerstein, G., & Pilachowski, C.A. 1982, MNRAS, 198, 483
Windsteig, W. 1998, Master thesis, Vienna University of Technology, Austria
Winters, J.M., Keady, J.J., Gauger, A., & Sada, P.V. 2000, A&A, 359, 651
Woitke, P. 2003, in *Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres*, ed. N.E. Piskunov, W.W. Weiss, D.F. Gray, IAU Symp. 210, p.387
Woitke, P. 2006a, A&A, 452, 537
Woitke, P. 2006b, A&A, 460, L9
Woitke, P. 2007, in *Why Galaxies Care About AGB Stars*, ed. F. Kerschbaum, C. Charbonnel, B. Wing., ASP Conf. Ser., 378, 156
Wood, P.R., et al. 1999, IAU Symposium 191, 151
Wood, P.R. 2000, PASA, 17, 18
Yorke, H.W. 1988, in *Radiation in moving gaseous media*, ed. Y. Chmielewski, T. Lanz, 18$^{th}$ Advanced Course of the Swiss Society of Astrophysics and Astronomy (Saas-Fee Course), p.193
Bolometric vs. visual light variations {#s:phaseshift}
======================================
Observational findings {#s:shiftobs}
----------------------
A direct comparison of observed and synthetic line profiles (or derived RVs) is affected because different phase informations are used in the two cases. On the one hand, observations are usually linked to visual phases $\phi_{\rm v}$ within the lightcycle (e.g. AAVSO measurements). On the other hand, for the model calculations – a priori – only bolometric phases from the luminosity lightcurve (e.g. Fig.\[f:structureSRV\]) are known, which is itself determined by the inner boundary (cf. Sect.\[s:DMAsused\]). A relation between the two kinds of phase information would be desirable for comparing the modelling results with observational findings.
Measuring bolometric lightcurves of LPVs is not straigthforward. Although a few authors estimated such variations from multi-epoch observations in several filters by fitting blackbody curves (e.g. Whitelock et al. [@WhiMF00]), a bolometric lightcurve is in general not available for a given star. However, it is known that lightcurves in the NIR (e.g. the photometric K-band) trace bolometric variations more closely than lightcurves in the optical wavelength range. The reasons for this are that (i) most of the flux is emitted in the NIR, and (ii) the visual spectra are severely influenced by features of temperature sensitive molecules.[^19] Infrared lightcurves may therefore provide clues on the desired
Several studies compared variations in the visual and NIR of Mira variables in the past (cf. the list of references given by Smith et al. [@SmiPM05]), leading to a rather general result: *the maxima of IR (i.e. $\sim$bolometric) lightcurves lag behind the maxima of visual lightcurves by $\approx$0.1–0.2 in phase.* A good illustration of this is provided e.g. by Fig.2.44 of Lattanzio & Wood ([@LattW04]), who show lightcurves of the Mira RRSco in various photometric bands. By using a well chosen narrow-band filter at 1.04$\mu$m (located in a wavelength region with almost no absorption features), Lockwood & Wing ([@LockW71]) and Lockwood ([@Lockw72]) also found a typical shift of $\Delta\phi$$\approx$0.1 if the phase values measured by this filter are assumed to correspond to bolometric ones.
Recently, Smith et al. ([@SmiPM05]) compared IR photometric data (1.25–25$\mu$m) of the DIRBE instrument onboard the COBE satellite with visual observations (mainly AAVSO) for a sample of 16 Miras and 5 SRVs. Their results confirmed the phase lag of 0.1–0.2 between visual and IR phases for Miras. In contrast, they found no phase lags for SRVs. Smith et al. could reproduce both results also with synthetic spectra based on dynamical model atmospheres of the Australia-Heidelberg collaboration (O-rich, dust-free). They conclude that phase lags are in general more likely or larger for more evolved stars (higher $L$, lower $T_{\rm eff}$, higher $\dot M$, higher $\Delta m_{\rm bol}$, larger periods), that is for Miras rather than for SRVs.
Most of the investigations in this context were carried out for M-type stars, results for *C-rich LPVs* are rather scarce in the literature. Thus, *only some indications* can be listed here. Kerschbaum et al. ([@KersLL01]; their Fig.5) found that their lightcurve in the K-filter of the C-rich Mira TDra lags behind the visual data (AAVSO) by 0.06 in phase. Smith et al. ([@SmiPM05]) state that they find no differences in phase lag for the spectral types M/S/C. For the one C-type Mira in their sample, VCrB, Smith et al. derive shifts of $\Delta\phi$=0.13–0.15, the C-rich SRV UXDra does not show any shift. Smith et al. ([@SmiPM05]) discussed optical-IR-offsets of broadband colours computed on the basis of the same type of C-rich dynamic model atmospheres as used here. They report that some of the models show phase lags, but do not give numbers. However, no clear trend in the sign of the phase shift was found. For some models, visual phases precede IR ones, while it is the other way round for other models.
Modelling results {#s:shiftmod}
-----------------
Following the suggestions of the referee, we studied the photometric variations in the visual of the models used in this paper. Based on the dynamic model atmospheres of Tab.\[t:dmaparameters\] and consistent with the descriptions in Sect.\[s:synthesis\], we calculated low-resolution opacity sampling spectra (cf. Gautschy-Loidl et al. [@GaHJH04]) with extensive wavelength coverage. By convolving these with transmission curves (Bessell & Brett [@BB88], Bessell [@Besse90]) for filters of the standard Cousins-Glass-Johnson system and applying adequate zeropoints we get synthetic photometry. For details of the method we refer to Aringer et al. ([@AGNML09]).
Example spectra (rebinned to $R$=360) are shown in Figs.\[f:specvarmodw\]+\[f:specvarmodm\], demonstrating the qualitative difference between a model for a moderately pulsating red giant on the one hand and an evolved Mira with dust formation and mass loss on the other hand. In the first case, the spectrum shows only minor variations around the hydrostatic case during the pulsation cycle. The significantly changed radial structure in the latter case (Sect.\[s:DMAsused\]) is also reflected in the spectra based on wind models. Due to the characteristic absorption behaviour of dust grains composed of amorphous carbon (e.g. Fig.1 of Andersen et al. [@AndLH99]), the whole spectral energy distribution is shifted towards longer wavelengths. It does not resemble the hydrostatic spectrum at any point in time.
For an easier comparison the synthetic lightcurves in various filters are plotted with fluxes normalised to \[0,1\] below.[^20] As shown in Fig.\[f:lightcurvemodw\], the light variation in the V-filter of the moderately pulsating model W follows the bolometric lightcurve quite closely, although some slight deviations from the pure sinusoidal shape are apparent.
Figure\[f:lightcurvemodm\] shows the light variations in various filters for the model M with mass loss. As found in observational studies, IR-lightcurves stay rather close to the bolometric one. The lightcurves in the visual and red show some deviation, though. A sinusoidal behaviour with a phase lag of $<$0.1 is found for most phases throughout the lightcycle (ascending branch), with visual lightcurves lagging behind the IR/bolometric ones, in contrast to observational results. Significant differences between filters are seen on the descending branch of the lightcurve. The more or less pronounced asymmetries – monotonically increasing with decreasing wavelengths – suggest a relation with the absorption by amorphous carbon dust.
Figure\[f:lightcurvemodmdusteffect\] confirms this idea. If the dust absorption is not taken into account for computing spectra and photometry (not consistent with the dynamical modelling but a useful test), no asymmetry and phase shift is found for the If the dust absorption is included, the V-band flux of the star becomes considerably fainter and the asymmetry of the visual lightcurve becomes apparent. The pronounced decrease in $V$ as seen in Fig.\[f:lightcurvemodmdusteffect\] is related to the new dust shell emerging just before light minimum for model M (see Fig.\[f:massenschalenM\]). The increasing dust absorption causes deviations from a sinusoidal variation and shifts the time of minimum (and maximum) light towards higher values of $\phi_{\rm bol}$. This may provide an explanation for why a phase discrepancy of $\approx$0.3 is found in Sect.\[s:largerampl\] (Mira observations vs. the dusty model M), while only a value of $\approx$0.1 is needed in Sect.\[s:COdv3modelW\] (SRV observations vs. the dust-free model W). Assigning one global value for $\Delta\phi$=$\phi_{\rm bol}$–$\phi_{\rm v}$ is impeded by these deviations from a sinusoidal behaviour.
Considering the possibly dominant role of dust opacities at visual wavelengths, however, any conclusions drawn from comparing observed and synthetic light curves (phases) should be regarded with caution for the current models. Recent modelling results indicate that grains in AGB star winds may grow to sizes where the small particle limit (used for the dynamical calculations here) is no longer a good approximation for dust opacities, in particular at wavelengths shorter than about 1micron (cf. Mattsson et al. [@MatWH09], Mattsson & Höfner in prep.). Unfortunately, model M is no exception in that respect, with a mean grain size of about $10^{-5}$cm. For these grains, both the absolute and relative values of opacities at different wavelengths become dependent on the size of the particles. This may have a significant impact on photometric light curves. Phase-dependent effects due to grain growth may occur in different filters, possibly affecting the relative positions of maxima and minima. A detailed investigation of this effect is, however, beyond the scope of this paper and will be discussed in a future paper about synthetic photometry.
In summary, at the current state of modelling, bolometric light curves can be regarded as a quite reliable indicator of the atmospheric dynamics of the models, since they are closely linked to the effects of pulsation and atmospheric shocks. In contrast, the diagnostic value of the synthetic V-lightcurves – and, consequently, of the synthetic visual phases – is rather doubtful for this purpose as the fluxes in the visual are strongly dependent on grain opacities (which probably require improvements in the future) and time-dependent dust processes, which may only have a weak connection with atmospheric dynamics. Therefore, with the additional uncertainties concerning the on the observational side (as outlined in the previous subsection), we decided to use the more representative bolometric phases when discussing modelling results in this paper.
[^1]: First M-type models were presented by Jeong et al. ([@JeWLS03]). However, the development of a wind driven by radiation pressure on dust grains of O-rich species in these models possibly results from an overestimation of dust opacities in the course of grey radiative transfer as applied by these specific models (Woitke [@Woitk06b], Höfner [@Hoefn07]).
[^2]: Note that the average $L$ over a period is slightly higher in a dynamical model than in the corresponding hydrostatic initial model due to the quadratic dependence of $L_{\rm in}(t)$ on $R_{\rm in}(t)$. The effect is small for typical pulsation amplitudes,though ($\approx$0.1% for model W, $<$2% for model M). Note also that $R_{\rm 0}$=$R_{\rm in}(0)$ is not equal to $R_\star$ (calculated as described in Tab.\[t:dmaparameters\]), but somewhat smaller, as the inner boundary is located below the photopshere (e.g. for model S: $R_{\rm 0}$=2.832157$\cdot$10$^{\rm 13}$cm, $R_\star$=3.42803$\cdot$10$^{\rm 13}$cm).
[^3]: Scattering was not taken into account, neither for the dynamic models nor for the spectral synthesis.
[^4]: corresponding to the central beam with impact parameter $p$=0 in the framework of spherical RT (e.g. Fig.1 of Nordlund [@Nordl84])
[^5]: Note: The dynamical models reach into geometrical depths with temperatures of about 4–5000K (Fig.\[f:structure\]). Modelling even deeper zones would (besides numerical difficulties) mean to include convection and the driving mechanism of pulsation, which has not been done so far. The resulting overall continuous optical depth is too low ($<$1) at certain wavelengths, but this is not the case for the wavelengths of strong absorption features, as illustrated in Nowotny et al. ([@NAGHL03]). Thus, a linear extrapolation in $T$-$p$ to deeper layers ($T_{\rm gas}$$\approx$10$^4$K, $\tau$$\approx$100) had to be applied for the spectral synthesis presented here. Velocities were considered to be zero in the extension. This assumption is not problematic since these layers are only relevant for continuum optical depths and have no influence on the line profiles as molecular lines are formed further out.
[^6]: Note that there is a fundamental difference between Miras and SRVs, which is the topic of Sect.\[s:COdv3SRVs\].
[^7]: The simplified picture of independently evolving components may be misleading to some extent, though, as the spectral features are formed over a whole region in depth and the line profiles (sum of different contributions) can appear more complex (e.g. middle panel of Fig.\[f:co16mueprofiles-HHRvgl\]). Still, it can help to understand the scenario and for the certain phases of line-doubling the velocity jump due to the shock front results in two well-pronounced absorption components.
[^8]: Keeping in mind that the line profiles as well as the RVs may become more complex for the highest resolution of $R$=300000 (see PapersI+II), we will use only the RV results of the lower resolution of $R$=70000 to be compatible to observational results.
[^9]: Interesting is that this is not clearly recognisable in observed CN velocities of SCep as shown in the upper right panel of the same figure. There the RV curve appears more like a straight line. One may suspect that the cross-correlation technique, applied by HB96 to obtain these velocities from the FTS spectra, is not able to resolve the weak components, as they appear shortly before light maximum and disappear shortly after the next maximum.
[^10]: The mean difference between the RV curves of the two types of lines ($\Delta\phi_{\rm bol}$$\approx$*0.1*) together with an estimate of the propagation velocity of the shock wave ($u_{\rm front}$$\approx$10.16kms$^{-1}$; see Sect.\[s:remarkvels\]) would result in a difference $\Delta R$ of approximately 0.15$R_\star$=61.8$R_{\odot}$=0.288*AU*.
[^11]: $\chi$Cyg appears to be the most extensively studied LPV from the kinematics point of view, at all, as outlined in Sect.1.3.4 of N05.
[^12]: A similar compilation of RV data for the M-type Mira RLeo (collected by K. Hinkle and collaborators) can be found in Fig.1.19 of N05.
[^13]: A re-calculation of model M with an improved version of our RHD code – increased number of wavelength points for the RT, updated sticking coefficients, grain-size dependent treatment of dust instead of small particle approximation, etc. – led to a faster (u$\approx$10–15kms$^{-1}$) but less dense ($\dot M$$\approx$10$^{-6}$) wind with a decreased dust content ($f_c$$\approx$0.1). One may suspect that the decreased gas/dust absorption will lead to CO $\Delta v$=2 lines originating closer to the centre of the star, where the velocity variations are more pronounced. With the inner regions receiving the same mechanical input and a different wind structure at the same time, the line profiles based on this new model should therefore look more realistic.
[^14]: Such an investigation aiming at reasonably sampled RV diagrams as in Fig.\[f:rvs-chicyg-scep\] or Fig.\[f:rvsmodelM\] appears rather challenging, though, because of the limited access to suitable spectrographs end the efforts needed on the modelling side.
[^15]: although there are few exceptions for both, which reflects the diversity of the objects
[^16]: Note: the optical depths at every wavelength/RV point of the spectrum increases dramatically at the inner edge of the dynamical model and further on within the hydrostatic extension (see Sect.\[s:lineformation\]) because of the increasing continuum opacities, though.
[^17]: Note that $u_{\rm front}$ becomes higher than the initial pulsation velocity resulting from the mechanical energy input due to the piston, which is in the case of model M not larger than 6kms$^{-1}$ (Table\[t:dmaparameters\]). While the sound waves propagate outwards, they steepen (as described by GH04, see their Fig.4.15) and become strong radiating shock waves.
[^18]: This is the RV value derived from the corresponding line profile at the highest spectral resolution of $R$=300000, rebinning the spectrum to 70000 influences the line shape and leads to a slightly different RV compared to those plotted in Fig.\[f:rv-CO-dv3-modelsMS\].
[^19]: The latter effect is especially pronounced in the O-rich case and the characteristic bands of the fragile TiO molecule. It may be of less importance in the C-rich case as the species responsible for features in the visual, CN and C$_2$, are more stable.
[^20]: Note that the amplitude of the variations may differ strongly between filters, with amplitudes decreasing with increasing wavelengths.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Célia Blain[^1]'
- Rodolphe Conan
- Colin Bradley
- Olivier Guyon
- Curtis Vogel
title: 'Characterisation of the influence function non-additivities for a 1024-actuator MEMS deformable mirror'
---
Proceedings of the first AO for ELT conference, June 2009, Paris. Copyright ownership: EDP Sciences, the original publication is available at www.edpsciences.org
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In the prospective of new Extremely Large Telescopes (ELTs) and their related science instruments, the need for open-loop (OL) control of deformable mirrors (DM) is increasing. Much of the research in this area focuses on the development of an accurate model[@D.Gavel_08][@C.Blain_08][@K.Morzinski_07][@J.B.Stewart_07][@C.R.Vogel_06] for Micro-Electro-Mechanical-Systems (MEMS) DMs. With a continuous membrane DM, each actuator deflection is the direct result of the voltage it receives combined with the indirect effect of the vertical deflection of the actuators surrounding it. In order to build an accurate model of a MEMS DM with a continuous membrane, one needs to quantify both the non-linear relationship between the input voltage and the resulting actuator deflection as well as the effect of the coupling (through the membrane) between neighbouring actuators. In this paper, we first present the results of a thorough DM characterisation. Sec. \[sec:lin\] is focused on the stroke-voltage relationship while Sec. \[sec:charaIFnl\] describes the influence function (IF) non-additivity. Finally, Sec. \[sec:ol\], illustrates the benefit that such characterisation can provide for ’model free’ OL control of MEMS.
Experimental setup {#sec:exp_setup}
==================
The experimental setup consists of a 1024 actuators Boston Micromachines MEMS DM with 150 Volts (14 bit resolution) electronics manufactured by NASA JPL. A Zygo PTI 250 interferometer is positioned in front of the DM. The interferometer beam pass through a density filter to improve the fringe contrast. A first computer is dedicated to the Zygo interface (metrology software and interferometer command) while a second computer controls the DM electronics, initiates the interferometer measurement and transfers the recorded data to the laboratory data server. DM and interferometer are set on a vibration isolation optical table.
Calibration of the actuator stroke-voltage relationship {#sec:lin}
=======================================================
For MEMS, the stroke-voltage relationship for an actuator $i$ is quadratic and can be described by the following equation:
$$stroke(i) = gain(i).\:V(i)^{2}\:+\: bias(i)
\label{strVSvolt}$$
where *V* is the voltage sent to the actuator, *bias* is the actuator offset and *gain* is the actuator gain.
The precise calibration of each actuator’s stroke-voltage relationship is a critical step toward accurate open-loop control of the deformable mirror. For this experiment, due to a large number of malfunctioning actuators located on the right side of the DM, an array of 18 by 18 actuators (total of 324 actuators) is selected. Only one actuator among the 324 is coupled with an actuator located outside of the array. This actuator presents a reduced maximum stroke and can be seen in Fig. \[fig:lin\] (blue curve). With a maximum voltage output of 150 Volts, the resulting maximum stroke is approximately 0.5 micron. In Sec. \[sec:ol\], Eq. \[strVSvolt\] will be inverted to obtain the input voltage from the desired stroke and inject it in the open-loop control process.
\(a) (b)
Characterization of influence function non-additivity {#sec:charaIFnl}
=====================================================
To study the influence function non-additivity, several random pairs of neighbouring actuators within the array of interest are selected. This section will present only the results obtained for the pair of actuators indexed 169 and 170, which are representative of the other actuators tested. Three tests were conducted to characterise the non-additivity.
First, for each pair of actuators, the membrane was set to a bias voltage of 0 Volt. The 2 actuators under test were first push independently to 50 Volts, 100 Volts, and 150 Volts. Then, the 2 actuators were pushed simultaneously to these 3 voltages.
This test is repeated with a bias voltage of 150 volts while the actuators are released independently then simultaneously to 0 Volt, 50 Volts, and 100 Volts.
Finally, a third test focus on the non-additivity effects when the pair of actuators are on a push-pull configuration.\
Fig. \[fig:NAdemo\] (a) shows the ’contour cut’ of the influence function when each actuator is pushed independently (green and red contours) then simultaneously (light blue contour labeled *poke2*) to 100 Volts while the bias voltage is 0 Volts. The linear sum (obtained numerically after the measurement) is also presented (dark blue contour, labeled *sum*) as well as the difference between the poke2 and the linear sum (purple plot, labeled *poke2 - sum*).
Pair of neighbouring actuators {#sec:2x2}
------------------------------
The results obtained with the pair of neighbouring actuators indexed 169 and 170 are presented in Fig. \[fig:NA2-2\].
\(a) corresponds to a bias of 0 Volt while (b) corresponds to a bias of 150 Volts. From here forward, the *relative voltage* will be defined as the difference between the bias voltage (applied to the whole DM) and the input voltage (only applied to the pair of neighbouring actuators under test). For example, for a bias voltage of 150 Volts, and an input voltage of 100 Volts, the relative voltage is 50 Volts or for a bias voltage of 0 Volt, and an input voltage of 50 Volts, the relative voltage is also 50 Volts. Fig. \[fig:NA2-2\] reveals four remarkable non-linear behaviours.
- The strokes obtained with a 0 Volt bias are much larger than the strokes obtained with a 150 Volts bias for the entire range of input voltage values.
- The linear sum (labeled *sum*) is always providing a smaller stroke than the pair of actuators poked simultaneously (labeled *poke2*) except in one particular case, when the bias voltage is 0 Volt and the input voltage is 150 Volts.
- The difference in stroke between a relative voltage of 100 Volts and a relative voltage of 150 Volts, varies from approximately 0.5 microns with a bias of 0 Volt to less than 0.1 microns with a bias of 150 Volts.
- Unlike preceding models [@C.R.Vogel_06] of 2 actuators poked simultaneously and presenting a resulting influence function peak shaped with a flat top, this experiment reveals the presence of a dip at the top of the peak.
To explain these behaviours, several factors need to be taken into account. First, at 0 Volt bias (corresponding to the default DM position), the membrane is relatively flat and undergoes no stretch. However, at 150 Volts bias, the membrane becomes slightly dome shaped and stretched due to the fact that the edge actuators have less available stroke than the actuators located closer to the center. This additional stretch decreases the elasticity available for the pair of actuators under test, resulting in a smaller stroke. This elasticity saturation can also explain the difference in stroke between similar relative voltages (100V and 150V) for the 2 different bias (0V and 150 V).
Another factor that contributes to this difference relies on the stroke-voltage relationship of each actuator. Fig. \[fig:lin\] (a), presents the typical quadratic relationship between stroke and voltage. At the beginning, the stroke increase is much slower than the voltage increase. After a midpoint, located around 100 Volts for this apparatus, the stroke increase is much faster and follows the voltage increase in a near linear fashion. A relative voltage of 50 Volts in the 0 V bias configuration corresponds to a slow stroke increase thus providing a small stroke. This same relative voltage in the 150 Volts bias configuration corresponds to a point further up the curve, providing a larger stroke.
\(a) (b)
Push-pull {#sec:pushpull}
---------
In a push-pull configuration, the pair of actuators are pushed in opposite direction. As opposed to other DM technology where the actuation is ’bidimentional’, up or down (such as piezo-stack DM), the MEMS DM presents a characteristic pull-in behaviour. In order to set the actuators in a push-pull configuration, we added a bias of 100 Volts then set the actuator indexed 169 to 77 Volts and the actuator 170 to 118 Volts. This provides a peak to valley stroke of 0.2 micron. This stroke is kept relatively small to limit the stress undergoes by the membrane and avoid to damage it.
Fig. \[fig:NAdemo\] (b) shows that the non-additivity of influence function is compensated when the actuators are in this configuration (plots *sum* and *poke2* are on top of each other). This is an encouraging result since the actuators configuration when the DM try to compensate for atmosphere turbulence is close to a push-pull.
Array of 3 by 3 {#sec:3x3}
---------------
The test described in Sec. \[sec:2x2\] are repeated with an array of 3 by 3 actuators. Fig. \[fig:NA3-3\] (a), presents the comparison between the 3 by 3 actuators which are first pushed together (labelled *poke3*) and second pushed independently and added numerically (labelled *sum*) at relative voltages of 50 Volts, 100 Volts and 150 Volts. Fig. \[fig:NA3-3\] (b) presents these results when the bias is 150 Volts. At 0 Volt bias, the linear sum always provides a larger stroke than pushing the actuators simultaneously. However, at 150 Volts bias, the opposite effect occurs and the *poke3* is always larger than the linear *sum*. An array of 3 by 3 actuators pushed together has a much larger strength than each actuator pushed independently . Thus, when the membrane elasticity is reduced due to stretching, the *poke3* gives larger stroke than the linear sum. The stretching effect is also responsible for the large variation between the stroke obtained for a relative voltage of 150 Volts at 0 Volts bias (approximately 1.4 microns) and at 150 Volts bias (approximately 0.9 microns). Finally, at 0 Volt bias, the influence function presents a much larger profile than the one obtained at 150 Volts bias.
a\) b)
Open-loop control performance {#sec:ol}
=============================
The goal of this section is the DM open-loop control using only the calibration of the actuator’s stroke-voltage relationship and influence function, studied in Sec. \[sec:lin\] and Sec. \[sec:charaIFnl\].
First, 100 computer generated phase screens are simulated to match the atmosphere turbulence as seen by a 30 m diameter telescope ($r_{0}$ = 15 cm, $L_{0}$ = 60 m, wind speed(unirectionnal) = 10 m.$s^{-1}$) then scaled to match the DM’s maximum stroke. The least squared fit of the phase screens projected onto the normalised influence functions provides the actuator stroke maps. Fig. \[fig:lin\] (b), shows that the stroke and the squared voltage follow a linear pattern. The *gain* and *bias* coefficients needed in Eq. \[strVSvolt\] are extracted from this stroke-voltage characterisation. The voltage maps to be sent to the DM are finallly deduced from the stroke maps by reversing Eq. \[strVSvolt\].
The multiplication of the stroke maps by the normalised influence functions gives the fitted phase screens. The fitting error is the result of the difference between the original phase screens and the fitted phase screens. The fitting error corresponds to the DM sampling error due to the limited number of actuators. Fig. \[fig:olresults\] gives the rms of the fitting error and the rms of the measurement error (or open-loop error) as a function of the rms of the generated phase screen.
A subsequent paper (Blain et al., 2009) is dedicated to the optimisation of MEMS open-loop control using only the characterisation of the actuator’s stroke-voltage relationship and influence function. This paper presents the open-loop performance achieved for a 1024-actuator MEMS driven with an upgraded electronic (maximum output voltage = 200 Volts). Tab. \[tab:1\] gives an overview of the mean rms results obtained with this upgraded apparatus. The DM error, corresponding to the difference between the open-loop error and the fitting error, gives an estimate of the error due to the DM non-linear effects.
Conclusion {#sec:concl}
==========
[lllllll]{} phase scr. & proj. on IF & fitting error & open-loop error & DM error & $ \frac{open\,loop}{phase\,scr.} $ & $ \frac{DM}{phase\,scr.} $\
96.73nm & 95.78nm & 13.30nm & 16.52nm & 10.78nm & 17.28 $\%$ & 11.23 $\%$\
In this paper, the influence function non-additivity are linked to the combination of elasticity loss (due to membrane stretching) and to the actuator’s quadratic stroke-voltage relationship. It has been shown that these IF non-additive effects are cancelled in a push-pull configuration. As a result, the IF non-additivity may prove to be negligible when a random shape (such as a turbulent phase screen) is applied to the DM. The characterisation of the actuator stroke-voltage relationship and the actuator influence function are integrated in order to control the DM in open-loop. Encouraging performances are obtained. With original mean phase screens of 96.73 nm rms, the mean open-loop rms obtained is 16.52 nm and the mean fitting error rms is 13.30 nm. A more detailed study of the open-loop control of MEMS through actuator calibration can be found in a subsequent paper (Blain et al., 2009).
D. Gavel et al.,“Villages: An on-sky visible wavelength astronomy AO experiment using MEMS deformable mirror”, Proc. SPIE, **6888**, 688804 (2008).
C. Blain et al., “Simple iterative method for open-loop control of MEMS deformable mirrors”, Adaptive Optics Systems, Proc. SPIE,**7015**, pp. 701534-7001534-8 (2008).
K. Morzinski et al., “The open-loop control of MEMS: Modeling and experimental results”, MEMS Adaptive Optics, Proc. SPIE, **6467**, 64670G, (2007).
J. B. Stewart et al., “Open-loop control of a MEMS deformable mirror for large-amplitude wavefront control”, OSA, **24**, 12, 3827-3833 (2007).
C. R. Vogel and Q. Yang, “Modeling, simulation, and open-loop control of a continuous facesheet MEMS deformable mirror”, J. Opt. Soc. Am., **23**, 5, (2006).
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we propose the use of a deterministic sequence, known as unique word (UW), instead of the cyclic prefix (CP) in generalized frequency division multiplexing (GFDM) systems. The UW consists of known sequences that, if not null, can be used advantageously for synchronization and channel estimation purposes. In addition, UW allows the application of a highly efficient linear minimum mean squared error (LMMSE) smoother for noise reduction at the receiver. To avoid the conditions of non-orthogonality caused by the insertion of the UW and performance degradation in time varying frequency-selective channels, we use frequency-shift offset quadrature amplitude modulation (FS-OQAM). We present a signal model of a UW-GFDM system considering a single and multiple UWs. We then develop an LMMSE receive filter for signal reception of the proposed UW-GFDM system. Simulations show that the proposed UW-GFDM system outperforms prior work.
author:
- |
\
,\
$^{2}$Centre for Telecommunications Studies (CETUC) of Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and\
$^{3}$Department of Electronic Engineering, University of York, UK\
e-mail: joao.dias@cefet-rj.br, $\left\{ \text{joao.dias, delamare} \right\}$@cetuc.puc-rio.br and rodrigo.delamare@york.ac.uk
bibliography:
- 'refsrrpca.bib'
title: ' Study of Unique-Word Based GFDM Transmission Systems'
---
$5$G waveforms, Unique-Word, Multicarrier Systems, GFDM.
Introduction
============
In recent years, there has been an increase in the demand for mobile communication systems and the evolution of these systems have focused, as a priority, on the increase in throughput. However, in scenarios predicted for the future generation of mobile communications, such as machine-to-machine communication (M2M), Internet of Things (IoT), tactile Internet and wireless regional area networks (WRAN), there are characteristics that clearly go beyond the high data rates [@Nicola]. The challenges posed by these scenarios require: low power consumption, which makes it a problem for the synchronization of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) systems to maintain orthogonality between the sub-carriers; short bursts of data, which prohibit the use of a cyclic prefix (CP) in all symbols due to low spectral efficiency; and the high out-of-band (OOB) emission of OFDM that is an issue for dynamic and opportunistic spectrum access.
Due to these requirements, Generalized Frequency Division Multiplexing (GFDM) [@Nicola] has been proposed for the air interface of 5G networks. The flexibility of GFDM allows it to cover CP-OFDM as a special case. However, filtering of subcarriers results in non-orthogonal waveforms, inter-symbol interference (ISI) and inter-carrier interference (ICI). The Unique Word (UW) concept has been proposed for OFDM in [@Huemer] along with an optimized receiver concept. Since CP is random, its only function is to avoid the interference caused by the channel delay. The UW, being deterministic, if a non null UW is used, can be used also for synchronization and channel estimation. Many studies with UW have shown that a significant gain in bit error rate (BER) over OFDM can be obtained [@Huemer; @Onic; @Huber].
In this work, we propose the use of UW in GFDM systems which results in UW-GFDM systems. We devise a signal model of a UW-GFDM system considering a single UW and multiple UWs. We then develop an LMMSE receive filter for signal reception of the proposed UW-GFDM system. Simulations show that the proposed UW-GFDM system outperforms prior work. The paper is organized as follows: in Section II, a description of the signal model of the UW-GFDM system is given; Section III describes the UW-GFDM system design; the results of the simulations are presented in Section IV and in the Section V, some conclusions are drawn.
Proposed Signal Model
=====================
In the proposed UW-GFDM systems, the input to the system is a binary sequence organized in a vector $\bold{b}$ of length $\mu N_d M$, where $\mu$ is the order of modulation, $N_d$ is the length of the data vector used in the GFDM sub-symbol and $M$ is the number of time slots that make up one GFDM block.
The first step is the mapper, where the binary sequence is mapped into a complex valued sequence $\bold{d}_d$, according to the mapping scheme adopted. In this work, we use the frequency-shift offset quadrature amplitude modulation (FS-OQAM) [@Gaspar] that can be exploited to address non-orthogonal conditions. Afterwards, the sequence of length ${N}_d$ obtained with the modulation of each group of $\mu N_d$ bits is added to $N_r$ redundant subcarriers, so that $N_d + N_r = K$, where $K$ is the number of subcarriers per GFDM sub-symbol.
Then, the resulting sequence $\bold{d}$ of length $MK$ is reshaped by serial-to-parallel conversion to a matrix $\bold{D}$ with dimensions $M\times K$. To obtain interference-free transmission, each element $d_{k,m}$ of the matrix $\bold{D}$ is transmitted with its real and imaginary part $d_{k,m} = d_{k,m}^{(i)} +
jd_{k,m}^{(q)}$ using symmetric, real-valued, half Nyquist prototype filter with the offset of $K/2$ samples from each other and phase rotation of $\frac{\pi}{2}$ radians among adjacent subcarriers and sub-symbols, given by $$\label{eq:filter}
\begin{array}{lr}
g_{k,m}^{(i)} [n] = j^{k} g[(n-mK)~~ \text{mod}~N] e^{j2\pi \frac{k}{K}n},\\
g_{k,m}^{(q)} [n] = j^{k+1} g[(n-(m+\frac{1}{2})K)~~ \text{mod}~N] e^{j2\pi \frac{k}{K}n}.
\end{array}$$ where $n=0, 1,..., N-1$ is the time index and $N=KM$.
The resulting GFDM signal can be described by $$\label{eq:gfdmtransmit}
x [n]=\displaystyle \sum_{m=0}^{M-1}\displaystyle \sum_{k=0}^{K-1} d_{k,m}^{(i)} g_{k,m}^{(i)} [n] + \displaystyle \sum_{m=0}^{M-1}\displaystyle \sum_{k=0}^{K-1} d_{k,m}^{(q)} g_{k,m}^{(q)} [n].$$
Before transmitting the signal a UW with length $L$ or multiple UWs are added in order to preserve the circulant structure and to make frequency domain equalization possible at the receiver. Afterwards, the signal is converted to the analog domain and transmitted.
At the receiver, the received signal is described by $$\label{eq:signalreceived}
y' (n)= x'(n)\ast h(n) + \omega (n) $$ where $h(n)$, denotes the impulse response of the channel, $x'(n)$ is the transmitted signal with addition of the UW, and $\omega (n)$ is a additive white Gaussian noise.
At the receiver, the signal is converted from the analog to the digital domain, followed by the removal of the UW and equalized by$$y(n)= \text{IFFT} \left\{\frac{\text{FFT}[y'(n)]}{\text{FFT}[h(n)]}\right\} $$
The received data can be described by $$\widehat{d}_{k,m} = \widehat{d}_{k,m}^{(i)} + j\widehat{d}_{k,m}^{(q)}$$ and, $$ \widehat{d}_{k,m}^{(.)}= \Re \left\{y(n)\circledast g_{k,m}^{(.)\ast} [-n]\right\} \mid_{n=0},\\
$$ where $\circledast$ denotes circular convolution with period $N$, and $^{(.)}$ represents $^{(i)}$ or $^{(q)}$.
The received symbol vector $\widehat{\bold{d}}_d$ is obtained by applying the parallel to serial converter, the Wiener smoothing operation and extracting the data part of the signal $\widehat{\bold{d}}$. After that, the data part of the signal $\widehat{\bold{d}}_d$ is demapped into the detected bit vector $\widehat{\bold{b}}$. The block diagram of the proposed UW-GFDM system is shown in fig. \[fig:GFDMblockdiagram\].
{width=".9\textwidth"}
Design of the UW-GFDM System
============================
In this section, we detail the design of UW-GFDM systems [@uwgfdm]. The framing of UW is made by introducing a predefined sequence $\bold{x}_u$ which shall form the tail of the data vector in the time domain ${\bold{x'}} = [\bold{x}_d ^T~~\bold{x}_u ^T]$. Therefore, the sequence $\bold{x}$ assumes the form $\bold{x} =
[\bold{x}_d ^T~~\bold{0}^T]$ aiming to add the UW of length L in the time domain and to obtain $\bold{x'} = \bold{x} +
[\bold{0}^T~~\bold{x}_u ^T]$ [@Onic].
In the first step, in order to get the vector structure $\bold{x}$ in time domain, a reduction of the number $N_d$ of data subcarriers is made and a set of redundant subcarriers $N_r$ is added, in the frequency domain. In case of multiple UWs in GFDM systems, the matrix $\bold{D}$ with data and redundant subcarriers, can be constructed as: $$\label{eq:matrix1uw}
\bold{D} = \bold{P} \left[\begin{array}{c} \bold{d}_d \\ \bold{d}_r \end{array} \right], $$ where $\bold{P} \in \{ 0,1\}^{(N_d+N_r)\times (N_d+N_r)}$ is a permutation matrix, $\bold{d}_d \in \mathbb{C}^{N_d \times M}$ and $\bold{d}_r \in \mathbb{C}^{N_r \times M}$ are the matrices of data and redundant subcarriers, respectively.
The GFDM $I$ and $Q$ can be organized in a modulation matrices structured according to: $$ \bold{A}^{(.)}= [\bold{g}_{0,0}^{(.)}~\cdots, \bold{g}_{K-1,0}^{(.)}~\bold{g}_{0,1}^{(.)}~\cdots~\bold{g}_{K-1,M-1}^{(.)}],\\
$$ where $\bold{g}_{k,m}^{(.)}$ is a column vector containing the samples from $g_{k,m}^{(.)} [n],$ with $^{(.)}$ equal to $^{(i)}$ or $^{(q)}$ in (\[eq:filter\]).
The matrices $\bold{A}^{(i)}$ and $\bold{A}^{(q)}$ have dimensions $KM$x$KM$ with an approximately diagonal block structure, according to: $$\label{eq:matrixGFDM1}
\bold{A}^{(.)}= \left[\begin{array}{lr} [\bold{A}^{(.)}]_1~~ \bold{0} ~~~~~~ \cdots ~~ \bold{0} \\ \bold{0} ~~~~~~ [\bold{A}^{(.)}]_2 ~~ \cdots ~~ \bold{0} \\ \vdots ~~~~~~~ \vdots ~~~~~~~\vdots ~~~~~~ \vdots \\ \bold{0} ~~~~~~ \bold{0} ~~~~~~ \cdots ~~ [\bold{A}^{(.)}]_M \end{array} \right],$$ where $[\bold{A}^{(.)}]_m \in \mathbb{C}^{(K)\times (K)}$. With these observations, we can write each symbol of the transmitted GFDM block as: $$\bold{x}_m = \bold{x}_m^{(i)} + \bold{x}_m^{(q)},$$ where $$\label{eq:matrix2uw}
\begin{array}{lr}
\bold{x}_m ^{(i)}=[\bold{A}^{(i)}]_m \bold{P}\Re \left\{ \left[\begin{array}{c} \bold{d}_d(m) \\ \bold{d}_r(m) \end{array} \right]\right\} = \left[\begin{array}{c} \bold{x}_d^{(i)} (m)\\ \bold{0} \end{array} \right],\\
\bold{x}_m ^{(q)}=[\bold{A}^{(q)}]_m \bold{P} \Im \left\{\left[\begin{array}{c} \bold{d}_d(m) \\ \bold{d}_r(m) \end{array} \right]\right\} = \left[\begin{array}{c} \bold{x}_d^{(q)} (m)\\ \bold{0} \end{array} \right].\\
\end{array}$$
Writing each result of $[\bold{A}^{(.)}]_m \bold{P}$ with four sub-matrices $\left(\bold{M}_{11}^{(.)}(m),\bold{M}_{12}^{(.)}(m),\bold{M}_{21}^{(.)}(m),\bold{M}_{22}^{(.)}(m)\right)$, it is possible to write $\bold{d}_r^{(.)}(m) = \bold{T}^{(.)}(m)\bold{d}_d^{(.)}(m)$, where $\bold{T}^{(.)}(m) = -\bold{M}_{22}^{(.)}(m) ^{-1} \bold{M}_{21}^{(.)}(m)$.
Due to the real-orthogonality between the matrices $\bold{A}^{(i)}$ and $\bold{A}^{(q)}$, i.e., $\Re \{(\bold{A}^{(i)})^H\bold{A}^{(q)}\}=\Re \{(\bold{A}^{(q)})^H\bold{A}^{(i)}\}=\bold{0}_{MK\times MK}$, a code word $\bold{c}(m)$ can be obtained for each symbol $m$ of the GFDM block by $$\label{eq:matrix3uw}
\begin{array}{l}
\bold{c}(m) = \bold{P} \left[\begin{array}{c} \bold{d}_d (m)\\ \bold{d}_r (m)\end{array} \right] \approx \bold{P} \left[\begin{array}{c} \bold{I} \\ \bold{T} (m)\end{array} \right] \bold{d}_d (m) \\~~~~~~= \bold{R} (m)\bold{d}_d(m),
\end{array}$$ where $\bold{I}$ is the identity matrix and $\bold{R} (m)=\bold{P} \left[\begin{array}{c} \bold{I} \\ \bold{T} (m)\end{array} \right]$ can be interpreted as a UW code generator matrix. Another interpretation is that $\bold{R} (m)$ introduces correlations in the vector $\bold{d}(m)$ of frequency domain samples of a GFDM block.
In the second step, $\bold{x}_u(m)$ is added to the GFDM frame. The choice of $\bold{x}_u$(m) is made to optimize particular needs in GFDM systems, like synchronization, system parameter estimation purposes or BER gain. The symbols of $\bold{x}_u$ can be placed in one or more symbols of a GFDM block, in a specific pattern, in order to optimize the UW autocorrelation properties. The UW sequences can be obtained by many ways, among which we highlight: the generalized Barker sequence[@Golomb] and a CAZAC sequence (Constant Amplitude, Zero Autocorrelation) [@Popovic] that are often used for channel estimation, frequency offset estimation and timing synchronization (not investigated in this work); or $\bold{x}_u(m)=\bold{0}$, which introduces a systematic complex valued block code structure within the sequence of subcarriers. Note that the gain due to the exploitation of correlations in frequency domain can be regarded as coding gain. At the receiver, after performing the equalization and the time-frequency conversion, observing the influence of the UW on the received symbol, we can write the received vector as: $$\label{eq:signaluwreceived}
\widetilde{\widehat{\bold{d}}}(m)=\widehat{\bold{c}}(m) + \widetilde{\bold{x}}_u(m) + \widetilde{\bold{\omega}},$$ where $\widetilde{\widehat{\bold{d}}}(m) \in \mathbb{C}^{(N_d + N_r)\times 1}$, $\widehat{\bold{c}}(m) \in \mathbb{C}^{(N_d + N_r) \times 1}$ and $\widetilde{\bold{x}}_u(m) \in \mathbb{C}^{(N_d + N_r )\times 1}$.
To eliminate the influence of the UW by subtracting $\widetilde{\bold{x}}_u(m)$ from $\widetilde{\widehat{\bold{d}}}(m)$, we can consider that the channel matrix $\bold{\tilde{H}}$ or at least an estimate of do $\widehat{\bold{d}}(m)=\widetilde{\widehat{\bold{d}}}(m)-\widetilde{\bold{x}}_u(m)$ such that $\widehat{\bold{d}}(m)=\widehat{\bold{c}}(m) +
\widetilde{\bold{\omega}}$, we can apply the Bayesian Gauss-Markov theorem [@Kay] to minimize the cost function $J(\epsilon)=
|\epsilon|^2$, with $\epsilon=\bold{c}(m)-\widehat{\bold{c}}(m)$, obtaining the LMMSE estimator for $\bold{c}(m)$ as given by $$\label{eq:lmmse}
\widehat{\bold{c}} (m)= \bold{C}_{\bold{c}(m)\bold{c}(m)} \left( \bold{C}_{\bold{c}(m)\bold{c}(m)} + \bold{C}_{\widetilde{\bold{\omega}}\widetilde{\bold{\omega}}}\right)^{-1}\widehat{\bold{d}} (m),$$ with the noise covariance matrix $\bold{C}_{\widetilde{\bold{\omega}}\widetilde{\bold{\omega}}} = E\left[\widetilde{\bold{\omega}}\widetilde{\bold{\omega}}^H\right]=K\sigma_{\omega}^{2}\bold{I}$, and with $\bold{C}_{\bold{c}(m)\bold{c}(m)} = E\left[\bold{c}(m)\bold{c}(m)^H\right]=\sigma_{d}^{2}\bold{R} (m)\bold{R} (m)^H$. Recalling that $\bold{c}(m)= \bold{R}(m)\bold{d}_d(m)$, the estimated data vector can be written as $$\label{eq:wienersmoothing}
\begin{array}{l}
\widehat{\bold{d}}_{d} (m)=\bold{Q}(m)\widehat{\bold{d}} (m),
\end{array}$$ where $\bold{Q}(m)$ represents a Wiener smoothing matrix given by $$\label{eq:wiener}
\begin{array}{l}
\bold{Q} (m)= \left(\bold{R} (m)^H\bold{R} (m) + \frac{K\sigma_{n}^2}{\sigma_{d}^2}\bold{I}\right)^{-1} \bold{R}(m)^H .
\end{array}$$
The smoothing operation exploits the correlations between subcarrier symbols which have been introduced by (\[eq:matrix3uw\]) at the transmitter and act as a noise reduction operation on the subcarriers. Other interference cancellation techniques [@delamare_mber; @rontogiannis; @delamare_itic; @stspadf; @choi; @stbcccm; @FL11; @delamarespl07; @jidf; @jio_mimo; @peng_twc; @spa; @spa2; @jio_mimo; @P.Li; @jingjing; @memd; @did; @bfidd; @mbdf; @bfidd; @mserrr; @shaowcl08]. can also be examined for receive processing.
The design of the pulse shaping filter of GFDM strongly influences the spectral properties of the signal and the error rate. In this work, we use the Root Raised Cosine (RRC) with the Meyer auxiliary function proposed in [@Nicola] and described by$$\label{eq:rrc}
G \left[f\right]= \sqrt{ \frac{1}{2}\left[1-\cos\left(\pi f\left(\frac{k}{\alpha K}\right)\right)\right]},$$ where $f\left(\frac{k}{\alpha K}\right)$ is a truncated function that is used to describe the roll-off area defined by $\alpha$ in the frequency domain. The $k$th subcarrier is centered at the normalized frequency $k/K$ and $\alpha$ describes the overlap of the subcarriers. The function used here is the Meyer auxiliary function $f\left(\frac{k}{\alpha K}\right)=\left(\frac{k}{\alpha K}\right)^4 \left(35-84\left(\frac{k}{\alpha K}\right)+70\left(\frac{k}{\alpha K}\right)^2-20\left(\frac{k}{\alpha K}\right)^3\right)$[@Meyer]. The use of this function as the argument of a RRC pulse shape defined in time improves spectrum properties [@Gaspar].
The only increase of the computational complexity at UW-GFDM in comparison to the CP-GFDM is the computation of the codeword $\bold{c}(m)$ by (\[eq:matrix3uw\]), whose computational cost is $\mathcal{O} (K N_d)$ and in the smoothing $\bold{Q} (m)$ by (\[eq:wienersmoothing\]), with $\mathcal{O} (N_d^2)$.
Simulations results {#SimResult}
===================
To validate the UW-GFDM proposal, simulations were performed comparing its performance with the CP-GFDM concept and with the UW-OFDM and CP-OFDM systems, whose performances are already widely known. In this work, we consider perfect synchronization, perfect knowledge of the channel by the receiver and $\bold{x}_u(m)=\bold{0}$. The simulations were performed with the parameters listed in Table \[parameters\].
Systems UW-GFDM CP-GFDM
--------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------
Number of subcarriers \[K\] 64 64
Data subcarriers \[$N_d$\] 48 64
Redundant subcarriers \[$N_r$\] 16 0
Length of UW and CP \[$L$\] 16 16
Number of time slots \[ M\] 4 4
Pulse shaping filter \[G\] RRC RRC
Roll-off factor \[$\alpha$\] $\{0.1, 0.5\}$ $\{0.1, 0.5\}$
Modulation subcarriers FS-OQAM FS-OQAM
: Simulation Parameters for the GFDM Systems[]{data-label="parameters"}
The CP-OFDM and UW-OFDM are simulated with the same parameters as CP-GFDM and UW-GFDM, respectively, except for the pulse shaping filter that is not used. The indexes of the 16 redundant subcarriers are chosen as in [@Huber]. This choice, with an appropriately constructed matrix $\bold{P}$, provides minimum energy on the redundant subcarriers on average.
In the first example, we observe the performance in a channel that typically represents the WRAN scenarios [@Kim]. These scenarios should be investigated for 5G systems. The channel has been modeled as a tapped delay line, whose power delay profile is ($0, -7, -15, -22, -24, -19$)\[dB\] for the delays ($0, 3, 8, 11, 13, 21$)\[$\mu$s\], each tap with Gaussian distribution, and is considered constant during a GFDM block period. In order to provide a simple way of equalization, the length of UW and the CP was set to $L=16$ samples. In Fig. \[ber\_performance\], we can observe that the curves UW-GFDM-all and UW-OFDM show a similar performance and approximately 1.2 dB in $E_b/N_0$ better than CP-OFDM and CP-OFDM. It is also possible to observe that the use of a single UW in the first symbol of the GFDM block already reduces the required $E_b/N_0$ by approximately 0.5 dB for the same BER.
![*[BER performance of GFDM and OFDM system with Rayleigh channel]{}*[]{data-label="ber_performance"}](fig2){width=".82\columnwidth"}
In the second example, we can observe that the out-of-band (OOB) emission is not degraded by using the UW, and GFDM maintains its performance around 10 dB better than OFDM, as it had been observed in CP-GFDM and shown in Fig. \[oob\_performance\].
![*[OOB performance of GFDM and OFDM system]{}*[]{data-label="oob_performance"}](fig3){width=".82\columnwidth"}
An important observation is that the peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) performance of UW-GFDM is comparable to CP-OFDM and CP-GFDM systems using FS-OQAM modulation. In the last example, we compare the normalized throughput ($T$) of the systems, calculated by$$T= \frac{N_d}{K+L}(1-BLER),$$ where $BLER$ is the block error rate. These comparisons allow us to observe how much the inclusion of redundant subcarriers affects the throughput in relation to the system with CP. Fig. \[throughput\] shows that the CP-GFDM and UW-GFDM have a comparable throughput (UW-GFDM is slightly better for low $E_b/N_0$ values), and both are $8\%$ higher than CP-OFDM. Observing the curves UW-GFDM-all and UW-OFDM, we can conclude that the use of UW in all sub-symbols of the GFDM block reduces the throughput significantly.
![*[Throughput performance of GFDM and OFDM system]{}*[]{data-label="throughput"}](fig4){width=".82\columnwidth"}
Conclusions {#Conclus}
===========
In this work, we have introduced the concept of UW in GFDM systems. The guard interval is built by a UW instead of cyclic prefixes. This approach significantly reduces the noise on the subcarriers, maintaining the OOB obtained with the pulse shape filter in GFDM, and increases the throughput as compared to UW-OFDM and CP-OFDM, if applied to only one or a few block sub-symbols. The use of UW in GFDM requires the application of a modulation that allows orthogonality between the subcarriers, and the possibility of the UW for synchronization and channel estimation purposes requires the use of a nonzero UW that is orthogonal to the subcarriers of the GFDM sub-symbol. The proposed UW-GFDM approach outperforms CP-GFDM, UW-OFDM and CP-OFDM in all examples.
[x]{}
N. Michailow, M. Matthé, I. S. Gaspar, A. N. Caldevilla, L. L. Mendes, A. Festag, G. Fettweis, [*Generalized Frequency Division Multiplexing for 5th Generation Cellular Networks*]{}, IEEE Transactions on Communications,vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 3045 - 3061, Sep. 2014.
M. Huemer, A. Onic, C. Hofbauer, [*Classical and Bayesian Linear Data Estimators for Unique Word OFDM*]{} IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 59, no. 12, Dec. 2011.
M. Huemer, A. Onic, [*Direct vs. Two-Step Approach for Unique Word Generation in UW-OFDM*]{} Proceedings of the 15th International OFDM Workshop, Hamburg, Sep. 2010.
S. Golomb and R. Scholtz, [*Generalized Barker Sequences*]{} IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol.11, No. 4, pp. 533 ? 537, Oct. 1965.
B.M. Popovic, [*Generalized Chirp-like Polyphase Sequences with Optimum Correlation Properties*]{} IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 1406?1409, July 1992.
Y. Meyer, [*Ondelettes et opérateurs: Ondelettes*]{} ser. Actualités mathématiques. Paris, France: Hermann & Cie, 1990.
I. S. Gaspar, L. L. Mendes, N. Michailow, and G. Fettweis, [*A synchronization technique for generalized frequency division multiplexing*]{} EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process., vol. 2014, no. 1, pp. 67-76, May 2014.
M. Huemer, C. Hofbauer, J. B. Huber, [*Non-Systematic Complex Number RS Coded OFDM by Unique Word Prefix*]{} IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 60, no. 1, Jan. 2012.
J. T. Dias and R. C. de Lamare,“Unique-Word GFDM Transmission Systems," in IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 746-749, Dec. 2017.
S. Kay, [*Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory*]{}, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993.
R. C. de Lamare, R. Sampaio-Neto, “Adaptive MBER decision feedback multiuser receivers in frequency selective fading channels", *IEEE Communications Letters*, vol. 7, no. 2, Feb. 2003, pp. 73 - 75.
A. Rontogiannis, V. Kekatos, and K. Berberidis,“ A Square-Root Adaptive V-BLAST Algorithm for Fast Time-Varying MIMO Channels,” *IEEE Signal Processing Letters*, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 265-268, May 2006.
R. C. de Lamare, R. Sampaio-Neto, A. Hjorungnes, “Joint iterative interference cancellation and parameter estimation for CDMA systems", *IEEE Communications Letters*, vol. 11, no. 12, December 2007, pp. 916 - 918.
Y. Cai and R. C. de Lamare, “Adaptive Space-Time Decision Feedback Detectors with Multiple Feedback Cancellation”, *IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology*, vol. 58, no. 8, October 2009, pp. 4129 - 4140.
J. W. Choi, A. C. Singer, J Lee, N. I. Cho, “Improved linear soft-input soft-output detection via soft feedback successive interference cancellation," *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol.58, no.3, pp.986-996, March 2010.
R. C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Blind adaptive MIMO receivers for space-time block-coded DS-CDMA systems in multipath channels using the constant modulus criterion," IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol.58, no.1, pp.21-27, January 2010.
R. Fa, R. C. de Lamare, “Multi-Branch Successive Interference Cancellation for MIMO Spatial Multiplexing Systems", *IET Communications*, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 484 - 494, March 2011.
R.C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Adaptive reduced-rank equalization algorithms based on alternating optimization design techniques for MIMO systems," IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2482-2494, July 2011.
P. Li, R. C. de Lamare and R. Fa, “Multiple Feedback Successive Interference Cancellation Detection for Multiuser MIMO Systems," *IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications*, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 2434 - 2439, August 2011.
R.C. de Lamare, R. Sampaio-Neto, “Minimum mean-squared error iterative successive parallel arbitrated decision feedback detectors for DS-CDMA systems," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 56, no. 5, May 2008, pp. 778-789.
R. C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Reduced-Rank Adaptive Filtering Based on Joint Iterative Optimization of Adaptive Filters", *IEEE Signal Processing Letters*, Vol. 14, no. 12, December 2007.
R.C. de Lamare, R. Sampaio-Neto, “Minimum mean-squared error iterative successive parallel arbitrated decision feedback detectors for DS-CDMA systems," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 56, no. 5, May 2008.
R. C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Adaptive Reduced-Rank Processing Based on Joint and Iterative Interpolation, Decimation and Filtering", *IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing*, vol. 57, no. 7, July 2009, pp. 2503 - 2514.
R.C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Adaptive reduced-rank equalization algorithms based on alternating optimization design techniques for MIMO systems," IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2482-2494, July 2011.
P. Li, R. C. de Lamare and J. Liu, “Adaptive Decision Feedback Detection with Parallel Interference Cancellation and Constellation Constraints for Multiuser MIMO systems”, IET Communications, vol.7, 2012, pp. 538-547.
J. Liu, R. C. de Lamare, “Low-Latency Reweighted Belief Propagation Decoding for LDPC Codes," IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 1660-1663, October 2012.
C. T. Healy and R. C. de Lamare, “Design of LDPC Codes Based on Multipath EMD Strategies for Progressive Edge Growth," IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 3208-3219, Aug. 2016.
P. Li and R. C. de Lamare, Distributed Iterative Detection With Reduced Message Passing for Networked MIMO Cellular Systems, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol.63, no.6, pp. 2947-2954, July 2014.
A. G. D. Uchoa, C. T. Healy and R. C. de Lamare, “Iterative Detection and Decoding Algorithms For MIMO Systems in Block-Fading Channels Using LDPC Codes," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2015.
R. C. de Lamare, “Adaptive and Iterative Multi-Branch MMSE Decision Feedback Detection Algorithms for Multi-Antenna Systems”, *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 14, no. 10, October 2013.
A. G. D. Uchoa, C. T. Healy and R. C. de Lamare, “Iterative Detection and Decoding Algorithms for MIMO Systems in Block-Fading Channels Using LDPC Codes," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 2735-2741, April 2016.
Y. Cai, R. C. de Lamare, B. Champagne, B. Qin and M. Zhao, “Adaptive Reduced-Rank Receive Processing Based on Minimum Symbol-Error-Rate Criterion for Large-Scale Multiple-Antenna Systems,” in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 4185-4201, Nov. 2015.
Z. Shao, R. C. de Lamare and L. T. N. Landau, “Iterative Detection and Decoding for Large-Scale Multiple-Antenna Systems with 1-Bit ADCs," IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, 2018.
H. Kim, J. Kim, S. Yang, M. Hong, and Y. Shin [*An Effective MIMO OFDM System for IEEE 802.22 WRAN Channels*]{} IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, pp. 55-58, August 2008.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulations are used to study the shear thinning behavior of immiscible symmetric polymer blends. The phase separated polymers are subjected to a simple shear flow imposed by moving a wall parallel to the fluid-fluid interface. The viscosity begins to shear thin at much lower rates in the bulk than at the interface. The entire shear rate dependence of the interfacial viscosity is consistent with a shorter effective chain length $s^*$ that also describes the width of the interface. This $s^*$ is independent of chain length $N$ and is a function only of the degree of immiscibility of the two polymers. Changes in polymer conformation are studied as a function of position and shear rate. Shear thinning correlates more closely with a decrease in the component of the radius of gyration along the velocity gradient than with elongation along the flow. At the interface, this contraction of chains is independent of $N$ and consistent with the bulk behavior for chains of length $s^*$. The distribution of conformational changes along chains is also studied. Central regions begin to stretch at a shear rate that decreases with increasing $N$, while shear induced changes at the ends of chains are independent of $N$.'
address:
- ' Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Dept. of Mathematics, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720'
- 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218'
author:
- Sandra Barsky
- 'Mark O. Robbins'
title: Bulk and Interfacial Shear Thinning of Immiscible Polymers
---
epsf.sty
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The viscosity of a polymer melt decreases when the melt is subjected to a sufficiently large shear rate, a phenomenon known as shear thinning. This non-Newtonian behavior is important in polymer processing and applications and has been extensively studied both experimentally and theoretically[@carl; @ganaz; @semenov]. The basic origin of shear thinning is that polymers elongate and align with the flow when they are sheared more rapidly than they can relax. As the shear rate increases, the degree of alignment rises and the polymers present a decreasing hydrodynamic resistance to flow. Recent numerical simulations [@liu; @lopez; @daivis; @xu; @lyulin] have investigated a variety of issues in this non-Newtonian regime, including the shear-rate dependence of the viscosity, polymer conformation, and wall slip.
One area which has yet to be explored is shear-thinning near the interface between immiscible polymers. Blending of polymers is common in industry, as this is one way of creating new materials. However, the blended polymers are often immiscible, leading to phase separation. The resulting interfaces can have a major impact on the processing and ultimate properties of the blend.
The static properties of interfaces in binary polymer blends are typically described by the Flory-Huggins model [@flory]. The degree of immiscibility is characterized by a parameter $\chi$, which represents the free energy cost for placing a monomer of one type into a homogeneous region of the other type. There is a characteristic length $s^*$ of the loops of one type of polymer that penetrate into the region occupied by the other polymer. By balancing the enthalpic cost and entropy gain, one finds that $s^* \sim 1/\chi$ [@degennes]. The interface width scales as the radius of gyration of a segment of length $s^*$.
De Gennes and coworkers argued that the dynamic properties of the interface should also be controlled by $s^*$ rather than the chain length $N$ [@degennes]. In particular, they suggested that for polymers in the Rouse limit the interfacial viscosity $\eta_I$ should be given by the bulk viscosity of chains of length $s^*$. This implies that $\eta_I$ is only a function of $\chi$ and has no dependence on $N$ (as long it is larger than $s^*$). Goveas and Fredrickson reached similar conclusions from more detailed calculations [@goveas].
In a recent paper we presented a simulation study of the interfacial viscosity in the Newtonian regime of a symmetric binary blend of Rouse polymers [@barsky]. As predicted [@degennes; @goveas], we found that the interfacial viscosity is determined by the degree of immiscibility and converges to a chain length independent value at large $N$. Moreover, both $\eta_I$ and the interface width decrease with increasing immiscibility and their values are consistent with a common value of $s^*$.
In this paper we investigate the shear thinning behavior of the interfacial viscosity. We find that the same $s^*$ that sets the width of the interface and the Newtonian viscosity determines the shear rate where shear thinning begins. Indeed the entire variation of $\eta_I$ with shear rate follows the bulk shear thinning curve for chains of length $s^*$ and is independent of $N$. The shear rate dependent viscosity converges to the bulk behavior for chains of length $N$ at distances of order $R_g$ from the interface. Since $N$ is larger than $s^*$, the bulk viscosity $\eta_B$ is higher than $\eta_I$ in the Newtonian regime and begins to shear thin at a lower shear rate. Indeed, the interface does not begin to shear thin until $\eta_B$ has decreased to a value that is comparable to the Newtonian limit of $\eta_I$. At higher shear rates the viscosity is nearly independent of distance from the interface.
We also examine changes in the conformational properties of chains near the interface and in the bulk as a function of shear rate. In equilibrium, the bulk values of the mean-square components of the end-to-end vector are equal, $R^2_x = R^2_y=R^2_z$. The two components in the plane of the interface ($x$ and $y$) remain nearly unchanged at the interface, but the normal component decreases because of the constraint imposed by immiscibility. As the shear rate is increased, polymers elongate along the direction of flow ($x$), and contract in the orthogonal directions. We find substantial elongation before there is any measurable change in bulk viscosity. The onset of bulk shear thinning appears to be more closely correlated with the onset of contraction in the $z$ direction. The correlation between viscosity and contraction is even more dramatic at the interface. Like $\eta_I$, plots of $R^2_z$ as a function of shear rate are independent of $N$ and follow the bulk behavior for chains of length $s^*$. In contrast, changes in elongation depend on $N$ and begin at lower shear rates than changes in $\eta_I$.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section we review the interaction potentials and simulation techniques used in this work. Results and analyses are described in Sec. \[sec:result\], and a summary and discussion are presented in Sec. \[sec:dis\].
Model {#sec:method}
=====
The polymer model and simulation techniques are similar to those used in previous work [@barsky; @robbins; @thompson]. The polymer potential is based on the bead-spring model developed by Kremer and Grest [@grest1]. Linear polymers containing $N$ beads each are created by linking nearest neighbors on a chain with the potential $$\label{vgrest}
U_{nn}(r_{ij})=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}-\frac{1}{2}kR_0^2\ln\left[1-
\left(r_{ij}/R_0\right)^2\right]&r_{ij}<R_0\\ \infty &
r_{ij}\geq R_0\,,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $r_{ij}$ is the distance between beads $i$ and $j$, $R_0=1.5\sigma$, $k=30\epsilon/\sigma^2$, and $\sigma$ and $\epsilon$ set the length and energy scales, respectively. All particles in the system interact through a truncated Lennard-Jones potential $$\label{LJ}
U_{LJ}(r_{ij})=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}4\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\left[\left(
\sigma/r_{ij}
\right)^{12}-\left(\sigma/r_{ij}\right)^{6} \right]&r_{ij}<r^c_{\alpha\beta}\\
0&r_{ij}\geq r^c_{\alpha\beta}\,, \end{array} \right.$$ where the interaction energy $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ and cutoff $r^c_{\alpha\beta}$ depend on the types $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of beads $i$ and $j$, respectively. The cutoff is set at $r^{c}_{\alpha\beta}=2^{1/6} \sigma$ to produce a purely repulsive interaction between beads. For interactions between polymers of the same type $\epsilon_{\alpha\alpha} = \epsilon$, with $\alpha=A$ or $B$. The two types of polymers are made immiscible [@grest] by increasing the repulsive energy between unlike beads to $\epsilon_{AB} = \epsilon_{BA} = \epsilon(1 + \epsilon^*)$, where $\epsilon^* = 1.2 $ or $3.2$. Both values of $\epsilon^*$ are sufficient to produce phase separation for the range of chain lengths $N$ considered here, $N=16,$ $32,$ and $64$.
The bounds of the simulation cell are periodic in the $x$ and $y$ directions, with periods $L_x \cong 38.5 \sigma$ and $L_y \cong 33.4 \sigma$, respectively. In the $z$ direction the cell is bounded by top and bottom walls. Each contains $N_W=3200$ atoms tied to the sites of a $(111)$ plane of an fcc lattice by harmonic springs of stiffness $\kappa = 1320\epsilon/\sigma^2$. The walls are separated by $L_z\cong 47 \sigma$. They confine $49152$ polymer beads, yielding a bead density of $\rho= 0.8\sigma^{-3}$ in regions far away from interfaces. Density oscillations are induced within a few $\sigma$ of the walls [@khare]. However, the solid/polymer interfaces are only introduced to produce shear and are not of direct interest here. We thus restrict our discussion to regions more than five $\sigma$ from the walls, where wall-induced ordering is negligible.
A symmetric blend is created in the following way. Polymers whose centers of mass are located in the bottom half of the simulation box are labeled type $A$ and the remaining polymers are labeled $B$. The dividing plane is adjusted to ensure that there are equal numbers of polymers of each type. We also studied single phase systems with $N=10$ and $14$ at the same bead density.
Shear flow is induced by moving the top wall parallel to the interface at a constant speed $v_{W}$ in the $x$ direction. Due to the sharp wall/polymer interface and large polymer viscosity there can be a substantial difference between the velocities of the wall atoms and adjacent polymer beads [@robbins; @thompson; @khare; @jabbarzadeh; @migler]. We increased the wall/polymer interactions to limit this interfacial “slip”. Atoms and beads interact through a Lennard-Jones potential with $\sigma_{WA}=\sigma_{WB}=\sigma$. For most simulations $\epsilon_{W\alpha} = \sqrt{1.7}\epsilon$ and the cutoff is extended to $r^{c}_{W\alpha}=\sqrt{1.5 }\sigma$ to include part of the attractive region in the Lennard-Jones potential. At the highest shear rates studied, the wall/polymer interactions are increased by choosing $\epsilon_{WA} = \epsilon_{WB} =\sqrt{4.7}\epsilon$, and $r_{c}=\sqrt{2.5 }\sigma$.
The equations of motion are integrated using a fifth-order predictor-corrector method [@allen], with a time step $\delta t = 0.0075 \tau$, where $\tau = \sigma \sqrt{m/\epsilon}$ is the basic unit of time, and $m$ is the mass of a monomer. A constant temperature of $k_BT=1.1\epsilon$ is maintained with a Langevin thermostat [@grest1]. To ensure that this thermostat does not bias the shear profile, the Gaussian white noise and damping terms are only added to the equations of motion for the velocity components normal to the mean flow ($y$ and $z$) [@robbins; @stevens]. There is a characteristic time required for energy to flow from velocity fluctuations along the flow direction to the thermostatted components. When the inverse shear rate becomes comparable to this time, the kinetic energy along the flow direction is no longer thermostatted effectively. This limits the maximum shear rate in our simulations to about 0.2$\tau^{-1}$. However the correct ensemble for higher shear rates is a matter of continuing debate, and such strongly nonequilibrium states are not accessible to experiments [@stevens; @evans].
The local shear rate, $\dot{\gamma}$, of the fluid is easily calculated by taking the local rate of change in the $x$ component of velocity, $v_x$ as a function of $z$, [*i.e.*]{} $\dot{\gamma} = \partial v_x/ \partial z$. This is done by taking slices parallel to the $x-y$ plane, of width $0.095 \sigma$, and averaging the velocity of the monomers within these slices. The viscosity within a slice is found from $$\eta=\frac{P_{xz}}{\dot{\gamma}},$$ where the shear stress $P_{xz}$ is constant throughout the system in steady state. Values of shear rate and viscosity presented below are averaged over ten slices.
The wall velocity is varied from $v_w = 0.1 \sigma/\tau$ to $8.0 \sigma/\tau$. As shown in Table \[shear-all\], this leads to a variation by almost two orders of magnitude in the bulk shear rate ${\dot{\gamma}}_B$ evaluated far from any interface. Note that this shear rate is the same in both fluids since we consider a symmetric melt. Statistical fluctuations drop with the total distance the wall moves and increase with increasing chain lengths (e.g. Fig. \[vischeight\]). The simulations at lower shear rate were sheared for more than a million time steps after equilibration. Half this interval was used for higher shear rates.
Results {#sec:result}
=======
Interface Width
---------------
In Fig.\[dens\] we show the densities of the two types of beads in the region near the interface for $\epsilon^* =3.2$ and $N=16$ and 64. For this strongly immiscible case, the densities change from their bulk values to zero over a few $\sigma$. Moreover, these density profiles are nearly unaffected when $N$ is changed by a factor of $4$ and the bulk shear rate is changed by a factor of 100.
Previous studies of equilibrium interfaces have related the interface width to the radius of gyration of polymer segments that enter the interfacial region [@flory; @degennes; @goveas; @helftag; @fur]. The length of these segments, $s^*$, is determined by the degree of immiscibility and becomes independent of $N$ in the large $N$ limit. Earlier studies of the equilibrium properties of the model considered here[@barsky] are consistent with these predictions. For example, for $\epsilon^*=3.2$ the density profiles are independent of $N$ for $N \geq 16$. As illustrated in Fig. \[dens\], this behavior extends to the highest shear rates studied here. The same insensitivity to shear rate is found for the less immiscible case of $\epsilon^*=1.2$ where the interface is slightly wider.
Viscosity
---------
The bulk viscosity of polymers whose length is shorter than the entanglement length can be described with Rouse theory [@doi]. The limiting Newtonian viscosity at low shear rates scales linearly with chain length: $\eta_B = \zeta b^2 \rho N $, where $\zeta$ is the monomeric friction coefficient and $b$ is the statistical segment length. DeGennes and coworkers [@degennes] argued that the viscosity in the interfacial region, $\eta_I$, should be determined by the effective length $s^*$ rather than $N$ because $s^*$ is the length of segments that must relax during shear flow. Their conclusion is supported by the analysis of Goveas and Fredrickson[@goveas] and by our earlier simulations in the Newtonian limit [@barsky].
The dependence of the bulk and interfacial viscosities on chain length in the Newtonian limit is illustrated in Figure \[vischeight\]. Here $\eta$ is plotted against height $z$ for $\epsilon^*=3.2$ over the range of chain lengths where the interface width, and thus $s^*$, is constant. Away from the interface $\eta$ approaches the bulk viscosity, which rises linearly with $N$ for $N$ up to 64. The slope of this rise determines $\zeta=0.38\pm 0.03 m/\tau$, since $b=1.28\sigma$ is known from static properties [@barsky; @grest1] and $\rho=0.8\sigma^{-3}$.
In the interfacial region the viscosity is smaller than the bulk value and is independent of chain length. This is consistent with the picture that the constant value of $s^*$ determines $\eta_I$. Equating $s^*$ to the chain length that would give a bulk viscosity equal to $\eta_I$ yields $s^* \approx 10$. A similar analysis for $\epsilon^*=1.2$ yields $s^* \approx 14$, and in both cases the radius of gyration corresponding to $s^*$ is 1.6 times the interface width [@barsky]. Thus the Newtonian response is consistent with the picture advanced by deGennes and coworkers [@degennes].
The shear thinning behavior of the bulk viscosity with increasing shear rate is shown in Fig. \[viscbulk\]. As is well known, the onset of shear thinning occurs when the system is sheared more rapidly than it can relax. Since the time to relax increases with chain length, the onset of shear thinning moves to lower shear rates with increasing $N$ [@xu]. As in previous work [@xu], the decrease in viscosity at high shear rates can be fit to a power law $\eta \sim {\dot{\gamma}}^{-\alpha}$, with $\alpha$ near 1/2. The dashed line in Fig. \[viscbulk\] shows a fit to $N=64$ data with $\alpha = 0.47$. The low shear rate viscosity increases with chain length, and the high shear rate behavior is nearly independent of $N$.
The variation of the interfacial viscosity with the interfacial shear rate is shown in Fig. \[ifvisc\] for different $N$ and $\epsilon^*$. In all cases, $\eta_I$ begins to shear thin at much higher shear rates than $\eta_B$. Data is only presented for values of $N$ where the Newtonian response and interface width are independent of chain length, so that $s^*$ should also be constant. One sees from the figure that the shear thinning behavior is also independent of $N$ in this limit. Moreover, the entire shear thinning curve for all $N$ at each value of $\epsilon^*$ is consistent with the bulk shear thinning behavior of chains with length equal to the values of $s^*$ inferred from the corresponding Newtonian response. This is strong evidence that a single segment length determines the non-Newtonian shear thinning behavior as well as the static interface profile and Newtonian response.
Polymer Conformations
---------------------
We now describe the changes in chain conformation that are associated with the shear thinning of the bulk and interface. Fig. \[n=16conformation\] shows the mean square of the three components of the end-to-end vector $\vec{R}$ as a function of the height of the polymer’s center of mass. The two panels show results for two low shear rates with $N=16$ and $\epsilon^*=3.2$. The lowest shear rate (panel (a)) is well into the Newtonian regime, and the polymers have time to relax to equilibrium conformations. Far from the interface the polymers follow isotropic random walks with $R^2_x=R^2_y=R^2_z \approx 8\sigma^2$. Near the interface $R^2_z$ is strongly suppressed because immiscibility eliminates paths that take polymers too far into the other phase. The values of $R^2_x$ and $R^2_y$ are nearly unaffected by this constraint, but show a small rise that is comparable to our statistical noise. The value of $R^2_z$ does not attain its bulk level until the center of mass is far enough from the interface that chains are unlikely to reach it. This distance is comparable to the bulk value of $\sqrt{R^2_z}$, which is larger than the range over which the density changes (Fig. \[dens\]).
Panel (b) of Fig. \[n=16conformation\] shows the mean square components of $\vec{R}$ at the third lowest shear rate in Fig. \[viscbulk\]. Surprisingly, although the viscosity is nearly indistinguishable from the low shear rate limit, there is a substantial change in conformation. The component along the flow direction, $R^2_x$, increases by about 25% throughout the system. The bulk value of $R^2_z$ drops by about 10%, while the interfacial value is nearly unchanged. This is consistent with the observation that the interface shear thins at higher shear rates than the bulk.
Conformation changes at much higher shear rates are illustrated in Fig. \[r2n32xyz\]. Here the mean square $x$ and $z$ components of the end-to-end vector are plotted as a function of center of mass height for $N=32$, $\epsilon^*=3.2$, and four values of $v_W$. As expected, chains in the bulk regions are stretched and aligned along the flow direction. At the lowest shear rate, the bulk value of $R^2_x$ is about 20% above its equilibrium value. At the highest shear rate, the length of the polymer along the flow direction has grown to about 40% of the fully extended length. The components orthogonal to the flow decrease. The drop in $R^2_z$ is much larger than that in $R^2_y$, which drops from about 17 to 10$\sigma^2$ over the studied range of $\dot{\gamma}$. Overall there is a net increase in $R^2$ from about 50 to 180$\sigma^2$, because the increase in $R^2_x$ is much larger than the decrease in the other two components.
Chains in the interfacial region also stretch along the flow direction and contract in the orthogonal directions. However, as with the viscosity, the shear rate dependence is shifted to higher $\dot{\gamma}$ at the interface. The value of $R_x^2$ is initially slightly higher at the interface and increases more slowly with $\dot{\gamma}$, leading to a pronounced dip at the highest shear rates. In contrast, the dip in $R_z^2$ at the interface decreases with increasing shear rate because the bulk value drops more rapidly with $\dot{\gamma}$.
Fig. \[r2zall\] provides a more detailed picture of the variation in the conformation of chains near the interface with increasing shear rate. Interfacial values of $R^2_z$ are plotted against shear rate for $N=16,$ 32, and 64 at $\epsilon^*=3.2$. Bulk values for chains with length equal to the inferred value of $s^*=10$ are shown for comparison. All curves are flat at low shear rates, and begin to decrease at the point where the interfacial viscosity begins to fall in Fig. \[ifvisc\]. As with the data for $\eta_I$, the interfacial conformations for all chain lengths collapse on to a universal curve that coincides with the bulk curve for chains of length $s^*$ within our errorbars. This provides further evidence that a single time scale corresponding to $s^*$ controls the behavior of the interface. Note that the uncertainties are larger for interfacial values due to the relatively low number of polymers whose center of mass lies at the interface. As discussed previously[@barsky; @helfand], there is a preponderance of chain ends at the interface. This reduces the number of chain centers at the interface by a factor of three for the parameters considered here.
The idea that relaxation times should scale with the length of a subset of the chain rather than its entire length is related to other recent work[@stuff]. These papers have examined changes in the conformation of individual chains pulled through gels or other polymers. Segments at the free end of the chain are assumed to relax with a time scale that is characteristic of bulk polymers with the same length as the segment. Since the relaxation time grows with the length of the segment, the polymer is less relaxed and more stretched as one moves away from the free end toward the pulling end.
A similar phenomenon should occur within individual chains in a sheared polymer melt. Segments at the end of the chain will be more relaxed than the center leading to a dumbbell configuration that narrows in the center. In addition, the ends should begin to stretch at higher shear rates than the center because their characteristic relaxation time is shorter. Fig. \[subsect\] shows the end-to-end distance of segments of length $4$ as a function of shear rate. Results for the two end-segments are averaged and compared to a segment in the middle of the chain. Note that the ends show the same behavior for all $N$ indicating that the characteristic relaxation time for their conformations is only a function of segment length. In contrast, the middle segment becomes more stretched as $N$ increases and the characteristic rate at which it can no longer relax decreases with increasing $N$. These effects are reminiscent of a nematic coupling effect seen recently in polymers, where the orientation of middle segments also relaxed more slowly with increasing $N$, while the rapid relaxation of ends was independent of $N$ [@mem].
Summary and Discussion {#sec:dis}
======================
In this paper we have examined shear thinning and conformational changes in the bulk and interfacial regions of a phase-separated binary blend of Rouse chains. The bulk behavior is consistent with previous studies. The most surprising result is that pronounced elongation of the chains is observed before there is a noticeable change in viscosity. The onset of significant changes in $\eta_B$ seems more closely connected to the contraction along the gradient direction, which becomes appreciable at higher shear rates than the elongation along the flow direction.
The changes in interfacial viscosity are consistent with the prediction [@degennes; @goveas] that the interfacial viscosity is determined entirely by the characteristic length $s^*$ of loops that cross the interface between immiscible polymers. This length is determined by the degree of immiscibility and independent of $N$ for the polymers studied here. The interfacial viscosity shows these same trends. For each degree of immiscibility, plots of interfacial viscosity against interfacial shear rate for different $N$ collapse onto a single curve. The entire curve coincides with the bulk shear thinning behavior of polymers of length $10$ for $\epsilon^*=3.2$ and $14$ for $\epsilon^*=1.2$. Thus a single effective chain length describes both the Newtonian value of $\eta_I$ and its shear thinning behavior. Our previous work showed that the same effective chain length described the width of equilibrium interfaces.[@barsky]
The suppression of the viscosity near the interface (Fig. \[vischeight\]) leads to an effective slip boundary condition [@degennes; @goveas; @barsky]. The amount of slip is most pronounced in the Newtonian limit where the difference between $\eta_I$ and $\eta_B$ is largest. As the bulk viscosity begins to shear thin, the amount of slip decreases. Once the shear rate is high enough to produce significant shear thinning at the interface, the bulk and interfacial viscosities converge (Fig. \[ifvisc\]). In this limit the amount of slip is negligible.
Changes in the conformation of polymers near the interface were also studied. In equilibrium, the interface suppresses the component of the end-to-end vector perpendicular to the interface, but has little effect on the in-plane components. The changes in interfacial viscosity are most closely correlated with changes in the perpendicular component. Like $\eta_I$, plots of $R_z^2$ against shear rate for different chain lengths collapse onto a common curve that is consistent with that for bulk chains of length $s^*$ (Fig. \[r2zall\]). While the elongation increases more slowly near the interface than in the bulk, it begins at much lower shear rates than the change in interfacial viscosity (i.e. Fig. \[n=16conformation\]) and depends on chain length. Thus our results for both the bulk and interface indicate that polymer contraction perpendicular to the interface is the most important structural change associated with shear thinning.
We also explored changes in the conformation of segments of 4 beads within longer chains as a function of shear rate. Segments in the center of the chains began to elongate at the same shear rate where the bulk viscosity for the given chain length showed shear thinning. However, the conformation of the ends remained unchanged until much higher shear rates. Moreover, the conformation of the ends was nearly independent of the total chain length and their shear thinning behavior was comparable to that for bulk chains with length 4. Recent studies of much longer chains have used the concept of a position dependent relaxation time to determine the conformation of a single chain in a solvent or gel [@stuff]. Our study shows that the same concept applies to polymer melts.
Acknowledgements
================
Support from the Semiconductor Research Corporation through AMD Custom Funding and from National Science Foundation Grant No. DMR 0083286 is gratefully acknowledged.
W. Carl, Macromol. Theory Simul., [**3**]{} 705 (1994). F. Ganazzoli and A. Tacconelli, Macromol. Theory Simul., [ **7**]{} 79 (1998). A. N. Semenov, A. V. Subbotin, G. Hadziioannou, G. Ten Brinke, E. Manias and M Doi, Macromol. Symp. [**121**]{}, 175 (1997). T. W. Liu, J. Chem. Phys. [**90**]{} 5826 (1989). J. J. López Cascales, S. Navarro and J. García de la Torre, Macromolecules [**25**]{}, 3574 (1992). P. J. Daivis and D. J. Evans, J. Chem. Phys. [**100**]{} 541 (1994). Z. Xu, J. J. de Pablo, and S. Kim, J. Chem. Phys. [**102**]{} 5836 (1995). A. V. Lyulin, D. B. Adolf, and G. R. Davies, J. Chem. Phys. [ **111**]{}, 758 (1999). P. Flory, [*Principles of Polymer Chemistry*]{} (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1953). F. Brouchard-Wyart, P.G. de Gennes, and S. Troian, C.R. Acad. Sci (Paris), [**308 II**]{}, 1401 (1989); P.G. de Gennes in [*Physics of Surfaces and Interfaces*]{}, ed. I. C. Sanchez (Butterworth-Heinmann, Boston, 1992) J. L. Goveas and G.H. Fredrickson, Eur. Phys. J. B, [**2**]{} 79 (1998). S. Barsky and M. O. Robbins, Phys. Rev. E [**63**]{} ref. 0211801 (2001). P. A. Thompson and M. O. Robbins, Phys. Rev. A [**41**]{}, 6830 (1990). P. A. Thompson and S. M. Troian, Nature [**389**]{}, 360 (1997). K. Kremer and G.S. Grest, J. Chem. Phys. [**92**]{}, 5057 (1990). G. S. Grest, M.-D. Lacasse, K. Kremer, and A. M. Gupta, J. Chem. Phys. [**105**]{} 10583 (1996); M.-D. Lacasse, G. S. Grest and A. J. Levine, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} 309 (1998). R. Khare, J. J. de Pablo, and A. Yethiraj, Macromolecules [**29**]{} 7910 (1996). A. Jabbarzadeh, J. D. Atkinson and R. I. Tanner, J. Chem. Phys. [**110**]{} 2612 (1999). K. B. Migler, H. Hervet and L. Leger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{} 287 (1993). M. Allen and D. Tildesley, [*Computer Simulations of Liquids*]{},(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987). M. J. Stevens and M. O. Robbins, Phys. Rev. E[**48**]{}, 3778 (1993). S. S. Sarman, D. J. Evans and P. T. Cummings, Phys. Rep. [**305**]{}, 1 (1998). E. Helfand and Y. Tagami, J. Chem. Phys. [**56**]{}, 3592 (1971). H. Furukawa, Phys. Rev. A [**40**]{}, 6403 (1989). M. Doi and S.F. Edwards, [*The Theory of Polymer Dynamics*]{} (Clarendon, Oxford, 1986). E. Helfand, S. M. Bhattacharjee, and G. H. Fredrickson, J. Chem. Phys. [**91**]{} 7200 (1989). F. Brochard-Wyart, Europhys. Lett. [**23**]{}, 105 (1993); [**30**]{}, 387 (1995). A. Adjari, F. Brochard-Wyart, P. G. de Gennes, L. Leibler, J.-L. Viovy, and M. Rubinstein, Physica A [**204**]{}, 17 (1994). S. Barsky and G. Slater, Macromolecules [**32**]{} 6348 (1999).
------- ---------- ------------ ------------------ ---------- -----------
$v_W$ $\dot{\gamma}_B$
$N=10$ $N=14$ $N=16$ $N=32$ $N=64$
$0.1$ $ .0019$ $ .00175$ .00159 $0.0013$ $0.00094$
$0.3$ $ .0055$ $ .00512$ .00479 $0.0039$ $0.0038$
$0.5$ $ .0091$ $ .00872$ $0.0081$ $0.0074$ $0.0073$
$1.0$ $ .018$ $ .00175$ $0.0171$ $0.0159$ $0.0166$
$2.0$ $ .037$ $ .036$ $0.0352$ $0.0360$ $0.0365$
$3.0$ $ .0563$ $ .0549$ $0.0538$ $0.0545$ $0.0554$
$5.0$ $ .093$ $ .0908$ $0.0899$ $0.0907$ $0.0943$
$8.0$ $.171 $ $.168 $ $0.168$ $0.166$ $0.171$
------- ---------- ------------ ------------------ ---------- -----------
: The shear rate in bulk regions of each polymer ${\dot{\gamma}}_B$ at the indicated values of chain length and wall velocity $v_W$. Uncertainties are less than $5 \%$. The proportionately larger shear rates at $ v_W=8 \sigma/\tau$ are due to an increase in the wall-coupling parameters, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:method\].
\[shear-all\]
=3.0in
=3.0in
=3.0in
=3.0in
=3.0in
=3.0in
=3.0in
=3.0in
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
In the present paper the three state Potts model with competing binary interactions (with couplings $J$ and $J_p$) on the second order Bethe lattice is considered. The recurrent equations for the partition functions are derived. When $J_p=0$, by means of a construction of a special class of limiting Gibbs measures, it is shown how these equations are related with the surface energy of the Hamiltonian. This relation reduces the problem of describing the limit Gibbs measures to find of solutions of a nonlinear functional equation. Moreover, the set of ground states of the one-level model is completely described. Using this fact, one finds Gibbs measures (pure phases) associated with the translation-invariant ground states. The critical temperature is exactly found and the phase diagram is presented. The free energies corresponding to translations-invariant Gibbs measures are found. Certain physical quantities are calculated as well.\
[*Mathematical Subject Classification:*]{} 82B20, 82B26\
[*Keywords:*]{} Bethe lattice, Potts model, competing interactions, Gibbs measure, free energy.
address:
- |
Nasir Ganikhodjaev\
Faculty of Science\
IIUM, 53100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and Department of Mechanics and Mathematics, NUUz\
Vuzgorodok, 700174, Tashkent, Uzbekistan\
- |
Farrukh Mukhemedov\
Departamento de Fisica\
Universidade de Aveiro\
Campus Universitário de Santiago\
3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
- |
José F.F. Mendes\
Departamento de Fisica\
Universidade de Aveiro\
Campus Universitário de Santiago\
3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
author:
- Nasir Ganikhodjaev
- Farrukh Mukhamedov
- 'José F.F. Mendes'
title: on the three state Potts model with competing interactions on the Bethe lattice
---
Introduction
============
The Potts models describe a special and easily defined class of statistical mechanics models. Nevertheless, they are richly structured enough to illustrate almost every conceivable nuance of the subject. In particular, they are at the center of the most recent explosion of interest generated by the confluence of conformal field theory,percolation theory, knot theory, quantum groups and integrable systems. The Potts model [@Po] was introduced as a generalization of the Ising model to more than two components. At present the Potts model encompasses a number of problems in statistical physics (see, e.g. [@W]). Some exact results about certain properties of the model were known, but more of them are based on approximation methods. Note that there does not exist analytical solutions on standard lattices. But investigations of phase transitions of spin models on hierarchical lattices showed that they make the exact calculation of various physical quantities [@DGM],[@P1; @P2],[@T]. Such studies on the hierarchical lattices begun with development of the Migdal-Kadanoff renormalization group method where the lattices emerged as approximants of the ordinary crystal ones. On the other hand, the study of exactly solved models deserves some general interest in statistical mechanics [@Ba]. Moreover, nowadays the investigations of statistical mechanics on non-amenable graphs is a modern growing topic ([@L]). For example, Bethe lattices are most simple hierarchical lattices with [*non-amenable*]{} graph structure. This means that the ratio of the number of boundary sites to the number of interior sites of the Bethe lattice tends to a nonzero constant in the thermodynamic limit of a large system, i.e. the ratio ${W_n}/{V_n}$ (see for the definitions Sec. 2) tends to $(k-1)/(k+1)$ as $n\to\infty$, here $k$ is the order of the lattice. Nevertheless, that the Bethe lattice is not a realistic lattice, however, its amazing topology makes the exact calculation of various quantities possible [@L]. It is believed that several among its interesting thermal properties could persist for regular lattices, for which the exact calculation is far intractable. In [@PLM1; @PLM2] the phase diagrams of the $q$-state Potts models on the Bethe lattices were studied and the pure phases of the the ferromagnetic Potts model were found. In [@G] using those results, uncountable number of the pure phase of the 3-state Potts model were constructed. These investigations were based on a measure-theoretic approach developed in [@Ge],[@Pr],[@S],[@P1; @P2]. The Bethe lattices were fruitfully used to have a deeper insight into the behavior of the Potts models. The structure of the Gibbs measures of the Potts models has been investigated in [@G; @GR]. Certain algebraic properties of the Gibbs measures associated with the model have been considered in [@M].
It is known that the Ising model with competing interactions was originally considered by Elliot [@E] in order to describe modulated structures in rare-earth systems. In [@BB] the interest to the model was renewed and studied by means of an iteration procedure. The Ising type models on the Bethe lattices with competing interactions appeared in a pioneering work Vannimenus [@V], in which the physical motivations for the urgency of the study such models were presented. In [@YOS; @TY] the infinite-coordination limit of the model introduced by Vannimenus was considered. It was also found a phase diagram which was similar to that model studied in [@BB]. In [@MTA],[@SC] other generalizations of the model were studied. In all of those works the phase diagrams of such models were found numerically, so there were not exact solutions of the phase transition problem. Note that the ordinary Ising model on Bethe lattices was investigated in [@BG; @BRZ1; @BRZ2; @BRSSZ], where such model was rigourously investigated. In [@GPW1; @GPW2],[@MR1; @MR2] the Ising model with competing interactions has been rigourously studied, namely for this model a phase transition problem was exactly solved and a critical curve was found as well. For such a model it was shown that a phase transition occurs for the medium temperature values, which essentially differs from the well-known results for the ordinary Ising model, in which a phase transition occurs at low temperature. Moreover, the structure of the set of periodic Gibbs measures was described. While studying such models the appearance of nontrivial magnetic orderings were discovered.
Since the Ising model corresponds to the two-state Potts model, therefore it is naturally to consider $q$-state Potts model with competing interactions on the Bethe lattices. Note that such kind of models were studied in [@NS],[@Ma],[@Mo1; @Mo2] on standard $\bz^d$ and other lattices. In the present paper we are going to study a phase transition problem for the three-state ferromagnetic Potts model with competing interactions on a Bethe lattice of order two. In this paper we will use a measure-theoretic approach developed in [@Ge; @S], which enables us to solve exactly such a model.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we give some preliminary definitions of the model with competing ternary (with couplings $J$ and $J_p$) and binary interactions on a Bethe lattice. In section 3 we derive recurrent equations for the partition functions. To show how the derived recurrent equations are related with the surface energy of the Hamiltonian, we give a construction of a special class of limiting Gibbs measures for the model at $J_p=0$. Moreover, the problem of describing the limit Gibbs measures is reduced to a problem of solving a nonlinear functional equation. In section 4 the set of ground states of the model is completely described. Using this fact and the recurrent equations, in section 5, one finds Gibbs measures (pure phases) associated with the translation-invariant ground states. A curve of the critical temperature is exactly found, under one there occurs a phase transition. In section 6, we prove the existence of the free energy. The free energy of the translations-invariant Gibbs measures is also calculated. Some physical quantities are computed as well. Discussions of the results are given in the last section.
Preliminaries
=============
Recall that the Bethe lattice $\Gamma^k$ of order $ k\geq 1 $ is an infinite tree, i.e., a graph without cycles, such that from each vertex of which issues exactly $ k+1 $ edges. Let $\Gamma^k=(V, \Lambda),$ where $V$ is the set of vertices of $
\Gamma^k$, $\Lambda$ is the set of edges of $ \Gamma^k$. Two vertices $x$ and $y$ are called [*nearest neighbors*]{} if there exists an edge $l\in\Lambda$ connecting them, which is denoted by $l=<x,y>$. A collection of the pairs $<x,x_1>,...,<x_{d-1},y>$ is called a [*path*]{} from $x$ to $y$. Then the distance $d(x,y),
x,y\in V$, on the Bethe lattice, is the number of edges in the shortest path from $x$ to $y$.
For a fixed $x^0\in V$ we set $$W_n=\{x\in V| d(x,x^0)=n\}, \ \ \ V_n=\cup_{m=1}^n W_m,$$ $$L_n=\{l=<x,y>\in L | x,y\in V_n\}.$$ Denote $$S(x)=\{y\in W_{n+1} : d(x,y)=1 \}, \ \ x\in W_n,$$ this set is called a set of [*direct successors*]{} of $x$.
For the sake of simplicity we put $|x|=d(x,x^0)$, $x\in V$. Two vertices $x,y\in V$ are called [*the second neighbors*]{} if $d(x,y)=2$. Two vertices $x,y\in V$ are called [*one level next-nearest-neighbor vertices*]{} if there is a vertex $z\in V$ such that $x,y\in S(z)$, and they are denoted by $>x,y<$. In this case the vertices $x,z,y$ are called [*ternary*]{} and denoted by $<x,z,y>$. In fact, if $x$ and $y$ are one level next-nearest-neighbor vertices, then they are the second neighbors with $|x|=|y|$. Therefore, we say that two second neighbor vertices $x$ and $y$ are [*prolonged vertices*]{} if $|x|\neq |y|$ and denote them by $\widetilde{>x,y<}$.
In the sequel we will consider semi-infinite Bethe lattice $\G^2_+$ of order 2, i.e. an infinite graph without cycles with 3 edges issuing from each vertex except for $x^0$ that has only 2 edges.
Now we are going to introduce a semigroup structure in $\G^2_+$ (see [@FNW]). Every vertex $x$ (except for $x^0$) of $\G^2_+$ has coordinates $(i_1,\dots,i_n)$, here $i_k\in\{1,2\}$, $1\leq
k\leq n$ and for the vertex $x^0$ we put $(0)$. Namely, the symbol $(0)$ constitutes level 0 and the sites $(i_1,\dots,i_n)$ form level $n$ of the lattice, i.e. for $x\in \G^2_+$, $x=(i_1,\dots,i_n)$ we have $|x|=n$ (see Fig. \[fig1\]).
![The first levels of $\G_+^2$[]{data-label="fig1"}](tree.ps){width="10.07cm"}
Let us define on $\G^2_+$ a binary operation $\circ:\G^2_+\times\G^2_+\to\G^2_+$ as follows: for any two elements $x=(i_1,\dots,i_n)$ and $y=(j_1,\dots,j_m)$ put $$\label{binar1}
x\circ
y=(i_1,\dots,i_n)\circ(j_1,\dots,j_m)=(i_1,\dots,i_n,j_1,\dots,j_m)$$ and $$\label{binar2}
x\circ x^0=x^0\circ x= (i_1,\dots,i_n)\circ(0)=(i_1,\dots,i_n).$$
By means of the defined operation $\G^2_+$ becomes a noncommutative semigroup with a unit. Using this semigroup structure one defines translations $\tau_g:\G^2_+\to \G^2_+$, $g\in \G^2_+$ by $$\label{trans1}
\tau_g(x)=g\circ x.$$ It is clear that $\tau_{(0)}=id$.
Let $\g$ be a permutation of $\{1,2\}$. Define $\pi^{(\g)}_{(0)}:\G^2_+\to \G^2_+$ by $$\label{trans2}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\pi^{(\g)}_{(0)}(0)=(0) \\[2mm]
\pi^{(\g)}_{(0)}(i_1,\dots,i_n)=(\g(i_1),\dots,i_n)\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ for all $n\geq 1$. For any $g\in \G^2_+$ ($g\neq x^0$) define a rotation $\pi^{(\g)}_{g}:\G^2_+\to \G^2_+$ by $$\label{trans3}
\pi^{(\g)}_{g}(x)=\tau_g(\pi^{(\g)}_{(0)}(x)), \ \ x\in \G^2_+.$$
Let $G\subset \G^2_+$ be a sub-semigroup of $\G^2_+$ and $h:\G^2_+\to \br$ be a function defined on $\G^2_+$. We say that $h$ is [*$G$-periodic*]{} if $h(\tau_g(x))=h(x)$ for all $g\in G$ and $x\in \G^2_+$. Any $\G^2_+$-periodic function is called [*translation invariant*]{}. We say that $h$ is [*quasi $G$-periodic*]{} if for every $g\in G$ one holds $h(\pi^{(\g)}_{g}(x))=h(x)$ for all $x\in \G^2_+$ except for a finite number of elements of $\G^2_+$.
Put $$\label{sub}
G_k=\{x\in \G^2_+: \ |x|/k\in\bn \}, \ \ k\geq 2$$
One can check that $G_k$ is a sub-semigroup with a unit.
Let $\Phi=\{\z_1,\z_2,...,\z_q\}$, where $\z_1,\z_2,...,\z_q$ are elements of ${\R}^{q-1}$ such that $$\label{21}
\z_i\z_j= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1, \ \ \ \ \ \textrm{for $i=j$},\\
-\frac{1}{q-1}, \ \textrm{for $i\neq j$},
\end{array} \right.$$ here $xy$, $x,y\in\br^{q-1}$, stands for the ordinary scalar product on $\br^{q-1}$.
From the last equality we infer that $$\label{zero}
\sum_{k=1}^q\z_k=0.$$
The vectors $\{\z_1,\z_2,...,\z_{q-1}\}$ are linearly independent, therefore further they will be considered as a basis of ${\R}^{q-1}$.
In this paper we restrict ourselves to the case $q=3$. Then every vector $h\in{\R}^2$ can be represented as $h=h_1\z_1+h_2\z_2$, i.e. $h=(h_1,h_2)$, and from we find $$\label{22}
h\z_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
h_1-\frac{1}{2}h_2, \qquad \ \ \ \ \textrm{if} \ \ i=1,\\
-\frac{1}{2}h_1+h_2, \qquad \ \ \textrm{if} \ \ i=2,\\
-\frac{1}{2}(h_1+h_2), \qquad \textrm{if} \ \ i=3.\\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $\G^2_+=(V,\Lambda)$. We consider models where the spin takes its values in the set $\Phi=\{\z_1,\z_2,\z_3\}$ and is assigned to the vertices of the lattice $\G^2_+$. A configuration $\s$ on $V$ is then defined as a function $x\in V\to\s(x)\in\Phi$; in a similar fashion one defines configurations $\s_n$ and $\s^{(n)}$ on $V_n$ and $W_n$, respectively. The set of all configurations on $V$ (resp. $V_n$, $W_n$) coincides with $\Omega=\Phi^{V}$ (resp. $\Omega_{V_n}=\Phi^{V_n},\ \ \Omega_{W_n}=\Phi^{W_n}$). One can see that $\O_{V_n}=\O_{V_{n-1}}\times\O_{W_n}$. Using this, for given configurations $\s_{n-1}\in\O_{V_{n-1}}$ and $\s^{(n)}\in\O_{W_{n}}$ we define their concatenations by the formula
$$\s_{n-1}\vee\s^{(n)}=\bigg\{\{\s_n(x),x\in
V_{n-1}\},\{\s^{(n)}(y),y\in W_n\}\bigg\}.$$
It is clear that $\s_{n-1}\vee\s^{(n)}\in \O_{V_n}$.
The Hamiltonian of the Potts model with competing interactions has the form
$$\label{ham}
H(\s)=-J' \sum\limits_{>x,y<}\delta_{\s(x)\s(y)}-J_p\sum\limits_{
\widetilde{>x,y<}}\delta_{\s(x)\s(y)} -J_1'
\sum\limits_{<x,y>}\delta_{\s(x)\s(y)}$$
where $J',J_p,J_1'\in {\R}$ are coupling constants, $\s\in \Omega$ and $\delta$ is the Kronecker symbol.
The recurrent equations for the partition functions and Gibbs measures
======================================================================
There are several approaches to derive an equation describing the limiting Gibbs measures for the models on the Bethe lattices. One approach is based on properties of Markov random fields, and second one is based on recurrent equations for the partition functions.
Recall that the total energy of a configuration $\s_n\in\O_{V_n}$ under condition $\bar\s_n\in\O_{V\setminus V_n}$ is defined by $$H(\s_n|\bar\s_n)=H(\s_n)+U(\s_n|\bar\s_n),$$ here $$\begin{aligned}
H(\s_n)&=&-J' \sum\limits_{\tiny{
\begin{array}{ll}
>x,y<\\
x,y\in V_n
\end{array}}
}\delta_{\s_n(x)\s_n(y)}-J_p\sum\limits_ {\tiny{
\begin{array}{ll}
\widetilde{>x,y<}\\
x,y\in V_n
\end{array}}}
\delta_{\s_n(x)\s_n(y)}\nonumber\\
&& -J_1' \sum\limits_{\tiny{
\begin{array}{ll}
<x,y>\\ x,y\in V_n
\end{array}}}\delta_{\s_n(x)\s_n(y)}\\\label{U}
U(\s_n|\bar\s_n)&=& -J' \sum\limits_{\tiny{
\begin{array}{lll}
>x,y<\\
x\in V_n,\\
y\in V\setminus V_n
\end{array}}
}\delta_{\s_n(x)\bar\s_n(y)}-J_p\sum\limits_ {\tiny{
\begin{array}{lll}
\widetilde{>x,y<}\nonumber\\
x\in V_n,\\
y\in V\setminus V_n
\end{array}}}
\delta_{\s_n(x)\bar\s_n(y)}\\
&&-J_1' \sum\limits_{\tiny{
\begin{array}{lll}
<x,y>\\
x\in V_n,\\
y\in V\setminus V_n
\end{array}}}\delta_{\s_n(x)\bar\s_n(y)}\end{aligned}$$
The partition function $Z^{(n)}$ in volume $V_n$ under the boundary condition $\bar\s_n$ is defined by $$Z^{(n)}=\sum_{\s\in\O_{V_n}}\exp(-\b H(\s|\bar\s_n)),$$ where $\b=1/T$ is the inverse temperature. Then the conditional Gibbs measure $\m_{n}$ in volume $V_n$ under the boundary condition $\bar\s_n$ is defined by $$\m_n(\s|\bar\s_n)=\frac{\exp(-\b H(\s|\bar\s_n))}{Z^{(n)}}, \ \
\s\in\O_{V_n}.$$
Consider $\O_{V_1}$ - the set of all configurations on $V_1=\{(0),(1),(2)\}$, and enumerate all elements of it as shown below: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{lll}
\sigma^{9(i-1)+1}=\{\z_i,\z_1,\z_1\},& \sigma^{9(i-1)+2}=\{\z_i,\z_1,\z_2\},&\sigma^{9(i-1)+3}=\{\z_i,\z_1,\z_3\}, \\
\sigma^{9(i-1)+4}=\{\z_i,\z_2,\z_1\},& \sigma^{9(i-1)+5}=\{\z_i,\z_2,\z_2\},&\sigma^{9(i-1)+6}=\{\z_i,\z_2,\z_3\}, \\
\sigma^{9(i-1)+7}=\{\z_i,\z_3,\z_1\},&
\sigma^{9(i-1)+8}=\{\z_i,\z_3,\z_2\},&\sigma^{9i}=\{\z_i,\z_3,\z_3\},
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $i \in \{ 1,2,3 \}$.
We decompose the partition function $Z_{n}$ into 27 sums $$Z^{(n)}=\sum^{27}_{i=1}Z^{(n)}_{i},$$ where $$Z^{(n)}_i=\sum\limits_{\sigma_n \in \Omega_{V_n} :
\sigma_n|_{V_1}=\sigma^i} {\exp(-\beta H_n(\sigma_n|\bar\s_n))},
\quad i\in \{1,2,\cdots, 27\}.$$
We set $$\theta=\exp(\beta J'); \quad \theta_p=\exp(\beta J_p); \quad
\theta_1=\exp(\beta J_1');$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tZ}
\tilde Z^{(n)}_i=\sum\limits_{\sigma_n \in \Omega_{V_n} :
\sigma_n(0)=\z_i} {\exp(-\beta H_n(\sigma_n|\bar\s_n))}, \quad
i\in \{1,2,3\},\end{aligned}$$ that is $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde Z^{(n)}_i=\sum_{k=1}^9 Z^{(n)}_{9(i-1)+k}, \quad i\in
\{1,2,3\}.\end{aligned}$$
Taking into account the denotation through a direct calculation one gets the following system of recurrent equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sys1}
\begin{array}{lll}
Z^{(n+1)}_{1}=\theta\theta^2_1 (A^{(n)}_{1})^2, & Z^{(n+1)}_{10}=\theta (A^{(n)}_{2})^2, & Z^{(n+1)}_{19}=\theta(A^{(n)}_{3})^2 , \\
Z^{(n+1)}_{2}=\theta_1 A^{(n)}_{1}B^{(n)}_{1}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{11}=\theta_1 A^{(n)}_{2}B^{(n)}_{2}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{20}=A^{(n)}_{3}B^{(n)}_{3} , \\
Z^{(n+1)}_{3}=\theta_1 A^{(n)}_{1}C^{(n)}_{1}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{12}=A^{(n)}_{2}C^{(n)}_{2}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{21}=\theta_1 A^{(n)}_{3}B^{(n)}_{3} , \\
Z^{(n+1)}_{4}=Z^{(n+1)}_{2}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{13}=Z^{(n+1)}_{11}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{22}=Z^{(n+1)}_{20} , \\
Z^{(n+1)}_{5}=\theta (B^{(n)}_{1})^2, & Z^{(n+1)}_{14}=\theta \theta_1^2 (B^{(n)}_{2})^2, & Z^{(n+1)}_{23}=\theta(B^{(n)}_{3})^2 , \\
Z^{(n+1)}_{6}= B^{(n)}_{1}C^{(n)}_{1}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{15}= \theta_1 B^{(n)}_{2}C^{(n)}_{2}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{23}=\theta_1 B^{(n)}_{3} C^{(n)}_{3} , \\
Z^{(n+1)}_{7}=Z^{(n+1)}_{3}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{16}=Z^{(n+1)}_{12}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{25}=Z^{(n+1)}_{21} , \\
Z^{(n+1)}_{8}=Z^{(n+1)}_{6}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{17}=Z^{(n+1)}_{15}, & Z^{(n+1)}_{26}=Z^{(n+1)}_{24} , \\
Z^{(n+1)}_{9}=\theta (C^{(n)}_{1})^2, & Z^{(n+1)}_{18}=\theta (C^{(n)}_{2})^2, & Z^{(n+1)}_{27}=\theta \theta^2_1 (C^{(n)}_{3})^2 . \\
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
Introducing new variables $$\begin{aligned}
\label{den}
\begin{array}{lll}
x^{(n)}_1=Z^{(n)}_{1}; &x^{(n)}_2=Z^{(n)}_{2}=Z^{(n)}_{4}; & x^{(n)}_3=Z^{(n)}_{3}=Z^{(n)}_{7};\\
x^{(n)}_4=Z^{(n)}_{5} ;&x^{(n)}_5=Z^{(n)}_{6}=Z^{(n)}_{8}; & x^{(n)}_6=Z^{(n)}_{9} \\
x^{(n)}_7=Z^{(n)}_{10}; &x^{(n)}_8=Z^{(n)}_{11}=Z^{(n)}_{13}; & x^{(n)}_9=Z^{(n)}_{12}=Z^{(n)}_{16}; \\
x^{(n)}_{10}=Z^{(n)}_{14} ;&x^{(n)}_{11}=Z^{(n)}_{15}=Z^{(n)}_{17}; & x^{(n)}_{12}=Z^{(n)}_{18} \\
x^{(n)}_{13}=Z^{(n)}_{19};
&x^{(n)}_{14}=Z^{(n)}_{20}=Z^{(n)}_{22}; &
x^{(n)}_{15}=Z^{(n)}_{21}=Z^{(n)}_{25};
\\
x^{(n)}_{16}=Z^{(n)}_{23}
;&x^{(n)}_{17}=Z^{(n)}_{24}=Z^{(n)}_{26}; &
x^{(n)}_{18}=Z^{(n)}_{27}
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ the equations are represented by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rec11}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x^{(n+1)}_1= \theta\theta^2_1 (A^{(n)}_1)^2 &
x^{(n+1)}_2= \theta_1 A^{(n)}_1B^{(n)}_1, \\
x^{(n+1)}_3= \theta_1 A^{(n)}_1C^{(n)}_1, &
x^{(n+1)}_4= \theta (B^{(n)}_1)^2,\\
x^{(n+1)}_5 = B^{(n)}_1 C^{(n)}_1, &
x^{(n+1)}_6 = \theta (C^{(n)}_1)^2, \\
x^{(n+1)}_7 = \theta (A^{(n)}_2)^2, &
x^{(n+1)}_8 = \theta_1A^{(n)}_2 B^{(n)}_2, \\
x^{(n+1)}_9 = A^{(n)}_2 C^{(n)}_2, &
x^{(n+1)}_{10} = \theta\theta_1^2 (B^{(n)}_2)^2, \\
x^{(n+1)}_{11} = \theta_1 B^{(n)}_2 C^{(n)}_2 , &
x^{(n+1)}_{12} = \theta (C_2^{(n)})^2 \\
x^{(n+1)}_{13} = \theta (A_3^{(n)})^2, &
x^{(n+1)}_{14} = A^{(n)}_3 B^{(n)}_3, \\
x^{(n+1)}_{15} = \theta_1 A_3^{(n)} C_3^{(n)}, &
x^{(n+1)}_{16} = \theta (B_3^{(n)})^2, \\
x^{(n+1)}_{17} = \theta_1 B^{(n)}_3 C^{(n)}_3, & x^{(n+1)}_{18}
= \theta\theta_1^2 (C_3^{(n)})^2.\\
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ The asymptotic behavior of the recurrence system is defined by the first date $\{x^{(1)}_k:\ k=1,2,\dots, 18\}$, which is in turn determined by a boundary condition $\bar\s$.
Let us separately consider free boundary condition, that is $U(\s|\bar\s)$ is zero, and three boundary conditions $\bar\s_n\equiv\z_i$, where $i=1,2,3$. Here by $\bar\s_n\equiv\z$ we have meant a configuration defined by $\bar\s_n=\{\s(x):
\s(x)=\z, \forall x\in V\setminus V_n\}$.
For the free boundary we have $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{lll}
x^{(1)}_1=\theta\theta_1^2; &x^{(1)}_2=\theta_1; & x^{(1)}_3=\theta_1;\\
x^{(1)}_4=\theta ;& x^{(1)}_5=1; & x^{(1)}_6=\theta; \\
x^{(1)}_7=\theta; &x^{(1)}_8=\theta_1; & x^{(1)}_9=1; \\
x^{(1)}_{10}=\theta\theta_1^2 ;&x^{(1)}_{11}=\theta_1; & x^{(1)}_{12}=\theta; \\
x^{(1)}_{13}=\theta; &x^{(1)}_{14}=1; & x^{(1)}_{15}=\theta_1; \\
x^{(1)}_{16}=\theta ;&x^{(1)}_{17}=\theta_1; &
x^{(1)}_{18}=\theta\theta_1^2
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ and from the direct calculations (see ) we infer that $$\begin{aligned}
&&A_1^{(n)}=B_2^{(n)}=C_3^{(n)},\\
&&A_2^{(n)}=A_3^{(n)}=B_1^{(n)}=B_3^{(n)}=C_1^{(n)}=C_2^{(n)},\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\tilde Z_1^{(n)}=\tilde Z_2^{(n)}=\tilde Z_3^{(n)}.$$ Hence the corresponding Gibbs measure $\m_0$ is the [*unordered phase*]{}, i.e. $\m(\s(x)=\z_i)=1/3$ for any $x\in \G^2_+$, $i=1,2,3$.
Now consider boundary condition $\bar\s\equiv\z_1$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{lll}
x^{(1)}_1=\theta\theta_1^6\theta_p^4; &x^{(1)}_2=\theta_1^3\theta_p^4; & x^{(1)}_3=\theta_1^3\theta_p^4;\\
x^{(1)}_4=\theta\theta_p^4 ;& x^{(1)}_5=\theta_p^4; & x^{(1)}_6=\theta\theta_p^4; \\
x^{(1)}_7=\theta\theta_1^4; &x^{(1)}_8=\theta_1^3; & x^{(1)}_9=\theta_1^2; \\
x^{(1)}_{10}=\theta\theta_1^2 ;&x^{(1)}_{11}=\theta_1; & x^{(1)}_{12}=\theta; \\
x^{(1)}_{13}=\theta\theta_1^4; &x^{(1)}_{14}=\theta_1^2; & x^{(1)}_{15}=\theta_1^3; \\
x^{(1)}_{16}=\theta ;&x^{(1)}_{17}=\theta_1; &
x^{(1)}_{18}=\theta\theta_1^2.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ By simple calculations (see ) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&B_1^{(n)}=C_1^{(n)}, \quad A_2^{(n)}=A_3^{(n)},\\
&&B_2^{(n)}=C_3^{(n)}, \quad B_3^{(n)}=C_2^{(n)},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde Z_1^{(n+1)}&=& \theta\theta_1^2(A_1^{(n)})^2+4\theta_1A_1^{(n)}B_1^{(n)}+2(\theta+1)(B_1^{(n)})^2,\\
\tilde Z_2^{(n+1)}= \tilde
Z_3^{(n+1)}&=&\theta(A_2^{(n)})^2+2\theta_1A_2^{(n)}B_2^{(n)}+2A_2^{(n)}C_2^{(n)}\\
&&+\theta\theta_1^2(B_2^{(n)})^2+
2\theta_1B_2^{(n)}C_2^{(n)}+\theta(C_2^{(n)})^2.\end{aligned}$$
By the same argument for the boundary condition $\bar\s\equiv\z_2$ we have $$\tilde Z_1^{(n)}= \tilde Z_3^{(n)}$$ and for the boundary condition $\bar\s\equiv\z_3$ $$\tilde Z_1^{(n)}= \tilde Z_2^{(n)}.$$
If $\theta_p=1$, i.e. $J_p=0$, then from the system of equations we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zz}
\begin{array}{lll}
\tilde Z^{(n+1)}_{1} = \theta\theta_1^2 (\tilde Z^{(n)}_{1})^2 +
2 \theta_1 \tilde Z^{(n)}_{1} \tilde Z^{(n)}_{2}+ 2 \theta_1
\tilde Z^{(n)}_{1} \tilde Z^{(n)}_{3} + \theta (\tilde
Z^{(n)}_{2})^2 +
2 \theta_1 \tilde Z^{(n)}_{2} \tilde Z^{(n)}_{3}+ \theta(\tilde Z^{(n)}_{3})^2 \\
\tilde Z^{(n+1)}_{2} = \theta (\tilde Z^{(n)}_{1})^2 + 2 \theta_1
\tilde Z^{(n)}_{1} \tilde Z^{(n)}_{2}+ 2 \tilde Z^{(n)}_{1}
\tilde Z^{(n)}_{3} + \theta\theta_1^2 (\tilde Z^{(n)}_{2})^2 +
2 \theta_1 \tilde Z^{(n)}_{2} \tilde Z^{(n)}_{3}+ \theta(\tilde Z^{(n)}_{3})^2 \\
\tilde Z^{(n+1)}_{3} = \theta(\tilde Z^{(n)}_{1})^2 + 2 \tilde
Z^{(n)}_{1} \tilde Z^{(n)}_{2}+ 2 \theta_1 \tilde Z^{(n)}_{1}
\tilde Z^{(n)}_{3} + \theta (\tilde Z^{(n)}_{2})^2 + 2 \theta_1
\tilde Z^{(n)}_{2} \tilde Z^{(n)}_{3}+ \theta\theta_1^2
(\tilde Z^{(n)}_{3})^2
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
Letting $$u_n=\frac{\tilde Z^{(n)}_{1} }{ \tilde Z^{(n)}_{3}} \quad
\mbox{and} \quad v_n=\frac{\tilde Z^{(n)}_{2} }{ \tilde
Z^{(n)}_{3}}.$$ then from one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rec0}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_{n+1}=\frac{\theta \theta_1^2 u_n^2 +2\theta_1 u_nv_n + \theta
v_n^2+2 \theta_1 u_n + 2 v_n + \theta}{\theta u_n^2 +2 u_nv_n
+\theta v_n^2+ 2 \theta_1 u_n + 2\theta_1 v_n + \theta
\theta_1^2},
\\[3mm]
v_{n+1}=\frac{\theta u_n^2 +2\theta_1 u_nv_n + \theta \theta_1^2
v_n^2 + 2 u_n +2 \theta_1 v_n + \theta}{\theta u_n^2 +2 u_nv_n +
\theta v_n^2 +2 \theta_1 u_n + 2\theta_1 v_n + \theta
\theta_1^2}.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
From the above made statements we conclude that
- $u_n=v_n=1$, $\forall n\in\bn$ for the free boundary condition;
- $v_n=1$, $\forall n\in\bn$ for the boundary condition $\bar\s\equiv\z_1$;
- $u_n=1$, $\forall n\in\bn$ for the boundary condition $\bar\s\equiv\z_2$;
- $u_n=v_n$, $\forall n\in\bn$ for the boundary condition $\bar\s\equiv\z_3$ .
Consequently, when $J_p=0$ we can receive an exact solution. In the next section we will find an exact critical curve and the free energy for this case.\
Now let us assume that $J_p\neq 0$ and $\bar\s\equiv\z_1$. Then the system reduces to a system consisting of five independent variables (see Appendix A), but a new recurrence system still remains rather complicated . Therefore, it is natural to begin our investigation with the case $J_p=0$. In the case $J_p\neq 0$ a full analysis of such a system will be a theme of our next investigations [@GMMP], where the modulated phases and Lifshitz points will be discussed.\
Now we are going to show how the equations are related with the surface energy of the given Hamiltonian. To do it, we give a construction of a special class of limiting Gibbs measures for the model when $J_p=0$.
Let us note that the equality implies that $$\delta_{\sigma(x)\sigma(y)}=\frac{2}{3}
\bigg(\sigma(x)\sigma(y)+\frac{1}{2}\bigg)$$ for all $ x,y \in V $. Therefore, the Hamiltonian $H(\sigma)$ is rewritten by $$\label{ham1}
H(\sigma)=-J\sum_{>x,y<}\sigma(x)\sigma(y)-J_1
\sum\limits_{<x,y>}\s(x)\s(y),$$ where $J={\displaystyle\frac}{2}{3}J', J_1={\displaystyle\frac}{2}{3}J_1'$.
Let ${\mathbf{h}}:x\to h_x=(h_{1,x},h_{2,x})\in{\R}^{2}$ be a real vector-valued function of $x\in V$. Given $n=1,2,...$ consider the probability measure $\m^{(n)}$ on $\Phi^{V_n}$ defined by $$\label{mes1}
\mu^{(n)}(\s_n)=(Z^{(n)})^{-1}\exp\{-\b H(\s_n)+\sum_{x\in W_n}
h_x\s_n(x)\},$$ where $$H(\s_n)=-J \sum\limits_{>x,y<: x,y\in V_n}{\s_n(x)\s_n(y)} -J_1
\sum\limits_{<x,y>: x,y\in V_n}{\s_n(x)\s_n(y)},$$ and as before $\b=\frac{1}{T}$ and $\s_n\in \O_{V_n}$ and $Z^{(n)}$ is the corresponding partition function: $$\label{partition}
Z^{(n)}\equiv Z^{(n)}(\b,h)=\sum_{\tilde\s_n\in\Omega_{V_n}}\exp
\{-\b H(\tilde\s_n)+\sum_{x\in W_n}h_x\tilde\s_n(x)\}.$$
Let $V_1\subset V_2\subset...$ $\bigcup\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}V_n=V$ and $\m^{(1)},\m^{(2)},...$ be a sequence of probability measures on $\Phi^{V_1},\Phi^{V_2},...$ given by . If these measures satisfy the consistency condition $$\label{consis1}
\sum_{\s^{(n)}}\m^{(n)}(\s_{n-1}\vee\s^{(n)})=\m^{(n-1)}(\s_{n-1}),$$ where $\s^{(n)}=\{\s(x), x\in W_n\}$, then according to the Kolmogorov theorem, (see, e.g. Ref. [@Sh]) there is a unique limiting Gibbs measure $\m$ on $(\O,\mathcal{F})$, where $\mathcal{F}$ is a $\s$-algebra generated by cylindrical subset of $\O$, such that for every $n=1,2,...$ and $\s_n\in\Phi^{V_n}$ the following equality holds $$\m\bigg(\{\s|_{V_n}=\s_n\}\bigg)=\m^{(n)}(\s_n).$$
One can see that the consistency condition is satisfied if and only if the function ${\mathbf{h}}$ satisfies the following equation $$\label{35}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
h_{x,1}'= \log F(h_y',h_z')\\
h_{x,2}'= \log F((h_y')^t,(h_z')^t), \end{array} \right.$$ here and below for given vector $h=(h_1,h_2)$ by $h'$ and $h^t$ we have denoted the vectors $\frac{3}{2}h$ and $(h_2,h_1)$ respectively, and $F:{\R}^{q-1}\times {\R}^{q-1}\to{\R}$ is a function defined by $$\label{func1}
F(h,r)=\frac{\theta_1^2\theta e^{h_1+r_1}+\theta_1(e^{h_1+r_2}+
e^{h_2+r_1})+\theta
e^{h_2+r_2}+\theta_1(e^{h_1}+e^{r_1})+e^{h_2}+e^{r_2}+\theta}
{\theta e^{h_1+r_1}+e^{h_1+r_2}+ e^{h_2+r_1}+\theta
e^{h_2+r_2}+\theta_1(e^{h_1}+e^{r_1}+e^{h_2}+e^{r_2})+\theta_1^2\theta}$$ where $h=(h_1,h_2), r=(r_1,r_2)$ and $<y,x,z>$ are ternary neighbors (see Appendix B for the proof).
Consequently, the problem of describing the Gibbs measures is reduced to the description of solutions of the functional equation . On the other hand, we see that from the derived equation we can obtain , when the function ${\mathbf{h}}$ is translation invariant.
Ground states of the model
==========================
In this section we are going to describe ground states of the model. Recall that a relative Hamiltonian $H(\s,\f)$ is defined by the difference between the energies of configurations $\s, \f$ $$\label{reham1}
H(\s,\f)=-J'\sum_{>x,y<}(\delta_{\sigma(x)\sigma(y)}-\delta_{\f(x)\f(y)})-
J_1'\sum_{<x,y>}(\delta_{\sigma(x)\sigma(y)}-\delta_{\f(x)\f(y)}),$$ where $J=(J',J_1')\in{\R}^2$ is an arbitrary fixed parameter.
In the sequel as usual we denote the cardinality number of a set $A$ by $|A|$. A set $c$ consisting of three vertices $\{x_1,\{x_2,x_3\}\}$ is called a [*cell*]{} if these vertices are $<x_2,x_1,x_3>$ ternary. In this case, the vertex $x_1$ is called [*the origin*]{} of a cell $c$. By $\mathcal{C}$ the set of all cells is denoted. We say that two $c$ and $c'$ cells are [*nearest neighbor*]{} if $|c\cap c'|=1$, and denote them by $<c,c'>$. From this definition we see that if $c$ and $c'$ cells are not nearest neighbor then either they coincide or disjoint. Let $\s\in\O$ and $c\in\cc$, then the restriction of a configuration $\s$ to $c$ is denoted by $\s_c$, and we will use to write elements of $\s_c$ as follows $$\s_c=\{\s(x_1),\{\s(x_2),\s(x_3)\}\}.$$ The set of all configurations on $c$ is denoted by $\O_c$.
The energy of a cell $c$ at a configuration $\s$ is defined by $$\label{ham11}
U(\s_c)=-J'\sum\limits_{>x,y< : x,y\in c} \d_{\s(x)\s(y)}-J_1'
\sum\limits_{<x,y>: x,y\in c}\d_{\s(x)\s(y)}.$$
From one can deduce that for any $c\in\cc$ and $\s\in\O$ we have $$U(\s_c)\in \{U_1(J), U_2(J),U_3(J), U_{4}(J)\},$$ where $$\label{U}
U_1(J)=-2J_1'-J',
\ \ U_2(J)=-J'_1, \ \ U_3(J)=-J', \ \ U_4(J)=0, \ \ J=(J',J_1').$$
Denote $${\cb}_i=\{\s_c\in \O_c : U(\s_c)=U_i\}, \ \ \ i=1,2,3,4,$$ then using a combinatorial calculation one can show the following
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{gr}
{\cb}_1&=&\bigg\{\{\z_i,\{\z_i,\z_i\}\}, \ i=1,2,3 \bigg\},\\
\label{1gr} {\cb}_2&=&\bigg\{\{\z_i,\{\z_i,\z_j\}\},
\{\z_i,\{\z_j,\z_i\}\}, \ i\neq j, \ i,j\in\{1,2,3\} \bigg\},\\
\label{2gr}{\cb}_3&=&\bigg\{\{\z_j,\{\z_i,\z_i\}\}, \ i\neq j, \
i,j\in\{1,2,3\} \bigg\},\\ \label{3gr}
{\cb}_4&=&\bigg\{\{\z_i,\{\z_j,\z_k\}\}, \ i,j,k\in\{1,2,3\}, \
i\cdot j\cdot k=6 \bigg\}. \end{aligned}$$
From we infer that $$\label{reham2}
H(\f, \s)=\sum_{c\in\cc}(U(\f_c)-U(\s_c)).$$
Recall (see [@R]) that a configuration $\f\in\O$ is called a [*ground state*]{} for the relative Hamiltonian of $H$ if $$\label{gs}
U(\f_c)=\min\{U_1(J), U_2(J),U_3(J), U_{4}(J)\},\ \ \mbox{ for
any} \ \ c\in\cc.$$
A couple of configurations $\s,\f\in\Omega$ coincide [*almost everywhere*]{}, if they are different except for a finite number of positions and which are denoted by $\s=\f$ \[a.s\].
\[gs1\] A configuration $\f$ is a ground state for $H$ if and only if the following inequality holds $$\label{f-s}
H(\f,\s)\leq 0$$ for every $\s\in\O$ with $\s=\f$ \[a.s\].
The almost every coincidence of $\s$ and $\f$ implies that there exists a finite subset $L\subset V$ such that $\s(x)\neq\f(x)$ for all $x\in L$. Denote $V_L=\bigcap\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\{V_k: L\subset V_k\}$. Then taking into account that $\f$ is a ground state we have $U(\f_c)\leq U(\s_c)$ for every $c\in\cc$. So, using the last inequality and one gets $$H(\f, \s)=\sum_{c\in\cc,c\in V_L}(U(\f_c)-U(\s_c))\leq 0.$$
Now assume that holds. Take any cell $c\in \cc$. Consider the following configuration: $$\s_{c,\f}(x)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\s(x), \ \ \ \textrm{if} \ \ x\in c,\\
\f(x), \ \ \ \textrm{if} \ \ x\notin c,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\s\in\O_c$. It is clear that $\s_{c,\f}=\f$ \[a.s.\], so from and we infer that $H(\f,\s_{c,\f})=U(\f_c)-U(\s)\leq 0$, i.e. $U(\f_c)\leq U(\s)$. From the arbitrariness of $\s$ one finds that $\f$ is a ground state.
Denote $$A_k=\bigg\{J\in\br^2: U_k(J)=\min\{U_1(J), U_2(J),U_3(J),
U_{4}(J)\}\bigg\}, \ \ k=1,2,3,4.$$
From equalities we can easily get the following $$\begin{aligned}
A_1&=&\{J=(J',J_1')\in\br^2: J_1'\geq 0,\ J_1'+J'\geq 0\}\\
A_2&=&\{J=(J',J_1')\in\br^2: J_1'\geq 0,\
J_1'+J'\leq 0\}\\
A_3&=&\{J=(J',J_1')\in\br^2: J_1'\leq 0,\ J'>0 \}\\
A_4&=&\{J=(J',J_1')\in\br^2: J_1'\leq 0,\ J'<0\}\end{aligned}$$
Denote $$B_k=A_k\setminus\bigg(\bigcup_{j=1}^4A_k\cap A_j\bigg), \ \
k=1,2,3,4.$$
Now we are are going to construct the ground states for the model. Before doing it let us introduce some notions. Take two nearest neighbor cells $c,c'\in\cc$ with common vertex $x\in c\cap c'$. We say that two configurations $\s_c\in\O_c$ and $\s_{c'}\in\O_{c'}$ are [*consistent*]{} if $\s_c(x)=\s_{c'}(x)$. It is easy to see that the set $V$ can be represented as a union of all nearest neighbor cells, therefore to define a configuration $\s$ on whole $V$, it is enough to determine one on nearest neighbor cells such that its values should be consistent on such cells. Namely, each configuration $\s\in\O$ is represented as a family of consistent configurations on $\O_c$, i.e. $\s=\{\s_c\}_{c\in\cc}$. Therefore, from the definition of the ground state and - we are able to formulate the following
\[1gs\] Let $J\in B_k$ then a configuration $\f=\{\f_c\}_{c\in\cc}$ is a ground state if and only if $\f_c\in\cb_k$ for all $c\in\cc$.
Let us denote $$\label{gs2}
\s^{(m)}=\{\s(x): \s(x)=\z_m, \ \forall x\in V\}, \ \ m=1,2,3.$$
\[gs3\] Let $J\in B_i$, then for any fixed $\s_c\in \cb_i$ (here $c$ is fixed), there exists a ground state $\f\in\O$ with $\f_c=\s_c.$
Let $\s_c\in \cb_i$. Without loss of generality we may assume that the center $x_1$ of $c$ is the origin of the lattice $\G^2_+$. Further we will suppose that $\s(x_1)=\z_1$ (other cases are similarly proceeded). Put $$\begin{aligned}
N_{j}^{(i)}(\s_c)&=&\left|\bigg\{k\in\{1,2,3\}:
\s_c(x_k)=\z_j\bigg\}\right| \ \
j=1,2,3,\\
\bar
n_{i}(\s_c)&=&\bigg(N_{1}^{(i)}(\s_c),N_{2}^{(i)}(\s_c),N_{3}^{(i)}(\s_c)\bigg),
\ \ c\in\cc.\end{aligned}$$
It is clear that $N_{j}^{(i)}(\s_c)\geq 0$ and $\sum\limits_{k=1}^3N_{k}^{(i)}(\s_c)=3$.
According to Proposition \[1gs\] to find a ground state $\f\in\O$ it is enough to construct a consistent family of ground states $\{\f_c\}_{c\in\cc}$.
Consider several cases with respect to $i$ ($i\in\{1,2,3,4\}$).
[Case $i=1$.]{} In this case, according to we have $\s_c(x)=\z_1$ for every $x\in c$. This means that $\bar
n_{1}(\s_c)=(3,0,0)$. Then the configuration $\s^{(1)}$ is the required one and it is a ground state. From we see that $\s^{(1)}$ is translation-invariant.
[Case $i=2$.]{} In this case from we find that $\bar
n_{2}(\s_c)$ is either $(2,0,1)$ or $(2,1,0)$. Let us assume that $\bar n_{2}(\s_c)=(2,0,1)$. Now we want to construct a ground state on nearest neighbor cells, therefore take $c',c''\in\cc$ such that $<c,c'>$, $<c,c''>$ and $c'\neq c''$. It is clear that $c'\cap c''=\emptyset$. Let $x_2$ and $x_3$ be the centers of $c'$ and $c''$, respectively. So due to our assumption we find that either $\s(x_2)=\z_1$, $\s(x_3)=\z_3$ or $\s(x_2)=\z_3$, $\s(x_2)=\z_1$. Let us consider $\s(x_2)=\z_1$, $\s(x_3)=\z_3$. Then we have $\s_{c}=\{\z_1,\{\z_1,\z_3\}\}$. We are going to determine configurations $\f_{c'}\in\O_{c'}$, $\f_{c''}\in\O_{c''}$ consistent with $\s_c$ and $N_{1}^{(2)}(\s)\cdot N_{3}^{(2)}(\s)=2$, $\s=\f{_c'},\f{_c''}$. To do it, by means of , we choose configurations $\f_c$ and $\f_{c'}$ on $c', c''$, respectively, as follows $$\label{conf1}
\f_{c'}=\{\z_1,\{\z_1,\z_3\}\}, \ \
\f_{c''}=\{\z_3,\{\z_1,\z_3\}\}.$$ Hence continuing this procedure one can construct a configuration $\f$ on $V$, and denote it by $\f^{(1,3)}$. From the construction we infer that $\f^{(1,3)}$ satisfies the required conditions (see Fig. \[fig2\]). The constructed configuration is quasi $\G^2_+$-periodic. Indeed, from and one can check that for every $x\in \G^2_+$ with $|x|\neq 1$ we have $\f^{(1,3)}(\pi^{(\g)}_{(0)}(x))=\f^{(1,3)}(x)$, here $\g(\{1,2\})=\{2,1\}$. So from for every $g\in
\G^2_+$ one finds that $\f^{(1,3)}(\pi^{(\g)}_{g}(x))=\f^{(1,3)}(x)$ for all $|x|\neq 1$. Similarly, we can construct the following quasi periodic ground states: $$\f^{(3,1)},\f^{(1,2)},\f^{(2,1)},\f^{(2,3)},\f^{(3,2)}.$$
![$\f^{(1,3)}-$ ground state. The coupling constants belong to $B_2$[]{data-label="fig2"}](tree2.ps){width="10.07cm"}
[Case $i=3$.]{} In this setting we have that $\bar n_{3}(\s_c)$ is either $(1,0,2)$ or $(1,2,0)$ (see ). Let us assume that $\bar n_{2}(\s_c)=(1,2,0)$. Let $c',c''\in\cc$ be as above. From and our assumption one finds $\s(x_2)=\s(x_3)=\z_2$. Then again taking into account for $c', c''$ we can define consistent configurations by $$\label{conf2}
\f_{c'}=\{\z_2,\{\z_1,\z_1\}\}, \ \
\f_{c''}=\{\z_2,\{\z_1,\z_1\}\}.$$ Again continuing this procedure we obtain a configuration on $V$, which we denote by $\f^{[1,2]}$. From the construction we infer that $\f^{[1,2]}$ is a ground state and satisfies the needed conditions (see Fig.\[fig3\]). From and we immediately conclude that it is $G_2$-periodic. Similarly, we can construct the following $G_2$-periodic ground states: $$\f^{[2,1]},\f^{[1,3]},\f^{[3,1]},\f^{[2,3]},\f^{[3,2]}.$$
![$\f^{[1,3]}-$ ground state. The coupling constants belong to $B_3$[]{data-label="fig3"}](tree1.ps){width="10.07cm"}
Note that on $c', c''$ we also may determine another consistent configurations by $$\label{conf3}
\f_{c'}=\{\z_2,\{\z_3,\z_3\}\}, \ \
\f_{c''}=\{\z_2,\{\z_3,\z_3\}\}.$$ Now take $b',b''\in\cc$ such that $<c',b'>$, $<c',b''>$ and $b'\neq b''$. On $b', b''$ we define consistent configurations with $\f_{c'}$ by $$\label{conf4}
\f_{b'}=\{\z_3,\{\z_1,\z_1\}\}, \ \
\f_{b''}=\{\z_3,\{\z_1,\z_1\}\}.$$ Analogously, one defines $\f$ on the neighboring cells of $c''$. Consequently, continuing this procedure we construct a configuration $\f^{[1,2,3]}$ on $V$. From ,, and we see that $\f^{[1,2,3]}$ is a $G_3$-periodic ground state. Similarly, reasoning one can be built the following $G_3$-periodic ground states: $$\f^{[2,1,3]},\f^{[2,3,1]},\f^{[1,3,2]},\f^{[3,1,2]},\f^{[3,2,1]}.$$
These constructions lead us to make a conclusion that for any number of collection $\{i_1,\dots,i_k\}$ with $i_m\neq i_{m+1}$, $i_m\in\{1,2,3\}$ we may construct a ground state $\f^{[i_1,\dots,i_k]}$ which is $G_k$-invariant. Hence, there are countable number periodic ground states.
[Case $i=4$]{}. In this case using the same argument as in the previous cases we can construct a required ground state, but it would be non-periodic (see ).
[**Remark 1.**]{} From the proof of Theorem \[gs3\] one can see that for a given $\s_c\in \cb_i$ with $i\geq 2$, there exist continuum number of ground states $\f\in\O$ such that $\f_{c'}\in
\cb_i$ for any $c'\in\cc$ and $\f_c=\s_c.$ Since, in those cases at each step we had two possibilities there have been at least two possibilities to choice of $\f_{c'}$ and $\f_{c''}$, this means that a configuration on $V$ can be constructed by the continuum number of ways.
\[gs4\] Let $J\in B_i$($i\neq 4$), then for any fixed $\s_c\in \cb_i$ (here $c$ is fixed), there exists a periodic (quasi) ground state $\f\in\O$ such that $\f_c=\s_c.$
By $GS(H)$ and $GS_p(H)$ we denote the set of all ground states and periodic ground states of the model , respectively. Here by periodic configuration we mean $G$-periodic or quasi $G$-periodic ones.
\[gs5\] For the Potts model the following assertions hold.
1. Let $J\in B_1$, then $$|GS(H)|=|GS_p(H)|=3;$$
2. Let $J\in B_2$ then $$|GS(H)|=c, \ \ |GS_p(H)|=6;$$
3. Let $J\in B_3$ then $$|GS(H)|=c, \ \ |GS_p(H)|=\aleph_0;$$
4. Let $J\in B_4$ then $$|GS(H)|=c.$$
The proof immediately follows from Theorem \[gs3\] and Remark 1.
[**Remark 2.**]{} From Corollary \[gs5\] (see Fig.\[fig4\]) we see that when $J\in B_1$ then the model becomes ferromagnetic and for it there are only three translation-invariant ground states. When $J\in B_3$ then the model stands antiferromagnetic and hence it has countable number of periodic ground states. The case $J\in
B_2$ defines dipole ground states. When $J\in B_4$ then the ground states determine certain solution of the tricolor problem on the Bethe lattice. All these results agree with the experimental ones (see [@NS]).
![Phase diagram of ground states[]{data-label="fig4"}](pd_gs.eps){width="10.07cm"}
Phase transition
================
In this section we are going to describe the existence of a phase transition for the ferromagnetic Potts model with competing interactions. We will find a critical curve under one there exists a phase transition. We also construct the Gibbs measures corresponding to the ground states $\s^{(i)}$ ($i=1,2,3$) in the scheme of section 3. Recall that here by a [*phase transition*]{} we mean the existence of at least two limiting Gibbs measures (for more definitions see [@Ge],[@Pr],[@S]).
It should be noted that any transformation $\tau_g$, $g\in \G^2_+$ (see ) induces a shift $\tilde\tau_g: \O\to\O$ given by the formula $$(\tilde \tau_g\s)(x)=\s(\tau_g x), \ \ x\in \G^2_+,\ \s\in \O.$$
A Gibbs measure $\m$ on $\O$ is called [*translation - invariant*]{} if for every $g\in \G^2_+$ the equality holds $\m(\tilde\tau^{-1}_g(A))=\m(A)$ for all $A\in{\mathcal F}$, $g\in
\G^2_+$.
According to section 3 to show the existence of the phase transition it is enough to find two different solutions of the equation , but the analysis of solutions is rather tricky. Therefore, it is natural to begin with translation - invariant ones, i.e. $h_x=h$ is constant for all $x\in V$. Such kind of solutions will describe translation-invariant Gibbs measures. In this case the equation is reduced to the following one $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-h}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u=\frac{\theta_1^2\theta u^2+2\theta_1 uv+\theta v^2+2\theta_1
u+2v+\theta}{\theta u^2+2uv+\theta v^2+2\theta_1 u+2\theta_1 v+\theta_1^2\theta}\\
v=\frac{\theta u^2+2\theta_1 uv+\theta_1^2\theta v^2+2\theta_1
v+2u+\theta}{\theta u^2+2uv+\theta v^2+2\theta_1 u+2\theta_1
v+\theta_1^2\theta},
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $u=e^{h_1}$,$v=e^{h_2}$ for a vector $h=(h_1,h_2)$.
Thus for $ \theta_p=1 $ using properties of Markov random fields we get the same system of equations .
[**Remark 3.**]{} From one can observe that the equation is invariant with respect to the lines $u=v$, $u=1$ and $v=1$. It is also invariant with respect to the transformation $u\to 1/u$, $v\to 1/v$. Therefore, it is enough to consider the equation on the line $v=1$, since other cases can be reduced to such a case.
So, rewrite as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{func0}
u=f(u;\theta,\theta_1),\end{aligned}$$ here $$\begin{aligned}
\label{func2}
f(u;\theta,\theta_1)=\frac{\theta_1^2\theta u^2+4\theta_1
u+2(\theta+1)}{\theta
u^2+2(\theta_1+1)u+\theta_1^2\theta+2\theta_1+\theta}\end{aligned}$$
From we find that reduces to the following $$\theta
u^3+(2\theta_1-\theta_1^2\theta+2)u^2+(\theta_1^2\theta+\theta-2\theta_1)u-2(\theta+1)=0$$ which can be represented by $$(u-1)\bigg(\theta
u^2+(\theta_1+1)(\theta(1-\theta_1)+2)u+2(\theta+1)\bigg)=0.$$
Thus, $u=1$ is a solution of , but to exist a phase transition we have to find other fixed points of . It means that we have to establish a condition when the following equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kv-t}
\theta u^2+(\theta_1+1)(\theta(1-\theta_1)+2)u+2(\theta+1)=0\end{aligned}$$ has two positive solutions. Of course, the last one has the required solutions if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con1}
&& (\theta_1+1)(\theta(1-\theta_1)+2)<0,\\ \label{con2}
&&\textrm{the discriminant of \eqref{kv-t} is positive.}\end{aligned}$$
The condition implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con11}
\theta_1>1 \ \ \textrm{and} \ \ \theta>\frac{2}{\theta_1-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Rewrite the condition as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con21}
\bigg((\theta_1^2-1)^2-8\bigg)\theta^2-4\bigg((\theta_1+1)^2(\theta_1-1)+2\bigg)\theta+4(\theta_1+1)^2>0,\end{aligned}$$ which can be represented by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con22}
(\theta-\x_1)(\theta-\x_2)>0,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con23}
\x_{1,2}=\frac{2\bigg((\theta_1+1)^2(\theta_1-1)+2\bigg)\mp
4\sqrt{(\theta_1+1)^3+1}}{(\theta_1^2-1)^2-8}. \end{aligned}$$
From we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con24}
\x_1\cdot\x_2=\frac{4(\theta_1+1)^2}{(\theta_1^2-1)^2-8}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we are going to compare the condition with solution of . To do it, let us consider two cases.
[Case (a)]{}. Let $(\theta_1^2-1)^2-8>0$. This is equivalent to $\theta_1>\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{2}}$. Hence, according to we infer that both $\x_1$ and $\x_2$ are positive. So, the solution of is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con25}
\theta\in (0,\x_1)\cup (\x_2,\infty).\end{aligned}$$
From we can check that $$\x_1<\frac{2}{\theta_1-1}<\x_2.$$ Therefore, from , we conclude that $\theta$ should satisfy the following condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con112}
\theta>\x_2 \ \ \ \textrm{while} \ \ \theta_1>\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
[Case (b)]{}. Let $(\theta_1^2-1)^2-8<0$, then this with yields that $1<\theta_1<\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{2}}$. Using and one can find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con4}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\theta>\x_1, \ \ \textrm{if} \ \ \theta^*<\theta_1<\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{2}}\\[3mm]
\theta>\frac{2}{\theta_1-1}, \ \ \textrm{if} \ \
1<\theta_1<\theta^*,
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta^*$ is a unique solution of the equation $(x-1)(\sqrt{(x+1)^3+1}-1)-4=0$[^1].
Consequently, if one of the conditions or is satisfied then $f(u,;\theta,\theta_1)$ has three fixed points $u=1$, $u^*_{1}$ and $u_{2}^*$.
Now we are interested when both $u^*_{1}$ and $u_{2}^*$ solutions are attractive[^2]. This occurs when $$\frac{d}{du}f(u,;\theta,\theta_1)|_{u=1}>1,$$ since the function $f(u,;\theta,\theta_1)$ is increasing and bounded. Hence, a simple calculation shows that the last condition holds if [^3] $$\label{contr}
\theta_1>2 \ \ \textrm{and} \ \
\theta>\frac{2}{\theta_1-2}.$$
If $\theta_1>2$ then the condition is not satisfied since $\theta^*<2$. Consequently, combining the conditions and we establish that if $$\label{pht}
\theta_1>2 \ \ \textrm{and} \ \
\theta>\max\bigg\{\frac{2}{\theta_1-2},\xi_2\bigg\},$$ then $f(u,;\theta,\theta_1)$ has three fixed points, and two of them $u^*_{1}$ and $u_{2}^*$ are attractive. Without loss of generality we may assume that $u^*_{1}>u_{2}^*$. Then from one sees that $$u^*_{1}u_{2}^*=\frac{2(\theta+1)}{\theta}.$$ which implies that $$\label{infty}
u^*_{1}\to\infty, \ \ u_{2}^*\to 0 \ \ \textrm{as} \ \ \b\to\infty$$
Let us denote $$h^*_{1,1}=\bigg(\frac{2}{3}\log u^*_{1}, 0\bigg), \ \
h^*_{2,1}=\bigg(\frac{2}{3}\log u^*_{2}, 0\bigg),$$ which are translation-invariant solutions of .
According to Remark 2 the vectors $$\label{sol}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll} h^*_{1,2}=(0,\frac{2}{3}\log u^*_{1}), \ \
h^*_{2,2}=(0,\frac{2}{3}\log u^*_{2})\\[2mm]
h^*_{1,3}=(-\frac{2}{3}\log u^*_{1},-\frac{2}{3}\log u^*_{1}), \ \
h^*_{2,3}=(-\frac{2}{3}\log u^*_{2},-\frac{2}{3}\log u^*_{2})\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ are also translation-invariant solutions of . The Gibbs measures corresponding these solutions are denoted by $\m_{1,i},\m_{2,i}$, $(i=1,2,3$), respectively.
From we infer that $(J,J_1)$ belongs to $B_1$. Furthermore, we assume that is satisfied. This means in this case there are three ground states for the model. Therefore, when $\b\to\infty$ certain measures $\m_{1,i},\m_{2,i}$ should tend to the ground states $\{\s^{(1)},\s^{(2)},\s^{(3)}\}$. Let us choose those ones. Take $\m_{1,1}$, then from , and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta}
\m_{1,1}(\s(x)=\z_1)&=&{\displaystyle\frac}{e^{h^*_{1,1}\z_1}}{e^{h^*_{1,1}\z_1}+e^{h^*_{1,1}\z_2}+e^{h^*_{1,1}\z_3}}\nonumber
\\
&=&{\displaystyle\frac}{u^*_1}{u^*_1+2}\to 1 \ \ \textrm{as} \ \b\to\infty,\end{aligned}$$ where $x\in V$.
Similarly, using the same argument we may find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta1}
\m_{1,2}(\s(x)=\z_2)\to 1, \ \ \m_{1,3}(\s(x)=\z_3)\to 1 \ \
\textrm{as} \ \b\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$
Denote these measures by $\m_{k}=\m_{1,k}$, $k=1,2,3$. The relations , prompt that the following should be true $$\m_i\to \delta_{\s^{(i)}}\ \ \ \textrm{as} \ \ \b\to\infty,$$ here $\delta_\s$ is a delta-measure concentrated on $\s$. Indeed, let us without loss of generality consider the measure $\m_1$. We know that $\s^{(1)}$ is a ground state, therefore according to Proposition \[gs1\] one gets that $H(\s_n|_{V_n})\geq
H(\s^{(1)}|_{V_n})$ for all $\s\in \Omega$ and $n>0$. Hence, it follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
\m_1(\s^{(1)}|_{V_n})&=&\frac{\exp\{-\b
H(\s^{(1)}|_{V_n})+h^*_{1,1}\z_1|W_n|\}}{\sum\limits_{\tilde\s_n\in\O_{V_n}}
\exp\{-\b H(\tilde\s_n)+h^*_{1,1}\sum\limits_{x\in
W_n}\tilde\s(x)\}}\\
&=&\frac{1}{1+\sum\limits_{\tilde\s_n\in\O_{V_n},\tilde \s_n\neq
\s^{(1)}|_{V_n}}
\frac{\exp\{-\b H(\tilde\s_n)+h^*_{1,1}\sum\limits_{x\in W_n}\tilde\s(x)\}}{\exp\{-\b H(\s^{(1)}|_{V_n})+h^*_{1,1}\z_1|W_n|\}}}\\
&\geq&\frac{1}{1+1/u^*_1}\to 1 \ \ \textrm{as} \ \b\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$ The last inequality yields that the required relation.
Consequently, the measures $\m_k$ ($k=1,2,3$) describe pure phases of the model.
Let us find the critical temperature. To do it, rewrite as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1pht}
\frac{T}{J_1}<\frac{1}{\log 2}, \ \ \
\frac{J}{J_1}>\max\bigg\{\varphi\bigg(\frac{T}{J_1}\bigg),\zeta\bigg(\frac{T}{J_1}\bigg)\bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(x)&=&x\log\bigg(\frac{2}{\exp(1/x)-2}\bigg) \\
\zeta(x)&=&x\log\left(\frac{2\bigg((\exp(1/x)+1)^2(\exp(1/x)-1)+2\bigg)+
4\sqrt{(\exp(1/x)+1)^3+1}}{(\exp(2/x)-1)^2-8}\right).\end{aligned}$$ From these relations one concludes that the critical line (see Fig.\[fig5\])[^4] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{crit}
\frac{T_c}{J_1}=\min\bigg\{\varphi^{-1}\bigg(\frac{J}{J_1}\bigg),\zeta^{-1}\bigg(\frac{J}{J_1}\bigg)\bigg\}\end{aligned}$$
Consequently, we can formulate the following
\[ptt\] If the condition is satisfied for the three state Potts model on the second ordered Bethe lattice, then there exists a phase transition and three pure translation-invariant phases.
{width="8.07cm"}
. \[fig5\]
[**Remark 4.**]{} If we put $J=0$ to the condition then the obtained result agrees with the results of [@PLM1; @PLM2], [@G].
[**Observation.**]{} From - we can derive that the eigenvalues of the Jacobian at the fixed points $(u_1^*,1)$, $(1, u_1^*)$, $(u_2^*,1)$, $(1, u_2^*)$, $((u_1^*)^{-1},(u_1^*)^{-1})$, $((u_2^*)^{-1},(u_2^*)^{-1})$ are real. Therefore, in this case (i.e. $J_p=0$), there are not the modulated phases and Lifshitz points. On the other hand, the absolute value of the eigenvalues of the Jacobian at the fixed points $(u_1^*,1)$, $(1, u_1^*)$ and $((u_1^*)^{-1},(u_1^*)^{-1})$ are smaller than 1. The absolute value of the eigenvalues at the fixed points $(u_2^*,1)$, $(1, u_2^*)$ and $((u_2^*)^{-1},(u_2^*)^{-1})$ are bigger than 1. These show that the points $(u_1^*,1)$, $(1, u_1^*)$ and $((u_1^*)^{-1},(u_1^*)^{-1})$ are the stable fixed points of the transformation given by . The Gibbs measures associated with these points are pure phases.
[**Remark 5.**]{} Recall that the a Gibbs measure $\m_0$ corresponding to the solution $h=(0,0)$ is called unordered phase. The purity of the unordered phase was investigated in [@GR],[@MR3] when $J=0$. Such a property relates to the reconstruction thresholds and percolation on lattices (see [@Mar],[@JM]). For $J\neq 0$ the purity of $\m_0$ is an open problem.
A formula of the free energy
=============================
This section is devoted to the free energy and exact calculation of certain physical quantities. Since the Bethe lattice is non-amenable, so we have to prove the existence of the free energy.
Consider the partition function $Z^{(n)}(\b, h)$ (see ) of the Gibbs measure $\m^h_\b$ (which corresponds to solution $h=\{h_x, x\in V\}$ of the equation ) $$Z^{(n)}(\b,h)=\sum_{\tilde\s_n\in\Omega_{V_n}}\exp \{-\b
H(\tilde\s_n)+\sum_{x\in W_n}h_x\tilde\s_n(x)\}.$$ The free energy is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{free}
F_\b(h)=-\lim_{n\to \infty}{1\over
3\b\cdot 2^n} \ln Z^{(n)}(\b, h).\end{aligned}$$ The goal of this section is to prove following:
\[free1\] The free energy of the model exists for all $h$, and is given by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{free2}
F_\b(h)=-\lim_{n\to\infty}{1\over 3\b\cdot 2^n}
\sum_{k=0}^n\sum_{x\in W_{n-k}}\log
a(x,h_y,h_z;\theta,\theta_1,\b),\end{aligned}$$ where $y=y(x),
z=z(x)$ are direct successors of $x$; $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ax}
a(x,h_y,h_z;\theta,\theta_1,\b)=e^{-(J/2+J_1)\b}g(h'_y,h'_z)\bigg[F(h'_y,h'_z)F((h'_y)^t,(h'_z)^t)\bigg]^{1/3},\end{aligned}$$ here the function $F(h,r)$ is defined as in , and $$g(h,r)=\theta e^{h_1+r_1}+e^{h_1+r_2}+ e^{h_2+r_1}+\theta
e^{h_2+r_2}+\theta_1(e^{h_1}+e^{r_1}+e^{h_2}+e^{r_2})+\theta_1^2\theta,$$ where $h=(h_1,h_2), r=(r_1,r_2)$.
We shall use the recursive equation , i.e. $$Z^{(n)}=A_{n-1}Z^{(n-1)},$$ where $A_n=\prod\limits_{x\in W_n}a(x,h_y,h_z;\theta,\theta_1,\b)$ $x\in V$, $y,z\in S(x)$, which is defined below. Using we have .
Thus, the recursive equation has the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{free3}
Z^{(n)}(\b;h)=\exp\bigg(\sum_{x\in W_{n-1}}\log
a(x,h_y,h_z;\theta,\theta_1,\b)\bigg) Z^{(n-1)}(\b,h).\end{aligned}$$
Now we prove existence of the RHS limit of . From the form of the function $F$ one gets that it is bounded, i.e. $|F(h,r)|\leq M$ for all $h,r\in\br^2$. Hence, we conclude that the solutions of the equation are bounded, i.e. $|h_{x,i}|\leq C$ for all $x\in V$, $i=1,2$. Here $C$ is some constant and $h_x=(h_{x,1}h_{x,2})$. Consequently the function $a(x,h_y,h_z;\theta,\theta_1,\b)$ is bounded, and so $|\log
a(x,h_y,h_z;\theta,\theta_1,\b)|\leq C_\b$ for all $h_y, h_z$. Hence we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{45}
&&{1\over 3\cdot 2^n}\sum_{k=l+1}^n\sum_{x\in W_{n-k}}\log
a(x,h_y,h_z;\theta,\theta_1,\b) \nonumber\\
&&\leq{C_\b\over 2^n}\sum_{k=l+1}^n 2^{n-k-1} \leq C_\b\cdot
2^{-l}. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, from we get the existence of the limit at RHS of .
Let us compute the free energy corresponding the measures $\m_i$, ($i=1,2,3$). Assuming first that $h_x=h$ for all $x\in V$. Then from and one gets $$F_\b(h)=\frac{1}{\b}\log a(h,\theta,\theta_1,\b),$$ here $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ax1}
a(h,\theta,\theta_1,\b)=e^{-(J/2+J_1)\b}g(h',h')\bigg[F(h',h')F((h')^t,(h')^t)\bigg]^{1/3}.\end{aligned}$$
Let us consider $h=h^*_{1,k}$, ($k=1,2,3$). Denote $F_{\b}=F_\b(h^*_{1,k})$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{free4}
\b F_{\b}=\log\bigg[e^{-(J/2+J_1)\b}(u^*_1)^{1/3}(\theta
(u^*_1)^2+2(\theta_1+1)u^*_1+\theta_1^2\theta+2\theta_1+\theta)\bigg].\end{aligned}$$
Taking into account the equality can be rewritten as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{free4}
\b F_{\b}=-(J/2+J_1)\b+\frac{1}{3}\log u^*_1+\log(\theta_1-1)+
\log\bigg[\theta(\theta_1+1)(u^*_1+1)+2\bigg].\end{aligned}$$
Now let us compute the internal energy $U$ of the model. It is known that the following formula holds $$\label{ener}
U=\frac{\partial(\b F_{\b})}{\partial\b}.$$
Before compute it we have to calculate $du^*_1/d\b$. Taking derivation from both sides of one finds $$\label{der}
\frac{du^*_1}{d\b}=\frac{3\bigg((J_1\theta_1(\theta\theta_1-1)+J(\theta_1+1))u^*_1+J\bigg)}{2\theta
u^*_1+(\theta_1+1)(\theta(1-\theta_1)+2)}.$$
From and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&-(J/2+J_1)+\frac{3}{2}\bigg[
\frac{J_1}{\theta_1-1}+\frac{\theta((J+J_1)\theta_1+J)(u^*_1+1)}{\theta(\theta_1+1)(u^*_1+1)+2}\bigg]\\
&&+\bigg[\frac{\theta(\theta_1+1)(4u^*_1+1)+2}{3u^*_1(\theta(\theta_1+1)(u^*_1+1)+2)}\bigg]\frac{du^*_1}{d\b}\end{aligned}$$
Again using and one gets $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&-(J/2+J_1)+\frac{3}{2}\bigg[
\frac{\theta\theta_1(J_1(\theta^2_1+1)+J(\theta_1-1))(u^*_1+1)+2J_1}{\theta(\theta^2_1-1)(u^*_1+1)+2(\theta_1-1)}\bigg]\\
&&+\bigg[\frac{\theta(\theta_1+1)(4u^*_1+1)+2}{(\theta(\theta_1+1)(\theta\theta_1-2)-2)u^*_1-2(\theta+1)(\theta_1+1)}\bigg]\\
&&\times\bigg[\frac{((J_1\theta_1(\theta\theta_1-1)+J(\theta_1+1))u^*_1+J)}{2\theta
u^*_1+(\theta_1+1)(\theta(1-\theta_1)+2)}\bigg]\end{aligned}$$
Using this expression we can also calculate entropy of the model.
Since spins take values in $\br^2$, therefore the magnetization of the model would be $\br^2$-valued quantity. Using the result of sections 4 and 5 we can easily compute the magnetization. Let us calculate it with respect to the measure $\m_1$. Note that the model is translation-invariant, therefore, we have $
M_1=<\s_{(0)}>_{\m_1}$, so using , and one finds $$\begin{aligned}
M_1&=&\z_1\m_1(\s_{(0)}=\z_1)+\z_2\m_1(\s_{(0)}=\z_2)+\z_3\m_1(\s_{(0)}=\z_3)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{(u_1^*)^{2/3}+2(u_1^*)^{-1/3}}\bigg(\z_1(u_1^*)^{2/3}+\z_2(u_1^*)^{-1/3}+\z_3(u_1^*)^{-1/3}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{u_1^*+2}\bigg(\z_1u_1^*+\z_2+\z_3\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{u_1^*-1}{u_1^*+2}\z_1.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
M_2=<\s_{(0)}>_{\m_2}&=&\frac{u_1^*-1}{u_1^*+2}\z_2.\nonumber \\
M_3=<\s_{(0)}>_{\m_3}&=&\frac{u_1^*-1}{2u_1^*+1}\z_3.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Discussion of results
=====================
It is known [@Ba] that to exact calculations in statistical mechanics are paid attention by many of researchers, because those are important not only for their own interest but also for some deeper understanding of the critical properties of spin systems which are not obtained form approximations. So, those are very useful for testing the credibility and efficiency of any new method or approximation before it is applied to more complicated spin systems. In the present paper we have derived recurrent equations for the partition functions of the three state Potts model with competing interactions on a Bethe lattice of order two, and certain particular cases of those equations were studied. In the presence of the one-level competing interactions we exactly solved the ferromagnetic Potts model. The critical curve such that there exits a phase transitions under it, was calculated (see Fig. \[fig5\]). It has been described the set of ground states of the model (see Fig. \[fig4\]). This shows that the ground states of the model are richer than the ordinary Potts model on the Bethe lattice. Using this description and the recurrent equations, one found the Gibbs measures associated with the translation-invariant ground states. Note that such Gibbs measures determine generalized 2-step Markov chains (see [@D]). Moreover, we proved the existence of the free energy, and exactly calculated it for those measures. Besides, we have computed some other physical quantities too. The results agrees with [@PLM1; @PLM2], [@G] when we neglect the next nearest neighbor interactions.
Note that for the Ising model on the Bethe lattice with in the presence of the one-level and prolonged competing interactions the modulated phases and Lifshitz points appear in the phase diagram (see [@V],[@YOS],[@SC]). In absence of the prolonged competing interactions in the 3-state Potts model we do not have such kind of phases, this means one-level interactions could not affect the appearance the modulated phases. One can hope that the considered Potts model with $J_p=0$ will describe some biological models. Note that the case, when the prolonged competing interaction is nontrivial ($J_p\neq 0$), will be a theme of our next investigations [@GMMP], where the modulated phases and Lifshitz points will be discussed.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
F.M. thanks the FCT (Portugal) grant SFRH/BPD/17419/2004. J.F.F.M. acknowledges projects POCTI/FAT/46241/2002, POCTI/MAT/46176/2002 and European research NEST project DYSONET/ 012911.The work was also partially supported by Grants: $\Phi$-1.1.2, $\Phi$-2.1.56 of CST of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Recurrent equations at $J_p\neq 0$
==================================
Denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ABC}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
A^{(n)}_1&=&\theta^2_p Z^{(n)}_1+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_2+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_3+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_4+ Z^{(n)}_5+ Z^{(n)}_6+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_7+ Z^{(n)}_8+ Z^{(n)}_9, \\
B^{(n)}_1&=&\theta^2_p Z^{(n)}_{10}+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_{11}+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_{12}+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_{13}+ Z^{(n)}_{14}+ Z^{(n)}_{15}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{16}+ Z^{(n)}_{17}+ Z^{(n)}_{18} ,\\
C^{(n)}_1&=&\theta^2_p Z^{(n)}_{19}+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_{20}+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_{21}+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_{22}+ Z^{(n)}_{23}+ Z^{(n)}_{24}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{25}+ Z^{(n)}_{26}+ Z^{(n)}_{27} ,\\
A^{(n)}_2&=& Z^{(n)}_1+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_2+ Z^{(n)}_3+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_4+ \theta_p^2 Z^{(n)}_5+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_6+ Z^{(n)}_7+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_8+ Z^{(n)}_9, \\
B^{(n)}_2&=& Z^{(n)}_{10}+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_{11}+ Z^{(n)}_{12}+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_{13}+ \theta_p^2 Z^{(n)}_{14}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{15}+ Z^{(n)}_{16}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{17}+ Z^{(n)}_{18}, \\
C^{(n)}_2&=& Z^{(n)}_{19}+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_{20}+ Z^{(n)}_{21}+\theta_p Z^{(n)}_{22}+ \theta_p^2 Z^{(n)}_{23}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{24}+ Z^{(n)}_{25}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{26}+ Z^{(n)}_{27}, \\
A^{(n)}_3&=& Z^{(n)}_1+Z^{(n)}_2+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_3+ Z^{(n)}_4+ Z^{(n)}_5+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_6+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_7+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_8+ \theta_p^2 Z^{(n)}_9, \\
B^{(n)}_3&=& Z^{(n)}_{10}+Z^{(n)}_{11}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{12}+ Z^{(n)}_{13}+ Z^{(n)}_{14}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{15}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{16}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{17}+ \theta_p^2 Z^{(n)}_{18}, \\
C^{(n)}_3&=& Z^{(n)}_{19}+Z^{(n)}_{20}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{21}+
Z^{(n)}_{22}+ Z^{(n)}_{23}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{24}+ \theta_p
Z^{(n)}_{25}+ \theta_p Z^{(n)}_{26}+ \theta_p^2 Z^{(n)}_{27},
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ then the last one in terms of is represented by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ABC1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
A^{(n)}_{1}&=& \theta_p^2 x^{(n)}_1+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_2+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_3+x^{(n)}_4+2x^{(n)}_5+x^{(n)}_6 ,\\
B^{(n)}_{1}&=& \theta_p^2 x^{(n)}_7+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_8+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_9+x^{(n)}_{10}+2x^{(n)}_{11}+x^{(n)}_{12} ,\\
C^{(n)}_{1}&=& \theta_p^2 x^{(n)}_{13}+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_{14}+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_{15}+x^{(n)}_{16}+2x^{(n)}_{17}+x^{(n)}_{18} ,\\
A^{(n)}_{2}&=& x^{(n)}_1 +2\theta_p x^{(n)}_2+2 x^{(n)}_3+\theta^2_p x^{(n)}_4+2 x^{(n)}_5+x^{(n)}_6 ,\\
B^{(n)}_{2}&=& x^{(n)}_7+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_8+2 x^{(n)}_9+ \theta^2_p x^{(n)}_{10}+2x^{(n)}_{11}+x^{(n)}_{12} ,\\
C^{(n)}_{2}&=& x^{(n)}_{13}+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_{14}+2 x^{(n)}_{15}+\theta^2_px^{(n)}_{16}+2x^{(n)}_{17}+x^{(n)}_{18} ,\\
A^{(n)}_{3}&=& x^{(n)}_1+2 x^{(n)}_2+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_3+x^{(n)}_4+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_5 + \theta_p^2 x^{(n)}_6 ,\\
B^{(n)}_{3}&=& x^{(n)}_7+2 x^{(n)}_8+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_9+x^{(n)}_{10}+2\theta_p x^{(n)}_{11}+\theta_p^2 x^{(n)}_{12} ,\\
C^{(n)}_{3}&=& x^{(n)}_{13}+ 2x^{(n)}_{14}+2\theta_p
x^{(n)}_{15}+x^{(n)}_{16}+2\theta_px^{(n)}_{17}+\theta_p^2
x^{(n)}_{18}.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
From , and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(n)}_{1}&=& \tilde Z^{(n)}_{1} + (\theta_p^2 -1) x^{(n)}_1+2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_2+2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_3 ,\\
B^{(n)}_{1}&=& \tilde Z^{(n)}_{2} + (\theta_p^2 -1) x^{(n)}_7+2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_8+2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_9 ,\\
C^{(n)}_{1}&=& \tilde Z^{(n)}_{3} + (\theta_p^2 -1) x^{(n)}_{13}+2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_{14}+2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_{15} ,\\
A^{(n)}_{2}&=& \tilde Z^{(n)}_{1} + 2(\theta_p -1)x^{(n)}_2 +(\theta_p^2 -1) x^{(n)}_4+2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_5 ,\\
B^{(n)}_{2}&=& \tilde Z^{(n)}_{2} + 2(\theta_p -1)x^{(n)}_8 +(\theta_p^2 -1) x^{(n)}_{10}+2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_{11} ,\\
C^{(n)}_{2}&=& \tilde Z^{(n)}_{3} + 2(\theta_p -1)x^{(n)}_{14} +(\theta_p^2 -1) x^{(n)}_{16}+2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_{17} ,\\
A^{(n)}_{3}&=& \tilde Z^{(n)}_{1} + 2(\theta_p -1)x^{(n)}_3 +2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_5+(\theta_p^2 -1) x^{(n)}_6 ,\\
B^{(n)}_{3}&=& \tilde Z^{(n)}_{2} + 2(\theta_p -1)x^{(n)}_9
+2(\theta_p
-1) x^{(n)}_{11}+(\theta_p^2 -1) x^{(n)}_{12} ,\\
C^{(n)}_{3}&=& \tilde Z^{(n)}_{3} + 2(\theta_p -1)x^{(n)}_{15}
+2(\theta_p -1) x^{(n)}_{17}+(\theta_p^2 -1) x^{(n)}_{18} .\end{aligned}$$
Now let us assume that $J_p\neq 0$ and $\bar\s\equiv\z_1$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&&B_1^{(n)}=C_1^{(n)}, \quad A_2^{(n)}=A_3^{(n)},\\
&&B_2^{(n)}=C_3^{(n)}, \quad B_3^{(n)}=C_2^{(n)},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\tilde Z_2^{(n)}= \tilde Z_3^{(n)}.$$ Hence the recurrence system has the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rec12}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x^{(n+1)}_1= \theta\theta_1^2 (A^{(n)}_1)^2, &
x^{(n+1)}_2= x^{(n+1)}_3=\theta_1 A^{(n)}_1B^{(n)_1}, \\
x^{(n+1)}_4= x^{(n+1)}_6 =\theta (B^{(n)}_1)^2,& x^{(n+1)}_5 =
(B^{(n)}_1)^2 ,\\
x^{(n+1)}_7 = \theta (A^{(n)}_2)^2, &
x^{(n+1)}_8 = \theta_1A^{(n)}_2 B^{(n)}_2, \\
x^{(n+1)}_9 = A^{(n)}_2 C^{(n)}_2, &
x^{(n+1)}_{10} = \theta\theta_1^2 (B^{(n)}_2)^2, \\
x^{(n+1)}_{11} = \theta_1 B^{(n)}_2 C^{(n)}_2 , & x^{(n+1)}_{12}
= \theta (C_2^{(n)})^2,\\
x^{(n+1)}_{13}= x^{(n+1)}_{7}, & x^{(n+1)}_{14}=x^{(n+1)}_{9},\\
x^{(n+1)}_{15}=x^{(n+1)}_{8}, & x^{(n+1)}_{16}=x^{(n+1)}_{12},\\
x^{(n+1)}_{17}=x^{(n+1)}_{11}, & x^{(n+1)}_{18}=x^{(n+1)}_{10}.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
Through introducing new variables $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
y^{(n)}_1=x^{(n)}_1, & y^{(n)}_2=x^{(n)}_2=x^{(n)}_3,\\
y^{(n)}_3=x^{(n)}_5=\frac{x^{(n)}_4}{\theta}=\frac{x^{(n)}_6}{\theta},
&\\
y^{(n)}_4=x^{(n)}_{7}=x^{(n)}_{13} ,&
y^{(n)}_5=x^{(n)}_{8}=x^{(n)}_{15},\\
y^{(n)}_6=x^{(n)}_{9}=x^{(n)}_{14} , &
y^{(n)}_7=x^{(n)}_{10}=x^{(n)}_{18},\\
y^{(n)}_8=x^{(n)}_{11}=x^{(n)}_{17}, &
y^{(n)}_9=x^{(n)}_{12}=x^{(n)}_{16},
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ the recurrence system takes the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
y^{(n+1)}_1= \theta\theta_1^2 (\tilde A^{(n)}_1)^2 ,&
y^{(n+1)}_2=\theta_1 \tilde A^{(n)}_1\tilde B^{(n)}_1, \\
y^{(n+1)}_3= (\tilde B^{(n)}_1)^2,& y^{(n+1)}_4 = \theta (\tilde
A^{(n)}_2)^2, \\
y^{(n+1)}_5 = \theta_1\tilde A^{(n)}_2 \tilde B^{(n)}_2, &
y^{(n+1)}_6 = \tilde A^{(n)}_2\tilde C^{(n)}_2,\\
y^{(n+1)}_{7} = \theta\theta_1^2 (\tilde B^{(n)}_2)^2, &
y^{(n+1)}_{8} = \theta_1 \tilde B^{(n)}_2 \tilde C^{(n)}_2 , \\
y^{(n+1)}_{9}= \theta (\tilde C_2^{(n)})^2, &
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde A^{(n)}_{1}&=& \theta_p^2 y^{(n)}_1+4\theta_p y^{(n)}_2+2(\theta+1) y^{(n)}_3 ,\\
\tilde B^{(n)}_{1}&=& \theta_p^2 y^{(n)}_4+2\theta_p y^{(n)}_5+2\theta_p y^{(n)}_6+ y^{(n)}_7+2y^{(n)}_8+y^{(n)}_9,\\
\tilde A^{(n)}_{2}&=& y^{(n)}_1+ (2\theta_p +1) y^{(n)}_{8}+(\theta_p^2\theta+2\theta_p+\theta) y^{(n)}_{3} ,\\
\tilde B^{(n)}_{2}&=& y^{(n)}_4 + 2\theta_p y^{(n)}_5 +2y^{(n)}_6+\theta_p^2 y^{(n)}_{7}+2\theta_p y^{(n)}_{8}+y^{(n)}_9 ,\\
\tilde C^{(n)}_{2}&=& y^{(n)}_4 +2\theta_p
y^{(n)}_6+2y^{(n)}_5+\theta_p^2 y^{(n)}_{9}+2\theta_p
y^{(n)}_{8}+y^{(n)}_7 .\end{aligned}$$
Noting that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ll}
\theta( y^{(n)}_2)^2= y^{(n)}_1 y^{(n)}_3, & \theta^2( y^{(n)}_5)^2= y^{(n)}_4 y^{(n)}_7,\\
\theta^2( y^{(n)}_6)^2= y^{(n)}_4 y^{(n)}_9, & \theta^2(
y^{(n)}_8)^2= y^{(n)}_7 y^{(n)}_9 ,
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ we see that only five independent variables remain.
It should be noted that if $\theta_1=1$, i.e. $J_1=0$, then for the boundary condition $\bar\s\equiv\z_1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&A_1^{(n)}=A_2^{(n)}=A_3^{(n)}=\theta_p^4 B_1^{(n)},\\
&& B_1^{(n)}=B_2^{(n)}=B_3^{(n)}=C_1^{(n)}=C_2^{(n)}=C_3^{(n)},\\
&&\tilde Z_2^{(n)}= \tilde Z_3^{(n)},\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tilde Z_1^{(n+1)}}{\tilde Z_3^{(n+1)}}=
\frac{\theta(\theta_p^4B_1^{(n)})^2+4(\theta_p^4B_1^{(n)})B_1^{(n)}+2(\theta+1)(B_1^{(n)})^2}
{\theta(\theta_p^4B_1^{(n)})^2+4(\theta_p^4B_1^{(n)})B_1^{(n)}+2(\theta+1)(B_1^{(n)})^2}=1.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, when $\theta_1=1 $ for any boundary condition exists single limit Gibbs measure, namely, the unordered phase. So that the phase transition does not occur.
Proof of the consistency condition
==================================
In this section we show that the condition and are equivalent. Assume that holds. Then inserting into we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3}
&&\frac{Z^{(n-1)}}{Z^{(n)}}\prod_{x\in
W_{n-1}}\sum_{\sigma_x^{(n)}}
\exp\{\beta J_1\s(x)(\s(y)+\s(z))+\beta J\s(y)\s(z) \nonumber\\
&&+ h_y\sigma(y)+h_z\s(z)\}= \prod_{x \in
W_{n-1}}\exp\{h_x\sigma(x)\}, \end{aligned}$$ here given $ x\in
W_{n-1}$ we denoted $S(x)=\{y,z\},\ \ \sigma_x^{(n)}=
\{\sigma(y),\s(z)\}$ and used $ \sigma^{(n)}=\bigcup\limits_{x\in
W_{n-1}} \sigma_x^{(n)}. $
Now fix $x\in W_{n-1}$ and rewrite for the cases $
\sigma(x)=\z_i $ ($i=1,2$) and $ \sigma(x)=\z_3 $, and then taking their rations we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4}
&&{\sum_{\sigma_x^{(n)}=\{\s(y),\s(z)\}} \exp\{\beta
J_1\z_i(\s(y)+\s(z))+\beta J\s(y)\s(z)+h_y\sigma(y)+h_z\s(z)\}
\over \sum_{\sigma_x^{(n)}=\{\s(y),\s(z)\}} \exp\{-\beta
J_1\z_3(\s(y)+\s(z))+\beta J\s(y)\s(z)+
h_y\sigma(y)+h_z\s(z)\}}\nonumber\\
&& =\exp\{h'_{x,i}\}.\end{aligned}$$
Now by using from we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5}
e^{h_{x,1}'}=F(h_y',h_z'), \ \ \
e^{h_{x,2}'}=F((h_y')^t,(h_z')^t).\end{aligned}$$
From the equality we conclude that the function ${\mathbf{h}}=\{h_x=(h_{x,1},h_{x,2}): x\in V\}$ should satisfy .
Note that the converse is also true, i.e. if holds that measures defined by satisfy the consistency condition. Indeed, the equality implies , and hence . From we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{\sigma_x^{(n)}=\{\s(y),\s(z)\}} \exp\{\beta
J_1\z_i(\s(y)+\s(z))+\beta J\s(y)\s(z)+h_y\sigma(y)+h_z\s(z)\}\\
&&= a(x)\exp\{\z_ih_x\}, \end{aligned}$$ where $i=1,2,3$ and $a(x)$ is some function. This equality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq6}
&&\prod_{x\in W_{n-1}} \sum_{\sigma_x^{(n)}=\{\s(y),\s(z)\}}
\exp\{\beta J_1(\s(y)+\s(z))\s(x)+\beta
J\s(y)\s(z)+h_y\sigma(y)+h_z\s(z)\}\nonumber\\
&&=\prod_{x\in W_{n-1}}a(x)\exp\{\s(x)h_x\}. \end{aligned}$$ Writing $A_n=\prod_{x\in W_n}a(x) $ from one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq61}
Z^{(n-1)}A_{n-1}\mu^{(n-1)}(\sigma_{n-1})=
Z^{(n)}\sum_{\sigma^{(n)}}\mu_n(\sigma_{n-1}\vee\sigma^{(n)}).\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account that each $\mu^{(n)},\ \ n\geq 1$ is a probability measure, i.e. $$\sum_{\s_{n-1}}\sum_{\s^{(n)}}\mu^{(n)}(\s_{n-1}\vee \s^{(n)})=1,
\ \ \sum_{\s_{n-1}}\mu^{(n-1)}(\s_{n-1})=1,$$ from we infer $$\begin{aligned}
\label{An}
Z^{(n-1)}A_{n-1}=Z^{(n)}, \end{aligned}$$ which means that holds.
[1000]{}
P.Bak, J.von Boehm, Ising model with solitons, phasons, and “the devil’s staircase”, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{},[**21**]{}(1980), 5297–5308.
R.J. Baxter, [*Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics*]{}, (Academic Press, London/New York, 1982).
P.M. Bleher, N.N. Ganikhodzhaev, Pure phases of the Ising model on Bethe lattices. [*Theory Probab. Appl.*]{} [**35**]{} (1990), 216–227.
P.M. Bleher, J. Ruiz, V.A. Zagrebnov, On the purity of the limiting Gibbs state for the Ising model on the Bethe lattice, [*Jour. Stat. Phys*]{}. [**79**]{}(1995), 473–482.
P.M. Bleher, J. Ruiz and V.A. Zagrebnov, On the phase diagram of the random field Ising model on the Bethe lattice, [*Jour. Stat. Phys*]{}. [**93**]{}(1998), 33-78.
P.M. Bleher, J. Ruiz, R.H.Schonmann, S.Shlosman and V.A. Zagrebnov, Rigidity of the critical phases on a Cayley tree, [*Moscow Math. Journ*]{}. [**3**]{}(2001), 345-362.
R.L. Dobrushin, The description of a random field by means of conditional probabilities and conditions of its regularity,[*Theor. Probab. Appl.*]{} [**13**]{} (1968), 197–224.
S.N. Dorogovtsev, A.V. Goltsev, J.F.F.Mendes, Potts model on complex networks, [*Eur. Phys. J. B*]{} [**38**]{} (2004), 177-182.
R.J. Elliott, Symmetry of Excitons in Cu$_2$O, [*Phys. Rev.*]{},[**124**]{} (1961), 340–345.
M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, R.F. Werner, Ground states of VBS models on Cayley trees, [*Jour. Stat. Phys*]{}. [**66**]{}(1992), 939-973.
N.N. Ganikhodjaev, On pure phases of the three-state ferromagnetic Potts model on the second-order Bethe lattice. [*Theor. Math. Phys.*]{} [**85**]{} (1990), 1125–1134.
N.N.Ganikhodjaev, F.Mukhamedov, J.F.F.Mendes,C.H.Pah, on the three state Potts model with competing interactions on the Bethe lattice II. In preparation.
N.N.Ganikhodjaev,C.H.Pah, M.R.B.Wahiddin, Exact solution of an Ising model with competing interactions on a Cayley tree, [*J.Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**36**]{}(2003), 4283-4289.
N.N.Ganikhodjaev,C.H.Pah, M.R.B.Wahiddin, An Ising model with three competing interactions on a Cayley tree, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**45**]{}(2004), 3645–3658.
N.N. Ganikhodjaev, U.A. Rozikov, On disordered phase in the ferromagnetic Potts model on the Bethe lattice. [*Osaka J. Math.*]{} [**37**]{} (2000), 373–383.
H.O. Georgii, [*Gibbs measures and phase transitions*]{} (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1988).
S. Janson, E. Mossel, Robust reconstruction on trees is determined by the second eigenvalue. [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**32**]{} (2004), 2630–2649.
R.Lyons, Phase transitions on nonamenable graphs, [*Jour. Math. Phys.*]{} [**41**]{}(2000), 1099-1126.
M.Mariz, C.Tsalis and A.L.Albuquerque, Phase diagram of the Ising model on a Cayley tree in the presence of competing interactions and magnetic field, [*Jour. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**40**]{}(1985), 577-592.
M.C. Marques, Three-state Potts model with antiferromagnetic interactions: a MFRG approach, [*J.Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**21**]{}(1988), 1061-1068.
J.B. Martin, Reconstruction thresholds on regular trees. Discrete random walks (Paris, 2003), 191–204), In book: Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. Proc., AC, Assoc. Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci., Nancy, 2003.
J.L. Monroe, A new criterion for the location of phase transitions for spin systems on recursive lattices, [*Physics Lett. A.*]{} [**188**]{}(1994), 80-84.
J.L. Monroe, Critical temperature of the Potts models on the kagome lattice, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**67**]{} (2003), 017103.
F.M.Mukhamedov, On a factor associated with the unordered phase of $\lambda$-model on a Cayley tree. [*Rep. Math. Phys.*]{} [**53**]{} (2004), 1–18.
F.M.Mukhamedov, U.A.Rozikov, On Gibbs measures of models with competing ternary and binary interactions and corresponding von Neumann algebras. [*Jour. Stat.Phys.*]{} [**114**]{}(2004), 825-848.
F.M.Mukhamedov, U.A.Rozikov, On Gibbs measures of models with competing ternary and binary interactions and corresponding von Neumann algebras II. [*Jour. Stat.Phys.*]{} [**119**]{}(2005), 427-446.
F.M.Mukhamedov and U.A.Rozikov, Extremality of the disordered phase of the nonhomogeneous Potts model on the Cayley tree. [*Theor. Math. Phys.*]{} [**124**]{} (2000), 1202–1210
M.P. Nightingale, M. Schick, Three-state square lattice Potts antiferromagnet, [*J.Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**15**]{} (1982), L39-L42.
F. Peruggi, Probability measures and Hamiltonian models on Bethe lattices. I. Properties and construction of MRT probability measures. [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**25**]{} (1984), 3303–3315.
F. Peruggi, Probability measures and Hamiltonian models on Bethe lattices. II. The solution of thermal and configurational problems. [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**25**]{} (1984), 3316–3323.
F. Peruggi, F. di Liberto, G. Monroy, Potts model on Bethe lattices. I. General results. [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**16**]{} (1983), 811–827.
F. Peruggi, F. di Liberto, G. Monroy, Phase diagrams of the $q$-state Potts model on Bethe lattices. [*Physica A* ]{} [**141**]{} (1987) 151–186.
R.B. Potts, Some generalized order-disorder transformations, [*Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.*]{} [**48**]{}(1952), 106–109.
C. Preston, [*Gibbs states on countable sets*]{} (Cambridge University Press, London 1974).
U.A. Rozikov, A constructive description of ground states and Gibbs measures for Ising model with two-step interactions on Cayley tree [*Jour. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**122**]{}(2006), 217– 235
A.N.Shiryaev,[*Probability*]{} (Nauka, Moscow, 1980).
C.R. da Silca, S. Coutinho, Ising model on the Bethe lattice with competing interactions up to the third - nearest - neighbor generation, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{},[**34**]{}(1986), 7975-7985.
Ya.G. Sinai, [*Theory of phase transitions: Rigorous Results*]{} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1982).
P.N. Timonin, Inhomogeneity-induced second order phase transitions in the Potts models on hierarchical lattices. [*JETP*]{} [**99**]{} (2004), 1044–1053.
M.H.R. Tragtenberg, C.S.O. Yokoi, Field behavior of an Ising model with competing interactions on the Bethe lattice, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**52**]{}(1995), 2187-2197.
C.S.O.Yokoi, M.J. Oliveira, S.R. Salinas, Strange attractor in the Ising model with competing interactions on the Cayley tree, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{},[**54**]{}(1985), 163–166.
F.Y. Wu, The Potts model, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**54**]{} (1982), 235–268.
J.Vannimenus, Modulated phase of an Ising system with competing interactions on a Cayley tree, [*Z.Phys. B*]{} [**43**]{}(1981), 141–148
[^1]: One can be checked that the function $$g(x)=(x-1)(\sqrt{(x+1)^3+1}-1)$$ is increasing if $x>1$. Therefore, the equation $g(x)=4$ has a unique solution $\theta^*$ such that $\theta^*>1$.
[^2]: Note that the Jacobian at a fixed point $(u^*,v^*)$ of can be calculated as follows $$\label{jac1}
J(u^*,v^*)= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\l(u^*,v^*) & \k(u^*,v^*) \\
\k(v^*,u^*) & \l(v^*,u^*)\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ here $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jac2}
\l(u,v)&=&\frac{2((\theta(\theta_1-u)-(v+\theta_1))u+\theta_1(v+1))}{\theta
u^2+2uv+\theta v^2+2\theta_1 u+2\theta_1
v+\theta_1^2\theta},\\\label{jac3} \k(u,v)&=&\frac{2(1-u)(\theta
v+1+u)}{\theta u^2+2uv+\theta v^2+2\theta_1 u+2\theta_1
v+\theta_1^2\theta}.\end{aligned}$$
[^3]: Indeed, this condition also implies that the eigenvalues of the Jacobian $J(1,1)$ is less than one (see -).
[^4]: Note that the functions $\varphi$ and $\zeta$ are increasing, therefore their inverse $\varphi^{-1}$ and $\zeta^{-1}$ exist.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, an explicit expression is obtained for the conformally invariant higher spin Laplace operator $\mcD_\lambda$, which acts on functions taking values in an arbitrary (finite-dimensional) irreducible representation for the orthogonal group with integer valued highest weight. Once an explicit expression is obtained, a special kind of (polynomial) solutions of this operator is determined.'
author:
- 'David Eelbode$^{\ast\ast}$, Tim Raeymaekers$^\ast$ and Matthias Roels$^{\ast\ast}$'
title: The higher spin Laplace operator in several vector variables
---
Introduction
============
This paper fits into the current program of constructing conformally invariant operators for higher spin fields, which leads to (massless) equations generalising the Maxwell and Dirac equation to arbitrary dimension, and studying their properties and solutions. Over the last decade it has become clear that a better understanding of higher spin gauge theories, as pioneered by Vasiliev and Fradkin in [@FV1; @FV2], involves the use of higher spin fields of so-called mixed symmetry type (i.e. tensor fields described by a Young symmetriser which is neither symmetric or anti-symmetric). In particular we would like to refer to the appearance of mixed symmetry fields in the setting of higher spin conformal field theories, see e.g. [@CHPT; @CPPR; @SD], which has its roots in the conformal bootstrap method [@FGG]. The approach followed in these papers lies close to the philosophy of the present paper, in which models for arbitrary (finite- dimensional) irreducible representations involving polynomials satisfying certain systems of equations are used (see also [@CSVL; @GM]). This is an alternative for the well-known abstract index notation for tensor fields, which lends itself nicely to explicit calculations. Using these models, a plethora of results for higher spin fields in arbitrary dimension has been obtained within the framework of Clifford analysis, a higher dimensional version of complex analysis which allows one to focus on the function theoretical aspects of the theory of differential operators and their solution spaces. Whereas this theory originally focused most of its attention on the Dirac operator, see for instance [@DSS; @GM], the area of interest has substantially grown once it became clear that also higher spin Dirac operators and super versions thereof were elegantly described using similar techniques. We refer for instance to [@BSSVL1; @BSSVL2; @CDB; @ER1; @ERVdJ] for the case of first-order operators. As for the case of second-order operators, for which we refer to e.g. [@Br; @HM], we have obtained partial results in [@DER1; @DER2; @ER]: in the former paper we focused on the actual construction and function theoretical properties such as fundamental and polynomial solutions for the operator acting on symmetric tensor fields, in the latter we developed an algebraic framework for studying for instance reproducing kernels for irreducible representation spaces (connected to the projectors calculated in [@CHPT]).
The aim of the present paper is to combine these ideas, and apply them to the construction of the most general second-order conformally invariant operator using techniques from Clifford analysis (i.e. heavily relying on the polynomial model for higher spin fields). A special case was considered in [@DER1] where for instance the linearised Einstein equations [@Mayor] where written as $$\mcD_2 = \Delta_x-\frac{4}{m+2}\brac{\inner{u,\D_x}-\frac{\norm{u}^2}{m}\inner{\D_u,\D_x}}\inner{\D_u,\D_x}.$$ The subscript two hereby refers to the highest weight $\lambda=(2,0,\ldots,0)$. In this paper, we will start with an arbitrary integer highest weight $\lambda$ and the associated operator will be denoted by $\mcD_{\lambda}$. The existence of these operators follows from a general classification result (see e.g. [@BEastwood; @BGG; @Lep; @Slovak]) or from Branson’s paper [@Br] in the curved setting (see also section 2). Nowadays these operators are usually constructed in terms of the tractor calculus formalism, but this tends to get rather complicated due to the presence of all the curvature corrections (see e.g. [@Gover]). In this paper we will focus our attention to the flat case. We explain how Branson’s method, based on generalised gradients [@SW], can be formulated on the level of a transvector algebra, as this allows us to also obtain results on the space of solutions. Despite being a partial result only, the solutions obtained in this paper (the so-called solutions of type A) are important for two reasons: first of all, our experience from the first-order case has taught us that the ‘missing’ solutions can be obtained from the ones described in the paper using twistor operators (see [@ERVdJ]). Secondly, the solutions of type A are exactly the solutions satisfying the so-called tranversality conditions which arise in the framework of the celebrated ambient method (the mathematical framework underlying both the AdS/CFT correspondence and the tractor calculus). They can thus be seen as solutions satisfying a gauge condition, for which we refer to the last section.
This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we use Branson’s result to introduce second order conformally invariant operators. We explain how the theories of transvector algebras and generalised gradients can be used to construct these second order conformally invariant operators in Section 3 and construct these operators explicitly in Section 4. In Section 5, a special type of solutions of such operators is considered, together with the relation of this space of solutions to transvector algebras in Section 6.
Branson’s result on second-order conformally invariant operators
================================================================
In this section, we give a brief overview of the main results of [@Br]. Suppose $M$ is an oriented Riemannian manifold of dimension $m>3$ and let $F(M)$ be the frame bundle of $TM$. Since $M$ is a Riemannian manifold, it is possible to consider the reduction of $\operatorname{GL}(m)$ to $\SO(m)$ to obtain the orthonormal frame bundle $F_o(M)$. Suppose $V_{\lambda}$ is a finite-dimensional irreducible representation of $\SO(m)$ with highest weight $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n)$. We may then form the associated vector bundle $E_{\lambda}=F_o(M)\times_{\SO(m)}V_{\lambda}$. Every bundle constructed in this way is isomorphic to some tensor bundle $E(\lambda)$ obtained by taking tensor products of $TM$ and $T^{\ast}M$. For example, the (co)tangent bundle is associated with the standard representation of $\SO(m)$, i.e. the representation with highest weight $\lambda=(1,0,\cdots,0)$. Since $M$ is a Riemannian manifold, we can use the Levi-Civita connection on $E(\lambda)$, which is a map $\nabla: \Gamma(E(\lambda))\longrightarrow \Gamma(E(\lambda)\otimes T^{\ast}M)$. The bundle $E(\lambda)\otimes T^{\ast}M$ is no longer irreducible and can be decomposed into irreducible bundles, i.e. $$E(\lambda)\otimes T^{\ast}M\cong_{\SO(m)}E(\mu_1)\oplus\ldots \oplus E(\mu_{\ell}),$$ where $\mu_j$ is the highest weight of the irreducible bundle $E(\mu_j)$. A generalised gradient $G_{\lambda,\mu_j}=\operatorname{Proj}_{\mu_j}\circ \nabla$ is then defined as the composition of $\nabla$ with the projection on the bundle $E(\mu_j)$. In [@Fegan], Fegan proved that any generalised gradient is a first order conformally invariant differential operator and the every conformally invariant first order operator is in fact a generalised gradient. We now have gathered the necessary ingredients to formulate the main result [@Br]:
\[theorem\_Branson\] Given an irreducible vector bundle $E(\lambda)$, there exists a unique (up to a constant multiple) second-order conformally invariant operator $D_{\lambda}:E(\lambda)\longrightarrow E(\lambda)$ when $m$ is odd or when $m$ is even and $\lambda_n=0$ is zero. When $m$ is odd or when $m$ is even and $\lambda_{n-1}=0$, the operator $D_{\lambda}$ is explicitly given by $$D_{\lambda}:=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \brac{\frac{1}{2}+\inner{\lambda+\mu_j+2\rho,\lambda-\mu_j}}^{-1} G_{\lambda, \mu_j}^{\ast}
G_{\lambda, \mu_j}-\frac{R}{2(m-1)},$$ where $R$ is the scalar curvature of $M$, $\inner{\cdot,\cdot}$ is the Killing form of $\so(m)$ and $\rho$ is the sum of the fundamental weights of $\so(m)$. If on the other hand $m$ is even and $\lambda_{n-1}\neq0$, then the operator is given by $D_{\lambda}:=G_{\lambda, \lambda\pm\varepsilon_{n}}^{\ast}G_{\lambda, \lambda\pm \varepsilon_{n}}$.
In the next section, we will construct the operators $G_{\lambda, \mu_j}$ and $G_{\lambda, \mu_j}^{\ast}$ on $\mR^m$. We will then use this theorem to derive an explicit form of $D_{\lambda}$ containing some unknown constants (different from the ones in this theorem) that can be fixed by proving conformal invariance, which is similar to what was done in [@DER1].
Transvector algebras and generalised gradients
==============================================
In this section, we will show that the construction of conformally invariant first-order operators, known as twistor operators (and their duals), on $\mR^m$ can be performed in an abstract framework involving transvector algebras. These algebras were used in a recent paper [@DER2] to obtain an alternative for the classical Howe dual pair $\SO(m) \times \sym(4)$ underlying analysis for matrix variables in $\mR^{2m}$, and have led to explicit projection operators on the irreducible summands for certain tensor products. Because the construction of first-order conformally invariant operators is based on the Stein-Weiss method (see [@Fegan; @SW]), which essentially amounts to projecting on irreducible summands, this transvector algebra turns out to be particularly useful.
In order to formally introduce the notion of a transvector algebra, we start from a decomposition $\g = \s \oplus \gt$ for a simple Lie algebra $\g$, where $\s \subset \g$ is a subalgebra and where the subspace $\gt$ defines a module for the adjoint (commutator) action of $\s$ (i.e. $[\s,\gt] \subset \gt$). Defining $\s^+ \subset \s$ as the space containing the positive root vectors of $\s$, one can then introduce the left-sided ideal $J' := \mcU'(\g)\s^+$ in $\mcU'(\g)$. The prime hereby stands for the localisation of the universal enveloping algebra $\mcU(\g)$ with respect to the subalgebra $\mcU(\h)$, with $\h$ the Cartan algebra in $\g$ (roughly speaking, this allows to write down fractions containing Cartan elements). Defining the normaliser $\operatorname{Norm}(J') := \big\{u \in \mcU'(\g) : J'u \subset J'\big\}$, we finally arrive at the following (for more details, we refer the reader to [@Molev; @Zh]):
For a simple Lie algebra $\g = \s \oplus \gt$, one can define the transvector algebra $Z\big(\g,\s\big) := \operatorname{Norm}(J')/J'$, with $J' = \mcU'(\g)\s^+$.
This algebra was first introduced by Zhelobenko in [@Zh], in the framework of so-called extremal systems, such as the Dirac and Maxwell equations. In the works of Zhelobenko and Molev [@Molev; @Zh], it was shown that the algebra $Z\big(\g,\s\big)$ is generated by the elements $\pi_\s[u]$, with $u \in \gt$ (the complementary $\s$-module) and $\pi_\s \in \mcU'(\gok)$ the extremal projection operator for the Lie algebra $\s$.
The extremal projection operator $\pi_\s$ for a semisimple Lie algebra $\s$ is defined as the unique formal operator, contained in an extension of $\mcU'(\s)$ to some algebra of formal series, which satisfies the equations $\s^+\pi_\s = 0 = \pi_\s\s^-$ and $\pi_\s^2 = \pi_\s$, with $\s^+$ and $\s^-$ the subspaces containing positive and negative root vectors respectively.
Note that the localisation with respect to $\mcU(\h)$ is necessary in order to obtain a proper projection operator (i.e. satisfying the requirement $\pi_\s^2 = \pi_\s$).
Transvector algebras are examples of so-called quadratic algebras, which satisfy commutation relations of the form $$[X_a,X_b] = \sum_{c,d}\alpha_{cd}X_cX_d + \sum_{p}\beta_pX_p + \gamma,$$ where $X \in Z(\g,\gok)$ is a generator and where the ‘constants’ $\alpha_{cd}, \beta_p$ and $\gamma$ belong to $\mcU'(\h)$. This thus generalises the classical relations for Lie algebras.
Two vector variables
--------------------
In [@DER2], we have explicitly determined the commutation relations for $Z(\sym(4),\so(4))$ and used them to obtain an alternative for the classical Howe dual pair $\SO(m) \times \sym(4)$. A model for this algebra was obtained using a polynomial realisation for $\sym(4) = \s \oplus \gt$, given by $$\sym(4) = \big(\spl_x(2) \oplus \spl_u(2)\big) \oplus \Span_\mC\big(\inner{u,x}, \inner{\D_u,\D_x}, \inner{x,\D_u}, \inner{u,\D_x}\big),$$ where the notation $\inner{\cdot,\cdot}$ hereby refers to the Euclidean inner product on $\mR^m$ and an operator such as for example $\inner{u,\D_x}$ stands for $\sum_{j=1}^mu_j\D_{x_j}$. The subspace $\gt$ is a module for $\s = \so(4) \cong \spl_x(2) \oplus \spl_u(2)$, with $\spl_x(2) = \Span(|x|^2,\Delta_x,\mE_x + \frac{m}{2})$ and similarly for $u$. Here, $|x|^2$ is the squared norm of the vector $x$, $\Delta_x$ is the corresponding Laplace operator, and $\mE_x=\langle x, \partial_x \rangle$ is the Euler operator. Acting on these $4$ operators in $\gt$ with the extremal projection operator $\pi_{\so(4)}$ leads to a quadratic algebra generated by $4$ elements, which we called $(C,A,S_x,S_u)$ in [@DER2]. This algebra forms the inspiration for the rest of this section, in which we will show that transvector algebras of the form $Z(\g,\s)$, with $\g = \sym(2n)$ a symplectic Lie algebra and $\s$ a subalgebra thereof, are intimitely connected to the classical Stein-Weiss method for constructing invariant operators. The starting point is the following identification, valid for a field $$f_k(x,u) = \sum_{\alpha = 1}^{d_k}\varphi_\alpha(x)H_k^\alpha(u)$$ taking values in the space of traceless symmetric tensors of rank $k$ (for which the space of $k$-homogeneous harmonic polynomials provides a model, hence the dummy $u \in \mR^m$ and the subscript $k$ attached to our field): $$\nabla f_k \in \Gamma(\mcH_k\otimes T^{\ast}M)\ \stackrel{1:1}{\longleftrightarrow}\ \sum_{j=1}^m\sum_{\alpha = 1}^{d_k}\frac{\D \varphi_\alpha(x)}{\D x_j}v_jH_k^\alpha(u) \in \mcC^\infty(\mR^m,\mcH_k \otimes \mcH_1),$$ where $\alpha \in \{1,\ldots,d_k\}$ is an index labeling a basis for the $d_k$-dimensional space $\mcH_k(\mR^m,\mC)$.
For a general manifold $M$ one has to see $\set{H_k^\alpha(u)}_{\alpha=1}^{d_k}$ as a local basis of the space of sections of an appropriate bundle. In this paper however, we are working with a trivial bundle.
We have thus introduced a dummy variable $v \in \mR^m$ to denote the representation according to which the cotangent bundle decomposes (as we are working with the standard Euclidean metric, the identification with the tangent bundle is immediate). As is well-known, this tensor product $\mcH_k\otimes \mcH_1$ decomposes as a module for $\SO(m)$ and the projection on each of these summands provides us with a generalised gradient. This tensor product can now be studied within the framework of Fischer decompositions for harmonic polynomials in two vector variables, as $\Delta_u H_k(u) = 0 = \Delta_v v_j$, and this is precisely the setting in which we have introduced the algebra $Z(\sym(4),\so(4))$. For instance, for fixed $\alpha$ and $j$ one has that $$\label{SW_Dk}
v_jH^\alpha_k(u) = H_{k,1}(u,v) + S_v H_{k+1}(u) + C H_{k-1}(u),$$ where $Z(\sym(4),\so(4)) = \Alg(S_u,S_v,A,C)$ in the variables $(u,v) \in \mR^{2m}$ and where $H_{k\pm 1}(u)\in\mcH_{k\pm 1}$ and $H_{k,1}(u,v)\in \mcH_{k,1}$. Note that the polynomials appearing at the right-hand side should be indexed by two labels $(\alpha,j)$, but we have decided to suppress this notation. As a matter of fact, to get an explicit expression representing $\nabla f_k(x,u)$ one has to reintroduce the summation over $\alpha$ and $j$, which then leads to $$\nabla f_k(x,u) = f_{k,1}(x,u,v) + S_v f_{k+1}(x,u) + C f_{k-1}(x,u),$$ where the subscripts refer to the values of the fields under consideration. We can now invoke the knowledge obtained in [@DER2] to construct explicit projection operators. First of all, the action of $A = \pi_{\s}[\inner{\D_u,\D_v}]$ on the left-hand side gives $$\sum_{j = 1}^m\sum_{\alpha = 1}^{d_k}\frac{\partial \varphi_\alpha(x)}{\partial x_j}A\big(v_jH^\alpha_k(u)\big) = \pi_{u}[\inner{\D_u,\D_x}] f_k(x,u),$$ Note that the action of $\pi_{\s}$ reduces to $\pi_{u}$ (the extremal projection operator for $\spl(2)_u$) as the projection for $v \in \mR^m$ is trivial. Since the field above takes its values in the space $\mcH_{k-1}(\mR^m,\mC)$ and the decomposition (\[SW\_Dk\]) is multiplicity- free, the only non-trivial contribution coming from the action of $A$ on the right-hand side is given by $$AC f_{k-1}(x,u) = \left(\frac{H_v - H_u}{H_u + 1} - (H_u + H_v)\right)f_{k-1}(x,u),$$ where $-2H_u = 2\mE_u + m$ (and similarly for $v$). We thus get $$AC f_{k-1}(x,u) = \frac{(k+m-3)(2k+m-2)}{2k+m-4}f_{k-1}(x,u).$$ This means that the projection on $\Pi_{k-1} : \mcH_k\otimes \mcH_1 \rightarrow \mcH_{k-1}$ is given by $$\Pi_{k-1}\big(\nabla f_k(x,u)\big) = \frac{2k+m-4}{(k+m-3)(2k+m-2)}\inner{\D_u,\D_x} f_k(x,u),$$ Note that this is the expression [*without*]{} the embedding factor, i.e. the invariant map embedding $\mcH_{k-1} \hookrightarrow \mcH_k \otimes T^{\ast}M$ (it suffices to let the operator $C$ act to include it). Next, something similar can be done for the action of the operator $S_u$ on expression (\[SW\_Dk\]). For the left-hand side, we get $$\sum_{j = 1}^m\sum_{\alpha = 1}^{d_k}\frac{\partial \varphi_\alpha(x)}{\partial x_j}S_u\big(v_jH^\alpha_k(u)\big) = \pi_{u}
[\inner{u,\D_x}] f_k(x,u),$$ a field taking its values in $\mcH_{k+1}(\mR^m,\mC)$.
Note that the action of the operator $\pi_{u}[\inner{u,\D_x}]$ on a field $f_k(x,u)$ can either be read as first acting with $\inner{u,\D_x}$ on $f_k(x,u)$ and then projecting on the harmonic part in $u$ (the first action gives a polynomial of degree $(k+1)$ in $u$, for fixed $x \in \mR^m$), or as the action of the operator $$\pi_{u}[\inner{u,\D_x}] = \inner{u,\D_x}-\frac{1}{2\mE_u+m-4}\norm{u}^2\inner{\D_u,\D_x},$$ which has the projection built into its explicit form. Because we always assume that our fields are harmonic in $u \in \mR^m$, these actions are equivalent.
Again invoking the algebraic relations in $Z(\sym(4),\so(4))$, one also has that $$S_uS_v f_{k+1}(x,u) = (k+1)f_{k+1}(x,u)\ ,$$ which eventually leads to $$\Pi_{k+1}\big(\nabla f_k(x,u)\big) = \frac{1}{k+1}\pi_{\spl(2)}[\inner{u,\D_x}] f_k(x,u).$$ Finally, a simple subtraction leads to the last projection: $$\Pi_{k,1}\big(\nabla f(x,u)\big) = \bigg(1 - S_v\Pi_{k+1} - C\Pi_{k-1}\bigg)\inner{v,\D_x} f_k(x,u),$$ Once these generalised gradients are known, one can determine their formal adjoints. To do so, we work in the space $\mcC^\infty_c(\mR^m,\mcH_k) = \mcC^\infty_c(\mR^m,\mC) \otimes \mcH_k$, containing smooth compactly supported functions taking values in the space $\mcH_k$, such that we can make sense of the defining relation $\inner{G_\lambda f,g} = \inner{ f,G_\lambda^{\ast}g}$, where $G_\lambda$ denotes a generalised gradient for the highest weight $\lambda$ and $G_\lambda^*$ its dual (note that the compactly supported function $f$ lives in the target space for $G_\lambda$, which obviously depends on the highest weight $\lambda$). The inner product is hereby defined (e.g. for basis elements) by means of $$\inner{\varphi_\alpha(x) \otimes H^\alpha(u),\psi_\beta(x) \otimes H^\beta(u)} := \int_{\mR^m}\varphi_{\alpha}(x)\overline{\psi_{\beta}(x)}\mathrm{d}x \otimes [H^\alpha(u),H^\beta(u)]_F.$$ Here $[\cdot,\cdot]_F$ denotes the Fischer inner product on the space of values (simplicial harmonics in general), which is defined as $$[H^{\alpha}(u),H^{\beta}(u)]_F:= \overline{H^{\alpha}(\D_u)}H^{\beta}(u)\vert_{x = u = 0},$$ where the operator $\D_{u}$ on the right hand side of the expression denotes that each variable in $H^{\alpha}(u)$ is replaced by its corresponding partial derivative. The formal adjoint can then be obtained using integration by parts (this is the reason for choosing functions with compact support), as this allows us to shift the derivation in $x$. We thus have that $\inner{\D_u,\D_x}^{\ast} = -\pi_{u}[\inner{u,\D_x}]$, where the projection operator $\pi_{u}$ appears because one must stay in the space of harmonics in $u \in \mR^m$, $\pi_{u}[\inner{u,\D_x}]^{\ast} = -\inner{\D_u,\D_x}$ and finally also $$\bigg(\big(1 - S_v\Pi_{k+1} - C\Pi_{k-1}\big)\inner{v,\D_x}\bigg)^{\ast} = - \inner{\D_v,\D_x}.$$ In deriving this last result we made use of the fact that $S_v^{\ast} = S_u$ and $C^{\ast} = A$ (see [@DER2]) and both operators act trivially on the space of $\mcH_k$-valued fields. We can now put everything together, hereby making use of Branson’s result (see Theorem \[theorem\_Branson\]) which tells us that there exist constants (determined in terms of Casimir eigenvalues) such that the second-order conformally invariant operator can be written as $$\label{D_k_BR}
\begin{split}
\mcD_k & := c_{k,1}\inner{\D_v,\D_x}\big(1 - S_v\Pi_{k+1} - C\Pi_{k-1}\big)\inner{v,\D_x} \\
& + c_{k+1}\inner{\D_u,\D_x} \pi_{u}[\inner{u,\D_x}] + c_{k-1}\pi_{u}[\inner{u,\D_x}] \inner{\D_u,\D_x}.
\end{split}$$ We will first recast this expression, still containing a few real unknown constants, and we will then fix these constants using the uniqueness of the second-order conformally invariant operator (see [@DER1]). First of all, we have the following (from direct calculations): $$\big[\inner{\D_u,\D_x} , \pi_{u}[\inner{u,\D_x}]\big] = \Delta_x -\frac{2}{2\mE_x + m - 2}\pi_{u}[\inner{u,\D_x}]\inner{\D_u,\D_x}.$$ Note that the Euler operator in the denominator poses no threat here: it acts as a constant on our space of values. This already tells us that the last two terms in expression (\[D\_k\_BR\]) for $\mcD_k$ can be written as $$p_k\Delta_x + q_k \pi_{u}[\inner{u,\D_x}] \inner{\D_u,\D_x},$$ with $p_k$ and $q_k$ two real constants which will depend on $k$ due to the presence of the Euler operator in the lemma. As for the first term in $\mcD_k$, it suffices to note that the derivation in $v \in \mR^m$ can only act on the embedding factors $S_v$ and $C$, or on the $v$ appearing in the operator $\inner{v,\D_x}$ as the field $f(x,u)$ does not depend on this dummy variable. Taking into account that $$\begin{aligned}
[ \inner{\D_v,\D_x}, \inner{v,\D_x}] & = \Delta_x\\
[\inner{\D_v,\D_x},S_v] & = \inner{\D_u,\D_x}\\
[\inner{\D_v,\D_x},C] & = \pi_{u}\inner{u,\D_x} ,\end{aligned}$$ there should thus exist an expression of the form $$\mcD_k = \alpha_k\Delta_x + \beta_k\pi_{u}[\inner{u,\D_x}]\inner{\D_u,\D_x},$$ where the real constants $(\alpha_k,\beta_k)$ can now be fixed by requiring that the result is conformally invariant. This then fixes the operator $\mcD_k$ up to a multiplicative constant, as was done in [@DER1].
$k$ vector variables
--------------------
A similar argument can now be used to construct the generalisation of $\mcD_k$ to the case of $k$ vector variables. This leads to a second-order conformally invariant operator $\mcD_\lambda$ acting on functions taking values in the $\SO(m)$-module with highest weight $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k,0,\ldots,0)$ where $k < \lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor$. A model for this representation is presented in the following definition:
A polynomial $P(u_1,\ldots,u_k)\in \mcP\brac{\mR^{km},\mC}$ in $k$ vector variables, is called simplicial harmonic if it satisfies the system $$\begin{aligned}
\inner{ \D_i, \D_j}P &= 0, \ \text{for all}\ i, j =1, \ldots, k \\
\inner{ u_i, \D_j} P &= 0, \ \text{for all}\ 1 \leq i <j \leq k.\end{aligned}$$
The vector space of simplicial polynomials homogeneous of degree $\lambda_i$ in the vector variable $u_i$ will be denoted by $\mcH_{\lambda}\brac{\mR^{km},\mC}$, where $\lambda = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_k)$. It is known (see e.g. [@GW; @We]) that the algebra of $\SO(m)$-invariant operators acting on $\mcP\brac{\mR^{km},\mC}$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the symplectic Lie algebra $$\begin{aligned}
\sym(2k) =& \Span\set{\inner{\D_i, \D_j}, \inner{u_i, u_j} , \inner{ u_i, \D_j} : 1 \leq i,j \leq k, i\neq j}\\
&\oplus\Span\set{\Delta_j,\norm{u_j}^2, \mE_j +\frac{m}{2}: 1\leq j \leq k}.\end{aligned}$$ We can then define the operator $\mcD_{\lambda}$ as follows:
The higher spin Laplace operator in $k$ vector variables is defined as the unique (up to a multiplicative constant) conformally invariant second-order differential operator $\mcD_{\lambda}:\mcC^{\infty}(\mR^m, \mcH_{\lambda}) \rightarrow \mcC^{\infty}(\mR^m, \mcH_{\lambda})$.
To obtain an explicit expression for $\mcD_{\lambda}$, we will again justify a particular ansatz, i.e. a linear combination of transvector generators in terms of unknown constants, which will be determined by demanding conformal invariance. This time we start from the identification $$\label{nabla_lambda}
\nabla f_\lambda \in \Gamma(\mcH_\lambda\otimes T^{\ast}M)\ \stackrel{1:1}{\longleftrightarrow}\ \sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{\alpha = 1}^{d_\lambda}\frac{\partial \varphi_\alpha(x)}{\partial x_i}v_iH_\lambda^\alpha(u) \in \mcC^\infty(\mR^m,\mcH_\lambda \otimes \mcH_1)$$ where $\alpha \in \{1,\ldots,d_\lambda\}$ is an index labeling basis vectors for the $d_\lambda$-dimensional space $\mcH_\lambda(\mR^{k m},\mC)$. In the present setting one can use the transvector algebra $$Z(\sym(2k + 2),\sym(2k) \oplus \spl(2)),$$ where the symplectic algebras are generated by either all the invariant operators or the ones expressed in terms of the dummy variables in the definition for $\sym(2k)$, and where $\spl(2)$ is generated by $\Delta_v$ and $|v|^2$ (in a new dummy variable $v \in \mR^m$). The generators for this transvector algebra are projections of all the operators in the bigger symplectic Lie algebra $\sym(2k + 2)$ which are not present in the sum $\sym(2k) \oplus \spl(2)$; these are precisely all operators which contain both $v$ and a dummy variable $u_j$ with $1 \leq j \leq k$ (either as a variable, or as a differential operator). Using the same notations as before, we label these generators as $$\big\{S_u^{(j)},S_v^{(j)},A_j,C_j : 1 \leq j \leq k\big\},$$ where, for instance, one has that $C_j = \pi_{\sym(2k)}\pi_{\spl(2)}[\inner{ u_j,v}]$ with $\pi_\g$ the extremal projection operator for the Lie algebra $\g$. For $\g = \spl(2)$ and $\g = \sym(2k)$, these operators are commuting, so the order of the projection operators is irrelevant. The generalised gradient method then again reduces to investigating expressions of the following form (where we use $U = (u_1,\ldots,u_k)$ as a short-hand notation): $$\label{vj_lambda}
v_iH^\alpha_\lambda(U) = H_{\lambda,1}(U;v) + \sum_{j = 1}^k \brac{S^{(j)}_v H_{\lambda + \varepsilon_j}(U) + C_j
H_{\lambda-\varepsilon_j}(U)},$$ where $H_{\lambda\pm \varepsilon_j}(U)\in \mcH_{\lambda\pm\varepsilon_j}$ and where $H_{\lambda,1}(U;v)\in \mcH_{\lambda,1}$. Here $\lambda \pm \varepsilon_j$ stands for the highest weight obtained by adding or removing one from the entry $\lambda_j$. Note that if this weight is not dominant, it is not taken into account. Also, the right-hand side still depends on $(\alpha,i)$ but we again decided to suppress these notations as one needs to sum over these indices after all, which then gives $$\nabla f_\lambda(x,U) = f_{\lambda,1}(x,U,v) + \sum_{j = 1}^k \brac{S^{(j)}_v f_{\lambda + \varepsilon_j}(x,U) +
C_j f_{\lambda-\varepsilon_j}(x,U)}.$$ One can now try to obtain the generalised gradients by working out all the projections. First of all, consider the action of a generator $$A_j := \pi_{\sym(2k)}\pi_{\spl(2)}[\inner{\D_j,\D_v}] \in Z(\sym(2k+ 2),\sym(2k) \oplus \spl(2)),$$ where $1 \leq j \leq k$. Acting with this operator on the left-hand side of (\[vj\_lambda\]) gives a polynomial in the dummy variables $U$. Indeed, as the operator $\pi_{\spl(2)}$ reduces to the identity operator here, we get $$\pi_{\sym(2k)}\big[\inner{ e_i,\D_{j}} H^\alpha_\lambda(u_1,\ldots,u_k)\big] \in \mcH_{\lambda-\varepsilon_j}(\mR^{km},\mC).$$ The fact that the result belongs to $\mcH_{\lambda-\varepsilon_j}(\mR^{km},\mC)$ is crucial here, and follows from the observation that it has the desired degree of homogeneity in the dummy variables, and that the action of $\pi_{\sym(2k)}$ projects it on the kernel of the differential operators defining this vector space of simplicial harmonics. But this tells us that the action of the operator $A_j = \pi_{\sym(2k)}\pi_{\spl(2)}[\inner{\D_{j},\D_v}]$ on the right-hand side of (\[vj\_lambda\]) belongs to this space too. Indeed, there is a unique summand transforming as an element of the representation with highest weight $(\lambda - \varepsilon_j)$, so they have to be equal. We now claim that there exists a constant $c_j$ such that $$A_jC_j f_{\lambda-\varepsilon_j}(x,U) = c_j f_{\lambda - \varepsilon_j}(x,U).$$ To see this, one can either invoke the quadratic relations between the generators defining the algebra $Z(\sym(2k + 2),\sym(2k) \oplus \spl(2))$, which we will not do here (although it would gives us the explicit value of the constant), or one can exploit the fact that $$A_jC_j f_{\lambda-\varepsilon_j}(x,U) = \pi_{\sym(2k)}[\inner{\D_{j},\D_x}] f_\lambda(x,U),$$ which tells us that the operator $A_jC_j$ is a rotationally invariant endomorphism on $\mcH_{\lambda - \varepsilon_j}(\mR^{\ell m},\mC)$. Therefore, it has to be a multiple of the identity operator in view of Schur’s lemma. This observation also allows us to conclude that $$[A_j,C_a]f_{\lambda+\varepsilon_a}(x,U) = 0 = [A_k,C_b]f_{\lambda-\varepsilon_b}(x,U)$$ for all $1 \leq a \leq k$ and $1 \leq b \neq j \leq k$, without knowing the explicit commutation relations. Reintroducing the summations over $\alpha$ and $i$ appearing in (\[nabla\_lambda\]), this then dictates the existence of a constant $\gamma_j$ for which $$\Pi_{\lambda - \varepsilon_j}\big(\nabla f_\lambda(x,U)\big) = \gamma_j\pi_{\sym(2k)}[\inner{\D_{j}, \D_x}]f_\lambda(x,U).$$ Note that the constant $\gamma_j$ can be zero, which merely means that the projection on this component in the decomposition happens to be trivial. A similar calculation can then be done for the irreducible summands corresponding to highest weights of the form $(\lambda + \varepsilon_j)$ in the decomposition (\[vj\_lambda\]), for which we consider the action of the generator $$S_u^{(j)} := \pi_{\sym(2k)}\pi_{\spl(2)}[\inner{ u_j,\D_{v}}] \in Z(\sym(2k + 2),\sym(2k) \oplus \spl(2))$$ with $1 \leq j \leq k$. The action on the left-hand side then gives $$\pi_{\sym(2k)}\big[\inner{ e_i,u_j}H^\alpha_\lambda(u_1,\ldots,u_k)\big] \in \mcH_{\lambda+\varepsilon_j}(\mR^{km},\mC).$$ As the summand $\mcH_{\lambda+\varepsilon_j}(\mR^{km},\mC)$ is unique in the decomposition (\[vj\_lambda\]), there must again in view of Schur’s lemma exist a real constant $\beta_j$ such that the following holds: $$\Pi_{\lambda + \varepsilon_j}\big(\nabla f_\lambda(x,U)\big) = \beta_j\pi_{\sym(2k)}[\inner{ u_j,\D_x }]f_\lambda(x,U).$$ The final operator is then defined through subtraction: $$\Pi_{\lambda,1}\left(\nabla f_\lambda(x,U)\right)
= \bigg(1 - \sum_{j=1}^k S^{(j)}_v\Pi_{\lambda+\varepsilon_j} - \sum_{j=1}^k C_j\Pi_{\lambda-\varepsilon_j}\bigg)
\inner{ v,\D_x}f_\lambda(x,U).$$ Now that we have an expression for the Stein-Weiss generalised gradients, we determine their formal adjoints on the space $\mcC_c(\mR^m,\mcH_\lambda)$. This is again done in terms of the following inner product (e.g. on basis elements) $$\inner{\varphi_\alpha(x) \otimes H^\alpha(u),\psi_\beta(x) \otimes H^\beta(u)} := \int_{\mR^m}\varphi_{\alpha(x)}
\overline{\psi_{\beta(x)}}\mathrm{d}x \otimes [H^\alpha(u),H^\beta(u)]_F.$$ An easy argument involving integration by parts shows that $$\big(\pi_{\sym(2k)}\inner{\D_{j},\D_x}\big)^{\ast} =-\pi_{\sym(2k)}\big[\inner{ u_j,\D_x}]$$ and vice versa (because $u_j$ and $\D_{j}$ are Fischer duals), and that $$\brac{\Big(1 - \sum_{j=1}^k S^{(j)}_v\Pi_{\lambda+\varepsilon_j} - \sum_{j=1}^k C_j\Pi_{\lambda-\varepsilon_j}\Big)
\inner{ v,\D_x}}^{\ast} = -\inner{ \D_v,\D_x}.$$ This means that the invariant operator $\mcD_\lambda$ can (up to a multiplicative constant) be written as an operator of the form $$\begin{split}
\mcD_\lambda &= c_{\lambda,1}\inner{ \D_v,\D_x}\big(1 - \sum_{j=1}^k S^{(j)}_v\Pi_{\lambda+\varepsilon_j} - \sum_{j=1}^k C_j\Pi_{\lambda-\varepsilon_j}\big)\inner{ v,\D_x} \\
&+ \sum_{j = 1}^k c_{\lambda + \varepsilon_j}\pi_{\sym(2k)}\inner{ \D_{j},\D_x}\pi_{\sym(2k)}\big[\inner{u_j,\D_x}]\\
&+ \sum_{j = 1}^k c_{\lambda - \varepsilon_j}\pi_{\sym(2k)}\big[\inner{ u_j,\D_x}]\pi_{\sym(2k)}\inner{\D_{j},\D_x}.
\end{split}$$ In case of a non-dominant weight, the corresponding operators are to be omitted from the summation. In the next section, we will first simplify this expression to obtain a form similar as the one we found for $\mcD_k$ after which we will compute the unknown constants by explicitly proving conformal invariance.
Construction of $\mcD_{\lambda}$
================================
In order to find an explicit expression for the higher spin Laplace operator $\mcD_\lambda$, we need to introduce the extremal projection operator $\pi_{\sym(2k)}$ for the simple Lie algebra $\sym(2k)$. When we choose the positive root vectors of this algebra to be $\inner{\D_i, \D_j}$ with $1 \leq i, j \leq k$ and $\inner{ u_a, \D_b}$ with $1 \leq a < b \leq k$, the extremal projection operator for the Lie algebra $\sym(2k)$ will project on the intersection of the kernels of all these positive root vectors, and this is then precisely the space of simplicial harmonics. The general construction can be found in e.g. [@Molev]. An explicit construction in the setting of higher spin Dirac operators has been made in [@ER1], but can easily be adapted to this setting. The construction itself can also be found in [@Tim], whence we will just mention the operator here.
An ordering of a set of positive roots for a Lie algebra is called normal if any composite root lies between its components.
Moreover, we have the following Lemma (see e.g. [@Molev]).
For each Lie algebra, there exists a normal ordering on the set of positive roots which is not necessarily unique.
In case of the symplectic Lie algebra $\sym(2k)$, we for example have the following normal ordering: $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2,\varepsilon_1-&\varepsilon_3,\ldots,\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_k, \varepsilon_2-\varepsilon_3,\varepsilon_2-\varepsilon_4,\ldots,\varepsilon_{k-1}-\varepsilon_k, \\
-2&\varepsilon_k,\ldots,-2\varepsilon_3,-\varepsilon_2-\varepsilon_3,-\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_3,-2\varepsilon_2,
-\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2,-2\varepsilon_1.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we define the operators $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{-2\varepsilon_a} &=\sum_{s=0}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{4^s s!}
\frac{\Gamma(-\mE_a-\frac{m}{2}+a+1)}{\Gamma(-\mE_a-\frac{m}{2}+a+1+s)}|u_a|^{2s} \Delta_a^s \qquad 1 \leq a \leq k \\
\pi_{-\varepsilon_a-\varepsilon_b} &= \sum_{s=0}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{s!}
\frac{\Gamma(-\mE_a-\mE_b-m+a+b+1)}{\Gamma(-\mE_a-\mE_b-m+a+b+s+1)}\inner{u_a, u_b}^s \inner{\D_a, \D_b}^s
\qquad 1 \leq a,b \leq k \\
\pi_{\varepsilon_i-\varepsilon_j}&=\sum_{s=0}^{+\infty} \frac{(-1)^s}{s!}\frac{\Gamma(\mE_i-\mE_j+j-i+1)}{\Gamma(\mE_i-\mE_j+j-i+1+s)}\inner{u_j, \D_i}^s \inner{u_i, \D_j}^s \qquad 1 \leq i< j \leq k.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the product of all these operators in any normal ordering gives us the extremal projector $\pi_{\sym(2k)}$.
\[prop\_extremal\_sym(2k)\] The extremal projection operator $\pi_{\sym(2k)}$ for $\sym(2k)$ is given by the following product of operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{\sym(2k)}=&\pi_{\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2}\ldots\pi_{\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_k}\pi_{\varepsilon_2-\varepsilon_3}\ldots
\pi_{\varepsilon_{k-1}-\varepsilon_k}\pi_{-2\varepsilon_k}\ldots\pi_{-2\varepsilon_3}\\
&\times\pi_{-\varepsilon_2-\varepsilon_3}\pi_{-\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_3}\pi_{-2\varepsilon_2}\pi_{-\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2}
\pi_{-2\varepsilon_1}.\end{aligned}$$
This operator has the properties that $$\begin{aligned}
\inner{ u_i, \D_j} \pi_{\sym(2k)} &= 0 \qquad \forall 1 \leq i < j \leq k \label{rel1}\\
\inner{ \D_i, \D_j}\pi_{\sym(2k)} &= 0 \qquad \forall 1 \leq i, j \leq k \label{rel2}\\
\pi_{\sym(2k)} \inner{u_j, \D_i}&= 0 \qquad \forall 1 \leq i < j \leq k \label{rel3} \\
\pi_{\sym(2k)} \inner{u_i, u_j} &= 0 \qquad \forall 1 \leq i, j \leq k. \label{rel4}\end{aligned}$$
When acting on polynomials, the extremal projector simplifies a lot, since the finiteness of the degrees in each vector variable causes the terms of each infinite series sum to act trivially above a certain index.
Similar to the construction of twistor operators in [@ER1], it can be shown that the generalised gradients $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\lambda,\lambda+\varepsilon_j}:\mcC^\infty(\mR^m, \mcH_\lambda)&\longrightarrow \mcC^\infty(\mR^m, \mcH_{\lambda+\epsilon_j})\\
G_{\lambda,\lambda+\varepsilon_j}^{\ast}:\mcC^\infty(\mR^m, \mcH_{\lambda+\epsilon_j})&\longrightarrow \mcC^\infty(\mR^m, \mcH_{\lambda}).\end{aligned}$$ are equal to $$G_{\lambda,\lambda+\varepsilon_j}:=\pi_{\sym(2k)}\inner{u_j,\D_x}\quad \text{and}\quad
G_{\lambda,\lambda+\varepsilon_j}^{\ast}:=\pi_{\sym(2k)}\inner{\D_j,\D_x}.$$ Note that the expressions for these operators are independent of $\lambda$ as the precise form for a particular choice of $\lambda$ is absorbed into the action of $\pi_{\sym(2k)}$, which contains Euler operators generating the appropriate constants. This means that we may use the shorthand notations $G_{\varepsilon_j}:=G_{\lambda,\lambda+\varepsilon_j}$ and similarly for its formal adjoint. The operator $G_{\varepsilon_j}^{\ast}$ can be simplified to $$G_{\varepsilon_j}^{\ast}= \prod_{p=j+1}^k \left( 1-\frac{\inner{ u_p, \D_j} \inner{ u_j, \D_p}}{\mE_j-\mE_p+p-j+1} \right) \inner{\D_j,\D_x},$$ or, when using $\sym(2k+2)$ commutation relations, the PBW theorem and the fact that this operator acts on $\mcH_\lambda$-valued functions, $$G_{\varepsilon_j}^{\ast} = \inner{\D_j,\D_x} + \sum_{j < i_1 < \cdots < i_s \leq k} \frac{\inner{ u_{i_1}, \D_j}
\inner{ u_{i_2}, \D_{i_1}}\cdots \inner{u_{i_s}, \D_{i_{s-1}}}\inner{ \D_{i_s}, \D_x}}{(\mE_j-\mE_{i_1}+i_1-j) \cdots
(\mE_j-\mE_{i_s}+i_s-j)}.$$
The composition of the twistor operator composed with its formal adjoint can be simplified to $$G_{\varepsilon_a}^{\pha}G_{\varepsilon_a}^{\ast}= \pi_{\sym(2k)}\brac{\sum_{j=a}^k a_j \inner{ u_j, \D_x}\inner{ \D_j, \D_x}},$$ for some coefficients $a_j\in \mcU'(\h)$.
Although the right hand-side of this expression is less canonical, it is easier to use in practical computations.
Follows from $[\inner{ u_j, \D_x}, \inner{u_i, \D_j}] = -\inner{ u_i, \D_x }$, and equations (\[rel3\]) and (\[rel4\]).
A similar argument can be used to obtain the following result:
The following equality holds for the opposite order: $$G_{\varepsilon_a}^{\ast}G_{\varepsilon_a}^{\pha}=\pi_{\sym(2k)}\brac{ \sum_{j=1}^k \brac{b_j \inner{ \D_j, \D_x}\inner{ u_j, \D_x}+d_j \inner{ u_j, \D_x}\inner{ \D_j, \D_x}}},$$ for some coefficients $b_j, d_j\in \mcU'(\h)$.
Using these propositions, we expect the higher spin Laplace operator to be of the form: $$\label{Dlambdaprop}
\mcD_\lambda:= \Delta_x + \pi_{\sym(2k)}\brac{\sum_{p=1}^k c_p\inner{u_p, \D_x}\inner{\D_p, \D_x}},$$ where the constants $c_p$ are coefficients in terms of Euler operators which have to be determined. These constants have to be chosen such that $\mcD_\lambda$ itself is conformally invariant. This means that infinitesimal rotations, translations, dilations and the special conformal transformations should be generalised symmetries for this operator, see also [@DER1] for more details. Independent of the choice of the $c_p$, we already have the following properties: this operator is clearly invariant under the infinitesimal rotations given by $$dL(e_{ij}):=L_{ij}^x + \sum_{p=1}^k L_{ij}^{u_p}.$$ Indeed, $[\inner{\D_{p}, \D_x}, dL(e_{ij})] = 0$, $[\inner{u_p, \D_x}, dL(e_{ij})] = 0$, and $dL(e_{ij})$ commutes with all elements of the operator algebra $\sym(2k)$. All terms of $\mcD_\lambda$ obviously commute with $\D_{x_j}$, the infinitesimal translations, as only the dummy variables and the operators $\D_{x_i}$ appear. Since $\mcD_\lambda$ is a homogeneous second-order differential operator, we have $$\mcD_{\lambda} \left( \mE_x + \frac{m-2}{2} \right) = \left( \mE_x + \frac{m+2}{2} \right)\mcD_{\lambda},$$ so that also infinitesimal dilations are generalised symmetries. The only thing that remains to be proved is that the special conformal transformations are generalised symmetries. The inversion $\mcJ_{\lambda}$ for any function $f$ is defined as follows (see appendix \[Appendix\_inversion\]): $$\label{Harmonic_inversion}
\mcJ_{\lambda} f(x, u_1, \ldots, u_k) = |x|^{2w} f\left( \frac{x}{|x|^2}, \frac{x u_1 x}{|x|^2}, \ldots, \frac{x u_k x}{|x|^2} \right),$$ where $w$ is the conformal weight for the higher spin Laplace operator, namely $w=1-\frac{m}{2}$. Special conformal transformations are given by the consecutive action of this inversion, an infinitesimal translation and another inversion, so we want to prove that there exists an operator $d$ such that $\mcD_\lambda \mcJ_\lambda \partial_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda = d \mcD_\lambda$. This comes down to determining the constants $c_p$ such that this operator $d$ exists. First of all, we have that $$\mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda = |x|^2 \partial_{x_j}-x_j (2 \mE_x + m-2)+2 \sum_{p=1}^k \inner{ u_p, x} \D_{u_{pj}} -
2 \sum_{p=1}^k u_{pj} \inner{ x, \D_p}.$$ We will calculate the action of each of the terms appearing in on these special conformal transformations which requires some technical lemmas throughout the pages below. First of all, note that the following relations hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_x |x|^2 &= 2m + 4 \mE_x + |x|^2 \Delta_x \\
\Delta_x x_j &= 2 \D_{x_j} + x_j \Delta_x \\
\Delta_x \inner{ u_p, x } &= 2 \inner{ u_p, \D_x } + \inner{ u_p, x } \Delta_x \\
\Delta_x \inner{ x, \D_p } &= 2 \inner{ \D_p, \D_x } + \inner{ x, \D_p } \Delta_x.\end{aligned}$$ Using these relations, we obtain our first technical lemma. The proof can be obtained through tedious but straightforward computations.
The following relation holds: $$\Delta_x \mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda = \left( \mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda - 4x_j \right) \Delta_x + 4 \sum_{p=1}^k \inner{ u_p, \D_x} \D_{u_{pj}} - 4 \sum_{p=1}^k u_{pj} \inner{ \D_p, \D_x }.$$
From this result, we see that $\mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda - 4x_j$ will be the candidate for the operator $d$, obviously, if the two remaining summations can be canceled out by the action of the other terms of on the special conformal transformations.
The following relation holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{\sym(2k)}\inner{ u_a, \D_x } \inner{ \D_a, \D_x } \mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda =&
\pi_{\sym(2k)}\inner{ u_a, \D_x }\Big( (\mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda -2x_j)\inner{ \D_a, \D_x } \\
&+ (m+2\mE_a-2a+2) \D_{u_{aj}} +2 \sum_{p=a+1}^k \inner{ u_p, \D_a } \D_{u_{pj}}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
To compute this expression, we use the following relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\inner{ \D_a, \D_x } |x|^2 \D_{x_j} &= 2\inner{ x, \D_a} \D_{x_j} + |x|^2 \D_{x_j} \inner{ \D_a, \D_x } \\
\inner{ \D_a, \D_x } x_j &= \D_{u_{aj}} + x_j \inner{ \D_a, \D_x } \\
\inner{ \D_a, \D_x } \inner{ u_a, x } \D_{u_{aj}} &= (m+\mE_a + \mE_x) \D_{u_{aj}} + \inner{ u_a, x } \D_{u_{aj}} \inner{ \D_a, \D_x }\\
\inner{ \D_a, \D_x } u_{aj} \inner{ x, \D_a } &= \D_{u_{aj}} + \inner{ x, \D_a } \D_{x_j} + u_{aj} \Delta_a + u_{aj} \inner{ x, \D_a } \inner{ \D_a, \D_x }.\end{aligned}$$ Also, if $a \neq p$, we have the following two identities: $$\begin{aligned}
\inner{ \D_a, \D_x } \inner{ u_p, x } \D_{u_{pj}} &= \inner{ u_p, \D_a } \D_{u_{pj}} + \inner{ u_p, x } \D_{u_{pj}} \inner{ \D_a, \D_x } \\
\inner{ \D_a, \D_x } u_{pj} \inner{ x, \D_p } &= u_{pj} \inner{ \D_a, \D_p } + u_{pj} \inner{ x, \D_p } \inner{ \D_a, \D_x }.\end{aligned}$$ Using these relations, we can rewrite $\pi_{\sym(2k)}\inner{ u_a, \D_x } \inner{ \D_a, \D_x } \mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\pi_{\sym(2k)}\inner{ u_a, \D_x } \inner{ \D_a, \D_x } \mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda \\
&=\pi_{\sym(2k)}\inner{ u_a, \D_x } \bigg( 2\inner{ x, \D_a} \D_{x_j} + |x|^2 \D_{x_j} \inner{ \D_a, \D_x } - (2 \mE_x+m-2)\D_{u_{aj}} \\
&- x_j(2\mE_x+m-2+2)\inner{ \D_a, \D_x } +2(m+\mE_a + \mE_x) \D_{u_{aj}} + 2 \sum_{p\neq a,p=1}^k
\inner{ u_p, \D_a } \D_{u_{pj}} - 2\D_{u_{aj}} \\
&+ 2 \sum_{p=1}^k \inner{ u_p, x } \partial_{u_{pj}} \inner{ \D_a, \D_x }
- 2\inner{ x, \D_a } \D_{x_j} - 2 \sum_{p=1}^k u_{pj} \inner{ \D_a, \D_p } - 2 \sum_{p=1}^k u_{pj} \inner{ x, \D_p } \inner{ \D_a, \D_x } \bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Remember that from the definition of $\mcD_\lambda$, the functions on which all of these operators act are elements of $\mcC^\infty(\mR^m, \mcH_\lambda)$. This means that any term ending with a defining operator of $\mcH_\lambda$ acts trivially and can be omitted. This leads to the desired result.
The following relation holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{\sym(2k)}&\inner{ u_a, \D_x }\left[(\mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda -2x_j)\inner{ \D_a, \D_x }\right]\\
=&\ \pi_{\sym(2k)}(\mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda -4x_j)\inner{ u_a, \D_x } \\
&+ \pi_{\sym(2k)}\bigg(u_{aj}(-m-2\mE_a+2a-2) -2 \sum_{p=a+1}^k u_{pj} \inner{ u_a, \D_p } \D_{u_{pj}}\bigg)\inner{ \D_a, \D_x }.\end{aligned}$$
To compute this expression, we can use the relations $$\begin{aligned}
\inner{ u_a, \D_x } |x|^2 \D_{x_j} &= 2\inner{ x, u_a} \D_{x_j} + |x|^2 \D_{x_j} \inner{ u_a, \D_x } \\
\inner{ u_a, \D_x } x_j &= u_{aj} + x_j \inner{ u_a, \D_x } \\
\inner{ u_a, \D_x } \inner{ u_a, x } \D_{u_{aj}} &= |u_a|^2 \D_{u_{aj}} -\inner{ u_a, x } \D_{x_j} + \inner{ u_a, x } \D_{u_{aj}} \inner{ u_a, \D_x }\\
\inner{ u_a, \D_x } u_{aj} \inner{ x, \D_a } &= u_{aj}(\mE_a-\mE_x) + u_{aj} \inner{ x, \D_a } \inner{ u_a, \D_x }\end{aligned}$$ and also, if $a \neq p$, the following identities hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\inner{ u_a, \D_x } \inner{ u_p, x } \D_{u_{pj}} &= \inner{ u_a, u_p } \D_{u_{pj}} + \inner{ u_p, x } \D_{u_{pj}} \inner{ u_a, \D_x } \\
\inner{ u_a, \D_x } u_{pj} \inner{ x, \D_p } &= u_{pj} \inner{ u_a, \D_p } + u_{pj} \inner{ x, \D_p } \inner{ u_a, \D_x }.\end{aligned}$$ Using all of these, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{\sym(2k)}&\inner{ u_a, \D_x }\left[(\mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda -2x_j)\inner{ \D_a, \D_x }\right] \\
=& \pi_{\sym(2k)} \bigg[ 2\inner{ x, u_a} \D_{x_j} + |x|^2 \D_{x_j} \inner{ u_a, \D_x } - u_{aj}(2\mE_x+m) - x_j(2\mE_x+m+2) \inner{ u_a, \D_x }\\
& +2\sum_{p=1}^k \inner{ u_p, x }\D_{u_{pj}} \inner{ u_a, \D_x } +2 \sum_{p=1}^k \inner{ u_a, u_p } \D_{u_{pj}} -2 \inner{ u_a, x } \D_{x_j}\\
&-2 \sum_{p=1}^k u_{pj} \inner{ x, \D_p } \inner{ u_a, \D_x } - 2\sum_{p\neq a, p=1}^k u_{pj} \inner{ u_a, \D_p } -2 u_{aj}(\mE_a-\mE_x) \bigg] \inner{ \D_a, \D_x }.\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $\pi_{\sym(2k)}$ annihilates any negative root vector the expression above can be simplified to complete the proof.
Altogether, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\mcD_\lambda\mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda=&(\mcJ_\lambda \D_{x_j} \mcJ_\lambda -4x_j) \mcD_\lambda \\
&+ 4 \sum_{p=1}^k \inner{ u_p, \D_{x}} \D_{u_{pj}} - 4 \sum_{p=1}^k u_{pj} \inner{ \D_p, \D_x } \\
&+ \pi_{\sym(2k)} \sum_{a=1}^k c_a\left( \inner{ u_a, \D_x } (m+2\mE_a-2a+2) \D_{u_{aj}} - 2 \sum_{p=a+1}^k \inner{ u_p, \D_x } \D_{u_{pj}} \right. \\
&\left. + u_{aj}(-m-2\mE_a+2a-2)\inner{ \D_a, \D_x } +2 \sum_{p=a+1}^k u_{pj} \inner{ \D_p, \D_x } \right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\Delta_x = \pi_{\sym(2k)} \Delta_x$. Also, the coefficients of $\inner{ u_b, \D_x } \D_{u_{bj}}$ and $u_{bj} \inner{ \D_b, \D_x }$ are always the opposite of each other. We want all coefficients of these terms to be zero. This means that for the coefficient of $\inner{ u_1, \D_x } \D_{u_{1j}}$, we obtain $$4+c_1(2\mE_1+m-2) = 0,$$ Hence, $$c_1 = \frac{-4}{2\mE_1+m-2}.$$ For the coefficient of $\inner{ u_2, \D_x } \D_{u_{2j}}$, we find $$4-2c_1+c_2(m+4\mE_2-4) = 0,$$ or, after substituting the expression for $c_1$, $$c_2 = \frac{-4(2\mE_1+m)}{(2 \mE_2+m-4)(2\mE_1+m-2)}.$$ Continuing inductively, this leads to $$4-2c_1-2c_2- \cdots - 2c_{p-1}+c_p(2\mE_p+m-2p) = 0,$$ whence $c_p$ is given by $$c_p = \frac{-4}{2\mE_p+m-2p}\prod_{j=1}^{p-1}\frac{2\mE_j+m-2j+2}{2\mE_j+m-2j}.$$ We finally arrive at the following theorem.
The higher spin Laplace operator in $k$ vector variables is explicitly given by the following formula: $$\mcD_\lambda:= \pi_{\sym(2k)}\left(\Delta_x + \sum_{p=1}^k c_p \inner{ u_p, \D_x } \inner{ \D_p, \D_x } \right),$$ with $\pi_{\sym(2k)}$ given in proposition \[prop\_extremal\_sym(2k)\] and where the constants $c_p$ are given by $$c_p = \frac{-4}{2\mE_p+m-2p}\prod_{j=1}^{p-1}\frac{2\mE_j+m-2j+2}{2\mE_j+m-2j}.$$
Type A solutions of higher spin Laplace operators
=================================================
As in any function theory, the study of polynomial solutions for the differential operator under consideration plays a crucial role. This is due to the fact that these are often used to decompose arbitrary solutions. We will therefore take a closer look at this problem in the case of the higher spin Laplace operator. In contrast to the case of the Laplace operator, for which homogeneous polynomial solutions of a fixed degree form an irreducible module for the orthogonal Lie algebra, the space of polynomial solutions for more complicated second order operators decomposes into a direct sum of many components. These can typically be divided in 2 categories: solutions of type A (which can be seen as solutions satisfying extra gauge conditions) and solutions of type B (which are ‘induced’ from type A solutions for a related operator by the action of a dual twistor operator). In this section we will therefore study these basic building blocks for general solutions, the [*type A solutions*]{}, hereby following the ideas used for the higher spin Dirac operators in [@DSER].
\[TypeA\] For a fixed integer highest weight $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k,0,\ldots,0)$ and an integer $\lambda_0 \geq \lambda_1$, we define the space $$\ker_{\lambda_0}^A\mcD_\lambda := \mcP_{\lambda_0}(\mR^m,\mcH_\lambda) \cap \ker \brac{\Delta_x, \langle \partial_i, \partial_x \rangle: 1 \leq i \leq k}\ .$$
It immediately follows from the definition of $\mcD_\lambda$ that $\ker_{\lambda_0}^A\mcD_\lambda$ is indeed a subspace of $\ker \mcD_\lambda$, containing solutions which are homogeneous in $x \in \mR^m$ of degree $\lambda_0$. Each type A solution is a polynomial in $(k+1)$ vector variables, the unknown $x$ and $k$ dummy variables $u_j$ fixing the values. From now on, we will often identify $x \equiv u_0$. This notation allows us to treat all variables (both $x$ and the dummies) on the same footing. We can then for instance consider the symplectic Lie algebra $\sym(2k+2)$ in the polynomial model from the previous section, with indices running from $0$ to $k$. As such, it is easily seen that the type A solutions are a subspace of the following space:
The space of Howe harmonics in $(k+1)$ vector variables is defined as the subspace of all polynomials in $\mcP(\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC)$ which are annihilated by each of the constant coefficient differential operators in $\sym(2k+2)$. In other words: $$\mcH^h\brac{\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC}:=\mcP\brac{\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC}\cap \ker\brac{\Delta_x,\inner{\D_i,\D_x},\inner{\D_i, \D_j} : 1 \leq i, j \leq k}\ .$$
Note that these operators correspond to the positive roots $-\varepsilon_a -\varepsilon_b$, with $0 \leq a, b \leq k$. Also note that if we want to consider homogeneous subspaces, we use the notation $\mcH^h_{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k}\brac{\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC}$ for the space consisting of polynomials of degree $\lambda_i$ in $u_i$.\
The space $\mcH^h\brac{\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC}$ is obviously not irreducible, but decomposes into irreducible modules under the action of $\so(m)$. Since we are working with a polynomial model in $(k+1)$ variables, it is reasonable to expect a decomposition into simplicial harmonics of the form $\mcH_{\mu}(\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC)$, where we use the notation $\mu=(\mu_0,\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_k)$ for a dominant weight with $(k+1)$ non-trivial integer entries. As a matter of fact, in what follows we will show that the action of the subalgebra $\gl(k+1)$ inside $\sym(2k+2)$ on an arbitrary element in $\mcH_{\mu}(\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC)$ generates a finite-dimensional $\gl(k+1)$-module inside the space of Howe harmonics.\
Before doing so, we will first introduce a few notations. Recall that the general Lie algebra $\gl(k+1)$ is spanned by the basis elements $E_{ij}$ with $0 \leq i,j\leq k$. These elements $E_{ij}$ can then either be seen as matrices in $\mC^{(k+1) \times (k+1)}$, or as (skew) Euler operators in $(k+1)$ vector variables. The former relies on the identification $(E_{ij})_{kl} = \delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}$, the latter on $E_{ii} \mapsto \mE_i + \frac{m}{2}$ and $E_{ij} \mapsto \langle u_i, \partial_j \rangle$, for all $i,j = 0, \ldots, k$ and $i\neq j$ (recall that $x \equiv u_0$). The finite-dimensional irreducible representations for this Lie algebra are in one-to-one correspondance with $(k+1)$-tuples $\mu=(\mu_0,\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_k)\in \mC^{k+1}$ for which $\mu_i-\mu_{i+1} \in \mZ^+$, for all $0 \leq i \leq k$; this is then called the highest weight (HW) of the corresponding representation $\mV(\mu)$. The corresponding highest weight vector (HWV) is a unique element $v_\mu\in \mV(\mu)$ for which the relations $E_{ii}v_{\mu} = \left(\mu_i+\frac{m}{2}\right) v_{\mu}$ and $E_{ij}v_{\mu} = 0$ for $i<j$ hold. Now, observe that every element $H(u_0,u_1,\ldots, u_k)\in \mcH_{\mu}\brac{\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC}$ satisfies the conditions for a HWV, which means that every such element generates a $\gl(k+1)$-module under the action of the negative root vectors, which we will denote as $$\mV(\mu_0, \ldots, \mu_k)^\ast \cong \left(\mu_0 + \frac{m}{2}, \cdots, \mu_k + \frac{m}{2}\right).$$ The upper index $^\ast$ is a shorthand notation for the shift of the HW over half the dimension, and will frequently be used below. Our strategy for the remainder of this section is based on the following observations:
1. First of all, we note that the space $\ker_{\lambda_0}^A\mcD_\lambda$ can be seen as a subspace of the space of Howe harmonics. Indeed, it suffices to pick up the elements of the appropriate degree of homogeneity, and to intersect this space with the kernel of the operators $\langle u_i, \partial_j\rangle$ for which $0 < i < j \leq k$ (note that $x \equiv u_0$ is excluded here). This ensures that the corresponding Howe harmonics take values in the space $\mcH_\lambda(\mR^{km},\mC)$.
2. The space of Howe harmonics is built from the modules $\mV(\mu)^\ast$ introduced above, where one has to sum over the degrees of homogeneity (see below). This means that studying the intersection $$\mcH^h(\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC) \cap \ker\big(\langle u_i, \partial_j\rangle : 0 < i < j \leq k\big)$$ is reduced to studying the intersection of certain $\gl(k+1)$-representations with the kernel of these operators $\langle u_i, \partial_j\rangle$. Using the fact that these skew Euler operators can be seen as the positive root vectors of the subalgebra $\gl(k) \subset \gl(k+1)$ reduces our problem to a problem from representation theory, which has been studied in the setting of multiplicities of weight spaces and transvector algebras (see below).
First of all, we note the following:
Each element $E_{ij}$ of the algebra $\gl(k+1)$ acts as an endomorphism on the (total) space of Howe harmonics in $(k+1)$ variables.
This can easily be checked using the definition of Howe harmonics. It amounts to saying that the commutator action of the algebra $\gl(k+1) \subset \sym(2k+2)$ on the space span$(\langle \partial_i, \partial_j\rangle : 0 \leq i, i \leq k)$ is well-defined.
In other words, if $H(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_k)$ is a Howe harmonic, then each $\mC$-valued polynomial of the form $$\label{form}
\left[\sum_{(p_{ij})}\bigg(\prod_{i,j}E_{ij}^{p_{ij}}\bigg)\right]H(u_0,u_1,\cdots,u_k), \qquad p_{ij} \in \mN$$ is still a Howe harmonic in $(k+1)$ vector variables. The factor between brackets denotes an arbitrary ‘word’ (the letters do not necessarily commute here) in the (skew) Euler operators generating $\gl(k+1)$. This can also be formulated in the following way.
The elements of the universal enveloping algebra $\mcU\big(\gl(k+1)\big)$ preserve the space of Howe harmonics in $(k+1)$ vector variables.
Moreover, and this is a crucial observation, no other elements in $\mcU(\sym(2k+2))$ have this property. To explain what this means, remember that the operators $\langle u_i, u_j \rangle, \langle u_i, \partial_j \rangle$ and $\langle \partial_i, \partial_j \rangle$ $(0 \leq i, j \leq k)$ generate a model for the Lie algebra $\sym(2k+2)$. When decomposing polynomial vector spaces in $(k+1)$ vector variables in terms of irreducible modules for the orthogonal group, one needs two pieces of information: highest weights, referring to [*which*]{} summands to include, and the so-called embedding factors, referring to [*how*]{} to include these summands. They correspond to products of elements in the algebra $\sym(2k+2)$, i.e. elements in the algebra $\mcU\big(\sym(2k+2)\big)$. It is known from the PBW-theorem that we can always rearrange these products according to a chosen ordering. We therefore select the following:
1. first, all combinations $\langle u_i,u_j \rangle$ involving vector variables only are listed
2. then, all elements in $\gl(k+1)$ are listed (combinations of a vector variable and a derivative)
3. finally, all combinations $\langle \partial_i,\partial_j \rangle$ involving pure differential operators only are listed.
It follows that the only elements in $\mcU(\sym(2k+2))$ which can be used as embedding factors are elements in $\mcU(\gl(k+1))$. Indeed: combinations involving type (iii) will always act trivially on the space of simplicial harmonics, whereas combinations involving type (i) will always belong to the Fischer complement of the space of Howe harmonics. The latter statement is based on the fact that $$\mcP(\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC) = \mcH^h(\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC) \oplus \bigg( \sum_{i \leq j} \langle u_i, u_j \rangle \mcP(\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC) \bigg)$$ the sum between brackets obviously not being direct. This direct sum is orthogonal with respect to the Fischer inner product, see Section 3. Suppose that we now choose $(k+1)$ positive integers $\lambda_0 \geq \lambda_1 \geq \ldots \geq \lambda_k$, where $\lambda_j$ stands for the degree of homogeneity in the variable $u_j$. If we now want to decompose the vector space $\mcH^h_{\lambda_0,\lambda}(\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC)$ into irreducible representations for $\so(m)$, it suffices to select from each of the modules $\mV(\mu_0,\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_k)^*$ for $\gl(k+1)$ generated by the elements in $\mcH_{\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_k}(\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC)$ all the weight spaces having the correct degree of homogeneity .
Despite the fact that the case $k = 1$ is rather trivial, it still is useful to illustrate the procedure described above. Suppose that we want to decompose the vector space $\mcH^h_{\lambda_0,\lambda_1}(\mR^{2m},\mC)$, $\lambda_0 \geq \lambda_1$. We then need to consider the $\gl(2, \mC)$-modules generated by the spaces $\mcH_{p,q}(\mR^{2m},\mC)$, with $p \geq q$. These are given by $$\mV(p,q)^* = \mcH_{p,q} \oplus \langle u_2,\partial_1\rangle \mcH_{p,q} \oplus \cdots \oplus \langle u_2,\partial_1\rangle^{p-q} \mcH_{p,q}$$ where it is easily verified that only a limited number of these modules will contribute to the space $\mcH^h_{\lambda_0,\lambda_1}$. Selecting the ones showing the correct degree of homogeneity, we thus indeed have that $$\mcH^h_{\lambda_0,\lambda_1} = \mcH_{\lambda_0,\lambda_1} \oplus \langle u_2,\partial_1\rangle \mcH_{\lambda_0+1,\lambda_1-1} \oplus \cdots \oplus \langle u_2,\partial_1\rangle^{\lambda_1} \mcH_{\lambda_0+\lambda_1,0}$$
In the general case, the procedure becomes more complicated since the weight spaces in arbitrary $\gl(k+1)$-modules occur with higher multiplicity, which means that also the decomposition for $\mcH^h_{\lambda_0,\lambda}(\mR^{(k+1)m},\mC)$ will no longer be multiplicity-free.\
Another crucial difference between the case $k = 1$ (see the example above) and the cases $k > 1$ is the following: whereas each of the weight spaces $\langle u_2,\partial_1\rangle^{j} \mcH_{p,q} \subset \mV(p,q)^*$ is harmonic in $u_1$, and therefore occurs as a subspace of the space of type A solutions for an appropriate operator $\mcD_\lambda$ with $\lambda = (\lambda_1,0,\ldots,0)$, this is no longer true for $k > 1$. The problem is that the weight spaces of the module $\mV(\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_k)^*$ do not necessarily satisfy the equations defining $\mcH_\lambda(\mR^{km},\mC)$. Again switching to the general notations from above, we can formulate this algebraic problem as follows:\
We first need to intersect each representation $\mV(\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_k)^*$ with the kernel of the operators $E_{ij}$ $(1 \leq i < j \leq k)$, where the index $0$ is again excluded. The desired polynomials should thus satisfy the condition to be a HWV for the algebra $\gl(k)$. To this end, we define the subspace $\mV(\mu)^+$ of $\mV(\mu)^* \equiv \mV(\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_k)^*$, containing all HWV of the subalgebra $\gl(k) \subset \gl({k+1})$: $$\mV(\mu)^+ = \{\eta \in \mV(\mu)^*: E_{ij} \eta = 0, \; 1 \leq i < j \leq k\}.$$ Moreover, we introduce a notation for the set of weight spaces in $\mV(\mu)^*$ realising a copy of the $\gl(k)$-module with highest weight $\nu^* = (\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_k)^* = \left(\nu_1+\frac{m}{2},\ldots,\nu_k+\frac{m}{2}\right)$. This means that for each of the elements in the previous set, a subscript $\nu$ is added referring to the $\gl(k)$-module for which it actually defines a HWV: $$\mV(\mu)^+_\nu = \{\eta \in \mV(\mu)^+: E_{ii}\eta = \left(\nu_{i}+\frac{m}{2}\right) \eta, \; 1\leq i \leq k\}.$$ As $\mV(\mu)^*$ is generated by the operators $E_{ij}$ acting on elements $H\in \mcH_{\mu}$, each element $\eta \in \mV(\mu)^+_\nu$ is to be seen as a particular element of the form (\[form\]), with $h(x,u_1,\ldots,u_k) \in \mcH_{\mu}$. Recall that the dimension of the spaces $\mV(\mu)^+_\nu$ either is $0$ or $1$, with $$\dim \left(\mV(\mu)^+_\nu \right) = 1 \Leftrightarrow \mu_{i-1}-\nu_i \in \mZ^+ \mbox{\ and\ } \nu_i - \mu_i \in \mZ^+, \; \mbox{for all\ } i = 1, \ldots, k$$ which is called the [*betweenness condition*]{}, as it can be represented graphically –at least for integer values of $\mu_i$ or integer values shifted over half the dimension– by $$\mu_0 \geq \nu_1 \geq \mu_1 \geq \nu_2 \geq \mu _2 \geq \cdots \geq \mu_{k-1} \geq \nu_k \geq \mu_k.$$ We can gather these findings in the following result.
\[decomp\_Ms\] For each vector space $\mcH_{\mu}$, the only summands inside the representation $\mV(\mu)^*$ of $\gl({k+1})$ contributing to the space of type A solutions of the higher spin Laplace operator in $k$ dummy vector variables are of the form $$\rho_{d_1,\cdots,d_k}\mcH_{\mu}$$ where $\rho_{d_1,\cdots,d_k} \in \mcU\big(\gl({k+1})\big)$ is an embedding factor which is homogeneous of degree $(d_1,\cdots,d_k)$ in $(u_1,\cdots,u_k)$. Moreover, the integers $d_j$ satisfy the following conditions: $$\mu_0 \geq \mu_1 + d_1 \geq \mu_1 \geq \mu_2 + d_2 \geq \cdots \geq \mu_{k-1} \geq \mu_k + d_k \geq \mu_k$$ or $0 \leq d_p \leq \mu_{p-1} - \mu_p$ (with $1 \leq p \leq k$). These conditions follow from the branching rules.
In the next section, an explicit form for these embedding factors $\rho_{d_1,\cdots,d_k}$ is obtained, using results on raising and lowering operators in transvector algebras. Note that these factors will be unique up to a constant, which follows from the fact that the branching from $\gl({k+1})$ to $\gl(k)$ is multiplicity-free. Let us now formulate the main conclusion of this section.
As a module for the orthogonal group, the space $\ker_{\lambda_0}^A \mcD_{\lambda}$, with $\lambda_0 \geq \lambda_1$ decomposes into the following irreducible summands: $$\ker_{\lambda_0}^A \mcD_{\lambda} = \bigoplus_{(d_1,\cdots,d_k)}\rho_{d_1,\ldots,d_k}\mcH_{\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_k}$$ where $(\lambda_0,\ldots,\lambda_k)$ is a dominant weight satisfying $$\big(\mu_0,\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_k\big) = (\lambda_0 + \sum_{i=1}^k d_i,\lambda_1 - d_1, \ldots,\lambda_k - d_k)$$ with $\lambda_i - \lambda_{i+1} \geq d_i \geq 0$ for $1 \leq i \leq k-1$ and $0 \leq d_k \leq \lambda_k$.
First, it follows from the branching rules for $\gl({k+1})$ to $\gl(k)$ that no embedding factor $\rho_{d_1,\cdots,d_k}$ can have a net effect of the form $(\pm p,\mp p)$ on the homogeneity degree in two variables $(u_i,u_j)$, with $i, j \geq 1$ and $p \in \mN$. Indeed: $$(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_k)^* \subset (\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_k)^*\bigg\vert^{\gl({k+1})}_{\gl(k)}$$ and any other summand which comes from the branching is obtained by adding positive integers $d_1, \ldots, d_k$ to resp. $\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_k$. This implies that the net effect of the factor $\rho_{d_1,\ldots,d_k}$ can always be represented as a leading term of the form $$\label{leadingterm}
\rho_{d_1,\ldots,d_k} = E_{21}^{d_1}\ldots E_{(k+1)1}^{d_k} + \ldots,$$ where the numbers $(d_1,\ldots,d_k)$ satisfy the betweenness conditions coming from the branching. If we then fix the numbers $(\lambda_0,\ldots,\lambda_k)$, it suffices to find all the $(k+1)$-tuples $(\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_k)$ for which there exist positive integers $d_j$ such that we have an inclusion $$\rho_{d_1,\ldots,d_k}\mcH_{\mu_0,\ldots,\mu_k} \subset \ker_{\lambda_0}^A \mcD_{\lambda}.$$ This is only possible if the conditions $$\big(\mu_0 - \sum_{i=1}^k d_i,\mu_1 + d_1,\ldots,\mu_k + d_k\big) = (\lambda_0,\ldots,\lambda_k)$$ on the degrees of homogeneity are satisfied, and if moreover $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\mu_0 - \mu_1 & \geq & d_1 & \geq & 0\\
\mu_1 - \mu_2 & \geq & d_2 & \geq & 0\\
& \vdots & \\
\mu_{k-1} - \mu_k & \geq & d_k & \geq & 0.
\end{array}
\right.$$ These are the conditions coming from the branching rules. Using the restrictions on the homogeneity, this can also be rewritten as $\lambda_i - \lambda_{i+1} \geq d_i \geq 0$, for all $1 \leq i < k$, and $\mu_k = \lambda_k - d_k$. This last expression tells us that $0 \leq d_k \leq \lambda_k$.
Relation with transvector algebras
==================================
The aim of this section is to obtain explicit expressions for the embedding factors $\rho_{d_1,\cdots,d_k}$, i.e. the elements in $\mcU\big(\gl({k+1})\big)$ realising the decomposition of the space $\ker_{\lambda_0}^A \mcD_{\lambda}$ into irreducible summands under the orthogonal group. Let us therefore take a look at the Mickelsson algebra $S(\gl(k+1), \gl(k))$, constructed as explained in [@Molev]. The generators of this algebra are given by the elements $z_{i0}$ and $z_{0i}$, $i = 1, \ldots, k$: $$\begin{aligned}
z_{i0} &= \sum_{i>i_1>\cdots>i_s\geq 1}E_{ii_1}E_{i_1i_2}\cdots E_{i_{s-1}i_s}E_{i_s 0}(h_i-h_{j_1})\cdots (h_i-h_{j_r})\\
z_{0i} &= \sum_{i<i_1<\cdots<i_s\leq k} E_{i_1 i}E_{i_2i_1}\cdots E_{i_{s}i_{s-1}}E_{0 i_s}(h_i-h_{j_1})\cdots (h_i-h_{j_r}).\end{aligned}$$ In these definitions, $s$ runs over nonnegative integers, $h_i := E_{ii}-i$ and $\{j_1, \ldots, j_r\}$ is the complementary subset to $\{i_1, \ldots, i_s\}$ in the set $\{1, \ldots, i-1\}$ or $\{i+1, \ldots, k\}$. For example, when $k = 3$ we have that $$z_{30} = E_{30}(h_3-h_1)(h_3-h_2) + E_{32}E_{20}(h_3-h_1) + E_{31}E_{10}(h_3-h_2) + E_{32}E_{21}E_{10}.$$ The properties of the extremal projector then lead to the following lemma, which was proved in [@Molev].
\[lemma4\] Let $\eta \in \mV(\mu)_\nu^+$, $\nu = (\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_k)$. Then, for any $i = 1, \ldots, k$, we have $$z_{i0} \eta \in \mV(\mu)_{\nu+\varepsilon_i}^+, \qquad z_{0i} \eta \in \mV(\mu)_{\nu-\varepsilon_i}^+,$$ where the weight $\nu\pm \varepsilon_i$ is obtained from $\nu$ by replacing $\nu_{i}$ by $\nu_{i} \pm 1$.
In the present setting of solutions of higher spin operators, the lemma can be reformulated as follows: the operators $z_{i0}$ and $z_{0i}$, $i=1,\ldots, k$ will map a type A solution of a higher spin Laplace operator to another type A solution (be it for another operator, since the degree of homogeneity will change). More explicitly, the following results hold.
For every polynomial $P(x;U) \in \ker_{\lambda_0}^A \mcD_{\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_k}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TO CHECK %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
& z_{i0}P(x;u_1,\cdots,u_k) \in \ker_{\lambda_0-1}^A \mcD_{\lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_{i-1}, \lambda_{i}+1, \lambda_{i+1}, \cdots, \lambda_k} \\
& z_{0i}P(x;u_1,\cdots,u_k) \in \ker_{\lambda_0+1}^A \mcD_{\lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_{i-1}, \lambda_{i}-1, \lambda_{i+1}, \cdots, \lambda_k}.
\end{aligned}$$
When $k=2$, we have that $$\label{raisinglowering}
\begin{split}
z_{10} &= E_{10} = \langle u_1, \partial_{x} \rangle \\
z_{20} &= E_{21}E_{10}+E_{20}(h_2-h_1) = \langle u_2, \partial_1 \rangle\langle u_1, \partial_{x} \rangle + \langle u_2, \partial_{x} \rangle(\mE_2 - \mE_1 -1) \\
z_{01} &= E_{21}E_{02}+E_{01}(h_1-h_2) = \langle u_2, \partial_1 \rangle\langle x, \partial_2 \rangle + \langle x, \partial_1 \rangle(\mE_1 - \mE_2 +1) \\
z_{02} &= E_{02} = \langle x, \partial_2 \rangle.
\end{split}$$
In view of Lemma \[lemma4\], $z_{20}$ raises the degree in $u_2$ by one. Reconsidering the space $\ker_{3}^A \mcD_{1,1}$, we can now write its direct sum decomposition in terms of the explicit embedding factors: $$\ker_{3}^A \mcD_{1,1} = \mcH_{3,1,1} \oplus (\langle u_2, \partial_1 \rangle\langle u_1, \partial_x \rangle + \langle u_2, \partial_x \rangle(\mE_2 - \mE_1 -1))\mcH_{4,1}.$$ The Euler operators will only produce multiplicative constants, since they act on homogeneous polynomials. In this way, we also see the aforementioned leading terms in the example, up to a multiplicative constant.
\[basis\] Let $\nu$ satisfy the betweenness condition stated above, and let $v_{\mu}$ be the highest weight vector of the module $\mV(\mu)$. Then the elements $$v_{\mu}(\nu) := z_{10}^{d_1}\cdots z_{k0}^{d_k} \, v_{\mu}$$ are nonzero, provided that $(d_1,\cdots,d_k)$ satisfies all conditions of Theorem 1. Moreover, the space $\mV(\mu)^+$ is spanned by these elements $v_\mu(\nu)$.
As before, take $k=2$ and $\lambda = (4,3,1)^*$, and consider the module $\mV(4,3,1)^*$ generated by the space $\mcH_{4,3,1}$. Lemma \[basis\] then states that consecutive actions of the operators $z_{10}$ and $z_{20}$ will produce a basis of the space $\mV(4,3,1)^* \cap \ker \langle u_1, \partial_2 \rangle$. More precisely, we obtain the following spaces, corresponding to the $6$ possible choices for $\mu$, and the respective spaces of higher spin solutions to which they contribute: $$\begin{array}{l|l}
\mcH_{4,3,1} & \ker_{4}^A \mcD_{3,1}\\
z_{10}\mcH_{4,3,1} & \ker_{3}^A \mcD_{4,1}\\
z_{20}\mcH_{4,3,1} & \ker_{3}^A \mcD_{3,2} \\
z_{10}z_{20}\mcH_{4,3,1} & \ker_{2}^A \mcD_{4,2} \\
z_{20}^2\mcH_{4,3,1} & \ker_{2}^A \mcD_{3,3} \\
z_{10}z_{20}^2\mcH_{4,3,1} & \ker_{1}^A \mcD_{4,3}. \\
\end{array}$$ Note however that this is [*not*]{} the decomposition of $\ker_{4}^A \mcD_{3,1}$. Indeed, using the correct embedding factors, we get that the latter is equal to $$\ker_{4}^A \mcD_{3,1} = \mcH_{4,3,1} \oplus z_{10}\mcH_{5,2,1} \oplus z_{10}^2\mcH_{6,1,1} \oplus z_{20}\mcH_{5,3,0} \oplus z_{10}z_{20}\mcH_{6,2,0} \oplus z_{10}^2z_{20}\mcH_{7,1,0}.$$
Recall that the embedding factor, as a whole, should behave as $E_{10}^a E_{20}^b$, with this term itself as a leading term. This might not be so obvious from the definitions and lemmas stated above. Note though that the operators $z_{i0}$ actually are defined up to a constant factor. We can also use the corresponding generators of the transvector algebra $$Z(\gl(k+1), \gl(k)),$$ by using the field of fractions $R(\mathfrak{h})$. Hence, it is possible to divide $z_{i0}$ by the factor $(h_i-h_{i-1})\ldots(h_i-h_1)$, whence the resulting operators $s_{i0}$ (and likewise $s_{0i}$) take the form $$\begin{aligned}
s_{i0} &= \sum_{i>i_1>\cdots>i_s\geq 1}E_{ii_1}E_{i_1i_2}\cdots E_{i_{s-1}i_s}E_{i_s0}\frac{1}{(h_i-h_{i_1})\cdots (h_i-h_{i_s})} = p_{\gl(k)} E_{i0}\\
s_{0i} &= \sum_{i<i_1<\cdots<i_s\leq k}E_{i_1 i}E_{i_2 i_1}\cdots E_{i_s i_{s-1}}E_{0 i_s}\frac{1}{(h_i-h_{i_1})\cdots (h_i-h_{i_s})} = p_{\gl(k)} E_{0i}\end{aligned}$$ or still $s_{i0} = E_{i0} + \mcO_{i0}$, which confirms . It is now easily seen that powers of the operators $s_{i0}$ or $s_{0i}$ indeed behave as the leading terms predicted earlier. For instance, after rescaling, the four operators in (\[raisinglowering\]) become $$\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
s_{10} &=& \langle u_1, \partial_x \rangle \\
s_{20} &=& \displaystyle \langle u_2, \partial_x \rangle + \langle u_2, \partial_1 \rangle\langle u_1, \partial_x \rangle\frac{1}{\mE_2 - \mE_1 -1}\\
s_{01} &=& \displaystyle \langle x, \partial_1 \rangle + \langle u_2, \partial_1 \rangle\langle x, \partial_2 \rangle\frac{1}{\mE_1 - \mE_2 +1}\\
s_{02} &=& \langle x, \partial_2 \rangle.
\end{array}
\right.$$ So, the embedding factors defined in Proposition \[decomp\_Ms\], are given by $$\rho_{d_1,d_2, \cdots, d_k} = s_{10}^{d_1} \cdots s_{k0}^{d_k},$$ in accordance with Lemma \[basis\].
Action of the conformal group {#Appendix_inversion}
=============================
The standard definition of an invariant operator $\mcD$ on a $G$-homogeneous bundle $E_V$ over $M=\quotient{G}{P}$ is that the operator $\mcD$ commutes with the induced action of $G$ on the space $\Gamma(E_V)$ of sections of $E_V$, see e.g. [@Cap2 section 1.4] for more details. In this section, we will use some results from [@BSSVL1] to explain how to obtain the harmonic inversion $\mcJ_R$ from equation (\[Harmonic\_inversion\]). Therefore we will use the homogeneous space $\quotient{G}{P}$ where $G$ is the conformal group $\Pin(1,m+1)$. The group $G$ is the double cover of the orthogonal group $\operatorname{O}(1,m+1)$. There is a nice way to describe this group using the so-called Vahlen matrices, see e.g. [@Ahlfors; @Vahlen]. In order to introduce them, we first have to introduce some basic definitions on Clifford algebras. The (real) universal Clifford algebra $\mR_m$ is the algebra generated by an orthonormal basis $\{e_1,\ldots,e_m\}$ for the vector space $\mR^m$ endowed with the Euclidean inner product $\inner{u,v} = \sum_j u_jv_j$ using the multiplication rules $$e_ae_b + e_be_a = -2\langle e_a,e_b\rangle = -2\delta_{ab}$$ with $1 \leq a, b \leq m$. The Clifford group is a subgroup of $\mR_m$ defined by means of $$\Gamma(m)=\set{\prod_{j=1}^k x_j : x_j \in \mR^m\setminus\set{0}, k\in \mN}.$$ In the following theorem, we also need the main involution (reversion) on $\mR_m$ which is defined on basis vectors as $e^{\ast}_{i_1 \ldots i_k}:=e_{i_k \ldots i_1}=(-1)^{\frac{k(k-1)}{2}}e_{i_1 \ldots i_k}$. Here the notation $e_{i_1 \ldots i_k}$ is used for the product $e_1e_2\ldots e_k$. We then have:
Suppose $g\in \Pin(1,m+1)$ is a conformal transformation, then there exists a $2\times 2$-matrix $$A_g:=\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\
c & d \\
\end{pmatrix}$$ such that:
- $a,b,c,d \in \Gamma(m)\cup \set{0}$.
- $ab^{\ast},cd^{\ast},c^{\ast}a,d^{\ast}b\in \mR^m$.
- $ad^{\ast}-bc^{\ast}=\pm 1$.
All conformal transformations can be written in the form $T(x)=(ax+b)(cx+d)^{-1}$, where $x\in \mR^m$. Such maps are well-defined on the conformal compactification of the Euclidean space $\mR^m$, which is the $m$-dimensional sphere $S^m$. The group $G$ acts transitively on $S^m$ and the isotropy group $P$ of the point $0\in \mR^m$ is the subgroup of $G$ where the associated Vahlen matrices have the property that $b=0$. The group $P$ is a parabolic subgroup of $G$. We now have a specific realisation of $S^m=\quotient{G}{P}$, which turns the $m$-dimensional sphere into a homogeneous space.
In what follows, we shall only consider vector bundles associated to irreducible $P$-representations. Due to condition $(iii)$, elements of $P$ have the property that $a^{-1}=\pm d^{\ast}$. It is known that the group $P$ is a semi-direct product of $G_0=\Pin(m)\times \mR^+$ and a commutative normal subgroup. This means that its irreducible representations are tensor products of irreducible representations of $\Pin(m)$ with a one-dimensional representation of $\mR^+$. They are classified by a highest weight $\lambda$ for $\Pin(m)$ and by a complex number $\nu\in \mC$, called the conformal weight. The normal subgroup of $P$ acts trivial on irreducible representations due the Engel’s theorem. For $p\in P$, the entry $a\in \Gamma(m)$ of the associated Vahlen matrix $$A_p:=\begin{pmatrix}
a & 0 \\
c & d \\
\end{pmatrix}$$ has nonzero spinor-norm, i.e. $\mcN(a)^2:=a\bar{a}\neq 0$. Here $\bar{a}$ is the Clifford conjugation, defined on basis vectors as $\bar{e}_{i_1 \ldots i_k}:=(-1)^ke_{i_k \ldots i_1}$. This means that $a\in \Gamma(m)$ can be written as the product of $\frac{a}{\mcN(a)}\in \Pin(m)$ and $\mcN(a)\in \mR^+$. If $\rho_{\lambda}:\Pin(m)\longrightarrow \Aut\brac{\mV_{\lambda}}$ is an irreducible $\Pin(m)$-representation with highest weight $\lambda$ and $\nu \in \mC$, then we denote by $\rho_{\lambda}^{\nu}$ the irreducible representation of $P$ on $\mV_{\lambda}$, which is given by $$\rho_{\lambda}^{\nu}(p)\comm{v}:=\mcN(a)^{2\nu}\rho_{\lambda}\brac{\frac{a}{\mcN(a)}}\comm{v},$$ where $v\in \mV_{\lambda}$, $p\in P$ and $A_p=\begin{pmatrix} a & 0 \\ c & d \\ \end{pmatrix}$.
In this paper, we only discuss differential operators acting on sections of homogeneous bundles over the open subset $\mR^m\subset S^m$, which can be considered embedded into the sphere $S^m$ by the map $$i:\mR^m\longrightarrow S^m: x \mapsto \begin{pmatrix}1 & x \\ 0 & 1 \\ \end{pmatrix}P.$$ Such an embedding makes it possible to identify the space of sections $\Gamma(E_V)$ with the space of smooth functions $\mcC^{\infty}\brac{\mR^m,\mV_{\lambda}}$, i.e. for every section $s\in \Gamma(E_V)$ defined on the open subset $\mR^m\subset S^m$, we define the associated smooth function as follows: $$f:\mR^m \longrightarrow \mV_{\lambda}: x \mapsto f(x):=s(i(x)).$$ The induced action of $G$ on the space of smooth $\mV_{\lambda}$-valued functions is then given by (see e.g. [@BSSVL1]) $$\label{G_action_functions}
g\cdot f(x):=\mcN(cx+d)^{2\nu}\rho_{\lambda}\brac{\frac{(cx+d)^{\ast}}{\mcN(cx+d)}}\Bigg[ f\brac{\frac{ax+b}{cx+d}}\Bigg],$$ where $g^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \\ \end{pmatrix}\in G$. Note that the absence of a minus sign in the exponent of $\mcN(cx+d)$ is due to a difference in conventions for the conformal weight.
The Kelvin inversion on $\mR^m$ is given by $x\mapsto -\frac{x}{\norm{x}^2}$ which corresponds to the matrix $$A_g:=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Using equation (\[G\_action\_functions\]) and the fact that $\mcN(x)=x\bar{x}=\norm{x}^2$, this implies that the action of the Kelvin inversion on functions is given by $$A_g\cdot f(x)=\norm{x}^{2w} \rho_{\lambda}\brac{\frac{x}{\norm{x}}}\Bigg[ f\brac{\frac{x}{\norm{x}^2}}\Bigg].$$ If the function $f$ takes values in the space $\mcH_{\lambda}$, then this action becomes $$\label{Kelvin_g_action}
A_g\cdot f(x)=\norm{x}^{2-m} f\brac{\frac{x}{\norm{x}^2},\frac{xu_1\bar{x}}{\norm{x}^2},\ldots,\frac{xu_k\bar{x}}{\norm{x}^2}}.$$ Note that the conformal weight in case of the higher spin Laplace operator is given by $w=1-\frac{m}{2}$, which explains the exponent for $\norm{x}$.
The expression from equation (\[Kelvin\_g\_action\]) is different from the one from the one defined in , but the difference is only up to an overall minus sign.
[10]{}
L. V. Ahlfors, [*Möbius transformations expressed through 2×2 matrices of Clifford numbers*]{}, Complex Variables [**5**]{}, 215-224 (1986).
R. J. Baston and M.G. Eastwood, [*The Penrose transform: its interaction with representation theory*]{}, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1989).
I.N. Bernstein, I.M. Gelfand and S.I. Gelfand, [*Differential Operators on the Base Affine Space and a Study of $\g$-Modules*]{}, Lie groups and their Representations (Proc. Summer School Bolyai János Math. Soc. Budapest, 1971), Halsted, New York, pp. 21-64 (1975)
T. Branson, [*Second-order conformal covariants*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**126**]{} No. 4, pp. 1031-1042 (1998).
J. Bureš, F. Sommen, V. Souček, P. Van Lancker, [*Rarita-Schwinger type operators in Clifford analysis*]{}, J. Funct. Anal., **185**, pp. 425–456 (2001).
J. Bureš, F. Sommen, V. Souček, P. Van Lancker, [*Symmetric analogues of Rarita-Schwinger equations*]{}, Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom., **21(3)**, pp. 215–240 (2001).
A. Cǎp and J. Slovák, [*Parabolic geometries*]{}, Math. Surveys and Monographs, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, Rhode island (2009).
D. Constales, F. Sommen, P. Van Lancker, [*Models for irreducible representations of $\operatorname{Spin}(m)$*]{}, Adv. Appl. Cliff. Alg., **11(S1)**, pp.271–289, (2001).
M.S. Costa, T. Hansen, J. Penedones, E. Trevisani, [*Projectors and seed conformal blocks for traceless mixed-symmetry tensors*]{}, arXiv:1603.05551.
M.S. Costa, J. Penedones, D. Poland, S. Rychkov, [*Spinning Conformal Blocks*]{}, J. High Energ. Phys. [**11**]{}, 071 (2011).
K. Coulembier, H. De Bie, [*Conformal symmetries of the super Dirac operator*]{}, Rev. Mat. Iberoam., [**31**]{} No 2, pp. 373-410 (2015).
R. Delanghe, F. Sommen, V.Souček, [*Clifford analysis and spinor valued functions*]{}, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1992).
H. De Bie, D. Eelbode, M. Roels, [*The higher spin Laplace operator*]{}, Potential Anal., accepted for publication (arXiv:1501.03974).
H. De Bie, D. Eelbode, M. Roels, [*The harmonic transvector algebra in two vector variables*]{}, J. Algebra [**473**]{}, pp. 247–-282 (2017).
D. Eelbode, T. Raeymaekers, H. De Schepper, [*On a special type of solutions of arbitrary higher spin Dirac operators*]{}, J. Phys. A [**43**]{}, 325208, (2010)
D. Eelbode, T. Raeymaekers, [*Construction of conformally invariant higher spin operators using transvector algebras*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**55**]{} No. 10 (2014), 15 p.
D. Eelbode, T. Raeymaekers, J. Van der Jeugt, [*Decomposition of the polynomial kernel of arbitrary higher spin Dirac operators*]{}, J. Math. Phys. 56 (**10**), 101701, (2015),
D. Eelbode, M. Roels, [*Generalised Maxwell equations in higher dimensions*]{}, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory [**10**]{} (2), pp. 267-–293 (2016).
H.D. Fegan, [*Conformally invariant first order differential operators*]{}, Quart. J. Math., **27**, pp. 513-538 (1976).
S. Ferrara, A., Grillo, R., Gatto, [*Tensor representations of conformal algebra and conformally covariant operator product expansion*]{}, Annals Phys. [**76**]{}, pp. 161-188 (1973).
E.S. Fradkin, M.A. Vasiliev, [*On the Gravitational Interaction of Massless Higher Spin Fields*]{}, Phys. Lett. B, [**189**]{}, pp. 89-95 (1987).
E.S. Fradkin, M.A. Vasiliev, [*Cubic Interaction in Extended Theories of Massless Higher Spin Fields*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B, [**291**]{}, p. 141 (1987).
J. Gilbert, M.A.M. Murray, [*Clifford algebras and Dirac operators in harmonic analysis*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991).
R. Goodman, N. Wallach, [*Representations and Invariants of the Classical Groups*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998).
A.R. Gover and L.J. Peterson, [*Conformally invariant powers of the Laplacian, Q-curvature and tractor calculus*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**235**]{}, pp. 339-378 (2003).
P. de Medeiros, C.M. Hull, [*Geometric second-order Field Equations for General Tensor Gauge Fields*]{}, J. High Energ. Phys. [**05**]{}, 019 (2003).
J. Lepowski, [*A generalization of the Bernstein–Gelfand–Gelfand resolution*]{}, J. Algebra, [**49**]{}, pp. 496-511 (1977).
C.S.O. Mayor, G. Otalora, J.G. Pereira, [*Conformal and gauge invariant spin-2 field equations*]{}, Grav. and Cosm. 19 (3), pp. 163–170 (2013).
A.I. Molev, [*Yangians and classical Lie algebras*]{}, Mathematical surveys and monographs 143, AMS Bookstore, (2007).
T. Raeymaekers, [*Higher spin operators in Clifford analysis*]{}, PhD dissertation at university of Ghent, Belgium (2015).
A. Simmons-Duffin, [*Projectors, Shadows, and Conformal Blocks*]{}, J. High Energ. Phys. [**04**]{}, p. 146 (2014).
E.W. Stein, G. Weiss, [*Generalization of the Cauchy-Riemann equations and representations of the rotation group*]{}, Amer. J. Math., [**90**]{}, pp. 163–196 (1968).
J. Slovák, [*Natural Operators on Conformal Manifolds*]{}, Habilitation thesis, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic (1993).
K. Vahlen, [*Uber Bewegungen und komplexe Zahlen*]{}, Math. Ann. [**55**]{}, pp. 585–593 (1902).
H. Weyl, [*The classical groups. Their invariants and representations*]{}, Princeton University Press (1939).
D.P. Zhelobenko, [*Transvector algebras in representation theory and dynamic symmetry*]{}, Group Theoretical Methods in Physics: Proceedings of the Third Yurmala Seminar, [**1**]{} (1985).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A *restraint* $r$ on $G$ is a function which assigns each vertex $v$ of $G$ a finite set of forbidden colours $r(v)$. A proper colouring $c$ of $G$ is said to be *permitted by the restraint r* if $c(v)\notin r(v)$ for every vertex $v$ of $G$. A restraint $r$ on a graph $G$ with $n$ vertices is called a *$k$-restraint* if $|r(v)|=k$ and $r(v) \subseteq \{1,2,\dots ,kn\}$ for every vertex $v$ of $G$. In this article we discuss the following problem: among all $k$-restraints $r$ on $G$, which restraints permit the largest number of $x$-colourings for all large enough $x$? We determine such extremal restraints for all bipartite graphs.'
author:
- Jason Brown
- 'Aysel Erey[^1]'
bibliography:
- '<your-bib-database>.bib'
date: |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Dalhousie University\
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3J5\
title: Restraints Permitting the Largest Number of Colourings
---
[^2]
Introduction
============
In a number of applications of graph colourings, constraints on the colour sets naturally play a role. For example, when one sequentially colours the vertices of a graph under a variety of algorithms, lists of forbidden colours dynamically grow at each vertex as neighbours are coloured. In scheduling and timetable problems, individual preferences may constrain the allowable colours at each vertex (cf. [@kubale]). There is the well-established and well-studied problem (see, for example, [@alon], [@chartrand], Section 9.2 and [@tuza]) of [*list colourings*]{}, where one has available at each vertex $v$ a list $L(v)$ of possible colours, which is equivalent to the remaining colours being forbidden at the node.
In all these applications, for each vertex $v$ we have a finite list of [*forbidden*]{} colours $r(v) \subset {\mathbb N}$, and we call the function $r$ a [*restraint*]{} on the graph $G$; the goal is to colour the graph subject to the restraint placed on the vertex set. More specifically, a proper $k$-colouring $c$ of $G$ is [*permitted*]{} by restraint $r$ if $c(v) \not\in r(v)$ for all vertices of $v$ of $G$. The question that is often asked is whether there is a proper colouring that is permitted by a specific restraint. Although the ability to find, for a $k$-chromatic graph $G$ and for all non-constant restraints $r:V(G) \rightarrow \{1,2,\ldots,k\}$, a $k$-colouring permitted by $r$ has been used in the construction of critical graphs (with respect to colourings) [@toft] and in the study of some other related concepts [@amenable; @roberts]. Our aim in this paper is to more fully investigate the [*number*]{} of colourings permitted by a given restraint.**
To begin, we shall need a few definitions. Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices. A *proper x-colouring* of $G$ is a function $f: V(G)\rightarrow \{1, 2, \dots ,x\}$ such that $f(u)\neq f(v)$ for every $uv\in E(G)$. We say that $r$ is a [*$k$-restraint*]{} on $G$ if $|r(u)| = k$ and $r(u)\subseteq \{1,2,\dots ,kn\}$ for every $u\in V(G)$. If $k = 1$ (that is, we forbid exactly one colour at each vertex) we omit $k$ from the notation and use the word [*simple*]{} when discussing such restraints. If the vertices of $G$ are ordered as $v_1,v_2\dots v_n$, then we usually write $r$ in the form $[r(v_1),r(v_2)\dots ,r(v_n)]$, and when drawing a graph, we label each vertex with its list of restrained colours.
Given a restraint $r$ on a graph $G$, the [*restrained chromatic polynomial*]{} of $G$ with respect to $r$, denoted by $\pi_{r}(G,x)$, is defined as the number of $x$-colourings permitted by restraint $r$ [@extremalaysel]. Note that this function extends the definition of chromatic polynomial, $\pi(G,x)$ because if $r(v) = \emptyset$ for every vertex $v$, then $\pi_r(G,x) = \pi(G,x)$. Furthermore, it turns out that $\pi_{r}(G,x)$ is a polynomial function of $x$ when $x$ is large enough [@extremalaysel].\
Our focus will be on the following question:
Given a graph $G$ and a natural number $k$, among all $k$-restraints on $G$ what restraints permit the largest/smallest number of $x$-colourings for all large enough $x$?
Since $\pi_r(G,x)$ is a polynomial function of $x$, it is clear that such extremal restraints always exist for all graphs $G$. Let $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ (resp. $R_{\operatorname{min}}(G,k)$) be the set of extremal $k$-restraints on $G$ permitting the largest (resp. smallest) number of colourings for sufficiently large number of colours.\
In this article, we first give a complete answer to the minimization part of this question, by determining $R_{\operatorname{min}}(G,k)$ for all graphs $G$ (Corollary \[constantrestraintcorollary\]). We then turn our attention to the more difficult maximization problem. We give two necessary conditions for a restraint to be in $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ for every graph $G$ (Theorem \[neccndtn2\]), and we show that these necessary conditions are sufficient to determine $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ when $G$ is a bipartite graph (Corollary \[bipartiterestraintcorollary\]).
Preliminaries
=============
Similar to the chromatic polynomial, the restrained chromatic polynomial also satisfies an edge deletion-contraction formula. Recall that $G\cdot uv$ is the graph formed from $G$ by contracting edge $uv$, that is, by identifying the vertices $u$ and $v$ (and taking the underlying simple graph).
[@extremalaysel]\[restcontrac\] Let $r$ be any restraint on G, and $uv\in E(G)$. Suppose that $u$ and $v$ are replaced by $w$ in the contraction $G\cdot uv$. Then $$\pi_r(G,x)=\pi_r(G-uv,x)-\pi_{r_{uv}}(G\cdot uv,x)$$ where $$r_{uv}(a) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
r(a) & \mbox{ if $a\neq w$}\\
r(u)\cup r(v) & \mbox{ if $a=w$ }
\end{array} \right.$$ *for each* $a\in V(G\cdot uv).$
Given a restraint function $r$ on a graph $G$, let $M_{G,r}$ be the maximum value in $\displaystyle \bigcup_{v \in V(G)} r(v)$ if the set is nonempty and $0$ otherwise. By using Lemma \[restcontrac\], it is easy to see that the following holds.
[@extremalaysel] Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$ and $r$ be a restraint on $G$. Then for all $x\geq M_{G,r}$, the function $\pi_{r}(G,x)$ is a monic polynomial of degree $n$ with integer coefficients that alternate in sign.
Let $A=[x_1,\dots , x_n]$ be a sequence of variables. Then recall that for $i\in \{0,\dots ,n\}$, the $i^{th}$ elementary symmetric function on $A$ is equal to $$S_i(A)=\sum_{1\leq k_1<\dots <k_i\leq n}x_{k_1}\dots x_{k_i}.$$
\[emptygraphrest\]Let $r$ be a restraint function on the empty graph $G={\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muK_n\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}$. Then for all $x\geq M_{G,r}$, $$\pi_{r}(G, x)=\prod_{v \in V(G)} {(x - |r(v)|)}= \sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^{n-i}S_i(A)x^{n-i}$$ where $ A=[~|r(v)|~:~v\in V(G)~]$.
We now define when two restraints are essentially the same, with respect to the number of permitted proper colourings.
Let $r$ and $r'$ be two restraints on $G$. Set $\displaystyle{r(G) = \bigcup_{u\in V(G)} r(u)}$ and $\displaystyle{r'(G) = \bigcup_{u\in V(G)} r'(u)}$. We say that $r$ and $r'$ are *equivalent* restraints, denoted by $r\simeq r'$, if there exists a graph automorphism $\phi$ of $G$ and a bijective function $f:r(G) \mapsto r'(G)$ such that $$f(r(u))=r'(\phi(u))$$ for every vertex $u$ of $G$. If $r$ and $r'$ are not equivalent, then we call them nonequivalent restraints and write $r\not\simeq r'$.
Let $G=P_3$ and $v_1,v_2,v_3\in V(G)$ such that $v_iv_{i+1}\in E(G)$. Consider the restraints $r_1=[\{1\},\{2\},\{3\}]$, $r_2=[\{2\},\{1\},\{4\}]$, $r_3=[\{1\},\{1\},\{2\}]$ and $r_4=[\{3\},\{2\},\{2\}]$ (see Figure \[equivrest\]). Then $r_1\simeq r_2$, $r_3\simeq r_4$ and $r_1\not\simeq r_3$.
![Some restraints on $P_3$.[]{data-label="equivrest"}](equvREst.pdf)
It is clear that if $r$ and $r'$ are two equivalent restraints, then $\pi_r(G,x)=\pi_{r'}(G,x)$ for all $x$ sufficiently large.
Consider the cycle $C_{3}$. There are essentially three nonequivalent simple restraints on $C_{3}$, namely,
$r_{1}= [\{1\}, \{1\}, \{1\}]$,\
$r_{2} = [\{1\}, \{2\}, \{1\}]$,\
$r_{3}= [\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}]$.
For $x\geq 3$, the restrained chromatic polynomials with respect to these restraints can be calculated via the Edge Deletion-Contraction Formula as $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{r_1}(C_3,x) & = & (x-1)(x-2)(x-3),\\
\pi_{r_2}(C_3,x) & = & (x-2)(x^2-4x+5), \mbox{ and} \\
\pi_{r_3}(C_3,x) & = & 2(x-2)^2+(x-2)(x-3)+(x-3)^3.\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi_{r_1}(C_3,x)<\pi_{r_2}(C_3,x)<\pi_{r_3}(C_3,x)$ holds for $x>3.$ Hence, $r_3$ permits the largest number of $x$-colourings whereas $r_1$ permits the smallest number of $x$-colourings for large enough $x$.
Given two graphs $G$ and $H$, let $\eta_G(H)$ be the number of subgraphs of $G$ which are isomorphic to $H$, and $i_G(H)$ be the number of induced subgraphs of $G$ which are isomorphic to $H$. In the sequel, we will also need the following result regarding some coefficients of the chromatic polynomial.
\[chromaticcoeff\][@dongbook pg. 31] If $G$ is a graph of order $n$ and size $m$, then $$\pi(G,x)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(-1)^{n-i}h_i(G)x^i$$ is a polynomial in $x$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
h_{n-2} & = & {m\choose 2}-\eta_G(C_3) \quad \text{and} \\
h_{n-3} & = & {m \choose 3}-(m-2)\eta_G(K_3)-i_G(C_4)+2\eta_G(K_4).
$$
Lastly, it is easy to see that if $G_1,G_2,\dots ,G_t$ are connected components of $G$ then $$\pi_r(G,x)=\prod_{i=1}^t \pi_r(G_i,x).$$ Therefore, $r$ is an extremal restraint for $G$ if and only if $r$ induces an extremal restraint on each connected component. So, we may restrict our attention only to connected graphs.
Determining $R_{\operatorname{min}}(G,k)$
=========================================
A restraint function on a graph $G$ is called *constant k-restraint*, denoted by $r_{c}^k$, if $r_c^k(u)=\{1,\dots ,k\}$ for every vertex $u$ of $G$. We will show that $r_{c}^k$ permits the smallest number of $x$-colourings for every graph $G$ provided that $x$ is large enough. Observe that $$\pi_{r_{c}^k}(G,x) = \pi(G,x-k)$$ for all $x\geq k$.
To prove the main results of this section, we will make use of the information about the second and third coefficients of the restrained chromatic polynomial. Hence, first we find combinatorial interpretations for these coefficients. Let $m_G$ denote the number of edges of a graph $G$.
\[restcoefn-1\] Let $r$ be a restraint on a graph $G$, $x\geq M_{G,r}$ and $\displaystyle \pi_r(G,x)=\sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^{n-i}a_i(G,r)x^i$. Then, $$a_{n-1}(G,r)=m_G+\sum_{u\in V(G)}|r(u)|.$$
We proceed by induction on the number of edges. If $G$ has no edges, then $\displaystyle a_{n-1}(G,r)=\sum_{u\in V(G)}|r(u)|$ by Proposition \[emptygraphrest\] and the result clearly holds. Suppose that $G$ has at least one edge, say $e$. Since $G-e$ satisfies the induction hypothesis, $$\pi_r(G-e,x)=x^n-\left(m_G-1+\sum_{u\in V(G)}|r(u)|\right)~x^{n-1}+\dots$$ holds. Now since $\pi_{r_e}(G\cdot e,x)$ is a monic polynomial of degree $n-1$, the result follows from Lemma \[restcontrac\].
\[restcoefn-2\] Let $r$ be a restraint on $G$, $x\geq M_{G,r}$ and $\displaystyle \pi_r(G,x)=\sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^{n-i}a_i(G,r)x^i$. Also, let $V(G)=\{u_1,\dots u_n\}$. Then, $a_{n-2}(G,r)$ is equal to $${m_G \choose{2}}-\eta_G(C_3)+\sum_{i < j}|r(u_i)| ~ |r(u_j)| ~ +m_G \sum_{u_i\in V(G)}|r(u_i)| ~ -\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)| .$$
Again we proceed by induction on the number of edges. If $G$ has no edges then $\displaystyle a_{n-2}(G,r)$ is equal to $\sum_{i < j}|r(u_i)| ~ |r(u_j)|$ by Proposition \[emptygraphrest\] and the result is clear. Suppose that $G$ has at least one edge, say $e=uv$. Since $G-e$ satisfies the induction hypothesis, the coefficient of $x^{n-2}$ in $\pi_r(G-e,x)$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&& {{m_G -1} \choose{2}}~ - ~ \eta_{G-e}(C_3)~ + ~ \sum_{i < j}|r(u_i)| ~ |r(u_j)| ~ + ~(m_G-1)\sum_{u_i\in V(G)}|r(u_i)| \\
&& -\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)\setminus \{e\}} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)| . \end{aligned}$$ Also, by Theorem \[restcoefn-1\], the coefficient of $x^{n-2}$ in $\pi_r(G\cdot e , x)$ is equal to $$-m_{G\cdot e}-\sum_{w\in V(G\cdot e)}|r_e(w)|$$ as $G\cdot e$ has $n-1$ vertices. Observe that $m_{G\cdot e}=m_G-1-|N_G(u)\cap N_G(v)|$ and $|N_G(u)\cap N_G(v)|$ is equal to the number of triangles which contain the edge $uv$. Also, $\eta_{G-e}(C_3)$ is the number of triangles of $G$ which does not contain the edge $uv$. Therefore, $${{m_G-1}\choose {2}}-\eta_{G-e}(C_3)+m_{G\cdot e} = {{m_G}\choose {2}}- \eta_G(C_3).$$ For a vertex $w$ in $V(G\cdot e)$, by the definition of $r_e$ given in the Edge Deletion-Contraction Formula, $r_e(w)=r(u)\cup r(v)$ if $w$ is obtained by contracting $u$ and $v$, and $r_e(w)=r(w)$ otherwise. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{w\in V(G\cdot e)} |r_e(w)| &=& \sum_{u_i\in V(G)\setminus \{u,v\}}|r(u_i)|~+~|r(u)\cup r(v)|\\
&=& \sum_{u_i\in V(G)\setminus \{u,v\}}|r(u_i)|~+~|r(u)|+|r(v)|-|r(u)\cap r(v)|\\
&=& \sum_{u_i\in V(G)}|r(u_i)|-|r(u)\cap r(v)|\\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$(m_G-1)\sum_{u_i\in V(G)}|r(u_i)|~ -\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)\setminus \{e\}} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)| ~+~ \sum_{w\in V(G\cdot e)}|r_e(w)|$$ is equal to $$m_G \sum_{u_i\in V(G)}|r(u_i)| - \sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|.$$ Hence, the result follows from Lemma \[restcontrac\].
Now we are ready to answer the question of which $k$-restraint permits the smallest number of colourings, for a large enough number of colours.
\[constantrestraint\] Let $G$ be any connected graph. Then, $r\in R_{\operatorname{min}}(G,k)$ if and only if $r\simeq r_c^k$.
We shall show that for every $k$-restraint $r$ such that $r\not\simeq r_c^k$, $\pi_{r_c^k}(G,x)<\pi_r(G,x)$ for all large enough $x$. Both $\pi_{r_{c}^k}(G,x)$ and $\pi_r(G,x)$ are monic polynomials. Also, the coefficient of the term $x^{n-1}$ is the same for these polynomials by Theorem \[restcoefn-1\]. Therefore, $ \pi_r(G,x) - \pi_{r_{c}^k}(G,x)$ is a polynomial of degree $n-2$. Now, by Theorem \[restcoefn-2\], the leading coefficient of $ \pi_r(G,x) - \pi_{r_{c}^k}(G,x)$ is equal to $$k\, m_G -\sum_{uv\in E(G)}|r(u)\cap r(v)|$$ which is clearly strictly positive as $r$ is a $k$-restraint. Thus, the desired inequality is obtained.
\[constantrestraintcorollary\] Let $G$ be any graph. Then, $r\in R_{\operatorname{min}}(G,k)$ if and only if $r$ induces a constant restraint on each connected component of $G$.
One can give an alternative proof for the fact that constant $k$-restraint is in $R_{\operatorname{min}}(G,k)$ by using some earlier results regarding list colourings. But first let us summarize some related work. Kostochka and Sidorenko [@kost] showed that if a chordal graph $G$ has a list of $l$ available colours at each vertex, then the number of list colourings is at least $\pi(G,l)$ for every natural number $l$. It is known that there exist graphs $G$ (see, for example, Example $1$ in [@donner]) for which the number of list colourings is strictly less than $\pi(G,l)$ for some natural number $l$. On the other hand, in $1992$, Donner [@donner] proved in that for any graph $G$, the number of list colourings is at least $\pi(G,l)$ when $l$ is sufficiently large compared to the number of vertices of the graph. Later, in $2009$, Thomassen proved the same result for $l\geq n^{10}$ where $n$ is the order of the graph. Recently, in [@wang] the latter result is improved to $l> \frac{m-1}{\ln (1+ \sqrt{2})}$ by Wang et el.
As we already pointed out, given a $k$-restraint $r$ on a graph $G$ and a natural number $x\geq kn$, we can consider an $x$-colouring permitted by $r$ as a list colouring $L$ where each vertex $v$ has a list $L(v)=\{1,\dots ,x\}\setminus r(v)$ of $x-k$ available colours. Therefore, we derive that for a $k$-restraint $r$ on graph $G$, $\pi_r(G,x) \geq \pi(G,x-k)$ for any natural number $x> \frac{m-1}{\ln (1+ \sqrt{2})}+kn$. But since $\pi_{r_{c}^k}(G,x)$ is equal to $\pi(G,x-k)$, it follows that $\pi_r(G,x)\geq \pi_{r_{c}^k}(G,x)$ for $x> \frac{m-1}{\ln (1+ \sqrt{2})}+kn$. Thus, this shows that $r_c^k\in R_{\operatorname{min}}(G,k)$.
Two necessary conditions for a restraint to be in $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$
===============================================================================
The $k$-restraints that permit the smallest number of colourings are easy to describe, and are, in fact, the same for all graphs. The more difficult question is which $k$-restraints permit the largest number of colourings; even for special families of graphs, it appears difficult, so we will focus on this question. As we shall see, the extremal $k$-restraints differ from graph to graph.
In this section, we are going to present two results (Theorems \[neccndtn1\], \[neccndtn2\]) which give necessary conditions for a restraint to be in $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ for all graphs $G$. The necessary conditions given in Theorem \[neccndtn1\] and Theorem \[neccndtn2\] become sufficient to determine $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ when $G$ is a complete graph and bipartite graph respectively.
A restraint $r$ on a graph $G$ is called a *proper restraint* if $r(u)\cap r(v)=\emptyset$ for every $uv\in E(G)$. We begin with showing that restraints in $ R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ must be proper restraints.
\[neccndtn1\] If $r\in R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ then $r$ is a proper restraint.
For $k$-restraints, from Theorem \[restcoefn-1\], the coefficients of $x^n$ and $x^{n-1}$ of the restrained chromatic polynomial do not depend on the restraint function. So, in order to maximize the number of $x$-colourings for large enough $x$, one needs to maximize the coefficient of $x^{n-2}$. By Theorem \[restcoefn-2\], it is clear that this coefficient is maximized when $|r(u)\cap r(v)|=0$ for every edge $uv$ of the graph.
Theorem \[neccndtn1\] allows us to determine the extremal restraint for complete graphs, as for such graphs there is a unique (up to equivalence) proper $k$-restraint. We deduce that for complete graphs the extremal restraint is the one where no two vertices have a common restrained colour.
\[completeshortproof\] A restraint $r$ is a proper $k$-restraint on $K_n$ if and only if $r\in R_{\operatorname{max}}(K_n,k)$.
If $r^*$ is a proper $k$ restraint on $K_n$ then $r^*(u)\cap r^*(v)=\emptyset$ for every $u,v\in V(K_n)$. Thus, the result follows from Theorem \[neccndtn1\].
In general Theorem \[neccndtn1\] is not sufficient to determine the extremal restraint. However it is very useful to narrow the possibilities for extremal restraints down to a smaller number of restraints. In the next example, we illustrate this on a cycle of length $4$.
\[exampleC4-1\] Let $G=C_4$ with $V(G)=\{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4\}$ and $E(G)=\{u_1u_2, u_2u_3, u_3u_4, u_4u_1\}$. Then there are exactly seven nonequivalent simple restraints on $G$ and these restraints are namely
$r_{1}= [\{1\}, \{1\}, \{1\}, \{1\}]$,\
$r_{2} = [\{1\}, \{1\}, \{1\}, \{2\}]$,\
$r_{3}= [\{1\}, \{1\}, \{2\}, \{2\}]$,\
$r_{4}= [\{1\}, \{2\}, \{1\}, \{2\}]$,\
$r_{5}= [\{1\}, \{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}]$,\
$r_{6}= [\{1\}, \{2\}, \{1\}, \{3\}]$,\
$r_{7} = [\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}, \{4\}]$.
Now, among these seven restraints, there are only three proper restraints and these are namely $r_4$, $r_6$ and $r_7$. Therefore, by Theorem \[neccndtn1\], the possibilities for nonequivalent restraints in $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ reduce to $r_4$, $r_6$ and $r_7$.
We shall need a combinatorial interpretation for the fourth coefficient of the restrained chromatic polynomial. We will make use of this interpretation in the sequel in order to present another necessary condition for a restraint to be in $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$.
\[restcoefn-3\] Let $x\geq M_{G,r}$ and $\displaystyle \pi_r(G,x)=\sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^{n-i}a_i(G,r)x^i$. Also, let $V(G)=\{u_1,\dots u_n\}$. Then $$a_{n-3}(G,r)=A_0(G)~+~\sum_{i=1}^8A_i(G,r),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A_0(G) & = & {{m_G}\choose{3}}-(m_G-2)\eta_G(C_3)-i_G(C_4)+2\eta_G(K_4);\\
A_1(G,r) & = & \sum_{i<j<k}|r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|~|r(u_k)|;\\
A_2(G,r) & = & (m_G-1)\sum_{i<j}|r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|;\\
A_3(G,r) & = & \sum_{u_iu_j\notin E(G) \atop i<j} |r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|;\\
A_4(G,r) & = & - \sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)| \sum _{k\notin \{i,j\}} |r(u_k)|; \\
A_5(G,r) & = & \left(~{m_G \choose 2}~-~\eta_G(C_3)\right)\sum_{1\leq i\leq n}|r(u_i)|;\\
A_6(G,r) & = & -(m_G-1)\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|;\\
A_7(G,r) & = & A_7'(G,r)+A_7''(G,r) \quad \text{where}\\
A_7'(G,r) & = & \sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)}|N_G(u_i)\cap N_G(u_j)|~|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|,\\
A_7''(G,r) & = & -\sum_{u_i\in V(G)} \, \sum_{u_j,u_k \in N_G(u_i) \atop j<k}|r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|;\\
A_8(G,r) & = & A_8'(G,r)+A_8''(G,r) \quad \text{where}\\
A_8'(G,r) & = & \frac{1}{2}\sum_{u_iu_j \in E(G)}~\sum_{k\notin \{i,j\}\atop u_k\in N_G(u_i)\cup N_G(u_j)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|\\
A_8''(G,r) & = & \frac{1}{6}\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)}~ \sum_{u_k \in N_G(u_i)\cap N_G(u_j)} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|.\end{aligned}$$
We proceed by induction on the number of edges. First suppose that $G$ is an empty graph. We know that $\displaystyle a_{n-3}(G,r)=A_1(G,r)$ by the formula given in Proposition \[emptygraphrest\]. Also, it is easy to see that $A_i(G,r)=0$ for $i\notin \{1,2,3\}$, $A_2(G,r)=-\sum_{i<j}|r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|$ and $A_3(G,r)=\sum_{i<j}|r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|$. So the result holds for empty graphs. Suppose now that $G$ has at least one edge, say $e=u_1u_2$. First, let us define
$$\begin{aligned}
B_0(G,e) &=& {m_{G\cdot e}\choose 2}-\eta_{G\cdot e}(C_3);\\
B_1(G,r,e) &=& 0;\\
B_2(G,r,e) &=& \sum_{i<j}|r(u_i)||r(u_j)|;\\
B_3(G,r,e) &=& -|r(u_1)||r(u_2)|;\\
B_4(G,r,e) &=& -|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)|\sum_{i\notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_i)|;\\
B_5(G,r,e) &=& (m_G-1-|N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)|)\sum_{1\leq i\leq n }|r(u_i)|;\\
B_6(G,r,e) &=& -(m_G-1)|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)|-\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G-e)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|;\\
B_7(G,r,e) &=& |N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)||r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)|-\sum_{i,j\in\{1,2\} \atop i\neq j}~\sum_{u\in N_G(u_i)\setminus N_G[u_j]}|r(u_j)\cap r(u)|;\\
B_8(G,r,e) &=& \sum _{u_i\in N_G(u_1)\cup N_G(u_2) \atop i \notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)\cap r(u_i)|.\end{aligned}$$
We shall begin by proving that $$a_{n-3}(G\cdot e , r_e)=B_0(G,e)+\sum_{i=1}^8B_i(G,r,e).$$
Since $G\cdot e$ has $n-1$ vertices, by Theorem \[restcoefn-2\], the coefficient of $x^{n-3}$ in $\pi_{r_e}(G\cdot e,x)$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&& {m_{G\cdot e}\choose{2}}-\eta_{G\cdot e}(C_3)~+\sum_{u\neq v \atop u,v\in V(G\cdot e)}|r_e(u)||r_e(v)|~+~m_{G\cdot e}\sum_{u\in V(G\cdot e)}|r_e(u)|\\
&& -\sum_{uv \in E(G\cdot e)}|r_e(u)\cap r_e(v)|.\\\end{aligned}$$
Now, by the definition of the restraint function $r_e$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{u\neq v \atop u,v\in V(G\cdot e)}|r_e(u)||r_e(v)| &=& \sum_{3\leq i<j\leq n }|r(u_i)||r(u_j)|+\sum_{i \notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_1)\cup r(u_2)| |r(u_i)|\\
&=& \sum_{3\leq i<j\leq n}|r(u_i)||r(u_j)|+\sum_{k\in\{1,2\}}~\sum_{i\notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_k)||r(u_i)|\\
&&-|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)|\sum_{i\notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_i)|\\
&=&B_2(G,r,e)+B_3(G,r,e)+B_4(G,r,e).
$$
Also, since $m_{G\cdot e}=m_G-1-|N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)|$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
m_{G\cdot e}\sum_{u \in V(G\cdot e)}|r_e(u)|&=&\left(m_G-1-|N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)|\right)\left( \left(\sum_{1\leq i\leq n } |r(u_i)|\right)-|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)|\right)\\
&=& B_5(G,r,e)-\left(m_G-1-|N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)|\right)|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)|.\end{aligned}$$
Lastly, $$\begin{aligned}
-\sum_{uv\in E(G\cdot e)}|r_e(u)\cap r_e(v)|&=& -\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G) \atop i,j\notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|\\
&& -\sum_{u_i\in N_G(u_1)\cup N_G(u_2) \atop i\notin \{1,2\} }|(r(u_1)\cup r(u_2))\cap r(u_i)|\\
&=& -\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G) \atop i,j\notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|\\
&& -\sum_{u_i\in N_G(u_1)\cup N_G(u_2) \atop i\notin \{1,2\}}~\sum_{k\in\{1,2\}}|r(u_k)\cap r(u_i)|\\
&&+\sum_{u_i\in N_G(u_1)\cup N_G(u_2) \atop i\notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)\cap r(u_i)|\\
&=&-\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G-e)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|\\
&&-\sum_{k,l\in\{1,2\} \atop k\neq l}~\sum_{u_i\in N_G(u_k)\setminus N_G[u_l]}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_l)|\\
&&+\sum_{u_i\in N_G(u_1)\cup N_G(u_2) \atop i\notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)\cap r(u_i)|.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, by combining all these together we obtain that $ a_{n-3}(G\cdot e , r_e)$ is equal to $B_0(G,e)+\sum_{i=1}^8B_i(G,r,e).$ Finally, by the edge deletion-contraction formula, it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
A_0(G)&=&A_0(G-e)+B_0(G,e) \quad \mbox{and}\\
A_i(G,r)&=&A_i(G-e,r)+B_i(G,r,e) \quad \mbox{for} \quad 1\leq i \leq 8.\end{aligned}$$
**Claim 1:** $A_0(G)=A_0(G-e)+B_0(G,e)$.
*Proof of Claim 1:* Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
A_0(G) & = & {{m_G}\choose{3}}-(m_G-2)\eta_G(C_3)-i_G(C_4)+2\eta_G(K_4),\\
A_0(G-e) & = & {{m_{G-e}}\choose{3}}-(m_{G-e}-2)\eta_{G-e}(C_3)-i_{G-e}(C_4)+2\eta_{G-e}(K_4), \mbox{ and } \\
B_0(G,e) & = & {m_{G\cdot e}\choose 2}-\eta_{G\cdot e}(C_3).\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[chromaticcoeff\], the coefficient of $x^{n-3}$ in the chromatic polynomial $\pi(G,x)$ of $G$ is equal to $-A_0(G)$. Since $G\cdot e$ has $n-1$ vertices, by Theorem \[chromaticcoeff\], the coefficient of $x^{n-3}$ in the chromatic polynomial $\pi(G\cdot e,x)$ of $G\cdot e$ is equal to $B_0(G,e)$. The chromatic polynomial satisfies the edge deletion-contraction formula, $\pi(G,x)=\pi(G-e,x)-\pi(G\cdot e, x)$. Therefore $-A_0(G)=-A_0(G-e)-B_0(G,e)$ and the result follows.\
**Claim 2:** $A_1(G,r)=A_1(G-e,r)+B_1(G,r,e)$.
*Proof of Claim 2:* Recall that $\displaystyle A_1(G,r) = A_1(G-e,r)= \sum_{i<j<k}|r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|~|r(u_k)|$ and $B_1(G,r,e)=0$. Since $G$ and $G- e$ have the same vertices, $A_1(G,r)$ is equal to $A_1(G-e,r)$. Now the result follows since $B_1(G,r,e)=0$.\
**Claim 3:** $A_2(G,r)=A_2(G-e,r)+B_2(G,r,e)$.
*Proof of Claim 3:* Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
A_2(G,r) & = & (m_G-1)\sum_{i<j}|r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|,\\
A_2(G-e,r) & = & (m_{G-e}-1)\sum_{i<j}|r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|, \mbox{ and }\\
B_2(G,r,e) & = & \sum_{i<j}|r(u_i)||r(u_j)|.\end{aligned}$$
Now, $A_2(G-e,r)$ is equal to $(m_G-2)\sum_{i<j}|r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|$ since $G-e$ has $m_G-1$ edges.\
**Claim 4:** $A_3(G,r)=A_3(G-e,r)+B_3(G,r,e)$.
*Proof of Claim 4:* Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
A_3(G,r) & = & \sum_{u_iu_j\notin E(G) \atop i<j} |r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|,\\
A_3(G-e,r) & = & \sum_{u_iu_j\notin E(G-e) \atop i<j} |r(u_i)|~|r(u_j)|, \mbox{ and }\\
B_3(G,r,e) & = & -|r(u_1)||r(u_2)|.\end{aligned}$$
The result holds because $E(G)=E(G-e)\cup \{e\}$ and the vertices of $e$ are $u_1$ and $u_2$.\
**Claim 5:** $A_4(G,r)=A_4(G-e,r)+B_4(G,r,e)$.
*Proof of Claim 5:* Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
A_4(G,r) & = & - \sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)| \sum _{k\notin \{i,j\}} |r(u_k)|,\\
A_4(G-e,r) & = & - \sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G-e)} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)| \sum _{k\notin \{i,j\}} |r(u_k)|, \mbox{ and }\\
B_4(G,r,e) & = & -|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)|\sum_{i\notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_i)|.\end{aligned}$$
Again, as in the previous case, the result holds because $E(G)=E(G-e)\cup \{e\}$ and the vertices of $e$ are $u_1$ and $u_2$.\
**Claim 6:** $A_5(G,r)=A_5(G-e,r)+B_5(G,r,e)$:
*Proof of Claim 6:* Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
A_5(G,r) & = & \left(~{m_G \choose 2}~-~\eta_G(C_3)\right)\sum_{1\leq i\leq n}|r(u_i)|,\\
A_5(G-e,r) & = & \left(~{m_{G-e} \choose 2}~-~\eta_{G-e}(C_3)\right)\sum_{1\leq i\leq n}|r(u_i)|, \mbox{ and }\\
B_5(G,r,e) & = & (m_G-1-|N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)|)\sum_{1\leq i\leq n }|r(u_i)|.\end{aligned}$$
The number of triangles in $G$ is equal to $\eta_G(C_3)$. Observe that $\eta_{G-e}(C_3)$ is the number of triangles in $G$ which does not contain the edge $e$ and $|N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)|$ is the number of triangles in $G$ which contains the edge $e$. Therefore, $\eta_G(C_3)$ is equal to $\eta_{G-e}(C_3)+|N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)|$. Also, it is easy to check that ${m_G \choose 2}$ is equal to ${m_{G-e} \choose 2}+m_G-1$ as $m_{G-e}$ is equal to $m_G-1$. Hence, the equality is obtained.\
**Claim 7:** $A_6(G,r)=A_6(G-e,r)+B_6(G,r,e)$:
*Proof of Claim 7:* Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
A_6(G,r) & = & -(m_G-1)\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|,\\
A_6(G-e,r) & = & -(m_{G-e}-1)\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G-e)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|, \mbox{ and }\\
B_6(G,r,e) & = & -(m_G-1)|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)|-\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G-e)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|\end{aligned}$$
The reason why the equality holds is the same as in the proofs of Claims $4$ and $5$.\
**Claim 8:** $A_7(G,r)=A_7(G-e,r)+B_7(G,r,e)$:
*Proof of Claim 8:* Recall that $A_7(G,r)$ is equal to
$$\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)}|N_G(u_i)\cap N_G(u_j)|~|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)| -\sum_{u_i\in V(G)} \, \sum_{u_j,u_k \in N_G(u_i) \atop j<k}|r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|\,$$
$A_7(G-e,r)$ is equal to
$$\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G-e)}|N_{G-e}(u_i)\cap N_{G-e}(u_j)|~|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)| -\sum_{u_i\in V(G-e)} \sum_{u_j,u_k \in N_{G-e}(u_i) \atop j<k}|r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|$$ and $B_7(G,r,e)$ is equal to
$$|N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)||r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)|-\sum_{i,j\in\{1,2\} \atop i\neq j}~\sum_{u\in N_G(u_i)\setminus N_G[u_j]}|r(u_j)\cap r(u)|.$$
Observe that $N_G(u_i)=N_{G-e}(u_i)$ for $i\notin \{1,2\}$. Also, $N_G(u_1)\setminus N_{G-e}(u_1)=\{u_2\}$ and $N_G(u_2)\setminus N_{G-e}(u_2)=\{u_1\}$. Therefore, $\displaystyle \sum_{u_iu_j \in E(G)}|N_G(u_i)\cap N_G(u_j)||r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)|$
is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{u_iu_j \in E(G-e)}|N_{G-e}(u_i)\cap N_{G-e}(u_j)||r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)| \\
&& +\sum_{u\in N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)}(|r(u)\cap r(u_1)|+|r(u)\cap r(u_2)|)\\
&&+|N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)|~|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)|.\\\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, $$\sum_{u_i\in V(G)}~\sum_{u_j,u_k\in N_G(u_i) \atop j<k}|r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|$$ is equal to $$\sum_{u_i\in V(G-e)}~\sum_{u_k,u_j\in N_{G-e}(u_i) \atop j<k}|r(u_k)\cap r(u_j)| +\sum_{s,t\in \{1,2\} \atop s\neq t}~ \sum_{u\in N_G(u_s)\setminus \{u_t\}} |r(u)\cap r(u_t)|.$$ Hence, the result follows since the difference of the sums $$\sum_{s,t\in \{1,2\} \atop s\neq t}~ \sum_{u\in N_G(u_s)\setminus \{u_t\}} |r(u)\cap r(u_t)| \, -\sum_{u\in N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)}(|r(u)\cap r(u_1)|+|r(u)\cap r(u_2)|)$$ can be rearranged as $$\sum_{i,j\in\{1,2\} \atop i\neq j}~\sum_{u\in N_G(u_i)\setminus N_G[u_j]}|r(u_j)\cap r(u)|.$$
**Claim 9:** $A_8(G,r)=A_8(G-e,r)+B_8(G,r,e)$: *Proof of Claim 9:* Recall that $A_8(G,r)$ is equal to
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{u_iu_j \in E(G)}~\sum_{k\notin \{i,j\}\atop u_k\in N_G(u_i)\cup N_G(u_j)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|\\
&&+\frac{1}{6}\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)}~ \sum_{u_k \in N_G(u_i)\cap N_G(u_j)} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|,\end{aligned}$$
$A_8(G-e,r)$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{u_iu_j \in E(G-e)}~\sum_{k\notin \{i,j\}\atop u_k\in N_{G-e}(u_i)\cup N_{G-e}(u_j)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|\\
&&+\frac{1}{6}\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G-e)}~ \sum_{u_k \in N_{G-e}(u_i)\cap N_{G-e}(u_j)} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|\end{aligned}$$ and $B_8(G,r,e)$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum _{u_i\in N_G(u_1)\cup N_G(u_2) \atop i \notin \{1,2\}}|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)\cap r(u_i)|.\end{aligned}$$
It suffices to check two equalities. First, $$\frac{1}{2}\sum_{u_iu_j \in E(G)}~\sum_{k\notin \{i,j\}\atop u_k\in N_G(u_i)\cup N_G(u_j)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|$$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{u_iu_j \in E(G-e)}~\sum_{k\notin \{i,j\}\atop u_k\in N_{G-e}(u_i)\cup N_{G-e}(u_j)}|r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|\\
&&+\sum_{k\notin \{1,2\} \atop u_k\in (N_G(u_1)\cup N_G(u_2))\setminus (N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2))} |r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)\cap r(u_k)|\\
&&+~\frac{1}{2}\sum_{u\in N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)}|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)\cap r(u)|.\end{aligned}$$ Secondly, $$\frac{1}{6}\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G)}~ \sum_{u_k \in N_G(u_i)\cap N_G(u_j)} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|$$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{6}\sum_{u_iu_j\in E(G-e)}~ \sum_{u_k \in N_{G-e}(u_i)\cap N_{G-e}(u_j)} |r(u_i)\cap r(u_j)\cap r(u_k)|\\
&&+~\frac{1}{2}\sum_{u\in N_G(u_1)\cap N_G(u_2)}|r(u_1)\cap r(u_2)\cap r(u)|.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the result is established.
\[neccndtn2\] Let G be any graph. If $r^* \in R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ then $r^*$ satisfies both of the following.
- $r^*$ is a proper restraint,
- $A_7''(G,r^*)=\operatorname{min}\{A_7''(G,r): \, \text{r is a proper $k$-restraint on G}\}$. In other words, $$\sum_{u\in V(G)} \sum_{v,w\in N_G(u) \atop v\neq w}|r^*(v)\cap r^*(w)|\geq \sum_{u\in V(G)} \sum_{v,w\in N_G(u) \atop v\neq w}|r(v)\cap r(w)|$$ for every proper k-restraint r on G.
By Theorem \[neccndtn1\], we know that $r^*$ is a proper restraint. So we shall prove the statement in $(ii)$. Let $r$ be a proper $k$-restraint on $G$. Note that $a_n(G,r)=a_n(G,r^*)=1$ as the restrained chromatic polynomial is a monic polynomial. By Theorem \[restcoefn-1\], we have $a_{n-1}(G,r)=a_{n-1}(G,r^*)$ as $r$ and $r^*$ are $k$-restraints. Also, since $r$ and $r^*$ are proper restraints we have $$\sum_{uv\in E(G)}|r(u)\cap r(v)|=\sum_{uv\in E(G)}|r^*(u)\cap r^*(v)|=0.$$ So, $a_{n-2}(G,r)=a_{n-2}(G,r^*)$ by Theorem \[restcoefn-2\]. Since $r^*\in R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k) $ and the coefficient of $x^{n-3}$ of the restrained chromatic polynomial is negative, we must have $a_{n-3}(G,r)\geq a_{n-3}(G,r^*)$. Recall that $$a_{n-3}(G,r)=A_0(G)+\sum_{i=1}^8 A_i(G,r)$$ where $A_i(G,r)$’s are as in the statement of Theorem \[restcoefn-3\]. First note that $A_0(G)$ does not depend on the restraint function. Furthermore, since $r$ and $r^*$ are $k$-restraints, $A_i(G,r)=A_i(G,r^*)$ for $i=1,2,3,5$. Also, since $r$ and $r^*$ are proper restraints, we have $A_i(G,r)=A_i(G,r^*)=0$ for $i=4,6,8$ and $A_{7}'(G,r)=A_7'(G,r^*)=0$. Thus, $0\leq a_{n-3}(G,r)-a_{n-3}(G,r^*)=A_{7}''(G,r)-A_{7}''(G,r^*)$ and the result follows.
Let us consider again the graph $C_4$. In Example \[exampleC4-1\], we noted that if $r\in R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ then $r\in \{r_4,r_6,r_7\}$ where $r_{4}= [\{1\}, \{2\}, \{1\}, \{2\}]$, $r_{6}= [\{1\}, \{2\}, \{1\}, \{3\}]$ and $r_{7} = [\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}, \{4\}]$. Now, we apply Theorem \[neccndtn2\] to determine $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$. We calculate
$A_7''(G,r_4)=-2$,\
$A_7''(G,r_6)=-1$,\
$A_7''(G,r_7)=0$.
Thus, we conclude that $r\in R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ if and only if $r\simeq r_4$.
In the next theorem, in fact, we will show that the necessary conditions in Theorem \[neccndtn2\] become sufficient to determine the extremal restraints for all bipartite graphs.
Suppose $G$ is a connected bipartite graph with bipartition $(V_1,V_2)$. Then a $k$-restraint is called an *alternating restraint*, denoted $r_{alt}$, if $r_{alt}$ is constant on both $V_1$ and $V_2$ individually (that is, $r_{alt}(a)=r_{alt}(a')$ for every $a,a'\in V_i$ for $i=1,2$), and $r_{alt}(u)\cap r_{alt}(v)= \emptyset$ for every $u\in V_1$ and $v\in V_2$.
\[bipartiterestraint\] Let $G$ be a connected bipartite graph. Then, $r\in R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ if and only if $r\simeq r_{alt}$.
By Theorem \[neccndtn2\], it suffices to show that for any proper $k$-restraint $r$ such that $r\not\simeq r_{alt}$, $$\sum_{u\in V(G)} \sum_{v,w\in N_G(u) \atop v\neq w}|r_{alt}(v)\cap r_{alt}(w)|> \sum_{u\in V(G)} \sum_{v,w\in N_G(u) \atop v\neq w}|r(v)\cap r(w)|.$$ Let $r$ be a proper $k$-restraint such that $r\not\simeq r_{alt}$. Then there exist distinct vertices $u,v,w$ such that $v,w\in N_G(u)$, and $|r(v)\cap r(w)|<k$, as $G$ is a connected graph. Thus, the result follows since $|r(v)\cap r(w)|=k$ for every $u,v,w$ such that $v,w\in N_G(u)$ and $v\neq w$.
\[bipartiterestraintcorollary\]Let $G$ be a bipartite graph. Then, $r\in R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ if and only if $r$ induces an alternating restraint on each connected component of $G$.
Concluding Remarks
==================
We have seen that the conditions given in Theorem \[neccndtn2\] are sufficient to determine $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ when $G$ is a bipartite graph. However these conditions are not sufficient in general to determine the extremal restraints. For example, let $G$ be equal to $C_7$. It is easy to check that if $r$ is a proper simple restraint on $G$ then $|A_7''(G,r)|\leq 4$. Furthermore, for a simple proper restraint $r$ on $G$, $|A_7''(G,r)|= 4$ if and only if $r$ is equivalent to either $r_1=[ \{1\},\{2\},\{1\},\{2\},\{1\},\{2\},\{3\}]$ or $r_2=[\{1\},\{2\},\{1\},\{2\},\{3\},\{1\},\{3\}]$ (see Figure \[C7figure\]). Computer aided computations show that
$$\pi_{r_1}(G,x)={x}^{7}-14\,{x}^{6}+91\,{x}^{5}-353\,{x}^{4}+879\,{x}^{3}-1404\,{x}^{2
}+1333\,x-581$$
and
$$\pi_{r_2}(G,x)={x}^{7}-14\,{x}^{6}+91\,{x}^{5}-353\,{x}^{4}+880\,{x}^{3}-1411\,{x}^{2
}+1352\,x-600.$$
Therefore, $\pi_{r_2}(G,x)>\pi_{r_1}(G,x)$ for all large enough $x$ and $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,1)$ consists of restraints which are equivalent to $r_2$. Thus, Theorem \[neccndtn2\] cannot determine $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,1)$ when $G$ is equal to $C_7$. So it remains open to determine $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ when $G$ is an odd cycle. For $k=1$, we propose the following conjecture.
Let $C_n$ be an odd cycle with vertex set $\{v_1,v_2,\dots , v_n\}$ and edge set $\{v_1v_2, v_2v_3, \dots , v_{n-1}v_n, v_1v_n\}$. If $r\in R_{\operatorname{max}}(C_n,1)$, then $r\cong r^*$ where $r^*$ is defined by
$$r^*(v_i) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } i\in \{1,3,5,\dots , \frac{n-1}{2}\}\\
2 & \text{if } i\in \{2,4,6,\dots , \frac{n-3}{2}\}\cup \{\frac{n+3}{2}, \frac{n+7}{2}, \frac{n+11}{2},\dots , n\}\\
3 & \text{if } i \in \{\frac{n+1}{2}, \frac{n+5}{2}, \frac{n+9}{2}, \dots , n-1\}
\end{cases}.$$
In [@ayselthesis], a formula for the fifth coefficient of the restrained chromatic polynomial of a graph with girth at least $5$ was given. We believe that this formula can be used to determine $R_{\operatorname{max}}(C_n,k)$ for every $k\geq 1$.
If $C_n$ is an odd cycle and $k\geq 1$, then what is $R_{\operatorname{max}}(C_n,k)$?
![Two nonequivalent simple restraints on a cycle graph: $r_1=[\{1\},\{2\},\{1\},\{2\},\{1\},\{2\},\{3\}]$ (left) and $r_2=[\{1\},\{2\},\{1\},\{2\},\{3\},\{1\},\{3\}]$ (right).[]{data-label="C7figure"}](C7.pdf)
In Theorem \[constantrestraint\], we have seen that $R_{\operatorname{min}}(G,k)$ consists of a unique (up to equivalence) $k$-restraint. How about $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$? We showed that when $G$ is a connected bipartite graph, $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ consists of a unique (up to equivalence) $k$-restraint. Does $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ consist of a unique (up to equivalence) $k$-restraint for all connected graphs $G$? Or is it possible that $R_{\operatorname{max}}(G,k)$ can contain two nonequivalent restraints for some connected graphs $G$? Note that there exist graphs for which two nonequivalent restraints permit the same number of colourings. For example, consider the graph $P_4$ with $V(P_4)=\{v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4\}$ and $E(P_4)=\{v_iv_{i+1}\, | \,1\leq i\leq 3 \}$. It is trivial that $r=[\{1\},\{2\},\{2\},\{1\}]$ and $r'=[\{1\},\{2\},\{3\},\{3\}]$ are two nonequivalent restraints on $P_4$. However, $$\pi_r(P_4,x)=\pi_{r'}(P_4,x)=x^4-7\,x^3+20\,x^2-28\,x+16$$ for all large enough $x$.
Lastly, we proved our results for large enough $x$ but we cannot tell how large $x$ is. So it remains open to determine how large $x$ needs to be.
0.4in [**Acknowledgments:**]{} This research was partially supported by a grant from NSERC.
[10]{}
N. Alon, Restricted colorings of graphs, in: Proceedings of the 14th British Combinatorial Conference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, 1-33.
J.I. Brown, A. Erey and J. Li, Extremal Restraints for Graph Colourings, J. Comb. Math. Comb. Comput. 93 (2015), 297-304.
J.I. Brown, D. Kelly, J. Schönheim and R.E. Woodrow, Graph coloring satisfying restraints, Discrete Math. 80 (1990), 123-141.
G. Chartrand and P. Zhang, Chromatic Graph Theory, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2009. Q. Donner, On the number of list-colorings, J. Graph Theory 16(3) (1992), 239–245.
Dong, F.M., Koh, K.M. and Teo, K.L., Chromatic Polynomials And Chromaticity Of Graphs, World Scientific, London, 2005.
A. Erey, An Investigation on Graph Polynomials, Ph.D. dissertation, Dalhousie University, 2015.
A. Kostochka and A. Sidorenko, Problem session. *Fourth Czechoslovak Symposium on Combinatorics*, Prachatice, Juin (1990).
M. Kubale, Interval vertex-colouring of a graph with forbidden colours, Discrete Math. 74 (1989), 125–136.
N.V.R. Mahadev, F.S. Roberts, Amenable colorings, Discrete Appl. Math. 76 (1997), 225-238.
C. Thomassen, The chromatic polynomial and list colorings, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 99 (2009), 474–479.
B. Toft, color-critical graphs and hypergraphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 16 (1974), 145–161.
Z. Tuza, Graph colorings with local restrictions – A survey, Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 17(2) (1997), 161–228.
W. Wang, J. Qian, Z. Yan, When does the list-coloring function of a graph equal its chromatic polynomial, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 122 (2017) 543–549.
Maple program to calculate the restrained chromatic polynomial of a graph
=========================================================================
with(GraphTheory):
restchrompoly := proc (G, lst)
local E, p, i, j, e1, e2, s, e, H, F, p1, p2, V;
E := Edges(G);
if E = {} then
p := 1;
for j to nops(lst) do
p := p*(x-nops(lst[j])):
od;
RETURN(p)
fi;
V := Vertices(G);
e := E[1];
H := CopyGraph(G);
DeleteEdge(H, {e});
e1 := e[1];
e2 := e[2];
for i to nops(V) do
if V[i] = e1 then
p1 := i;
fi:
if V[i] = e2 then
p2 := i:
fi:
od;
F := Contract(G, {e[1], e[2]});
s := NULL;
for i to nops(lst) do
if i <> p1 and i <> p2 then
s := s, lst[i] :
fi ;
if i = p1 then
s := s, lst[p1] union lst[p2]:
fi:
od;
s := [s];
restchrompoly(H, lst)-restchrompoly(F, s);
end;
[^1]: Corresponding author, e-mail: aysel.erey@gmail.com
[^2]: *Keywords*: graph colouring, restraint, chromatic polynomial, restrained chromatic polynomial, bipartite graph
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We describe operators driving the time evolution of singular diffusion on finite graphs whose vertices are allowed to carry masses. The operators are defined by the method of quadratic forms on suitable Hilbert spaces. The model also covers quantum graphs and discrete Laplace operators.
MSC 2010: 47D06, 60J60, 47E05, 35Q99, 05C99
Keywords: gap diffusion, quantum graph, Dirichlet form, $C_0$-semigroup, positive, submarkovian
author:
- Christian Seifert and Jürgen Voigt
title: '[Dirichlet forms for singular diffusion on graphs]{}'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The present paper is a continuation and extension of [@kkvw09]. We present suitable boundary or glueing conditions on graphs (quantum graphs) with singular second order differential operators on the edges. In particular, we describe those boundary conditions leading to positive and submarkovian $C_0$-semigroups.
The graph consists of finitely many bounded intervals, the edges, whose end points are connected with the vertices of the graph. On each of the edges $e$ a finite Borel measure $\mu_e$ is given, determining where particles may be located. The particles move according to “Brownian motion” but are slowed down or accelerated by the “speed measure” $\mu_e$. Further, each of the vertices $v$ is provided with a weight $\mu_v{\geqslant}0$, and particles may also be located at those vertices $v$ with $\mu_v>0$.
The motivations for the treatment in [@kkvw09] were twofold. The first issue was to treat singular diffusion, including gap diffusion, on the edges of the graph, in the framework of Dirichlet forms. The second aim was to describe glueing conditions on the vertices, in the spirit of [@kuc04], and investigate conditions under which the associated self-adjoint operator gives rise to a positive or submarkovian $C_0$-semigroup.
In the present paper, the extension with respect to [@kkvw09] consists in two issues. On the one hand, the boundary conditions we describe are more general than glueing conditions. By glueing conditions or “local boundary conditions”, we understand conditions where, for a given vertex, only the values of a function on adjacent edges and on the vertex itself can interact. In our treatment in Sections \[singDir\] and \[operator\], however, the graph structure does not intervene at all, and we only specify later the case of local boundary conditions, in Section \[lbc\]. On the other hand, we include the general case of vertices with masses, whereas in [@kkvw09 Section 4] only a special case was treated. These results have been obtained in [@sei09].
The ultimate objective of the treatment is to obtain a semi-bounded (below) self-adjoint operator $H$ on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_\Gamma$ over the graph $\Gamma$ which can then be used in the initial value problem for the diffusion equation or heat equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{diffequ}
u'=-Hu,\end{aligned}$$ thus governing the time evolution of a process, i.e., giving rise to a $C_0$-semigroup on ${\mathcal{H}}_\Gamma$. For this equation it is of interest to obtain $H$ in such a way that the associated $C_0$-semigroup is positive or submarkovian. The self-adjointness of $H$ is also of interest for the initial value problem for the Schrödinger equation $$u'=-{{\rm i}}Hu.$$
The part of the operator $H$ acting on an edge $e$ is of the form $(Hf)_e=-\partial_{\mu_e}\partial f_e$, where $\partial_{\mu_e}$ is the derivative with respect to $\mu_e$; cf. Section \[odp\]. The domain of $H$ is restricted by conditions on the boundary values of the functions on the edges and the values at the vertices.
The Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_\Gamma$ is given by $${\mathcal{H}}_\Gamma=\bigoplus_{e\in E} L_2([a_e,b_e],\mu_e)\oplus {\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^V,$$ where $E$ is the set of edges, the interval $[a_e,b_e]$ corresponds to the edge $e$, and $V$ is the set of vertices; cf. Section \[singDir\] for more details. The operator $H$ is obtained by the method of forms. Avoiding all technicalities (which will be given in Section \[singDir\]), the form $\tau$ giving rise to $H$ is of the form $$\tau(f,g)=\sum_{e\in E} \int_{a_e}^{b_e}f'_e(x){\overline}{g'_e(x)}\,dx
+\scpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}f,{\operatorname{tr}}g),$$ with domain $$D(\tau)={\bigl\{f\in\ldots{;}\;{\operatorname{tr}}f\in X\bigr\}}.$$ Here, ${\operatorname{tr}}f$ denotes the boundary values of $f$ on the edges and the values of $f$ on the vertices, $X$ is a subspace of the set of possible boundary values and values on the vertices, and $L$ is a self-adjoint operator (matrix) on $X$. The boundary conditions for functions in the domain of $H$ are encoded in the space $X$ as well as in the operator $L$; cf. Theorem \[thm-operator\]. Our treatment includes the case that some of the edges or vertices may have weight zero.
For the discussion of positivity and the submarkovian property in connection with equation we use the Beurling-Deny criteria for $\tau$. These yield the result that the subspace $X$ should satisfy lattice properties and $L$ should satisfy positivity properties; cf. Theorem \[pos-subm\].
The investigations mentioned so far did not take into account the graph structure of $\Gamma$. In the description of glueing conditions, allowing only interactions between vertices and adjacent edges, the space $X$ and the operator $L$ decompose into parts corresponding to single vertices; cf. Corollaries \[cor-local1\] and \[cor-local2\].
In Section \[odp\] we recall some notation and facts from the one-dimensional case on an interval. In Section \[singDir\] we define the form in the Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}$ on the graph which then defines the operator driving the evolution. We show that the defined form $\tau$ constitutes a form that is bounded below and closed. Let us point out that our definition of the form looks somewhat different from the one given in [@kkvw09 Section 3]. In fact, looking at the definition of $\tau$ in [@kkvw09 Section 3], one realises that there is some interpretation needed in order to understand $D(\tau)$ as a subset of the Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}$. This interpreation is made explicit in the present paper by the use of the mapping $\iota$ introduced in Sections \[odp\] and \[singDir\]. In Section \[operator\] we describe the operator $H$ associated with the form $\tau$ (Theorem \[thm-operator\]). In Section \[pos-con\] we indicate conditions for the $C_0$-semigroup $(e^{-tH})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ to be positive and submarkovian. In Section \[lbc\] we describe the case of local boundary conditions.
One-dimensional prerequisites {#odp}
=============================
In order to define the classical Dirichlet form we have to recall some notation and facts for a single interval $[a,b]{\subseteq}{\mathbb{R}\nonscript\hskip.03em}$, where $a,b\in{\mathbb{R}\nonscript\hskip.03em}$, $a<b$. Let $\mu$ be a finite Borel measure on $[a,b]$, $a,b\in{\operatorname{spt}}\mu$, $\mu(\{a,b\})=0$. Our function spaces will consist of ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}$-valued functions, where ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}\in\{{\mathbb{R}\nonscript\hskip.03em},{\mathbb{C}\nonscript\hskip.03em}\}$. We define $$\begin{aligned}
&C_\mu[a,b]:={\bigl\{f\in C([a,b]{;}\;f\text{ affine linear on the components of
}[a,b]{\setminus}{\operatorname{spt}}\mu\bigr\}},\\
&W^1_{2,\mu}(a,b):= W^1_2(a,b)\cap C_\mu[a,b].\end{aligned}$$ For later use we recall the following inequalities. There exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sob-ine1}
\|f\|_\infty{\leqslant}C\big(\|f'\|^2_{L_2(a,b)} +
\|f\|^2_{L_2([a,b],\mu)}\big)^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ for all $f\in W^1_2(a,b)\cap C[a,b]$, and for all $r\in(0,b-a]$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sob-ine2}
|f(a)|
{\leqslant}r^{1/2}\|f'\|_{L_2(a,a+r)}+
\|f\|_{L_2([a,a+r],\mu)}\,\mu([a,a+r])^{-1/2},\end{aligned}$$ and correspondingly for $b$; cf. [@kkvw09 Lemma 1.4 and Remark 3.2(b)].
Let $\kappa\colon W^1_2(a,b)\cap C[a,b]\to L_2([a,b],\mu)$ be defined by $\kappa f:=f$. Then it can be shown that ${R}(\kappa)={R}(\kappa{{\left.\vphantom{f}\vrule\right._{W^1_{2,\mu}(a,b)}}})$ (cf. [@kkvw09 Lemma 1.2]), and that $\kappa{{\left.\vphantom{f}\vrule\right._{W^1_{2,\mu}(a,b)}}}$ is injective (cf. [@kkvw09 lower part of p.639]). We define $\iota:=\big(\kappa{{\left.\vphantom{f}\vrule\right._{W^1_{2,\mu}(a,b)}}}\big)^{-1}$. Thus, $\iota$ is an operator from $L_2([a,b],\mu)$ to $W^1_{2,\mu}(a,b)$, $$\begin{aligned}
D(\iota)={\bigl\{f\in L_2([a,b],\mu){;}\;\text{there exists }&g\in W^1_{2}(a,b)\cap
C[a,b] \\&\text{ such that } g=f\ \mu\text{-a.e.}\bigr\}},\end{aligned}$$ and $\iota f$ is the unique element $g\in W^1_{2,\mu}(a,b)$ such that $g=f$ $\mu$-a.e.
In order to describe the operator associated with the form defined in the following section we need some additional notions and facts concerning derivatives with respect to $\mu$.
If $f\in L_{1,{\rm loc}}(a,b)$, $g\in L_1([a,b],\mu)$ are such that $f'=g\mu$ (where $f'=\partial f$ denotes the distributional derivative of $f$), then we call $g$ *distributional derivative of $f$ with respect to $\mu$*, and we write $$\partial_\mu f:=g.$$ Note that then necessarily $f'=0$ on $[a,b]\setminus{\operatorname{spt}}\mu$, i.e., $f$ is constant on each of the components of $[a,b]\setminus{\operatorname{spt}}\mu$. It is easy to see that this definition is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq11}
f(x)=c+\int_{(a,x)}g(y)\,d\mu(y)\quad \text{a.e.},\end{aligned}$$ with some $c\in{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}$. Thus, the function $f$ has representatives of bounded variation and these have one-sided limits (not depending on the representative) at all points of $[a,b]$.
The form on the graph {#singDir}
=====================
Let $\Gamma = (V,E,{\gamma})$ be a finite directed graph. This means that $V$ and $E$ are finite sets, $V\cap E=\varnothing$, $V$ is the set of *vertices* (or *nodes*) of $\Gamma$, $E$ the set of *edges*, and ${\gamma}=({\gamma}_0,{\gamma}_1){\colon}E\to
V\times V$ associates with each edge $e$ a “starting vertex” ${\gamma}_0(e)$, and an “end vertex” ${\gamma}_1(e)$.
We assume that each edge $e\in E$ corresponds to an interval $[a_e,b_e]{\subseteq}{\mathbb{R}\nonscript\hskip.03em}$ (where $a_e,b_e\in{\mathbb{R}\nonscript\hskip.03em}$, $a_e<b_e$), and we assume that $\mu_e$ is a finite Borel measure on $[a_e,b_e]$ satisfying either $\mu_e=0$ or else $a_e,b_e\in{\operatorname{spt}}\mu_e$, $\mu_e(\{a_e,b_e\})=0$. We denote $$E_0:={\{e\in E{;}\;\mu_e=0\}},\qquad E_1:=E\setminus E_0.$$
We further assume that, for each $v\in V$, we are given a weight $\mu_v{\geqslant}0$, and we define $$V_0:={\bigl\{v\in V{;}\;\mu_v=0\bigr\}},\qquad V_1:=V\setminus V_0.$$
The sets $E_1$ and $V_1$ encode the parts of the graph $\Gamma$, where a particle driven by the diffusion can be localised. In the present section we describe general glueing conditions which do not take into account the correspondence of the edges to the vertices. In the case $E_1 = E$, $V_1=\varnothing$ and $\mu_e$ the Lebesgue measure on $[a_e,b_e]$, the model will describe quantum graphs; cf. [@kps08], [@kuc04], [@kuc08]. In the case $E_1 = \varnothing$ we obtain (weighted) discrete diffusion on the vertices; cf.[@chlu06].
We are going to describe the self-adjoint operator driving the evolution in the Hilbert space $${{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}:={{\mathcal H_{E}}}\oplus {\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1},$$ where on $${{\mathcal H_{E}}}:=\bigoplus_{e\in E_1}L_2([a_e,b_e],\mu_e)$$ we use the scalar product $$\scpr((f_e)_{e\in E_1},(g_e)_{e\in E_1})_{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}:=\sum_{e\in
E_1}\scpr(f_e,g_e)_{L_2([a_e,b_e],\mu_e)},$$ and on ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1}$ we use the scalar product $$\scpr((f_v)_{v\in V_1},(g_v)_{v\in V_1})_{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}:= \sum_{v\in V_1}
f_v{\overline}{g_v}\,\mu_v$$ (for $f=\big((f_e)_{e\in E_1},(f_v)_{v\in V_1}\big),g=\big((g_e)_{e\in
E_1},(g_v)_{v\in V_1}\big)\in{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}$).
In the following, the mapping $\iota$ defined in Section \[odp\] will be applied in the situation of the edges $e\in E_1$, and will then be denoted by $\iota_e$. We then define the operator $\iota$ from ${{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}$ to $
\prod_{e\in E_1}W^1_{2,\mu_e}(a_e,b_e)\times {\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1},
$ by $$\begin{aligned}
D(\iota)&:={\bigl\{f\in{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}{;}\;f_e\in D(\iota_e)\ (e\in E_1)\bigr\}},\\
(\iota f)_e&:=\iota_ef_e\qquad(e\in E_1),\\
(\iota f)_v&:=f_v \qquad(v\in V_1).\end{aligned}$$
We define the *trace mapping* (or *boundary value mapping*) ${\operatorname{tr}}\colon\prod_{e\in E_1}C[a_e,b_e]\times{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1} \to{{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$, where $E_1':=E_1\times\{0,1\}$, by $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{tr}}f(e,j)&:=
\begin{cases}
f_e(a_e) &\text{if }e\in E_1,\ j=0,\\
f_e(b_e) &\text{if }e\in E_1,\ j=1,
\end{cases}\\
{\operatorname{tr}}f(v)&:= f_v\qquad(v\in V_1).\end{aligned}$$ The space ${{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$ will be provided with the scalar product $$\scpr(\xi,\eta):=\sum_{(e,j)\in E_1'}\xi(e,j){\overline}{\eta(e,j)}
+\sum_{v\in V_1}\xi(v){\overline}{\eta(v)}\,\mu_v.$$
For the definition of the form we assume that $X$ is a subspace of ${{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$ and that $L$ is a self-adjoint operator in $X$. Then we define the form $\tau$ by $$\begin{aligned}
D(\tau)&:={\bigl\{f\in D(\iota){;}\;{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)\in X\bigr\}},\\
\tau(f,g)&:=\sum_{e\in
E_1}\int_{a_e}^{b_e}(\iota_ef_e)'(x){\overline}{(\iota_eg_e)'(x)}\,dx
+\bigscpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f),{{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota g)}).\end{aligned}$$
The subspace $X$ encodes boundary conditions for the elements of $D(\tau)$. One would expect boundary conditions to be in the form of some equation for ${\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)$. Of course, if $P$ denotes the orthogonal projection from ${{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$ onto $X^\bot$, then $D(\tau) = {\bigl\{f\in D(\iota){;}\;P{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)=0\bigr\}}$.
Further boundary conditions for the elements of the associated operator $H$ are encoded in the operator $L$; we refer to the description of $H$ in Theorem \[thm-operator\].
\[form-elem\] The form $\tau$ defined above is symmetric. $D(\tau)$ is dense if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dense}
{\operatorname{pr}}_{V_1}(X)={\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\operatorname{pr}}_{V_1}$ denotes the canonical projection ${\operatorname{pr}}_{V_1}\colon{{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}\to{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1}$.
The symmetry of $\tau$ is obvious.
Assume that $D(\tau)$ is dense. The image of the dense set $D(\tau)$ under the orthogonal projection $${\operatorname{pr}}_2\colon {{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}\to{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1}$$ is dense in ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1}$, and therefore is equal to ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1}$. From the definition of $D(\tau)$ it follows that ${\operatorname{pr}}_2(D(\tau))$ is contained in ${\operatorname{pr}}_{V_1}(X)$, and therefore ${\operatorname{pr}}_{V_1}(X)={\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1}$.
Now assume that holds. For $v\in V_1$ let $\xi^v\in X$ be such that $\xi^v(v)=1$ and $\xi^v(w)=0$ for all $w\in V_1{\setminus}\{v\}$. Let $g^v\in D(\iota)$ be defined by ${\operatorname{tr}}(\iota g^v)=\xi^v$, and $g^v$ affine linear on the edges. The affine linear interpolation of the prescribed boundary values evidently yields an element of $g^v\in D(\tau)$.
Let $f\in{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}$, and define $$\tilde f:=f-\sum_{v\in V_1}f_vg^v.$$ Then $\tilde f_v=0$ for all $v\in V_1$. Because $C_{{\rm c}}^1(a_e,b_e)$ is dense in $L_2([a_e,b_e],\mu_e)$ ($e\in E_1$), the function $\tilde f$ can be approximated by functions in $$D_{{\rm c}}:={\bigl\{f\in D(\tau){;}\;f_e\in C_{{\rm c}}^1(a_e,b_e)\ (e\in E_1),\ f_v=0\ (v\in
V_1)\bigr\}}.$$ Therefore $f$ can be approximated by functions in $$D_{{\rm c}}+\sum_{v\in V_1}f_vg^v{\subseteq}D(\tau). \qedhere$$
\[form-rems\] (a) For the special case that $X={{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$ and $L=0$ we denote the corresponding form by $\tau_{\rm N}$ (the index ${\rm N}$ indicating Neumann boundary conditions). The form $\tau_{\rm N}$ decomposes as the sum of the Neumann forms on each of the edges and the null form on ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1}$. Therefore the closedness of $\tau_{\rm N}$ follows from the closedness in the one-dimensional cases; cf. [@kkvw09 Section 1 and Remark 3.2].
\(b) Condition did not occur in the previous treatment [@kkvw09]. The reason is that it is obviously satisfied if the vertices do not have masses, i.e. $V_1=\varnothing$. Also, in the case of vertices with masses, but with local boundary conditions of continuity (see Example \[lastex\]), condition is automatically satisfied.
\[form-closed\] The form $\tau$ defined above is bounded below and closed.
For $f\in D(\tau)$ we obtain the estimate $$\tau(f)=\tau_{\rm N}(f)+\bigscpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f),{{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)})
{\geqslant}\tau_{\rm N}(f) - \|L\||{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)|^2$$ (with $\tau_{\rm N}$ defined in Remark \[form-rems\](a)). From inequality we obtain that the mapping $f\mapsto{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f){{\left.\vphantom{f}\vrule\right._{E_1'}}}$ is infinitesimally form small with respect to $\tau_{\rm N}$. The remaining part of the trace, $f\mapsto{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f){{\left.\vphantom{f}\vrule\right._{V_1}}}$, is bounded. These observations imply that $\tau$ is bounded below and the that the embedding $D_{\tau_{\rm N}}\ni
f\mapsto\iota f\in(\prod_{e\in E_1}C[a_e,b_e]\times{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1},\|\cdot\|_\infty)$ is continuous. (Here, $D_{\tau_{\rm
N}}$ denotes $D(\tau_{\rm N})$, provided with the form norm.)
In order to obtain that $\tau$ is closed it is sufficient to show that $D(\tau)$ is a closed subset of $D_{\tau_{\rm N}}$. This, however, is immediate from the continuity of the mapping $D_{\tau_{\rm N}}\ni
f\mapsto{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)\in{{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$ (and the fact that $X$ is a closed subspace of ${{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$).
The operator $H$ associated with the form $\tau$ {#operator}
================================================
We assume that the notation and the hypotheses are as in the previous section, and that holds.
Besides the trace mapping defined in the previous section we also need the *signed trace* (or *signed boundary values*) $${\operatorname{str}}\colon\prod_{e\in E_1}{\mathop{{BV}}\nolimits}(a_e,b_e)
\to {\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'}{\subseteq}{{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$$ (where ${\mathop{{BV}}\nolimits}(a_e,b_e)$ denotes the set of functions of bounded variation, with equivalence of functions coinciding a.e.), defined by $${\operatorname{str}}f(e,j):=
\begin{cases}
f_e(a_e{
\mathchoice{\vcenter{\hbox{${\scriptstyle{+}}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{+}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{+}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{+}$}}}}) &\text{if } e\in E_1,\ j=0,\\
-f_e(b_e{
\mathchoice{\vcenter{\hbox{${\scriptstyle{-}}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{-}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{-}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{-}$}}}}) &\text{if } e\in E_1,\ j=1.
\end{cases}$$ The inclusion ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'}{\subseteq}{{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$ is to be understood in the canonical sense; we want to be able to use ${\operatorname{str}}f$ also as an element of ${{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$.
For the description of the self-adjoint operator $H$ associated with the form $\tau$ we use a maximal operator $\hat H$ for the differential part of the form. With the notation described in Section \[odp\], we define $$\begin{aligned}
&D(\hat H):={\bigl\{f\in\smash{\prod_{e\in E_1}}D(\iota_e){;}\;(\iota_ef_e)'\in L_1(a_e,b_e),\ \partial_{\mu_e}(\iota_ef_e)'\text{
exists},\\
&\hphantom{D(\hat H):=f\in\prod_{e\in E_1}D(\iota_e}\qquad\qquad
\partial_{\mu_e}(\iota_ef_e)'\in L_2([a_e,b_e],\mu_e)\
(e\in E_1)\bigr\}},\\
&\hat Hf:=(-\partial_{\mu_e}(\iota_ef_e)')_{e\in E_1}\qquad(f\in D(\hat H)).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $f\in D(\hat H)$, the signed trace ${\operatorname{str}}((\iota_ef_e)')_{e\in
E_1}$ exists, and it describes the “ingoing derivatives” from the endpoints of the intervals. It is to be understood that for $(\iota_ef_e)'$ we choose representatives of bounded variation (which exist by the explanation given at the end of Section \[odp\]), in order to be able to apply the signed trace mapping.
Let $$X_0:={\bigl\{x\in X{;}\;{\operatorname{pr}}_{V_1}x=0\bigr\}},$$ which could also be expressed as $X_0:=X\cap {\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'}$ (with our understanding of ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'}$ as a subspace of ${{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$), and let $Q_0$ be the orthogonal projection from ${{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$ onto $X_0$. Also, for $v\in V_1$, let $\xi^v\in X$ be such that $\xi^v{{\left.\vphantom{f}\vrule\right._{V_1}}}={{\bf 1}}_{\{v\}}$ (see the proof of Lemma \[form-elem\]).
In the following, for $f\in D(\iota)$ we will use the shorthand notation $(\iota f)':=\big((\iota_ef_e)'\big)_{e\in E_1}$.
\[thm-operator\] The operator $H$ associated with the form $\tau$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&D(H)={\bigl\{f\in{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}{;}\;(f_e)_{e\in E_1}\in D(\hat H),\ {\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)\in X,\\
&\hphantom{D(H)=f\in{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}{(f_e)_{e\in E_1}\in D(\hat H)}}
Q_0{\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)'=Q_0L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)\bigr\}},\\
&((Hf)_e)_{e\in E_1}=\hat H(f_e)_{e\in E_1},\\
&(Hf)_v=\frac1{\mu_v}\bigscpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)-{\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)',\xi^v)
\qquad(v\in V_1).\end{aligned}$$
\(i) A preliminary step: Let $f\in D(\hat H)$, $g\in D(\tau)$. For all $e\in E_1$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{a_e}^{b_e}(\iota_ef_e)'(x){\overline}{(\iota_eg_e)'(x)}\,dx
=&-\int_{(a_e,b_e)}\partial_{\mu_e}(\iota_ef_e)'(x){\overline}{g_e(x)}\,
d\mu_e(x)\\
&+ (\iota_ef_e)'(b_e{
\mathchoice{\vcenter{\hbox{${\scriptstyle{-}}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{-}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{-}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{-}$}}}}){\overline}{\iota_eg_e(b_e)}
- (\iota_ef_e)'(a_e{
\mathchoice{\vcenter{\hbox{${\scriptstyle{+}}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{+}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{+}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{+}$}}}}){\overline}{\iota_eg_e(a_e)};\end{aligned}$$ cf. [@kkvw09 equ.(1.2)]. Summing this equation over all the edges in $E_1$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{e\in E_1}\int_{a_e}^{b_e}(\iota_ef_e)'(x){\overline}{(\iota_eg_e)'(x)}\,dx
=\scpr(\hat Hf,g)_{{\mathcal H_{E}}}- \bigscpr({\operatorname{str}}((\iota_ef_e)')_{e\in
E_1},{\operatorname{tr}}{(\iota
g)})_{{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'}}.\end{aligned}$$
\(ii) Let $f\in D(H)$, $g\in D(\tau)$. From $D(H){\subseteq}D(\tau)$ we conclude that ${\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)\in X$. As in [@kkvw09 proof of Theorem 1.9] one obtains that $(f_e)_{e\in E_1}\in D(\hat H)$, $\hat H(f_e)_{e\in
E_1}=\big((Hf)_e\big)_{e\in E_1}$. Using part (i) above we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\scpr(Hf,g)_{{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}}\\
&=-\sum_{e\in E_1}\int_{(a_e,b_e)}\partial_{\mu_e}(\iota_ef_e)'(x)
{\overline}{g_e(x)}\,d\mu_e(x)+ \sum_{v\in V_1}(Hf)_v{\overline}{g_v}\,\mu_v\\
&=\sum_{e\in E_1}\int_{a_e}^{b_e}(\iota_ef_e)'(x)
{\overline}{(\iota_eg_e)'(x)}\,dx
+ \bigscpr({\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)',{\operatorname{tr}}{(\iota g)})_{{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'}}
+ \sum_{v\in V_1}(Hf)_v{\overline}{g_v}\,\mu_v.\end{aligned}$$ Because of $$\begin{aligned}
\scpr(Hf,g)_{{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}}=\sum_{e\in E_1}\int_{a_e}^{b_e}(\iota_e f_e)'(x)
{\overline}{(\iota_e g_e)'(x)}\,dx
+\bigscpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f),{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota g{)})\end{aligned}$$ we therefore obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hhh}
\sum_{v\in V_1}(Hf)_v{\overline}{g_v}\,\mu_v=
\bigscpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)-{\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)',{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota g{)}).\end{aligned}$$
For $\xi\in X_0$ choose $g\in D(\tau)$ satisfying ${\operatorname{tr}}(\iota g)=\xi$, and $g$ affine linear on the edges $e\in E_1$. Then equation implies $$0=\bigscpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)-{\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)',\xi).$$ This shows that $Q_0L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)=Q_0{\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)'$.
Let $v\in V_1$, and choose $g\in D(\tau)$ satisfying ${\operatorname{tr}}(\iota g)=\xi^v$, and $g$ affine linear on the edges $e\in E_1$. Then equation yields $$\begin{aligned}
(Hf)_v\,\mu_v=\sum_{w\in V_1}(Hf)_w{\overline}{\xi^v(w)}\,\mu_w
=\bigscpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)-{\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)',\xi^v).\end{aligned}$$ This shows the second part of the formula for $Hf$.
\(iii) Now let $\tilde H$ denote the operator indicated on the right hand side of the assertion, and let $f\in D(\tilde H)$. Then $f\in D(\tau)$. Let $g\in
D(\tau)$. Then $\xi:={\operatorname{tr}}(\iota g)-\sum_{v\in V_1}g_v\xi^v\in X_0$, and therefore $$\bigscpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)-{\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)',\xi)=\bigscpr(Q_0(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota
f)-{\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)'),\xi)=0.$$
Using part (i) as well as the previous equality we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\scpr(\tilde Hf,g)_{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}\\
&=\bigscpr(\hat H(f_e)_{e\in E_1},{(g_e)}_{e\in E_1})_{{\mathcal H_{E}}}+\sum_{v\in V_1}\frac1{\mu_v}\scpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)-{\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)',
\xi^v){\overline}{g_v}\,\mu_v\\
&=\sum_{e\in E_1}\int_{a_e}^{b_e}(\iota_ef_e)'(x){\overline}{(\iota_eg_e)'(x)}\,dx
+\bigscpr({\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)',{\operatorname{tr}}{(\iota g)})\\
&\phantom{=\bigscpr(\hat H(f_e)_{e\in E_1},{(g_e)}_{e\in
E_1})_{{\mathcal H_{E}}}}+\scpr(L{\operatorname{tr}}(\iota f)-{\operatorname{str}}(\iota f)',{\operatorname{tr}}{(\iota
g)})\\
&=\tau(f,g).\end{aligned}$$ The definition of $H$ then yields that $f\in D(H)$ and $Hf=\tilde Hf$.
\(a) For $f\in D(H)$ and $v\in V_1$, the expression given for $(Hf)_v$ given in Theorem \[thm-operator\] does not depend on the choice of $\xi^v$.
\(b) The case of a weight $\mu_v>0$ at a vertex leads to a case of Wentzell boundary condition at $v$. The expression of $(Hf)_v$ in Theorem \[thm-operator\] generalises the expression obtained at a boundary point in the case of a single interval; cf. [@vovo03 Poposition 4.3].
Positivity and contractivity {#pos-con}
============================
In this section we indicate conditions for the $C_0$-semigroup $(e^{-tH})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ to be positive or submarkovian. We assume that the hypotheses are as in Section \[singDir\] and that holds.
In the following we need the notion of a (Stonean) sublattice of ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^n$. We consider ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^n$ as the function space $C(\{1,\dots,n\})$, and accordingly use the notation $|x|=(|x_1|,\dots,|x_n|)$, for $x\in{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^n$, and $x\wedge y=(x_1\wedge y_1,\dots,
x_n\wedge y_n)$, for $x,y\in{\mathbb{R}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^n$. A *sublattice* $X$ of ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^n$ is a subspace for which $x\in X$ implies that $|x|\in X$. A sublattice $X$ is called *Stonean* if additionally $x\wedge{\mathop{\bf 1}\nolimits}\in X$ for all real $x\in X$.
We refer to [@kkvw09 Appendix] for the description of (Stonean) sublattices of ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^n$ and of generators for positive (submarkovian) $C_0$-semigroups on these sublattices.
\[pos-subm\] [(a)]{} Assume that $X$ is a sublattice of ${{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$ and that the semigroup $(e^{-tL})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ is positivity preserving. Then $(e^{-tH})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ is positivity preserving.
[(b)]{} Assume that $X$ is a Stonean sublattice of ${{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$ and that the semigroup $(e^{-tL})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ is a submarkovian semigroup. Then $(e^{-tH})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ is submarkovian.
This result was proved for the case of local boundary conditions (cf. Section \[lbc\]) and no vertex masses in [@kkvw09 Theorem 3.5], and for the case of vertices with masses and local boundary conditions of continuity (cf. Example \[lastex\]) in [@kkvw09 Theorem 4.2]. Its proof is completely analogous to [@kkvw09 proof of Theorem 3.5]; so we refrain from giving a complete proof but rather only mention the main ingredients. The proof consists in an application of the Beurling-Deny criteria (cf. [@ouh05 Corollary 2.18]; see also [@kkvw09 Remarks 1.6]). So, in order to prove part (a), it is equivalent to prove that the normal contraction $f\mapsto |f|$ acts on $D(\tau)$, and that $\tau(|f|){\leqslant}\tau(f)$ for all $f\in D(\tau)$. That the inequality works on the differential part is a one-dimensional issue which is taken care of in [@kkvw09 Theorem 1.7]. For the trace part, the main observation is the equation ${\operatorname{tr}}\iota |f|=|{\operatorname{tr}}\iota f|$. This is less obvious than it might appear at the first glance since, in general, one does not have $\iota|f|=|\iota f|$. However, this equality holds on ${\operatorname{spt}}\mu_e$, and therefore at the end points of the intervals $[a_e,b_e]$, for all $e\in E_1$. The reasoning for part (b) is analogous.
Local boundary conditions {#lbc}
=========================
So far, the structure of the graph did not enter the considerations; in fact the function ${\gamma}$ linking the edges to the vertices was not used at all. In order to explain what we understand by local boundary conditions, we need the following definitions.
For $v\in V$, the sets $$E_{1,v,j}:={\bigl\{e\in E_1{;}\;{\gamma}_j(e)=v\bigr\}}\qquad (j=0,1)$$ describe the sets of all edges having mass and starting or ending at $v$, respectively, and the set $$E_{1,v}:=\big(E_{1,v,0}\times\{0\}\big)\cup\big(E_{1,v,1}\times\{1\}\big)$$ is the set of all edges having mass connected with $v$ (and where loops starting and ending at $v$ yield two contributions). Note that then $E_1'=\bigcup_{v\in V}E_{1,v}$.
Recall that the boundary conditions are specified by the choice of a subspace $X{\subseteq}{{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_1'\cup V_1}}$ and a self-adjoint operator $L$ in $X$. The boundary conditions will be called *local* if for each $v\in V$ there exists a subspace $$\begin{aligned}
X_v{\subseteq}{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}}\quad\text{if }v\in V_0,\qquad
X_v{\subseteq}{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}\cup\{v\}}\quad\text{if }v\in V_1,\end{aligned}$$ and a selfadjoint operator $L_v$ in $X_v$, such that $$X=\bigoplus_{v\in V}X_v,\qquad L=\bigoplus_{v\in V}L_v.$$
For $v\in V$, we define the “local trace mapping” $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{tr}}_v\colon\prod_{e\in E_1}C[a_e,b_e]\times{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{V_1} \to
\begin{cases}
{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}} &\text{if } v\in V_0,\\
{\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}\cup\{v\}} &\text{if } v\in V_1
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ by $${\operatorname{tr}}_vf:=
\begin{cases}
{\operatorname{tr}}f{{\left.\vphantom{f}\vrule\right._{E_{1,v}}}}&\text{if }v\in V_0,\\
{\operatorname{tr}}f{{\left.\vphantom{f}\vrule\right._{E_{1,v}\cup\{v\}}}}&\text{if }v\in V_1.
\end{cases}$$ Then for the form $\tau$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
D(\tau)&={\bigl\{f\in D(\iota){;}\;{\operatorname{tr}}_v(\iota f)\in X_v\ (v\in V)\bigr\}},\\
\tau(f,g)&=\sum_{e\in
E_1}\int_{a_e}^{b_e}(\iota_ef_e)'(x){\overline}{(\iota_eg_e)'(x)}\,dx
+\sum_{v\in V}\bigscpr(L_v{\operatorname{tr}}_v(\iota f),{{\operatorname{tr}}_v(\iota g)}). \end{aligned}$$ With $$X_{v,0}:=
\begin{cases}
X_v &\text{if }v\in V_0,\\
{\{\xi\in X_v{;}\;\xi(v)=0\}} &\text{if }v\in V_1,
\end{cases}$$ the condition for $D(\tau)$ to be dense then decomposes into $$\begin{aligned}
X_{v,0}\ne X_v\qquad(v\in V_1),\end{aligned}$$ or expressed differently, for all $v\in V_1$ there exists $\xi^v\in X_v$ such that $\xi^v(v)=1$.
It is an easy task to translate the description of the associated operator $H$, given in Theorem \[thm-operator\], to the present case of local boundary conditions, as follows.
\[cor-local1\] The operator $H$ associated with $\tau$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&D(H)={\bigl\{f\in{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}{;}\;(f_e)_{e\in E_1}\in D(\hat H),\ {\operatorname{tr}}_v(\iota f)\in
X_v,\\
&\hphantom{D(H)=f\in{{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}{(f_e)_{e\in E_1}}}
Q_{v,0}{\operatorname{str}}_v(\iota f)'=Q_{v,0}L_v
{\operatorname{tr}}_v(\iota f)\ (v\in V)\bigr\}},\\
&((Hf)_e)_{e\in E_1}=\hat H(f_e)_{e\in E_1},\\
&(Hf)_v=\frac1{\mu_v}\bigscpr(L_v{\operatorname{tr}}_v(\iota f)-{\operatorname{str}}_v(\iota f)',\xi^v)
\qquad(v\in V_1).\end{aligned}$$
Here, for $v\in V$ the mapping ${\operatorname{str}}_v\colon\prod_{e\in E_1}{\mathop{{BV}}\nolimits}(a_e,b_e)
\to {\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}}$ is defined by ${\operatorname{str}}_vf:=({\operatorname{str}}f){{\left.\vphantom{f}\vrule\right._{E_{1,v}}}}$, and $Q_{v,0}$ is the orthogonal projection onto $X_{v,0}$ in ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}}$, for $v\in V_0$, or in ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}\cup\{v\}}$, for $v\in V_1$. We will not put down further details here. Similarly, the conditions for $(e^{-tH})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ to be positive and submarkovian, Theorem \[pos-subm\], can be spelled out in terms of the spaces $X_v$ and the operators $L_v$. The statements are then analogous to [@kkvw09 Theorem 3.5], where the case that $E=E_1$ and $V=V_0$ is treated.
\[cor-local2\] [(a)]{} Assume that $X_v$ is a sublattice of ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}}$ ($v\in V_0$) or ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}\cup\{v\}}$ ($v\in V_1$) and that $(e^{-tL_v})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ positivity preserving, for all $v\in V$. Then $(e^{-tH})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ is a positivitiy preserving $C_0$-semigroup on ${{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}$.
[(b)]{} Assume that $X_v$ is a Stonean sublattice of ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}}$ ($v\in
V_0$) or ${\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}^{E_{1,v}\cup\{v\}}$ ($v\in V_1$) and that $(e^{-tL_v})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ is a submarkovian $C_0$-semigroup on $X_v$, for all $v\in V$. Then $(e^{-tH})_{t{\geqslant}0}$ is a submarkovian $C_0$-semigroup on ${{\mathcal H_\Gamma}}$.
\[lastex\] This special case of local boundary conditions was studied in [@kkvw09 Section 4]. In our framework, this example reads as follows. Let $X_v = {\operatorname{lin}}\{{{\bf 1}}\}$, $L_v\in{\mathbb{R}\nonscript\hskip.03em}$, $l_v:= \scpr(L_v {{\bf 1}},{{\bf 1}})$ for $v\in V$. Then $X_{v,0} = \{0\}$ for $v\in V_1$ (which makes it clear that condition is satisfied) and hence $$Q_{v,0} =
\begin{cases}
\scpr(\cdot,{{\bf 1}}){{\bf 1}}&\text{if }v\in V_0,\\
0 &\text{if }v\in V_1.
\end{cases}$$ Functions $f\in D(\tau)$ are continuous on $\Gamma$, i.e., for $v\in V_1$ we have $f(v) = ({\operatorname{tr}}_v f)(e,j)$ for all $(e,j)\in E_{1,v}$, and for $v\in V_0$ there exists $a_v(f)\in {\mathbb{K}\nonscript\hskip.03em}$ such that $a_v(f) = ({\operatorname{tr}}_v f)(e,j)$ for all $(e,j)\in E_{1,v}$ (note that we cannot write $f(v)$ in this case since $f$ is not defined on $V_0$). The second part of the boundary conditions for $f\in D(H)$ translates to $$\sum_{e\in E_{1,v,0}} f_e'(a_e{
\mathchoice{\vcenter{\hbox{${\scriptstyle{+}}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{+}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{+}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{+}$}}}}) - \sum_{e\in E_{1,v,1}} f_e'(b_e{
\mathchoice{\vcenter{\hbox{${\scriptstyle{-}}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{-}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{-}$}}}
{\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{-}$}}}}) =
l_v a_v(f) \quad(v\in V_0);$$ see also [@kkvw09 Theorem 4.3]. In the setup considered in [@kuc04], these boundary conditions are called $\delta$-type conditions; cf. [@kuc04 Section 3.2.1].
[99]{}
F.Chung and L.Lu: *Complex graphs and networks*. American Mathematical Society, 2006
U.Kant, T.Klauß, J.Voigt and M.Weber: *Dirichlet forms for singular one-dimensional operators and on graphs*. J. Evol. Equ. [**9**]{}, 637–659 (2009).
V.Kostrykin, J.Potthoff and R.Schrader: *Contraction semigroups on metric graphs*. In: Analysis on Graphs and its Applications, P.Exner (ed.) et al., Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. [**77**]{}, 423–458 (2008).
P.Kuchment: *Quantum graphs: I.Some basic structures*. Waves Random Media **14**, 107–128 (2007).
P.Kuchment: *Quantum graphs: an introduction and a brief survey*. In: Analysis on Graphs and its Applications, P.Exner (ed.) et al., Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. **77**, 291–314 (2008).
E.M.Ouhabaz: *Analysis of heat equations on domains*. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2005.
C.Seifert: *Behandlung singulärer Diffusion mit Hilfe von Dirichletformen*. Diploma Thesis, 2009.\
http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/seifch/Forschung/Diplomarbeit.pdf
H.Vogt and J.Voigt: *Wentzell boundary conditions on the context of Dirichlet forms*. Adv. Differ. Equ. **8**, No. 7, 821-842 (2003)
Christian Seifert\
Fakultät Mathematik\
Technische Universität Chemnitz\
09107 Chemnitz, Germany\
[christian.seifert@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de]{}\
Jürgen Voigt\
Fachrichtung Mathematik\
Technische Universität Dresden\
01062 Dresden, Germany\
[juergen.voigt@tu-dresden.de]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Human communication includes information, opinions, and reactions. Reactions are often captured by the affective-messages in written as well as verbal communications. While there has been work in affect modeling and to some extent affective content generation, the area of affective word distributions in not well studied. Synsets and lexica capture semantic relationships across words. These models however lack in encoding affective or emotional word interpretations. Our proposed model, Aff2Vec provides a method for enriched word embeddings that are representative of affective interpretations of words. Aff2Vec outperforms the state–of–the–art in intrinsic word-similarity tasks. Further, the use of Aff2Vec representations outperforms baseline embeddings in downstream natural language understanding tasks including sentiment analysis, personality detection, and frustration prediction.'
author:
- |
Sopan Khosla, Niyati Chhaya and Kushal Chawla\
Big Data Experience Lab\
Adobe Research\
[{skhosla,nchhaya,kchawla}@adobe.com]{}\
bibliography:
- 'coling2018.bib'
nocite: '[@RotheES16; @VulicMRSYK17; @SedocGUF16; @BojanowskiGJM16]'
title: 'Aff2Vec: Affect–Enriched Distributional Word Representations'
---
Introduction
============
Affect refers to the experience of a feeling or emotion [@Scherer2010; @Picard1997]. This definition includes emotions, sentiments, personality, and moods. The importance of affect analysis in human communication and interactions has been discussed by Picard . Historically, affective computing has focused on studying human communication and reactions through multi-modal data gathered through various sensors. The study of human affect from text and other published content is an important topic in language understanding. Word correlation with social and psychological processes is discussed by Pennebaker . Preotiuc-Pietro et al. studied personality and psycho-demographic preferences through Facebook and Twitter content. Sentiment analysis in Twitter with a detailed discussion on human affect [@rosenthal2017semeval] and affect analysis in poetry [@Kao2012ACA] have also been explored. Human communication not only contains semantic and syntactic information but also reflects the psychological and emotional states. Examples include the use of opinion and emotion words [@AffectLM]. The analysis of affect in interpersonal communication such as emails, chats, and longer written articles is necessary for various applications including the study of consumer behavior and psychology, understanding audiences and opinions in computational social science, and more recently for dialogue systems and conversational agents. This is a open research space today.
Traditional natural language understanding systems rely on statistical language modeling and semantic word distributions such as WORDNET [@miller1995wordnet] to understand relationships across different words. There has been a resurgence of research efforts towards creating word distributions that capture multi-dimensional word semantics [@mikolov2013efficient; @pennington2014glove]. Sedoc et al. introduce the notion of affect features in word distributions but their approach is limited to creating enriched representations, and no comments on the utility of the new word distribution is presented. Beyond word-semantics, deep learning research in natural language understanding, is focused towards sentence representations using encoder-decoder models [@Ahn2016], integrating symbolic knowledge to language models [@Vinyals2015], and some recent works in augmenting neural language modeling with affective information to emotive text generation [@AffectLM]. These works however do not introduce distributional affective word representations that not only reflect affective content but are also superior for related downstream natural language tasks such as sentiment analysis and personality detection.\
[0.30]{}
[0.30]{}
[0.30]{}
We introduce Aff2Vec, affect-enriched word distributions trained on lexical resources coupled with semantic word distributions. Aff2Vec captures opinions and affect information in the representation using post-processing approaches. Figure \[fig:tsne\] illustrates how Aff2Vec captures affective relationships using a t-SNE visualization of the word space. Aff2Vec can be trained using any affect space, we focus on the Valence–Arousal–Dominance dimensions but the approach is generalizable to other space. Our experiments show that Aff2Vec out performs vanilla embedding spaces for both intrinsic word–similarity tasks as well as extrinsic natural language applications. Main contributions of this paper include:\
\
**Aff2Vec:** Affect-enriched word representations using post-processing techniques. We show that Aff2Vec outperforms the state-of-the-art in both intrinsic word similarity metrics as well as downstream natural language tasks including Sentiment analysis, Personality detection, and Frustration detection in interpersonal communication.\
**ENRON-FFP Dataset:** We introduce the ENRON-FFP Email dataset with Frustration, Formality, and Politeness tags gathered using a crowd-sourced human perception study.\
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The prior art for enriched word distributions is discussed in Section \[sec:relatedWork\]. Aff2Vec is introduced in section \[sec:Affectmod\]. We present the crowd-sourcing study for the ENRON-FFP Dataset in section \[sec:amt\] and section \[sec:experiments\] discusses the experimental setup. Section \[sec:results\] presents the evaluation of Aff2Vec for various intrinsic and extrinsic tasks. A discussion on the distributional word representations is presented in section \[sec:discussion\] before concluding in section \[sec:conclusion\].
Related Work {#sec:relatedWork}
============
The use of lexical semantic information (lexical resources) to improve distributional representations is recent. Methods like [@yu2014improving; @xu2014rc; @bian2014knowledge; @kiela2015specializing] achieve this by using word similarity and relational knowledge to modify the prior or add a regularization term. We call such methods ‘pre-training methods’, as they alter the training procedure for word representations. Such methods require a change in the loss function while training the embeddings, hence are computationally expensive.
The other set of word distribution enhancements are done post-training. These methods aim to include external information using normalizations and modifications to the vanilla word distributions. Methods such as Retrofitting [@faruqui2014retrofitting] which tries to drag similar words closer together, where notion of similarity is taken from word relation knowledge found in semantic lexica (e.g. WordNet) fall in this category. Counterfitting [@mrkvsic2016counter] on the other hand initiates from SimLex-999 tuned embeddings, injects antonyms and synonym constraints to improve word representations. This paper introduces post-training techniques on vanilla, retrofitted, and counterfitted embeddings to include affective information in the distributions. Our work falls in the post-training category, hence no direct comparison with the pre-trained approaches is presented in this paper.
Recent work has explored approaches to adapt general-purpose lexica for specific contexts and affects. Studies have recognized the limited applicability of general purpose lexica such as ANEW [@bradley1999affective] to identify affect in verbs and adverbs, as they focus heavily on adjectives. Recognizing that general-purpose lexica often detect sentiment which is incongruous with context, Ribeiro et al. proposed a sentiment damping method which utilizes the average sentiment strength over a document to damp any abnormality in the derived sentiment strength. Similarly, Blitzer et al. argued that words like ‘predictable’ induced a negative connotation in book reviews, while ‘must-read’ implied a highly positive sentiment. This paper doesn’t focus on building yet another affect lexicon but studies the consequences of including affect information in distributional word representations that aim at defining relational relationships across all words in large contexts and vocabularies.
Automatic expansion of affect ratings has been approached with the intuition that words closer in the distributional space would have similar ratings [@recchia2015reproducing; @palogiannidi2015valence; @vankrunkelsven2015predicting; @koper2016automatically]. Recent work by Sedoc et al. uses Signed Spectral Clustering to differentiate between words which are contextually similar but display opposite affect. Whereas [@wang2016community] uses a graph–based method inspired by label propagation. While our approach follows the nature of the task defined in Sedoc et al., we propose a generalized method to enrich content with affective information. They focus on distinguishing the polarities. Our method incorporates both semantic and affect information hence creating embeddings that can also be used for semantic similarity tasks. Note that Sedoc et al. do not include any semantic information in their modeling.
Aff2Vec: Affect–enriched Word Distributions {#sec:Affectmod}
===========================================
Aff2Vec aims at incorporating affective information in word representations. We leverage the Warriner’s lexicon [@warriner2013norms] in the Valence–Arousal–Dominance space for this work. The proposed work is generalizable to other affect spaces.[^1] This section presents two approaches for affect–enrichment of word distributions.
**Warriner’s lexicon:** This is a affect lexicon with $13915$ english words. It contains real-valued scored for Valence, Arousal, and Dominance (VAD) on a scale of $1-9$ each. $1$, $5$, $9$ correspond to the low, moderate (i.e. neutral), and high values for each dimension respectively. The lexicon does not contain common English words such as stop words and proper nouns. For such out–of–dictionary words we assume a neutral affect vector $\vec{a}=[5,5,5]$.
Affect-APPEND
-------------
Consider word embeddings $W$, the aim is to introduce affective information to this space using the affect embedding space, $A$. The word vectors $W$, with dimension $D$ are concatenated with affect vectors $A$ with dimension $F$, thus resulting in a $D+F$ dimensional enriched representation. The process for this concatenation is described here:\
1. Normalize word vector $W$ and affect vector $A$ using their L2-Norms (Equation \[eq:reg\], \[eq:regav\]). This reduces the individual vectors to unit-length. $$x_i = \dfrac{x_i}{\sqrt{\sum_{k = 1}^{D} x_{ik}^2}} ~~\forall x_i \in W, ~~~~a_i = \dfrac{a_i}{\sqrt{\sum_{k = 1}^{F} a_{ik}^2}} ~~\forall a_i \in A
\label{eq:reg}$$ 2. Concatenate the regularized word vectors $x_i$ with regularized affect vectors $a_i$. $$WA(w) = W(w) \oplus A(w)
\label{eq:append}$$ 3. Standardize ($1$ variance, $0$ mean) the $D+F$ dimensional embeddings to achieve uniform distribution. $$y_i = \dfrac{y_i - \mu}{\sigma} ~~~~ \forall y_i \in WA
\label{eq:normalize}$$ where $\mu$ and $\sigma$ represent the mean and standard deviation respectively.\
4. The enriched space $WA$ is then reduced to original $D$ dimensional vector. We use Principal Component Analysis for the dimensionality reduction.
Affect-STRENGTH
---------------
In this approach, the strength in the antonym/synonym relationships of the words is incorporated in the word distribution space. Hence, we leverage the Retrofitted Word Embeddings for this approach[@faruqui2014retrofitting] [^2].\
\
**Retrofitting**: Let $V = \{w_1, w_2, w_3,..., w_n\}$ be a vocabulary and $\Omega$ be an ontology which encodes semantic relations between words present in $V$ (e.g. WORDNET). This ontology $\Omega$ is represented as an undirected graph $(V,E)$ with words as vertices and $(w_i, w_j)$ as edges indicating the semantic relationship of interest. Each word $w_i \in V$ is represented as a vector representation $\hat q_i \in R^d$ learnt using a data–driven approach (e.g. Word2Vec or GloVe) where $d$ is the length of the word vectors.
Let $\hat Q$ be the matrix collection of these vector representations. The objective is to learn the matrix $ Q = (q_1,..., q_n) $ such that the word vectors ($q_i$) are both close to their counterparts in $\hat Q$ and to adjacent vertices in $\Omega$. The distance between a pair of vectors is defined to be Euclidean, hence the objective function for minimization is $$\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{
$\Psi(Q) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} {\Bigg[ \alpha_i {\|q_i - \hat q_i\|}^2 + \sum_{(i,j) \in E} {\beta_{ij}{\|q_i - q_j\|}^2} \Bigg] }
\label{fig:retrofit}$
}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are hyper parameters and control the relative strengths of the two associations. $\Psi$ is a convex function in $Q$ and its global optimal solution can be found by using an iterative update method. By setting $\frac{\partial \Psi(Q)}{\partial q_i} = 0$, the online updates are as follows: $$q_i = \frac{\sum_{j:(i,j) \in E} {\beta_{ij}q_j + \alpha_i\hat q_i}}{\sum_{j:(i,j) \in E} {\beta_{ij} + \alpha_i}}
\label{fig:retrofit_update}$$
We propose two ways to modify $\beta_{ij}$ in equation \[fig:retrofit\] in order to incorporate affective strength in the edge weights connecting two retrofitted vectors to each other.\
**Affect-cStrength**: In this approach, the affective strength is considered as a function of all $F$ affect dimensions. $$S(w_i, w_j) = 1 - \dfrac{\|a_{i} - a_{j}\|}{\sqrt{\sum_{f=1}^{F}{max\_dist_f^{2}}}}
$$ where $a_i$ and $a_j$ are $F$ dimensional vectors in $A$ and $max\_dist_f$ is defined as the maximum possible distance between two vectors in $f^{th}$ dimension ($= 9.0 - 1.0 = 8.0$ for VAD dimensions).\
\
**Affect-iStrength**: Here, each dimension is treated individually. For every dimension $f$ in $A$, we add an edge between neighbors in the Ontology $\Omega$ where the strength of that edge is given by $S_{f}(w_i, w_j)$:
$$S_{f}(w_i, w_j) =
1 - \dfrac{|a_{if} - a_{jf}|}{max\_dist_{f}}, ~~~~ S(w_i, w_j) = \sum_{f=1}^{F}{S_{f}(w_i, w_j)}$$
$\beta_{ij}$ from equation \[fig:retrofit\_update\] is normalized with this strength function as $\beta_{ij} = \beta_{ij} * S(w_i, w_j)$, where $S(w_i,w_j)$ is defined by either Affect-cStrength or Affect-iStrength.\
\
Dataset: ENRON-FFP {#sec:amt}
==================
We introduce an email dataset, a subset of the ENRON data [@cohen2009enron], with tags about interpersonal communication traits, namely, Formality, Politeness, and Frustration. The dataset provides the text, user information, as well as the network information for email exchanges between Enron employees.\
\
**Human Perceptions and Definitions**: *Tone* or affects such as frustration and politeness are highly subjective measures. In this work, we do not attempt to introduce or standardize an accurate definition for frustration (or formality and politeness). Instead, we assume that these are defined by human perception, and each individual may differ in their understanding of these metrics. This approach of using untrained human judgments has been used in prior studies of pragmatics in text data [@pavlick2016empirical; @danescu2013computational] and is a recommended way of gathering gold-standard annotations [@sigley1997text]. The tagged data is then used to predict the formality, frustration, and politeness tags using Aff2Vec embeddings.\
\
**Dataset Annotation**: We conducted a crowd sourced experiment using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk[^3]. The analysis presented in this section is based on $1050$ emails that were tagged across multiple experiments[^4]. Table \[tab:data\_descFFP\] provides an overview of the data statistics of the annotated data. We follow the annotation protocol of the Likert Scale [@allen2007likert] for all three dimensions. Each email is considered as a single data point and only the text in the email body is provided for tagging. Frustration is tagged on a 3 point scale with neutral being equated to ‘not frustrated’; ‘frustrated’ and ‘very frustrated’ are marked with $-1$ and $-2$ respectively. Formality and politeness follow a $5$ point scale from $-2$ to $+2$ where both extremes mark the higher degree of presence and absence of the respective dimension. Table \[tab:examples\_data\] shows some example emails from the dataset.\
\
**Inter-annotator Agreement**: To measure whether the individual intuition of the affect dimensions is consistent with other annotators’ judgment, we use interclass correlation[^5] to quantify the ordinal ratings. This measure accounts for the fact that we may have different group of annotators for each data point. Each data point has $10$ distinct annotations. Agreements reported for $3$ class and $5$ class annotations $0.506 \pm 0.05$, $0.73 \pm 0.02$, and $0.64 \pm 0.03$ for frustration, formality, and politeness respectively. The agreement measures are similar to those reported for other such psycholinguistic tagging tasks.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Two sets of experiments are presented to evaluate Aff2Vec embeddings[^6] - Intrinsic evaluation using word similarity tasks and extrinsic evaluation using multiple NLP applications. We focus on $3$ vanilla word embeddings: GloVe [@pennington2014glove], Word2Vec-SkipGram[^7] [@NIPS2013_5021], and Paragram-SL999 [@wieting2015paraphrase]. The vocabulary and embeddings used in our experiments resonate with the experimental setup by Mrk[š]{}i[ć]{} et al. ($76427$ words).
Intrinsic Evaluation
--------------------
Word similarity is a standard task used to evaluate embeddings [@mrkvsic2016counter; @faruqui2014retrofitting; @bollegala2016joint]. In this paper, we evaluate the embeddings on benchmark datasets given in Table \[tab:intrinsic\_sets\].
We report the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between rankings produced by our model (based on cosine similarity of the pair of words) against the benchmark human rankings for each dataset.
\[tab:extrinsic\_eval\]
Extrinsic Evaluation
--------------------
Although intrinsic tasks are popular, performance of word embeddings on these benchmarks does not reflect directly into the downstream tasks [@chiu2016intrinsic]. [@gladkova2016intrinsic; @batchkarov2016critique] suggest that intrinsic tasks should not be considered as gold standards but as a tool to improve the model. We test the utility of the Aff2Vec on $4$ distinct natural language understanding tasks:\
**Affect Prediction** (FFP-Prediction): The experiment is to predict the formality, politeness, and frustration in email. We introduce the ENRON-FFP dataset for this task in section \[sec:amt\]. A basic CNN model is used for the prediction[^8]. The purpose of this experiment is to evaluate the quality of the embeddings and not necessarily the model architecture. The CNN is hence not optimized for this task. Embeddings trained on the ENRON dataset (ENRON-Trainable) are used as a baseline.\
\
**Personality Detection**: This task is to predict human personality from text. The big five personality dimensions [@digman1990personality] are used for this experiment. The $5$ personality dimensions include Extroversion (EXT), Neurotic-ism (NEU), Agreeableness (AGR), Conscientiousness (CON), and Openness (OPEN). Stream-of-consciousness essay dataset by Pennebaker et al. contains $2468$ anonymous essays tagged with personality traits of the author. We use this dataset. Majumder et al propose a CNN model for this prediction. We use their best results as baseline and report the performance of Aff2Vec on their default implementation[^9].\
\
**Sentiment Analysis**: The Stanford Sentiment Treebank (SST) [@socher2013recursive] contains sentiment labels on sentences from movie reviews. This dataset in its binary form is split into training, validation, and test sets with $6920$, $872$, and $1821$ samples, respectively. We report the performance on a Deep Averaging Network (DAN)[^10] [@iyyer2015deep] with default parameters on the SST dataset and compare against refined embeddings specifically created for sentiment analysis. Implementation by Yu et al is used for the refined embeddings.[^11]\
\
**Emotion Intensity Task (WASSA)**: WASSA shared task on emotion intensity [@W17-5205] requires to determine the intensity of a particular emotion (anger, fear, joy, or sadness) in a tweet. This intensity score can be seen as an approximation of the emotion intensity of the author or as felt by the reader. We train a BiLSTM-CNN–based model for this regression task with embedding dimensions as features.[^12]. Vanilla embeddings are used as a baseline for this experiment.
Qualitative Evaluation: Noise@k
-------------------------------
Affect-enriched embeddings perform better as they move semantically similar but affectively dissimilar words away from each other in the vector space. We demonstrate this effect through two measures that capture noise in the neighborhood of a word.\
\
*Polarity-Noise@k* (PN@k) [@yu2017refining] calculates the number of top $k$ nearest neighbors of a word with opposite polarity for the affect dimension under consideration.\
*Granular-Noise@k* (GN@k) captures the average difference between a word and its top $k$ nearest neighbors for a particular affect dimension ($f$). $$GN_i@k =
\dfrac{\sum_{j \in kNN_i}{|a_if - a_jf|}}{k}$$ where $a_i$, $a_j$ are $F$–dimensional vectors in $A$ and $kNN_i$ denotes the top $k$ nearest neighbors of word $i$. This is done for each word in the affect lexicon.
Results
=======
\[sec:results\] All experiments are compared against the vanilla word embeddings, embeddings with counterfitting, and embeddings with retrofitting.
Table \[tab:intrinsic\] summarizes the results of the **Intrinsic word–similarity tasks**. For the pre–trained word embeddings, Paragram-SL999 outperformed GloVe and Word2Vec on most metrics. Both retrofitting and counterfitting procedures show better or at par performance on all datasets except for WordSim-353. Addition of affect information to different versions of GloVe consistently improves performance whereas the only significant improvement for Paragram-SL999 variants is observed on the SimLex-999 and SimVerb-3500 datasets. To the best of our knowledge, $\rho=0.74$ reported by [@mrkvsic2016counter] represents the current state–of–the–art for SimLex-999 and inclusion of affect information to these embeddings yields higher performance ($\rho = 0.75$). Similarly, for the SimVerb-3500 dataset, Paragram+Counterfitting$\oplus$Affect embeddings beat the state–of–the–art scores[^13]. Amongst Affect-APPEND and Affect-STRENGTH, Affect-APPEND out performs the rest in most cases for GloVe and Word2vec. However, Affect-STRENGTH variations perform slightly better for the retrofitted Paragram embeddings.
The results for the **Extrinsic tasks** are reported in Table \[tab:extrinsic\_eval\]. We report the performance for GloVe and Word2Vec with Affect-APPEND variants.[^14] For FFP-Prediction, Affect-APPEND reports the lowest Mean Squared Error for Frustration and Politeness. However, in the case of Formality, the counterfitting variant reports the lowest error. For the personality detection, Affect-APPEND variants report best performance for NEU, AGR, and OPEN classes. For CON, Glove beats the best results in [@majumder2017deep]. Evaluation against the Sentiment Analysis(SA) task shows that Affect-APPEND variants report highest accuracies. The final experiment reported here is the WASSA-EmoInt task. Affect-APPEND and retrofit variants out perform the vanilla embeddings.
To summarize, the extrinsic evaluation supports the hypothesis that affect–enriched embeddings improve performance for all NLP tasks. Further, the word similarity metrics show that Aff2Vec is not specific to sentiment or affect–related tasks but is at par with accepted embedding quality metrics.\
\
**Qualitative Evaluation**: Table \[tab:noise\] reports the average *Polarity-Noise@10* and *Granular-Noise@10* for GloVe and Word2Vec variants. Note that lower the noise better the performance. The Affect-APPEND report the lowest noise for both cases. This shows that the introduction of affect dimensions in the word distributions intuitively captures psycholinguistic and in particular polarity properties in the vocabulary space. The rate of change of noise with varying $k$ provides insights into (1) how similar are the embedding spaces and (2) how robust are the new representations to the noise - how well is the affect captured in the new embeddings. Figure \[fig:noisek\] shows the granular noise@k for Valence, Arousal, and Dominance respectively. Noise@k for the Aff2Vec i.e. the Affect-APPEND variants, specifically, $\oplus$Affect and Couterfitting$\oplus$Affect has lower noise even for a higher $k$. The growth rate for all variants is similar and reduces with an increase in the value of $k$. A similar behavior is observed for Polarity-Noise@k.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Experiments give an empirical evaluation of the proposed embeddings, none of these provide an insight about the change in the distributional representations of the associated words. Semantic relationship capture the synonym like information. We study how the **neighborhood** of a certain word changes based on the different word distribution techniques used to create the corresponding representations. Table \[tab:nearestneighbours\] shows the top five nearest neighbors based on the representations used. While SENTI-Wordnet represents synonyms more than affectively similar words, the affect–enriched embeddings provide a combination of both affective similarity and semantic similarity. The variance in the ranking of words also captures how different schemes capture the intuition of word distributions. Such an analysis can be used to build automated natural language generation and text modification systems with varying objectives.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We present a novel, simple yet effective method to create affect–enriched word embeddings using affect and semantic lexica. The proposed embeddings outperform the state–of–the–art in benchmark intrinsic evaluations as well as extrinsic applications including sentiment, personality, and affect prediction. We introduce a new human–annotated dataset with formality, politeness, and frustration tags on the publicly available ENRON email data. We are currently exploring the effect of dimension size on the performance of the enriched embeddings as well as the use of Aff2Vec for complex tasks such as text generation.
[^1]: Experiments on other spaces are reported in the supplement.
[^2]: https://github.com/mfaruqui/retrofitting
[^3]: https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
[^4]: Link to the annotated ENRON-FFP dataset: https://bit.ly/2IAxPab
[^5]: We report the average raters absolute agreement (ICC1k) using the psych package in R.
[^6]: Link to the Aff2Vec word embeddings: https://bit.ly/2HGohsO
[^7]: https://code.google.com/archive/p/word2vec/
[^8]: Hyper-parameters and model details are discussed in the supplementary material
[^9]: https://github.com/SenticNet/personality-detection
[^10]: https://github.com/miyyer/dan
[^11]: Implementation provided by the authors is used for this experiment.
[^12]: Model details are provided as supplementary material.
[^13]: mentioned at <http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/dsg40/simverb.html>
[^14]: Results for Paragram are reported in the supplement.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
[EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH]{}
CERN-EP/99-169\
29 November 1999
[ **Search for Unstable Heavy and Excited Leptons at LEP2** ]{}
[The OPAL Collaboration]{}
[Abstract]{}
Searches for unstable neutral and charged heavy leptons, N and ${\rm L^\pm}$, and for excited states of neutral and charged leptons, $\nu^*$, ${\rm e}^*$, $\mu^*$, and $\tau^*$, have been performed in ${\rm e^+e^-}$ collisions using data collected by the OPAL detector at LEP. The data analysed correspond to an integrated luminosity of about 58 pb$^{-1}$ at a centre-of-mass energy of 183 GeV, and about 10 pb$^{-1}$ each at 161 GeV and 172 GeV. No evidence for new particles was found. Lower limits on the masses of unstable heavy and excited leptons are derived. From the analysis of charged-current, neutral-current, and photonic decays of singly produced excited leptons, upper limits are determined for the ratio of the coupling to the compositeness scale, $f/\Lambda$, for masses up to the kinematic limit. For excited leptons, the limits are established independently of the relative values of the coupling constants $f$ and $f^\prime$.
[(submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C) ]{}
[ G.Abbiendi$^{ 2}$, K.Ackerstaff$^{ 8}$, P.F.Akesson$^{ 3}$, G.Alexander$^{ 23}$, J.Allison$^{ 16}$, K.J.Anderson$^{ 9}$, S.Arcelli$^{ 17}$, S.Asai$^{ 24}$, S.F.Ashby$^{ 1}$, D.Axen$^{ 29}$, G.Azuelos$^{ 18, a}$, I.Bailey$^{ 28}$, A.H.Ball$^{ 8}$, E.Barberio$^{ 8}$, R.J.Barlow$^{ 16}$, J.R.Batley$^{ 5}$, S.Baumann$^{ 3}$, T.Behnke$^{ 27}$, K.W.Bell$^{ 20}$, G.Bella$^{ 23}$, A.Bellerive$^{ 9}$, S.Bentvelsen$^{ 8}$, S.Bethke$^{ 14, i}$, S.Betts$^{ 15}$, O.Biebel$^{ 14, i}$, A.Biguzzi$^{ 5}$, I.J.Bloodworth$^{ 1}$, P.Bock$^{ 11}$, J.Böhme$^{ 14, h}$, O.Boeriu$^{ 10}$, D.Bonacorsi$^{ 2}$, M.Boutemeur$^{ 33}$, S.Braibant$^{ 8}$, P.Bright-Thomas$^{ 1}$, L.Brigliadori$^{ 2}$, R.M.Brown$^{ 20}$, H.J.Burckhart$^{ 8}$, P.Capiluppi$^{ 2}$, R.K.Carnegie$^{ 6}$, A.A.Carter$^{ 13}$, J.R.Carter$^{ 5}$, C.Y.Chang$^{ 17}$, D.G.Charlton$^{ 1, b}$, D.Chrisman$^{ 4}$, C.Ciocca$^{ 2}$, P.E.L.Clarke$^{ 15}$, E.Clay$^{ 15}$, I.Cohen$^{ 23}$, J.E.Conboy$^{ 15}$, O.C.Cooke$^{ 8}$, J.Couchman$^{ 15}$, C.Couyoumtzelis$^{ 13}$, R.L.Coxe$^{ 9}$, M.Cuffiani$^{ 2}$, S.Dado$^{ 22}$, G.M.Dallavalle$^{ 2}$, S.Dallison$^{ 16}$, R.Davis$^{ 30}$, A.de Roeck$^{ 8}$, P.Dervan$^{ 15}$, K.Desch$^{ 27}$, B.Dienes$^{ 32, h}$, M.S.Dixit$^{ 7}$, M.Donkers$^{ 6}$, J.Dubbert$^{ 33}$, E.Duchovni$^{ 26}$, G.Duckeck$^{ 33}$, I.P.Duerdoth$^{ 16}$, P.G.Estabrooks$^{ 6}$, E.Etzion$^{ 23}$, F.Fabbri$^{ 2}$, A.Fanfani$^{ 2}$, M.Fanti$^{ 2}$, A.A.Faust$^{ 30}$, L.Feld$^{ 10}$, P.Ferrari$^{ 12}$, F.Fiedler$^{ 27}$, M.Fierro$^{ 2}$, I.Fleck$^{ 10}$, A.Frey$^{ 8}$, A.Fürtjes$^{ 8}$, D.I.Futyan$^{ 16}$, P.Gagnon$^{ 12}$, J.W.Gary$^{ 4}$, G.Gaycken$^{ 27}$, C.Geich-Gimbel$^{ 3}$, G.Giacomelli$^{ 2}$, P.Giacomelli$^{ 2}$, D.M.Gingrich$^{ 30, a}$, D.Glenzinski$^{ 9}$, J.Goldberg$^{ 22}$, W.Gorn$^{ 4}$, C.Grandi$^{ 2}$, K.Graham$^{ 28}$, E.Gross$^{ 26}$, J.Grunhaus$^{ 23}$, M.Gruwé$^{ 27}$, C.Hajdu$^{ 31}$ G.G.Hanson$^{ 12}$, M.Hansroul$^{ 8}$, M.Hapke$^{ 13}$, K.Harder$^{ 27}$, A.Harel$^{ 22}$, C.K.Hargrove$^{ 7}$, M.Harin-Dirac$^{ 4}$, M.Hauschild$^{ 8}$, C.M.Hawkes$^{ 1}$, R.Hawkings$^{ 27}$, R.J.Hemingway$^{ 6}$, G.Herten$^{ 10}$, R.D.Heuer$^{ 27}$, M.D.Hildreth$^{ 8}$, J.C.Hill$^{ 5}$, P.R.Hobson$^{ 25}$, A.Hocker$^{ 9}$, K.Hoffman$^{ 8}$, R.J.Homer$^{ 1}$, A.K.Honma$^{ 8}$, D.Horváth$^{ 31, c}$, K.R.Hossain$^{ 30}$, R.Howard$^{ 29}$, P.Hüntemeyer$^{ 27}$, P.Igo-Kemenes$^{ 11}$, D.C.Imrie$^{ 25}$, K.Ishii$^{ 24}$, F.R.Jacob$^{ 20}$, A.Jawahery$^{ 17}$, H.Jeremie$^{ 18}$, M.Jimack$^{ 1}$, C.R.Jones$^{ 5}$, P.Jovanovic$^{ 1}$, T.R.Junk$^{ 6}$, N.Kanaya$^{ 24}$, J.Kanzaki$^{ 24}$, G.Karapetian$^{ 18}$, D.Karlen$^{ 6}$, V.Kartvelishvili$^{ 16}$, K.Kawagoe$^{ 24}$, T.Kawamoto$^{ 24}$, P.I.Kayal$^{ 30}$, R.K.Keeler$^{ 28}$, R.G.Kellogg$^{ 17}$, B.W.Kennedy$^{ 20}$, D.H.Kim$^{ 19}$, A.Klier$^{ 26}$, T.Kobayashi$^{ 24}$, M.Kobel$^{ 3}$, T.P.Kokott$^{ 3}$, M.Kolrep$^{ 10}$, S.Komamiya$^{ 24}$, R.V.Kowalewski$^{ 28}$, T.Kress$^{ 4}$, P.Krieger$^{ 6}$, J.von Krogh$^{ 11}$, T.Kuhl$^{ 3}$, M.Kupper$^{ 26}$, P.Kyberd$^{ 13}$, G.D.Lafferty$^{ 16}$, H.Landsman$^{ 22}$, D.Lanske$^{ 14}$, J.Lauber$^{ 15}$, I.Lawson$^{ 28}$, J.G.Layter$^{ 4}$, D.Lellouch$^{ 26}$, J.Letts$^{ 12}$, L.Levinson$^{ 26}$, R.Liebisch$^{ 11}$, J.Lillich$^{ 10}$, B.List$^{ 8}$, C.Littlewood$^{ 5}$, A.W.Lloyd$^{ 1}$, S.L.Lloyd$^{ 13}$, F.K.Loebinger$^{ 16}$, G.D.Long$^{ 28}$, M.J.Losty$^{ 7}$, J.Lu$^{ 29}$, J.Ludwig$^{ 10}$, A.Macchiolo$^{ 18}$, A.Macpherson$^{ 30}$, W.Mader$^{ 3}$, M.Mannelli$^{ 8}$, S.Marcellini$^{ 2}$, T.E.Marchant$^{ 16}$, A.J.Martin$^{ 13}$, J.P.Martin$^{ 18}$, G.Martinez$^{ 17}$, T.Mashimo$^{ 24}$, P.Mättig$^{ 26}$, W.J.McDonald$^{ 30}$, J.McKenna$^{ 29}$, E.A.Mckigney$^{ 15}$, T.J.McMahon$^{ 1}$, R.A.McPherson$^{ 28}$, F.Meijers$^{ 8}$, P.Mendez-Lorenzo$^{ 33}$, F.S.Merritt$^{ 9}$, H.Mes$^{ 7}$, I.Meyer$^{ 5}$, A.Michelini$^{ 2}$, S.Mihara$^{ 24}$, G.Mikenberg$^{ 26}$, D.J.Miller$^{ 15}$, W.Mohr$^{ 10}$, A.Montanari$^{ 2}$, T.Mori$^{ 24}$, K.Nagai$^{ 8}$, I.Nakamura$^{ 24}$, H.A.Neal$^{ 12, f}$, R.Nisius$^{ 8}$, S.W.O’Neale$^{ 1}$, F.G.Oakham$^{ 7}$, F.Odorici$^{ 2}$, H.O.Ogren$^{ 12}$, A.Okpara$^{ 11}$, M.J.Oreglia$^{ 9}$, S.Orito$^{ 24}$, G.Pásztor$^{ 31}$, J.R.Pater$^{ 16}$, G.N.Patrick$^{ 20}$, J.Patt$^{ 10}$, R.Perez-Ochoa$^{ 8}$, S.Petzold$^{ 27}$, P.Pfeifenschneider$^{ 14}$, J.E.Pilcher$^{ 9}$, J.Pinfold$^{ 30}$, D.E.Plane$^{ 8}$, B.Poli$^{ 2}$, J.Polok$^{ 8}$, M.Przybycień$^{ 8, d}$, A.Quadt$^{ 8}$, C.Rembser$^{ 8}$, H.Rick$^{ 8}$, S.A.Robins$^{ 22}$, N.Rodning$^{ 30}$, J.M.Roney$^{ 28}$, S.Rosati$^{ 3}$, K.Roscoe$^{ 16}$, A.M.Rossi$^{ 2}$, Y.Rozen$^{ 22}$, K.Runge$^{ 10}$, O.Runolfsson$^{ 8}$, D.R.Rust$^{ 12}$, K.Sachs$^{ 10}$, T.Saeki$^{ 24}$, O.Sahr$^{ 33}$, W.M.Sang$^{ 25}$, E.K.G.Sarkisyan$^{ 23}$, C.Sbarra$^{ 28}$, A.D.Schaile$^{ 33}$, O.Schaile$^{ 33}$, P.Scharff-Hansen$^{ 8}$, J.Schieck$^{ 11}$, S.Schmitt$^{ 11}$, A.Schöning$^{ 8}$, M.Schröder$^{ 8}$, M.Schumacher$^{ 3}$, C.Schwick$^{ 8}$, W.G.Scott$^{ 20}$, R.Seuster$^{ 14, h}$, T.G.Shears$^{ 8}$, B.C.Shen$^{ 4}$, C.H.Shepherd-Themistocleous$^{ 5}$, P.Sherwood$^{ 15}$, G.P.Siroli$^{ 2}$, A.Skuja$^{ 17}$, A.M.Smith$^{ 8}$, G.A.Snow$^{ 17}$, R.Sobie$^{ 28}$, S.Söldner-Rembold$^{ 10, e}$, S.Spagnolo$^{ 20}$, M.Sproston$^{ 20}$, A.Stahl$^{ 3}$, K.Stephens$^{ 16}$, K.Stoll$^{ 10}$, D.Strom$^{ 19}$, R.Ströhmer$^{ 33}$, B.Surrow$^{ 8}$, R.Tafirout$^{ 18, j }$, S.D.Talbot$^{ 1}$, P.Taras$^{ 18}$, S.Tarem$^{ 22}$, R.Teuscher$^{ 9}$, M.Thiergen$^{ 10}$, J.Thomas$^{ 15}$, M.A.Thomson$^{ 8}$, E.Torrence$^{ 8}$, S.Towers$^{ 6}$, T.Trefzger$^{ 33}$, I.Trigger$^{ 18}$, Z.Trócsányi$^{ 32, g}$, E.Tsur$^{ 23}$, M.F.Turner-Watson$^{ 1}$, I.Ueda$^{ 24}$, R.Van Kooten$^{ 12}$, P.Vannerem$^{ 10}$, M.Verzocchi$^{ 8}$, H.Voss$^{ 3}$, F.Wäckerle$^{ 10}$, D.Waller$^{ 6}$, C.P.Ward$^{ 5}$, D.R.Ward$^{ 5}$, P.M.Watkins$^{ 1}$, A.T.Watson$^{ 1}$, N.K.Watson$^{ 1}$, P.S.Wells$^{ 8}$, T.Wengler$^{ 8}$, N.Wermes$^{ 3}$, D.Wetterling$^{ 11}$ J.S.White$^{ 6}$, G.W.Wilson$^{ 16}$, J.A.Wilson$^{ 1}$, T.R.Wyatt$^{ 16}$, S.Yamashita$^{ 24}$, V.Zacek$^{ 18}$, D.Zer-Zion$^{ 8}$ ]{}
$^{ 1}$School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK $^{ 2}$Dipartimento di Fisica dell’ Università di Bologna and INFN, I-40126 Bologna, Italy $^{ 3}$Physikalisches Institut, Universität Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany $^{ 4}$Department of Physics, University of California, Riverside CA 92521, USA $^{ 5}$Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK $^{ 6}$Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Physics, Department of Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada $^{ 7}$Centre for Research in Particle Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada $^{ 8}$CERN, European Organisation for Particle Physics, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland $^{ 9}$Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637, USA $^{ 10}$Fakultät für Physik, Albert Ludwigs Universität, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany $^{ 11}$Physikalisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany $^{ 12}$Indiana University, Department of Physics, Swain Hall West 117, Bloomington IN 47405, USA $^{ 13}$Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, London E1 4NS, UK $^{ 14}$Technische Hochschule Aachen, III Physikalisches Institut, Sommerfeldstrasse 26-28, D-52056 Aachen, Germany $^{ 15}$University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK $^{ 16}$Department of Physics, Schuster Laboratory, The University, Manchester M13 9PL, UK $^{ 17}$Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA $^{ 18}$Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada $^{ 19}$University of Oregon, Department of Physics, Eugene OR 97403, USA $^{ 20}$CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK $^{ 22}$Department of Physics, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel $^{ 23}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel $^{ 24}$International Centre for Elementary Particle Physics and Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, and Kobe University, Kobe 657-8501, Japan $^{ 25}$Institute of Physical and Environmental Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK $^{ 26}$Particle Physics Department, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel $^{ 27}$Universität Hamburg/DESY, II Institut für Experimental Physik, Notkestrasse 85, D-22607 Hamburg, Germany $^{ 28}$University of Victoria, Department of Physics, P O Box 3055, Victoria BC V8W 3P6, Canada $^{ 29}$University of British Columbia, Department of Physics, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z1, Canada $^{ 30}$University of Alberta, Department of Physics, Edmonton AB T6G 2J1, Canada $^{ 31}$Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, H-1525 Budapest, P O Box 49, Hungary $^{ 32}$Institute of Nuclear Research, H-4001 Debrecen, P O Box 51, Hungary $^{ 33}$Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universität München, Sektion Physik, Am Coulombwall 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany $^{ a}$ and at TRIUMF, Vancouver, Canada V6T 2A3 $^{ b}$ and Royal Society University Research Fellow $^{ c}$ and Institute of Nuclear Research, Debrecen, Hungary $^{ d}$ and University of Mining and Metallurgy, Cracow $^{ e}$ and Heisenberg Fellow $^{ f}$ now at Yale University, Dept of Physics, New Haven, USA $^{ g}$ and Department of Experimental Physics, Lajos Kossuth University, Debrecen, Hungary $^{ h}$ and MPI München $^{ i}$ now at MPI für Physik, 80805 München $^{ j}$ now at Laurentian University, Physics & Astronomy, Sudbury, Canada, P3E 2C6.
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
In spite of its remarkable success in describing all electroweak data available today, the Standard Model (SM) [@ref:sm] leaves many questions unanswered. In particular, it explains neither the origin of the number of fermion generations nor the fermion mass spectrum. The precise measurements of the electroweak parameters at the Z pole have shown that the number of species of light neutrinos is three [@ref:pdg]; however, this does not exclude a fourth generation, or other massive fermions, if these particles have masses greater than half the mass of the Z-boson ($M_{\rm Z}/2$).
New fermions could be of the following types (for reviews see References [@ref:revue; @ref:abdel; @ref:bdk]): sequential fermions, mirror fermions (with chirality opposite to that in the SM), vector fermions (with left- and right-handed doublets), and singlet fermions. These could be produced at high-energy ${\rm e^+e^-}$ colliders such as LEP, where two production mechanisms are possible: pair-production and single-production in association with a light standard fermion.
Lower limits on the masses of heavy leptons were obtained in ${\rm e^+e^-}$ collisions at centre-of-mass energies, $\sqrt{s}$, around $ M_{\rm Z}$ [@ref:pdg; @ref:hllep1], and recent searches at $\sqrt{s}=$ 130-140 GeV [@ref:hlOPAL15; @ref:hllep15], $\sqrt{s} =$ 161 GeV [@ref:hlOPAL161; @ref:hlL3172], $\sqrt{s} =$ 172 GeV [@ref:hlL3172; @ref:hlOPAL172] and $\sqrt{s} =$ 130-183 GeV [@ref:stableOPAL183; @ref:DELPHI183] have improved these limits. Excited leptons have been sought at $\sqrt{s} \sim M_{\rm Z}$ [@ref:ellep1], $\sqrt{s}=$ 130-140 GeV [@ref:elopal15; @ref:ellep15], $\sqrt{s}=$ 161 GeV [@ref:elopal161; @ref:ellep161], $\sqrt{s}=$ 172 GeV [@ref:hlOPAL172], $\sqrt{s}=$ 183 GeV [@ref:DELPHI183], $\sqrt{s}=$ 189 GeV [@ref:L3189], and at the HERA ep collider [@ref:herasearches]. If direct production is kinematically forbidden, the cross-sections of processes such as ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ and ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow {\rm f \bar{f}}$ [@ref:opalgg; @ref:2f] are sensitive to new particles at higher masses.
This paper concentrates on the search conducted by OPAL [@ref:OPAL-detector] in a wide range of topologies for the pair-production of new unstable heavy leptons and for both pair- and single-production of excited leptons of the known generations, using data collected in 1997 at $\sqrt{s}=181-184$ GeV, with an average energy of 182.7 GeV. The integrated luminosity used depends on the final-state topologies, and is between 52 and 58 pb$^{-1}$. The results are combined with those obtained earlier from 10 pb$^{-1}$ of data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 161.3 GeV and 10 pb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=$ 172.1 GeV.
Heavy Leptons {#ss:hlintro}
-------------
Heavy neutral leptons are particularly interesting in the light of recent evidence for massive SM neutrinos [@ref:superk; @ref:macro]. One method of generating neutrino mass is the see-saw mechanism [@ref:see-saw], which predicts additional heavy neutral leptons. In this mechanism, if the mass of a heavy neutral lepton satisfies the relation $m_{\rm N} = m_{\rm e}^2/m_{\nu_{\rm e}}$, and if $m_{\nu_{\rm e}}$ is as massive as $2.5$ eV, then $m_{\rm N} \approx 100$ GeV, which is within the reach of LEP2.
In general, new heavy leptons N and ${\rm L^\pm}$ could in principle decay through the charged (CC) or neutral current (NC) channels: $${\rm N \rightarrow \ell^\pm W^\mp\quad\quad,\quad\quad
N \rightarrow L^\pm W^\mp\quad\quad,\quad\quad
N \rightarrow \nu_\ell Z},$$ $${\rm L^\pm \rightarrow \nu_\ell W^\pm \quad\quad ,\quad\quad
L^\pm \rightarrow {\rm N_{\rm L}}W^\pm \quad\quad,\quad\quad
L^\pm \rightarrow \ell^\pm Z},$$ where $\rm {\rm N_{\rm L}}$ is a stable or long-lived neutral heavy lepton, and $\, {\rm \ell = e,\ \mu,\ or\ \tau}$. For heavy lepton masses less than the gauge boson masses, $M_{\rm W}$ or $M_{\rm Z}$, the vector bosons are virtual, leading to 3-body decay topologies. For masses greater than $M_{\rm W}$ or $M_{\rm Z}$, the decays are 2-body decays, and the CC and NC branching ratios can be comparable. For masses close to $M_{\rm W}$ or $M_{\rm Z}$, it is important to treat the transition from the 3-body to the 2-body decay properly, including effects from the vector boson widths. Expressions for the computation of partial decay widths with an off-shell W or Z boson can be found in [@ref:abdel].
The mixing of a heavy lepton with the standard lepton flavour is governed by a mixing angle $\zeta$. A mixing of 0.01 radians yields a decay length $c\tau$ of $\cal{O}$(1 nm). Since the decay length is proportional to $1/\zeta^2$, looking for unstable heavy leptons which decay within the first cm, the analyses described in this paper are sensitive to $\zeta^2 > \cal{O}$(10$^{-12}$). The presently existing upper limit on $\zeta^2$ is approximately 0.005 radians$^2$ [@ref:nardi].
The searches for heavy leptons presented in this paper utilise only the case where N and ${\rm L^\pm}$ decay via the CC channel, as would be expected in a naive fourth generation extension to the SM. The NC channel does not contribute significantly in the heavy lepton searches due to kinematics. Searches for stable or long-lived charged heavy leptons, ${\rm L^\pm}$, are described in a separate paper [@ref:stableOPAL183].
Excited Leptons {#ss:elintro}
---------------
Compositeness models [@ref:bdk] attempt to explain the hierarchy of masses in the SM by the existence of a substructure within the fermions. Several of these models predict excited states of the known leptons. Excited leptons are assumed to have the same electroweak SU(2) and U(1) gauge couplings, $g$ and $g^\prime$, to the vector bosons, but are expected to be grouped into both left- and right-handed weak isodoublets with vector couplings. The existence of the right-handed doublets is required to protect the ordinary light leptons from radiatively acquiring a large anomalous magnetic moment via the $\ell^*\ell V$ interaction [@ref:bdk] (where $V$ is a $\gamma$, Z, or W$^\pm$ and ${\ell^{*}}$ refers in this case to both charged and neutral excited leptons).
In ${\rm e^+e^-}$ collisions, excited leptons could be produced in pairs via the process ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow \ell^* \bar{\ell}^*$, or singly via the process ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow \ell^* \bar{\ell}$, as a result of the $\ell^*\ell V$ couplings. Depending on the details of these couplings, excited leptons could be detected in the photonic, CC, or NC channels: $${\rm \nu_\ell^* \rightarrow \nu_\ell\gamma \quad\quad , \quad\quad
\nu_\ell^* \rightarrow \ell^\pm W^\mp \quad\quad , \quad\quad
\nu_\ell^* \rightarrow \nu_\ell Z,
}$$ $${\rm \ell^{*\pm} \rightarrow \ell^\pm \gamma \quad\quad , \quad\quad
\ell^{*\pm} \rightarrow \nu_\ell W^\pm \quad\quad , \quad\quad
\ell^{*\pm} \rightarrow \ell^\pm Z,
}$$ where $\nu^*_{\ell}$ and $\ell^{*\pm}$ are neutral and charged excited leptons, respectively.
The branching fractions of the excited leptons into the different vector bosons are determined by the strength of the three $\ell^*\ell V$ couplings. We use the effective Lagrangian [@ref:bdk]: $${\cal L}_{\ell\ell^*} =
\frac{1}{2 \Lambda} \bar{\ell}^*\sigma^{\mu\nu}
\left[g f \frac{ \mbox{\boldmath $\tau$} }{2}
\mbox{\boldmath {\rm\bf W}}_{\mu\nu} +
g^\prime f^\prime \frac{Y}{2} B_{\mu\nu} \right] \ell_{\rm L} +
{\rm hermitian~conjugate},
\label{eqLll}$$ which describes the generalized magnetic de-excitation of the excited states. The matrix $\sigma^{\mu\nu}$ is the covariant bilinear tensor, are the Pauli matrices, ${\rm\bf W}_{\mu\nu}$ and $B_{\mu\nu}$ represent the fully gauge-invariant field tensors, and $Y$ is the weak hypercharge. The parameter $\Lambda$ has units of energy and can be regarded as the compositeness scale, while $f$ and ${f^{\prime}}$ are the weights associated with the different gauge groups.
The relative values of $f$ and ${f^{\prime}}$ also affect the size of the single-production cross-sections and their detection efficiencies. Depending on their relative values, either the photonic decay, the CC decay, or the NC decay will have the largest branching fraction, depending on the respective couplings [@ref:bdk]: $${f_{\gamma} = e_f {f^{\prime}}+ I_{3L}(f-{f^{\prime}}) \quad\quad , \quad\quad
f_W = \frac{f}{\sqrt{2} s_w} \quad\quad , \quad\quad
f_Z = \frac{4I_{3L}(c^2_w f + s^2_w {f^{\prime}}) - 4e_fs^2_w {f^{\prime}}}{4 s_w c_w}
}$$ where $e_f$ is the excited fermion charge, $I_{3L}$ is the weak isospin, and $s_w(c_w)$ are the sine (cosine) of the Weinberg angle $\theta_w$.
Our results will be interpreted using the two complementary coupling assignments, $f={f^{\prime}}$ and $f=-{f^{\prime}}$. For example, for the case $f=-{f^{\prime}}$, the photonic coupling to excited electrons is suppressed and the dominant production of excited electrons is via the $s$-channel. For $f \ne -{f^{\prime}}$, the $t$-channel production of excited electrons dominates. In the case of excited neutrinos, if $f \ne {f^{\prime}}$, then the photonic coupling is allowed. In addition to the results for the two assignments $f={f^{\prime}}$ and $f=-{f^{\prime}}$, a new method is introduced which gives limits on excited leptons independent of the relative values of $f$ and ${f^{\prime}}$.
Monte Carlo Simulation {#s:mc}
======================
The Monte Carlo (MC) generator EXOTIC [@ref:EXOTIC] has been used for the simulation of heavy lepton pair-production, ${\rm e^+e^-}\rightarrow {\rm N \bar N}$ and ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow {\rm L^+L^-}$, of excited lepton pair-production, ${\rm e^+e^-}\rightarrow {\rm \nu^*_{\ell} \bar \nu^*_{\ell}}$ and ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow {\rm \ell^{*+}\ell^{*-}}$, and of single excited lepton production, ${\rm e^+e^-}\rightarrow {\rm \nu^*_{\ell} \bar \nu_{\ell}}$ and ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow {\rm \ell^* \ell}$. The code is based on formulae given in [@ref:abdel; @ref:zerwas]. The matrix elements include all spin correlations in the production and decay processes, and describe the transition from 3-body to 2-body decays of heavy fermions, involving virtual or real vector bosons, including the effects from vector boson widths. The JETSET [@ref:jetset] package is used for the fragmentation and hadronization of quarks.
For ${\rm N \bar N}$ and ${\rm L^+L^-}$ production, MC samples were generated for a set of masses from 40 to 90 GeV. Separate samples were generated for Dirac and Majorana heavy neutral leptons, taking into account the different angular distributions. For the case where ${\rm L^- \rightarrow {\rm N_{\rm L}}W^-}$, samples were simulated at 25 points in the ($M_{\rm L}$,$M_{{\rm N_{\rm L}}}$) plane with $M_{\rm L}$ ranging from 50 to 90 GeV and $M_{{\rm N_{\rm L}}}$ from 40 to 87 GeV, and with a mass difference $M_{\rm L} - M_{{\rm N_{\rm L}}}$ larger than 3 GeV. Excited lepton MC samples were generated for the pair-production channels with masses in the range from 40 to 90 GeV and for the single-production channels with masses in the range from 90 to 180 GeV.
A variety of MC generators was used to study the multihadronic background from SM processes: 4-fermion background processes were simulated using the generator grc4f [@ref:grc4f], multihadronic background from 2-fermion final states was modelled using PYTHIA [@ref:jetset], while 2-photon processes were generated with PHOJET [@ref:phojet] and HERWIG [@ref:herwig]. To study the background from low-multiplicity events, the generators BHWIDE [@ref:bhwide] (large-angle Bhabha scattering) and TEEGG [@ref:teegg] ($t$-channel Bhabha scattering) were used for the $\rm e^+e^- \gamma (\gamma)$ topology. The KORALZ generator [@ref:koralz] was used for the $\mu^+\mu^-\gamma(\gamma)$ and $\tau^+\tau^-\gamma(\gamma)$ topologies. These generators include initial and final-state radiation, which is particularly important for the analyses with photons in the final states. Low-multiplicity 4-fermion final states produced in 2-photon interactions were modelled by using VERMASEREN [@ref:vermaseren].
Finally, SM processes with only photons in the final state are an important background to the analysis of excited neutral leptons with photonic decays. The RADCOR [@ref:radcor] program was used to simulate the process ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow \gamma \gamma (\gamma)$ and KORALZ was used to simulate the process ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow \nu\overline{\nu} \gamma (\gamma)$.
All signal and background MC samples were processed through the full OPAL detector simulation [@ref:gopal] and passed through the same analysis chain as the data.
Selection {#s:selection}
=========
The searches presented in this paper involve many different experimental topologies. Three classes of different analyses are used which rely on slightly different criteria for such details as track and cluster quality requirements and lepton identification methods. The first class of analyses includes the selections for high-multiplicity topologies, with hadronic jets in the final state from the hadronic CC decays of heavy leptons and the hadronic CC and NC decays of excited neutral and charged leptons. The second class includes selections for low-multiplicity topologies, and covers the photonic decays of excited charged leptons. The third class covers purely photonic event topologies arising from the photonic decays of excited neutral leptons.
High-Multiplicity Topologies {#s:highm}
----------------------------
The searches for topologies with hadronic jets in the final state share a common high-multiplicity preselection. All charged tracks and calorimeter clusters are subjected to established quality criteria [@ref:hlOPAL172]. Events are required to have at least 8 tracks and 15 clusters. The total visible energy measured in the detector, $E_{\rm vis}$, calculated from tracks and clusters [@ref:gce], must be greater than 20 GeV.
Global event properties after this preselection are shown in Figure \[f:global\], which compares data and MC distributions. The visible energy is well described for $E_{\rm vis}>75$ GeV, where 2-fermion and 4-fermion processes dominate. For $E_{\rm vis}<20$ GeV, the data are not as well modelled. This region is dominated by events from 2-photon processes, which are not a significant background to the majority of analyses described in this paper. After a cut of $E_{\rm vis}>75$ GeV, the global event properties shown in Figure \[f:global\] (b-f) compare well between data and the SM expectation.
Figure \[f:lepton\] shows the energy distribution of identified electrons, muons, taus, and photons after the preselection. The lepton identification is similar to that described in [@ref:hlOPAL172], with modified isolation requirements for the high-multiplicity selections. Identified electrons and muons must have more than 1.5 GeV of visible energy, and taus more than 3 GeV. In addition, leptons have to be isolated within a cone of $15^\circ$. The typical lepton identification efficiencies are 85-90% for electrons and muons and 70% for taus.
### Pair-Production of Heavy Leptons
#### $\mathbf{L^+ L^-}$ Candidates
-0.25 cm give rise to final states produced from flavour-mixing decays into light leptons via ${\rm L \rightarrow \nu_{\rm e} W}$, ${\rm L \rightarrow \nu_{\rm \mu} W}$, and ${\rm L \rightarrow \nu_{\rm \tau} W}$. The resulting topologies, $\rm \nu \nu W W$, consist of the decay products of the two W-bosons along with missing transverse momentum. The main background to this selection is SM W-pair production. To optimize the sensitivity, selections for all high-multiplicity final states $\rm \nu \nu jjjj$, $\rm \nu \nu e\nu jj$, and $\rm \nu \nu \mu \nu jj$ are performed, where “j” refers to a hadronic jet. The final state $\rm \nu \nu \tau \nu jj$ does not improve the sensitivity, and is not considered. In the selection for $\rm \nu \nu jjjj$ events, at least 12 GeV of missing momentum and at least 8 GeV of missing transverse momentum are required, and the missing momentum vector must not point along the beam direction ($|{\rm cos(\theta_{miss})}|<0.9$). In addition, the events must satisfy higher track (10) and cluster multiplicity (35) requirements, and are vetoed if a charged lepton is identified. The number of events after applying these selections is shown in Table \[t:pair\] for data and for the SM expectation. The selection efficiency, including the W branching ratio, is about 17-25%, depending on the heavy lepton mass. In the selection of $\nu \nu \rm e \nu jj$ and $\nu \nu \rm \mu \nu jj$ events, an isolated lepton is required together with significant visible energy and missing transverse momentum. In this case, the selection efficiency, including the W branching ratio, is about 9-11%.
#### $\mathbf{N\bar{N}}$ Candidates
-0.25 cm give rise to final states produced through the flavour-mixing decay into a light charged lepton, via ${\rm N \rightarrow e W}$, ${\rm N \rightarrow \mu W}$, or ${\rm N\rightarrow \tau W}$. The topologies are defined as $\rm \ell \ell W W$, where at least one W-boson decays hadronically and produces jets in the final state. At least two charged leptons of the same flavour are required and the jet resolution parameters have to be consistent with at least a 5-jet topology (isolated leptons are treated as “jets”). In order to optimize the sensitivity for the case ${\rm N\rightarrow \tau W}$, the selection has been divided into ${\rm \tau \tau jjjj}$ topologies with fully-hadronic W-decays (2 charged leptons) and ${\rm \tau \tau \ell \nu jj}$ topologies with semileptonic W-decays, (3 charged leptons). The number of events after applying these selections is shown in Table \[t:pair\]. The signal efficiencies for a Dirac or Majorana lepton are about 50% for ${\rm N \rightarrow e W}$, 57% for ${\rm N \rightarrow \mu W}$, and 30-42% for ${\rm N\rightarrow \tau W}$.
### Pair-Production of Long-Lived Heavy Neutral Leptons {#sss:llNN}
#### $\mathbf{N_{\rm L} \bar{N}_{\rm L} WW}$ Candidates
-0.25 cm originate from the process ${\rm e^+e^-}\rightarrow{\rm L^+L^-}$ with ${\rm L^- \rightarrow {\rm N_{\rm L}}W^-}$, where ${\rm {\rm N_{\rm L}}}$ is a stable or long-lived neutral heavy lepton which decays outside the detector. This production is possible if ${\rm {\rm N_{\rm L}}}$ is a member of a fourth-generation SU(2) doublet which does not mix with the three known lepton generations and satisfies $M_{\rm L^\pm} > M_{\rm {\rm N_{\rm L}}}$. This signal leads to very low visible energy if the mass difference, $\Delta M \equiv M_{\rm L^\pm} - M_{\rm {\rm N_{\rm L}}}$, is small. Events are required to have a visible energy between 8 and 90 GeV, the missing momentum vector must be at least 20% of the visible energy and lie within the barrel region, a minimum transverse energy of 12 GeV is required, and the topology should correspond to a pair of acoplanar jets ($>14^{\circ}$). The total number of candidates and expected background are shown in Table \[t:pair\]. The typical signal efficiencies are about 30-40% for $\Delta M>10$ GeV, dropping to a few per-cent for $\Delta M=5$ GeV. A total of 78 events is observed, compared to an expected background of 52.7 events. The discrepancy may be due to mismodelling of the background, which is dominated by 2-photon processes with an estimated systematic error on the background of 20%. These events typically have energy deposited in the forward region ($|{\rm cos(\theta)}|>0.9$), while from the signal MC one does not expect significant forward energy.
### Pair-Production of Excited Leptons with hadronic decays
Excited leptons, which could be pair-produced at LEP2, are expected to decay dominantly via CC or photonic interactions, depending on their coupling assignments. The final states with both de-excitations via CC decays, $\rm \ell^* \rightarrow \nu W$ and $\rm \nu^* \rightarrow \ell W$, are similar to the decay topologies of heavy leptons, $\rm L \rightarrow \nu W$ and $\rm N \rightarrow \ell W$, so the same selections are applied, with the results shown in Table \[t:pair\]. The doubly-photonic decays give low-multiplicity topologies, and are discussed in Section \[ss:llgamma\].
---------- ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------
Mode Topology Data Total
Bkd
$\rm LL \rightarrow \nu\nu WW$ $\rm \nu \nu W W \rightarrow \nu\nu jjjj$ 67 74.0
$\rm \ell^*\ell^* \rightarrow \nu\nu WW$ $\rm \nu \nu W W \rightarrow \nu\nu\nu ejj$ 139 137.4
CC $\rm \nu \nu W W \rightarrow \nu\nu\nu\mu jj$ 111 108.1
decays $\rm NN \rightarrow \ell\ell WW$ $\rm NN,\nu^*\nu^* \rightarrow eeWW$ 2 1.3
$\rm \nu^*\nu^* \rightarrow \ell\ell WW$ $\rm NN,\nu^*\nu^* \rightarrow \mu\mu WW$ 3 2.4
$\rm NN,\nu^*\nu^* \rightarrow \tau\tau jjjj$ 22 18.0
$\rm NN,\nu^*\nu^* \rightarrow \tau\tau\nu\ell jj$ 2 1.2
$\rm LL \rightarrow {\rm N_{\rm L}}{\rm N_{\rm L}}WW$ $\rm {\rm N_{\rm L}}{\rm N_{\rm L}}W W \rightarrow {\rm N_{\rm L}}{\rm N_{\rm L}}jjjj$ 78 52.7
$\rm \ell^*\ell^* \rightarrow \ell\ell\gamma\gamma$ $\rm e^* e^* \rightarrow ee \gamma \gamma$ 2 3.3
$\gamma$ $\rm \mu^* \mu^* \rightarrow \mu \mu \gamma \gamma$ 1 1.1
decays $\rm \tau^* \tau^* \rightarrow \tau \tau \gamma \gamma$ 0 0.9
$\rm \nu^*\nu^* \rightarrow \nu\nu\gamma\gamma$ $\rm \nu^* \nu^* \rightarrow \nu\nu \gamma \gamma$ 8 7.4
---------- ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------
: Observed number of events in the data sample at $\sqrt{s} =$ 183 GeV and expected number of events from the background sources in the searches for the pair-production of heavy and excited leptons, where ${\rm {\rm N_{\rm L}}}$ is a stable or long-lived neutral heavy lepton which decays outside the detector.[]{data-label="t:pair"}
### Single-Production of Excited Leptons with hadronic decays {#sss:llgamma}
#### Candidates for the processes $\boldsymbol{\ell}^{\pm *} \boldsymbol{\ell}^{\mp} {\boldsymbol \rightarrow \boldsymbol \ell}^{\pm} {\boldsymbol \ell}^{\mp} {\rm \mathbf Z}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\nu_{\ell}}^{*}} \boldsymbol{ \nu_{\ell} \rightarrow \nu_{\ell} \nu_{\ell} {\rm Z}}$
-0.25 cm followed by the hadronic decay of the Z-boson are selected by requiring two identified leptons of the same flavour and significant visible energy or significant missing transverse momentum ($>$25 GeV), respectively. In the latter case, events containing charged leptons are vetoed. Accepted events have to be consistent with an acoplanar 2-jet topology. For the charged lepton final states, a kinematic fit is performed requiring energy and momentum conservation, and the fit probability has to be consistent with a $\rm \ell^+ \ell^- jj$ final state. For the $\rm \tau \tau jj$ final state, to reduce the background further, additional cuts on the jet resolution parameter $y_{34}$, on the missing momentum vector, and on the ratio of fitted tau energy to visible tau energy ($>1.15$) are applied. The results for excited leptons are shown in Table \[t:single\] for data and for the SM expectation.
The selection efficiencies for excited leptons depend on the mass, and in the case of excited electrons also depend strongly on the coupling assignments for $f$ and ${f^{\prime}}$ (see Section \[ss:elintro\]). For the case $f=-{f^{\prime}}$, the $s$-channel production of excited electrons is dominant, and the selection efficiency is typically 30-50%. For the case $f \ne -{f^{\prime}}$, the $t$-channel production of excited electrons dominates, in which the scattered electron is preferentially scattered at low angles and is not detected. The selection efficiency for this case is typically 7-10%. For excited muons and taus only $s$-channel production is allowed and the selection efficiencies range from 40-50% and 3-25%, respectively. The selection efficiencies for excited neutrinos are typically 30-40%.
To improve the sensitivity in the excited electron search for the case $f \ne -{f^{\prime}}$ a dedicated selection for the $\rm e(e)jj$ channel has been designed, where the scattered electron is not observed in the detector. Events of this topology are selected by requiring exactly one electron to be identified. Tighter isolation cuts on the electron are applied and the event must have small missing transverse momentum ($< 25$ GeV), in order to reject $\rm e\nu jj$ final states from W-pair production. The event has to be consistent with a 3-jet topology, and events with high energy photons ($>50$ GeV) in the final state are rejected to reduce background from radiative returns to the Z. The fitted kinematics must be consistent with having an undetected electron in the beam direction opposite to the detected electron. The selection efficiency for the case $f \ne -{f^{\prime}}$ is typically 20-40% and the numbers of observed and expected events are shown in Table \[t:single\].
#### Candidates for the processes $\boldsymbol{\ell}^{\pm} \boldsymbol{\ell}^{\mp*} \boldsymbol{\rightarrow \rm \ell}^{\pm}{\boldsymbol{\nu_{\ell}}}$W$^{\mp}$ and $\boldsymbol{\nu_{\ell} \nu_{\ell}}^{*} \boldsymbol{\rightarrow \rm \ell}^{\pm} \boldsymbol{\nu _{\ell}}$W$^{\mp}$
-0.25 cm followed by a hadronic decay of the W boson are selected by requiring an isolated lepton to be identified. The total energy of the event must be at least 30% of the centre-of-mass energy. For the case $\ell = e$ and $\mu$, the sum of the lepton energy and the missing transverse momentum must be at least 40% of the beam energy. Background from W-pair production is reduced by applying a kinematic fit to the ${\rm jj \ell \nu}$ system, requiring energy and momentum-conservation. If the resulting masses of the jet-jet and $\ell\nu$ systems are consistent with the W mass, the event is rejected. For the case $\ell = \tau$, it is assumed that the direction of the $\tau$ is given by the direction of the leading particle of the $\tau$ candidate. Further background suppression is obtained by requiring that the ratio of energy to mass of the dijet system be greater than 1.1. The number of observed events and the SM expectation are shown in Table \[t:single\]. The selection efficiency for these channels, for $f=-{f^{\prime}}$, is typically from 20–30%.
For excited electron production in the case $f \ne -{f^{\prime}}$, in which the scattered electron is not observed, a dedicated selection is applied. In this case, the total energy of the event must be at least 40% of the centre-of-mass energy, the missing transverse momentum must be at least 7.5% of the visible energy, and there must be no electron identified in the event. The event is forced into two jets, which are required to be acoplanar ($>50^\circ$). The dijet mass $M_{\rm jj}$ must be consistent with the W mass ($<100$ GeV) and the ratio of energy to mass of the dijet system must exceed 1.1. The number of observed events and the SM expectation are shown in Table \[t:single\]. The selection efficiency for this channel, for $f \ne -{f^{\prime}}$ , ranges from 10–30%.
Low-Multiplicity Topologies {#ss:llgamma}
---------------------------
In this section the selection of photonic decays of singly-produced or pair-produced excited charged leptons is discussed. The final states consist of 2 like-flavour leptons and 1 or 2 photons. The lepton and photon identification and analysis techniques are described in Reference [@ref:hlOPAL172].
### Pair-Production of Excited Leptons with photonic decays
#### Candidates for the process $\boldsymbol{\ell}^* \boldsymbol{\ell}^* \boldsymbol{{\rightarrow}\ell}^+ \boldsymbol{\ell}^- \boldsymbol{\gamma \gamma}$
-0.25 cm are selected by requiring the identification of two leptons with the same flavour and of two photons. These particles must carry at least 80% of the centre-of-mass energy in the case of ${\rm e^+e^-}\gamma\gamma$ and $\mu^+\mu^-\gamma\gamma$, and between 40% and 95% of the centre-of-mass energy in the case of $\tau^+\tau^-\gamma\gamma$. The background in the $\ell^+\ell^- \gamma \gamma$ topology from Bhabha scattering and di-lepton production is reduced by requiring the leptons and photons to be isolated, and the background from the doubly-radiative return process $\rm e^+e^- \rightarrow Z \gamma \gamma \rightarrow
\ell^+ \ell^- \gamma \gamma$ is reduced by vetoing events with di-lepton masses close to the Z mass. The selection efficiencies are insensitive to the excited lepton mass and are about 54% for $\rm e^{*+}e^{*-}$, 61% for $\rm \mu^{*+}\mu^{*-}$, and 40% for $\rm \tau^{*+}\tau^{*-}$. The number of observed events and the SM expectation is shown in Table \[t:pair\].
### Single-Production of Excited Leptons with photonic decays
#### Candidates for the process $\boldsymbol{\ell}^* \boldsymbol{\ell {\rightarrow}\ell}^+\boldsymbol{\ell}^-\boldsymbol{\gamma}$
-0.25 cm are selected with a technique identical to the $\ell^+\ell^- \gamma \gamma$ selection, except that only one photon is required. Figure \[f:masslg\] shows the resulting $\ell^{\pm}\gamma$ invariant mass distributions.
To improve the efficiency for the excited electron search with $f\neq -f^\prime$, giving rise to t-channel production, a dedicated search is performed for final states with a single electron and single photon visible in the detector, assuming the other electron is missing along the beam axis. Events with one electron and one photon carrying together at least 40% of the total centre-of-mass energy are selected. The photon is additionally required to have $|{\rm cos(\theta_{miss})}|<0.7$, greatly suppressing the Bhabha scattering background.
The number of observed events and the SM expectation are shown in Table \[t:single\], and the lepton-photon invariant masses for the selected events are shown in Figure \[f:masslg\]. No peak is observed. The selection efficiencies are typically about 70% for ${\rm e^*e}$ and $\mu^*\mu$, and about 40% for $\tau^*\tau$. The excess in the $\tau^*\tau$ search is consistent with a statistical fluctuation in the SM $\tau^+\tau^-\gamma$ background.
Photonic final states {#ss:phofs}
---------------------
The search for singly- and pair-produced excited neutral leptons, $\rm \nu^* \nu \rightarrow \nu \nu \gamma$ and $\rm \nu^* \nu^* \rightarrow \nu \nu \gamma \gamma$, uses the OPAL search for photonic events with missing energy, described in [@ref:pr258]. The numbers of selected events and expected backgrounds are listed in Tables \[t:pair\] and \[t:single\] for pair- and single-production, respectively. For excited neutrinos in the mass range 70–180 GeV, the selection efficiencies are 70% and 10–70% for pair- and single-production, respectively.
-------------- ------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------
Mode Topology Data Total
Bkd
$\rm \ell^* \ell \rightarrow \ell \ell Z$ ${\rm e^*e \rightarrow e e \, jj}$ 2 2.3
[NC]{} ${\rm e^*e \rightarrow e (e) \, jj}$ 32 27.3
[decays]{} ${\rm \mu^*\mu \rightarrow \mu \mu \, jj}$ 2 2.2
${\rm \tau^*\tau \rightarrow \tau \tau \, jj}$ 5 4.3
$\rm \nu^* \nu \rightarrow \nu \nu Z$ ${\rm \nu^*\nu \rightarrow \nu \nu \, jj}$ 23 22.9
$\rm \ell^* \ell \rightarrow \nu \ell W$ ${\rm e^*e \rightarrow \nu_e e \, jj}$ 13 18.4
${\rm e^*e \rightarrow \nu_e (e) \, jj}$ 18 17.6
${\rm \mu^*\mu \rightarrow \nu_\mu \mu jj}$ 6 6.7
[CC]{} ${\rm \tau^*\tau \rightarrow \nu_\tau \tau jj}$ 23 27.7
$\rm \nu^* \nu \rightarrow \nu \ell W$ ${\rm \nu_e^*\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_e e \, jj}$ 13 18.4
${\rm \nu_\mu^*\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_\mu \mu jj}$ 6 6.7
${\rm \nu_\tau^*\nu_\tau \rightarrow \nu_\tau \tau jj}$ 23 27.7
$\rm \ell^* \ell \rightarrow \ell \ell \gamma$ ${\rm e^*e \rightarrow e e \, \gamma}$ 25 39.9
[$\gamma$]{} ${\rm e^*e \rightarrow (e) e \, \gamma}$ 195 213.7
[decays]{} ${\rm \mu^*\mu \rightarrow \mu \mu \, \gamma}$ 17 16.5
${\rm \tau^*\tau \rightarrow \tau \tau \, \gamma}$ 34 22.9
$\rm \nu^* \nu \rightarrow \nu \nu \gamma$ $ {\rm \nu^*\nu \rightarrow \nu \nu \, \gamma}$ 4 3.5
-------------- ------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------
: Observed number of events in the data sample at $\sqrt{s} =$ 183 GeV and expected number of events from the background sources for the searches for the single-production of excited leptons. The symbol (e) indicates topologies in which one scattered electron is not observed in the detector.[]{data-label="t:single"}
Results {#s:results}
=======
The numbers of expected signal events are evaluated from the production cross-sections, the integrated luminosity, and the estimated detection efficiencies of the various analyses.
The systematic errors on the number of expected signal and background events are estimated from: the statistical error of the MC estimates (1-10%), the error due to the interpolation used to infer the efficiency at arbitrary masses from a limited number of MC samples (2-15%), the error on the integrated luminosity (0.6%), the uncertainties in modelling the lepton identification cuts and in the photon conversion finder efficiency (2-8%), and the error due to uncertainties of the energy scale, energy resolution, and error parameterisations (1-4%). The errors are considered to be independent and are added in quadrature to give the total systematic error which is taken into account for the limit calculations.
In the case of pair-production searches, the production cross-section is relatively model-independent, and limits on the masses of the heavy or excited leptons can be obtained directly. For the flavour-mixing heavy lepton decays in which the pair-produced heavy leptons undergo CC decays into light leptons, 95% confidence level (CL) lower limits on the mass of the heavy lepton are shown in Table \[t:hlmasslim\]. The results are given for both Dirac and Majorana heavy neutral leptons. These results are valid for a mixing angle squared, $\zeta^2$, greater than about 10$^{-12}$ radians$^2$. For the decays of charged heavy leptons into a massless neutral lepton, ${\rm L\rightarrow \nu_\ell W}$, the searches for the $\rm \nu \nu jjjj$ decay and for the $\rm \nu \nu jj \ell \nu_{\ell}$ have been combined. Masses smaller than 84.1 GeV are excluded at the 95% CL.
In the case that a heavy charged lepton ${\rm L^{\pm}}$ decays into a stable heavy neutral lepton, ${\rm N_{\rm L}}$, the exclusion region depends on both $M_{\rm L}$ and $M_{\rm {\rm N_{\rm L}}}$. In order to optimize the sensitivity of the analysis, a scan is performed in steps of $\Delta M$. At each point, the expected minimum and maximum visible energy, (${\rm E_{min}, E_{max}}$), are calculated analytically, and the corresponding number of observed and expected events is determined. The resulting region in ($M_{\rm L},M_{\rm N}$) excluded at the 95% CL is given in Figure [\[f:mlmnexcl\]]{}, together with the mean expected limit.
------------------------------ ------------ ------
Mass Limit
(GeV)
${\rm N \rightarrow e W}$ Dirac 88.0
Majorana 76.0
${\rm N \rightarrow \mu W}$ Dirac 88.1
Majorana 76.0
${\rm N \rightarrow \tau W}$ Dirac 71.1
Majorana 53.8
84.1
------------------------------ ------------ ------
: 95% CL lower mass limits on unstable neutral and charged heavy leptons obtained from the data collected at $\protect\sqrt{s}=$ 183 GeV.[]{data-label="t:hlmasslim"}
The mass limits on excited leptons are somewhat better than for the heavy lepton case, primarily due to the nature of the vector couplings which lead to larger production cross-sections [@ref:bdk]. The mass limits inferred from the pair-production searches are shown in Table \[t:lstar\_masslim\] for charged excited leptons and in Table \[t:nustar\_masslim\] for neutral excited leptons. The first two sections of each table give the mass limits in which the dominant decay mode is assumed to be either via photons or W bosons.
------------- --------------- ---------- ------------
Flavour Coupling Dominant Mass Limit
Decay (GeV)
${\rm e}^*$ $f=f^\prime$ Photonic 91.3
$\mu^*$ $f=f^\prime$ Photonic 91.3
$\tau^*$ $f=f^\prime$ Photonic 91.2
${\rm e}^*$ $f=-f^\prime$ CC 86.0
$\mu^*$ $f=-f^\prime$ CC 86.0
$\tau^*$ $f=-f^\prime$ CC 86.0
${\rm e}^*$ 84.6
$\mu^*$ 84.7
$\tau^*$ 84.5
------------- --------------- ---------- ------------
: 95% CL lower mass limits for the different charged excited leptons obtained from the pair production searches. The coupling assumption affects the dominant branching ratio. []{data-label="t:lstar_masslim"}
----------------- --------------- ---------- ------------
Flavour Coupling Dominant Mass Limit
Decay (GeV)
$\nu_{\rm e}^*$ $f=f^\prime$ CC 91.1
$\nu_\mu^*$ $f=f^\prime$ CC 91.1
$\nu_\tau^*$ $f=f^\prime$ CC 83.1
$\nu_{\rm e}^*$ $f=-f^\prime$ Photonic 91.2
$\nu_\mu^*$ $f=-f^\prime$ Photonic 91.2
$\nu_\tau^*$ $f=-f^\prime$ Photonic 91.2
$\nu_{\rm e}^*$ 90.5
$\nu_\mu^*$ 90.5
$\nu_\tau^*$ 81.5
----------------- --------------- ---------- ------------
: 95% CL lower mass limits for the different neutral excited leptons obtained from the pair production searches. The coupling assumption affects the dominant branching ratio. []{data-label="t:nustar_masslim"}
In the single-production searches, the production cross-section depends on parameters within the model, so limits on those parameters, as a function of the new particle masses, are inferred instead. From the single production searches, 95% CL limits have been calculated on $\sigma \times {\rm BR}$ for ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow \ell^* \bar{\ell}, ~\ell^* \rightarrow \ell V$ for the different particle types, including photonic decay results from $\protect\sqrt{s}=$ 161 GeV and 172 GeV, where the branching ratio, “BR”, depends on the relative values of $f$ and ${f^{\prime}}$.
In general, the mass limits have been evaluated using a sliding window technique [@ref:hlOPAL172], taking into account the expected mass resolution for the $\rm e\nu jj$, $\rm \mu\nu jj$, $\rm \tau\nu jj$ topologies (CC decays) and the $\rm ee\gamma$, $\rm \mu \mu \gamma$, $\rm \tau \tau \gamma$ topologies (photonic decays), or by taking into account the kinematically allowed mass limits for the $\nu \nu \gamma$ topologies (photonic decays). For the $\rm eejj$, $\rm \mu\mu jj$, and $\rm \tau \tau jj$ topologies (NC decays), a likelihood fit method has been used for the limit calculation [@ref:lyons]. The resulting limits on $\sigma \times {\rm BR}$ are shown for excited charged leptons in Figure \[f:sbrlim1\] and for excited neutral leptons in Figure \[f:sbrlim2\] for all generations decaying via photonic, neutral current, and charged current processes. The $\sigma \times {\rm BR}$ limits do not depend on the coupling assignments except for excited electrons, where the selection efficiencies depend on the ratio of $t$-channel and $s$-channel contributions, and the results are shown for the example assignments $f=\pm f'$. The limits for the photonic decays are valid only for one of the two coupling assignments, $f=+f'$ for excited charged leptons and $f=-f'$ for excited neutral leptons.
From the single-production searches, limits on the ratio of the coupling to the compositeness scale, $f/\Lambda$, can be inferred. The results are shown in Figure \[f:elcouplim\] for two coupling assumptions[^1]. Since the branching ratio of the excited lepton decays via the different vector bosons is not known, examples of coupling assignments, $f=\pm f^\prime$, are used to calculate these branching ratios and then the photonic, NC and CC decay results are combined for the limits.
A new method is used to infer limits on the coupling strength $f_0/\Lambda$, independently of the relative values of $f$ and $f^\prime$. Here $f_0$ is a generalized coupling constant defined as $f_0=\sqrt{ \frac{1}{2}(f^2+{f^\prime}^2)}$. It is also useful to define the parameter $\tan \phi_f = f/{f^\prime}$; the previous coupling assignments then correspond to $\phi_f=\pi/4$ ($f={f^{\prime}}$) and $\phi_f=-\pi/4$ ($f=-f^\prime$).
From the Lagrangian in Equation \[eqLll\], the cross-section depends on $f$ and $f^\prime$ in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma
\ = \frac{\ a_1 \; f^2 \; + \; a_2 \; f \; f^\prime \; + \; a_3 \; {f^\prime}^2}{\Lambda^2} = \bigl(\frac{f_0}{\Lambda}\bigr)^2 \cdot A(\phi_f),\end{aligned}$$ where $ A(\phi_f)= 2 \cdot (a_1 \sin^2{\phi_f} +
a_2 \sin{\phi_f}\cos{\phi_f} +
a_3 \cos^2{\phi_f} )$. The coefficients $a_1$, $a_2$, and $a_3$ can be calculated from the matrix elements. The production cross-section and also the decay of the excited leptons depend on the coupling assumption and on the angle $\phi_f$. The branching ratio is calculated using the formulae given in [@ref:bdk]. By combining both the production cross-section and the branching ratio, the likelihood function $L(N_s)$, which is a function of the number of observed signal events $N_s$, can be translated into a likelihood function depending on the coupling strength $\frac{f_0}{\Lambda}$: $$L \bigl( \frac{f_0^2}{\Lambda^2} \bigr) \
= \ L \bigl( \frac{N_s} {A(\phi_f) \cdot BR(\phi_f) \cdot \epsilon(\phi_f) \cdot {\cal L}} \bigr) \ \ ,
\label{eq:Logl1}$$ where $\epsilon(\phi_f)$ is the total selection efficiency and $\cal L$ the integrated luminosity.
In the case of ${\mu^{*}}$, ${\tau^{*}}$, ${\nu_{\mu}^{*}}$, and ${\nu_{\tau}^{*}}$ production the efficiency is constant, while the case of the single production of excited $\rm e^*$ and $\nu_{\rm e}^*$ is more complicated. Due to the different $\phi_f$ - dependent contributions of the $t$-channel and the $s$-channel diagrams, the selection efficiency also depends on $\phi_f$. Using a MC technique to determine the selection efficiency for arbitrary $\phi_f$ would not be practical because a large number of MC events would have to be simulated for different excited lepton masses. It turns out, however, that the selection efficiency can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon(\phi_f) \ = \ \frac{\sigma_{sel}}{\sigma_{gen}} =
\ \frac{e_1 \; f^2 \; + \; e_2 \; ff^\prime \; + \; e_3 \; {f^\prime}^2}
{a_1 \; f^2 \; + \; a_2 \; ff^\prime \; + \; a_3 \; {f^\prime}^2}
= \frac{N(\phi_f)}{A(\phi_f)},\end{aligned}$$ with $N(\phi_f)= 2 \cdot (e_1 \sin^2{\phi_f} \; + \; e_2 \sin{\phi_f} \cos{\phi_f} \; + \; e_3 \cos^2{\phi_f} )$. The coefficients $e_i$ can be calculated by evaluating the selection efficiencies from three MC samples generated with different values of $\phi_f$.
The selection efficiencies for the different decay topologies and the cross-section vary strongly with $\phi_f$ in the case of single $\rm e^*$ production. In order to avoid numerical errors, one of the generated MC points has been chosen for the coupling assumption $f=-f^\prime$, where the large $t$-channel contribution vanishes and the cross-section is smallest. After having calculated the coefficients describing the selection efficiencies, the error of this method has been tested by comparing the calculated selection efficiency for a given value of $\phi_f$ with the selection efficiency determined from a MC sample generated with the same $\phi_f$ value. The error is found to be small compared to the statistical error of the MC samples.
Finally, the results from different decay channels are combined: $$L_{{\ell^{*}}}\bigl(\frac{f_0^2}{\Lambda^2}\bigr) =
L_{{\ell^{*}}\rightarrow \ell \gamma }\bigl(\frac{f_0^2}{\Lambda^2}\bigr) \otimes
L_{{\ell^{*}}\rightarrow \ell \rm Z }\bigl(\frac{f_0^2}{\Lambda^2}\bigr) \otimes
L_{{\ell^{*}}\rightarrow \nu_\ell \rm W }\bigl(\frac{f_0^2}{\Lambda^2}\bigr) \ \ .$$ The resulting likelihood functions from different decay topologies are combined and upper limits on $\frac{f_0^2}{\Lambda^2}$ are inferred as a function of the excited lepton mass by using the most conservative limit as a function of $\phi_f$. The limit on $\frac{f_0^2}{\Lambda^2}$ for any value of $\phi_f$ is determined and shown in Figure \[f:elcouplim\_f0\]. Using a similar technique, from the searches for the pair-production of excited leptons, the mass limits independent of the values of $f$ and $f^\prime$ are given in the last section of Tables \[t:lstar\_masslim\] and \[t:nustar\_masslim\] for charged and neutral excited leptons, respectively. Together these represent the first limits on the compositeness scale $f_0/\Lambda$ which do not depend on the relative values of $f$ and ${f^{\prime}}$.
Conclusion {#s:conclusion}
==========
We have searched for the production of unstable heavy and excited leptons in a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $58~{\rm pb}^{-1}$ at a centre-of-mass energy of 181-184 GeV, collected with the OPAL detector at LEP. No evidence for their existence was found. From the search for the pair-production of heavy and excited leptons, lower mass limits were determined. From the search for the single-production of excited leptons, upper limits on $\sigma \times {\rm BR}$ of ${\rm e^+e^-} \rightarrow \ell^* \bar{\ell}, ~\ell^* \rightarrow \ell V$ and upper limits on the ratio of the coupling to the compositeness scale were derived. These limits supersede the results in [@ref:hlOPAL172]. Limits on the masses of excited leptons and on the compositeness scale $f_0/\Lambda$ are established independent of the relative values of the coupling constants $f$ and $f^\prime$.
\[s:acknow\] We particularly wish to thank the SL Division for the efficient operation of the LEP accelerator at all energies and for their continuing close cooperation with our experimental group. We thank our colleagues from CEA, DAPNIA/SPP, CE-Saclay for their efforts over the years on the time-of-flight and trigger systems which we continue to use. In addition to the support staff at our own institutions we are pleased to acknowledge the\
Department of Energy, USA,\
National Science Foundation, USA,\
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,\
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada,\
Israel Science Foundation, administered by the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities,\
Minerva Gesellschaft,\
Benoziyo Center for High Energy Physics,\
Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (the Monbusho) and a grant under the Monbusho International Science Research Program,\
Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS),\
German Israeli Bi-national Science Foundation (GIF),\
Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Germany,\
National Research Council of Canada,\
Research Corporation, USA,\
Hungarian Foundation for Scientific Research, OTKA T-029328, T023793 and OTKA F-023259.\
[99]{}
S.L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. [**D2**]{} (1970) 1285;\
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**19**]{} (1967) 1264;\
A. Salam, [*Elementary Particle Theory*]{}, ed. N. Svartholm (Almquist and Wiksells, Stockholm, 1968), 367.
“Review of Particle Physics” R.M. Barnett [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996).
A. Djouadi, D. Schaile, C. Verzegnassi, [*et al.*]{}, Report of the Working Group “Extended Gauge Models” in Proceedings of the Workshop “${\rm e^+e^-}$ Collisions at 500 GeV: The Physics Potential”, P. Zerwas, (ed.) Report DESY 92-123A+B.
A. Djouadi, Z. Phys. C63 (1994) 317, and references therein.
F. Boudjema, A. Djouadi, and J.L. Kneur, Z. Phys. C57 (1993) 425.
ALEPH Collaboration, D. Decamp [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B236 (1990) 511;\
OPAL Collaboration, M.Z. Akrawy [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B240 (1990) 250;\
OPAL Collaboration, M.Z. Akrawy [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B247 (1990) 448;\
L3 Collaboration, B. Adeva [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B251 (1990) 321;\
DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B274 (1992) 230.
OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B385 (1996) 433.
L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B377 (1996) 304;\
ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B384 (1996) 439.
OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B393 (1997) 217.
L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B412 (1997) 189.
OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C1 (1998) 45.
OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B433 (1998) 195-208.
DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C8 (1999) 41.
OPAL Collaboration, M.Z. Akrawy [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B257 (1990) 531;\
ALEPH Collaboration, R Barate [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C4 (1998) 571-590;\
ALEPH Collaboration, D. Decamp [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B250 (1990) 172;\
DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. C53 (1992) 41;\
L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B353 (1995) 136.
OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B386 (1996) 463.
L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B370 (1996) 211;\
DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B380 (1996) 480;\
ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic [*et al.*]{},Phys. Lett. B385 (1996) 445.
OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B391 (1997) 197.
DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B393 (1997) 245;\
L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B401 (1997) 139.
L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri [*et al.*]{}, CERN-EP/99-138, October 1999, accepted by Phys. Lett. B.
H1 Collaboration, I. Abt [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B396 (1993) 3;\
ZEUS Collaboration, M. Derrick [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. C65 (1994) 627;\
H1 Collaboration, S. Aid [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B483 (1997) 44.
OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B377 (1996) 222.
OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B391 (1997) 221;\
OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C2 (1998) 441
OPAL Collaboration, K. Ahmet [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A305 (1991) 275;\
O. Biebel [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A323 (1992) 169 ;\
M. Hausschild [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A314 (1992) 74;\
B.E. Anderson [*et al.*]{}, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 41 (1994) 845;\
S. Anderson [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A403 (1998) 326.
Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda [*et al.*]{}, Phys.Rev.Lett. 81 (1998) 1562-1567.
MACRO Collaboration, M. Ambrosio [*et al.*]{}, hep-ex/9908066, 31 Aug 1999.
M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50 (1978) 721;\
T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D20 (1979) 2986.
E. Nardi, E. Roulet, and D. Tommasini, Phys. Lett. B344 (1995) 225.
R. Tafirout and G. Azuelos, “A Heavy Fermion and Excited Fermion Monte Carlo Generator for ${\rm e^+e^-}$ Physics”, accepted by Comp. Phys. Comm.
J.H. Kühn, A. Reiter, and P.M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B272 (1986) 560.
T. Sjöstrand, Comp. Phys. Comm. 82 (1994) 74.
J. Fujimoto [*et al.*]{}, Comp. Phys. Comm. 100 (1996) 128.
R. Engel and J. Ranft, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 4244.
G. Marchesini [*et al.*]{}, Comp. Phys. Comm. 67 (1992) 465.
S. Jadach, W. Placzek, and B.F.L. Ward, Phys. Lett. B390 (1997) 298.
D. Karlen, Nucl. Phys. B289 (1987) 23.
S. Jadach, B.F.L. Ward, and Z. Was, Comp. Phys. Comm. 79 (1994) 503.
R. Bhattacharya, J. Smith, and G. Grammer, Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) 3267;\
J. Smith, J.A.M. Vermaseren, and G. Grammer, Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) 3280.
F.A. Berends and R. Kleiss, Nucl. Phys. B186 (1981) 22.
J. Allison [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A317 (1992) 47.
N. Brown and W.J. Stirling, Phys. Lett. B252 (1990) 657;\
S. Bethke, Z. Kunszt, D. Soper, and W.J. Stirling, Nucl. Phys. B370 (1992) 310;\
S. Catani [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B269 (1991) 432;\
N. Brown and W. J. Stirling, Z. Phys. C53 (1992) 629.
OPAL Collaboration, M.Z. Akrawy [*el al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B253 (1990) 511.
OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al, Eur. Phys. J. C8 (1999) 23.
L. Lyons, [*Statistics for Nuclear and Particle Physicists*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986).
OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. C52 (1991) 175.
M. Hauschild [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A314 (1992) 74.
OPAL Collaboration, R. Akers [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B327 (1994) 411.
OPAL Collaboration, P. Acton [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. C58 (1993) 523.
The dark contour line shows the mean expected limit. \[f:mlmnexcl\]
[^1]: For the figures of coupling versus compositeness scale given in [@ref:hlOPAL172], an error was discovered in the cross-section formula used; the resulting limits on $f/\Lambda$ were over-conservative for most values of the excited lepton mass. This error has been corrected in the present paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study the second Hochschild cohomology group of the preprojective algebra of type $D_4$ over an algebraically closed field $K$ of characteristic 2. We also calculate the second Hochschild cohomology group of a non-standard algebra which arises as a socle deformation of this preprojective algebra and so show that the two algebras are not derived equivalent. This answers a question raised by Holm and Skowroński.'
address: |
Deena Al-Kadi\
Department of Mathematics\
Taif University\
Taif\
Saudia Arabia
author:
- 'Deena Al-Kadi'
title: Distinguishing derived equivalence classes using the second Hochschild cohomology group
---
\[section\] \[lem\][Proposition]{} \[lem\][Corollary]{} \[lem\][Theorem]{} \[lem\] \[lem\][Definition]{} \[lem\][Example]{}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I thank Nicole Snashall for her helpful comments.
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The main work of this paper is in determining the second Hochschild cohomology group ${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\Lambda})$ for two finite dimensional algebras ${\Lambda}$ over a field of characteristic 2 in order to show that they are not derived equivalent. We let ${\mathcal A}_1$ denote the preprojective algebra of type $D_4$; this is a standard algebra. We introduce, in Section \[ch1\], the algebra ${\mathcal A}_2$ by quiver and relations; this is a non-standard algebra which is socle equivalent to ${\mathcal A}_1$, in the case where the underlying field has characteristic 2. This work is motivated by the question asked by Holm and Skowroński as to whether or not these two algebras are derived equivalent.
The algebras ${\mathcal A}_1$ and ${\mathcal A}_2$ are selfinjective algebras of polynomial growth. The main result of this paper (Corollary \[cor\]) shows that they are not derived equivalent. This answer to the question of Holm and Skowroński enabled them to complete their derived equivalence classification of all symmetric algebras of polynomial growth in [@HS]. We note that [@D] showed that the second Hochschild cohomology group could also be used to distinguish between derived equivalence classes of standard and non-standard algebras of finite representation type.
Throughout this paper, we let ${\Lambda}$ denote a finite dimensional algebra over an algebraically closed field $K$. We start, in Section \[ch1\], by giving the quiver and relations for the two algebras ${\mathcal A}_1$ and ${\mathcal
A}_2$, and recall that we are interested only in the case when ${\operatorname{char}\nolimits}K = 2$. (We write our paths in a quiver from left to right.) In Section \[ch2\], we give a short description of the projective resolution of [@GS] which we use to find ${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\Lambda})$. The remaining two sections determine ${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\Lambda})$ for ${\Lambda}= {\mathcal A}_1, {\mathcal A}_2$. As a consequence, we show in Corollary \[cor\] that $\dim{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}^2({\mathcal A}_1) \neq
\dim{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}^2({\mathcal A}_2)$ and hence these two algebras are not derived equivalent.
The algebras ${\mathcal A}_1$ and ${\mathcal A}_2$ {#ch1}
===================================================
In this section we describe the algebras ${\mathcal A}_1$ and ${\mathcal
A}_2$ by quiver and relations. We assume that $K$ is an algebraically closed field and ${\operatorname{char}\nolimits}K$ = 2. The standard algebra ${\mathcal A}_1$ is the preprojective algebra of type $D_4$, and we note that it was shown in [@ES2] that, in the case when ${\operatorname{char}\nolimits}K \neq 2$, we have ${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\mathcal A}_1) = 0$. We will see that this is in contrast to the ${\operatorname{char}\nolimits}K = 2$ case.
The algebra ${\mathcal A}_1$ is the given by the quiver ${\mathcal
Q}$: $$\xymatrix{
& &3 \ar@<1.3 ex>[dd]^{\gamma}&\\
&&&\\
& &4 \ar@<1.3 ex>[dll]^{\beta} \ar@<1.3 ex>[drr]^{\epsilon} \ar@<1.3 ex>[uu]^{\delta}&\\
1 \ar@<1.3 ex>[urr]^{\alpha} &&&& 2 \ar@<1.3 ex>[ull]^{\xi}
}$$ with relations $$\beta \alpha + \delta \gamma + \epsilon \xi = 0, \gamma \delta = 0, \xi \epsilon = 0
\mbox{ and }
\alpha \beta = 0.$$
The algebra ${\mathcal A}_2$ is the non-standard algebra given by the same quiver ${\mathcal Q}$ with relations $$\beta \alpha + \delta \gamma + \epsilon \xi = 0 , \gamma \delta = 0 , \xi \epsilon = 0,
\alpha \beta \alpha = 0, \beta \alpha \beta = 0 \mbox{ and } \alpha \beta =
\alpha \delta \gamma \beta.$$
We need to find a minimal set of generators $f^2$ for each algebra. We start with the algebra ${\mathcal A}_2$. The set $\{\alpha \beta - \alpha \delta \gamma \beta, \xi
\epsilon, \gamma \delta, \beta \alpha + \delta \gamma + \epsilon \xi, \alpha \beta \alpha,
\beta \alpha \beta\}$ is not a minimal set of generators for $I$ where ${\mathcal A}_2 = K{\mathcal Q}/
I$. Let $x = \beta \alpha + \delta
\gamma + \epsilon \xi$ and let $y = \alpha \beta - \alpha \delta \gamma \beta$. We will show that $\alpha\beta\alpha$ is in the ideal generated by $x, y,
\gamma\delta, \xi\epsilon$. Using that ${\operatorname{char}\nolimits}K = 2$, we have $\alpha \beta \alpha = y\alpha + \alpha \delta \gamma \beta \alpha
= y\alpha + \alpha x\beta\alpha + \alpha(\beta \alpha+ \epsilon\xi)\beta\alpha
= y\alpha + \alpha x\beta\alpha + \alpha \beta \alpha \beta \alpha +
\alpha\epsilon\xi x + \alpha \epsilon \xi (\delta \gamma + \epsilon \xi)
= y\alpha + \alpha x\beta\alpha + \alpha\epsilon\xi x +
\alpha \beta \alpha \beta \alpha + \alpha x\delta\gamma +
\alpha (\beta \alpha + \delta \gamma) \delta \gamma + \alpha \epsilon \xi \epsilon \xi
= y\alpha + \alpha x\beta\alpha + \alpha\epsilon\xi x + \alpha x\delta\gamma +
\alpha \epsilon \xi \epsilon \xi + \alpha \beta \alpha \beta \alpha +
\alpha\beta\alpha x + \alpha \beta \alpha (\beta \alpha + \epsilon \xi) +
\alpha \delta \gamma \delta \gamma
= y\alpha + \alpha x\beta\alpha + \alpha\epsilon\xi x + \alpha x\delta\gamma +
\alpha \epsilon \xi \epsilon \xi + \alpha\beta\alpha x +
\alpha \beta \alpha \epsilon \xi + \alpha \delta \gamma \delta \gamma$. However, $\alpha \beta \alpha \epsilon \xi =
y\alpha\epsilon\xi + \alpha \delta \gamma \beta \alpha \epsilon \xi
= y\alpha\epsilon\xi + \alpha \delta \gamma x \epsilon \xi
+ \alpha \delta \gamma (\delta \gamma + \epsilon \xi) \epsilon \xi$. Thus $\alpha \beta \alpha$ is in the ideal generated by $x, y, \gamma\delta, \xi\epsilon$. Using a similar argument for $\beta\alpha\beta$, we have that $I$ is generated by the set $\{\alpha \beta - \alpha \delta \gamma \beta, \xi \epsilon, \gamma \delta, \beta \alpha + \delta \gamma + \epsilon \xi\}$. This gives the following result.
\[prop1\] For ${\mathcal A}_2$ let $$f^2_1 = \alpha \beta - \alpha \delta \gamma \beta,$$ $$f^2_2 = \xi \epsilon, \hspace{1.5cm}$$ $$f^2_3 = \gamma \delta, \hspace{1.5cm}$$ $$f^3_4 = \beta \alpha + \delta \gamma + \epsilon \xi.$$ Then $f^2 = \{f^2_1, f^2_2, f^2_3, f^2_4\}$ is a minimal set of generators of $I$ where ${\mathcal A}_2 = K{\mathcal Q} /I$.
We now consider the algebra ${\mathcal A}_1$.
\[prop2\] For ${\mathcal A}_1$ let $$f^2_1 = \alpha \beta,\hspace{1.5cm}$$ $$f^2_2 = \xi \epsilon, \hspace{1.5cm}$$ $$f^2_3 = \gamma \delta, \hspace{1.5cm}$$ $$f^3_4 = \beta \alpha + \delta \gamma + \epsilon \xi.$$ Then $f^2 = \{f^2_1, f^2_2, f^2_3, f^2_4\}$ is a minimal set of generators for $I'$ where ${\mathcal A}_1 = K{\mathcal Q} /I'$.
The Projective resolution {#ch2}
=========================
To find the Hochschild cohomology groups for any finite dimensional algebra ${\Lambda}$, a projective resolution of ${\Lambda}$ as a ${\Lambda}, {\Lambda}$-bimodule is needed. In this section we look at the projective resolutions of [@GS] and [@GSZ] in order to describe the second Hochschild cohomology group. Let $K$ be a field and let ${\Lambda}=K {\mathcal Q}$/$I$ be a finite dimensional algebra where ${\mathcal Q}$ is a quiver, and $I$ is an admissible ideal of $K {\mathcal Q}$. Fix a minimal set $f^2$ of generators for the ideal $I$. For any $x \in f^2$, we may write $x =
\sum_{j=1}^{r} c_ja_{1j} \cdots a_{kj} \cdots a_{s_jj}$, where the $a_{ij}$ are arrows in ${\mathcal Q}$ and $c_j \in K$, that is, $x$ is a linear combination of paths $a_{1j} \cdots a_{kj} \cdots a_{s_jj}$ for $j =
1, \ldots, r$. We may assume that there are (unique) vertices $v$ and $w$ such that each path $a_{1j} \cdots a_{kj} \cdots a_{s_j j}$ starts at $v$ and ends at $w$ for all $j$, so that $x = vxw$. We write ${\mathfrak{o}}(x) = v$ and ${\mathfrak{t}}(x) = w.$ Similarly ${\mathfrak{o}}(a)$ is the origin of the arrow $a$ and ${\mathfrak{t}}(a)$ is the terminus of $a$.
In [@GS Theorem 2.9], the first 4 terms of a minimal projective resolution of ${\Lambda}$ as a ${\Lambda},
{\Lambda}$-bimodule are described: $$\cdots \rightarrow Q^3 \stackrel{A_3}{\rightarrow} Q^2
\stackrel{A_2}{\rightarrow} Q^1 \stackrel{A_1}{\rightarrow} Q^0
\stackrel{g}{\rightarrow} {\Lambda}\rightarrow 0.$$ The projective ${\Lambda}, {\Lambda}$-bimodules $Q^0, Q^1, Q^2$ are given by $$Q^0 = \bigoplus_{v, vertex} {\Lambda}v \otimes v{\Lambda},$$ $$Q^1 = \bigoplus_{a, arrow} {\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(a) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(a){\Lambda}, \mbox { and }$$ $$Q^2 = \bigoplus_{x \in f^2} {\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(x) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(x) {\Lambda}.$$ Throughout, all tensor products are over $K$, and we write $\otimes$ for $\otimes_K$. The maps $g, A_1$, $A_2$ and $A_3$ are all ${\Lambda}, {\Lambda}$-bimodule homomorphisms. The map $g: Q^0 \rightarrow {\Lambda}$ is the multiplication map so is given by $v
\otimes v \mapsto v$. The map $A_1: Q^1\rightarrow Q^0$ is given by ${\mathfrak{o}}(a)
\otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(a) \mapsto {\mathfrak{o}}(a) \otimes {\mathfrak{o}}(a) a - a {\mathfrak{t}}(a) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(a)$ for each arrow $a$. With the notation for $x \in f^2$ given above, the map $A_2: Q^2 \rightarrow
Q^1$ is given by ${\mathfrak{o}}(x) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(x) \mapsto
\sum_{j=1}^{r}c_j(\sum_{k=1}^{s_j} a_{1j} \cdots a_{(k-1)j} \otimes
a_{(k+1)j} \cdots a_{s_j j})$, where $a_{1j} \cdots a_{(k-1)j} \otimes
a_{(k+1)j} \cdots a_{s_j j}$ $\in {\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(a_{kj}) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(a_{kj}){\Lambda}$.
In order to describe the projective $Q^3$ and the map $A_3$ in the ${\Lambda}, {\Lambda}$-bimodule resolution of ${\Lambda}$ in [@GS], we need to introduce some notation from [@GSZ]. Recall that an element $y \in K{\mathcal Q}$ is uniform if there are vertices $v, w$ such that $y = v y = y w.$ We write ${\mathfrak{o}}(y) = v$ and ${\mathfrak{t}}(y) = w$. In [@GSZ], Green, Solberg and Zacharia show that there are sets $f^n$ in $K{\mathcal Q}$, for $n \geq 3$, consisting of uniform elements $y \in f^n$ such that $y = \sum_{x \in f^{n-1}} x r_x = \sum_{z \in
f^{n-2}} z s_z$ for unique elements $r_x, s_z \in K{\mathcal Q}$ such that $s_z \in I$. These sets have special properties related to a minimal projective ${\Lambda}$-resolution of ${\Lambda}/{\mathfrak{r}}$, where ${\mathfrak{r}}$ is the Jacobson radical of ${\Lambda}$. Specifically the $n$-th projective in the minimal projective ${\Lambda}$-resolution of ${\Lambda}/{\mathfrak{r}}$ is $\bigoplus_{y \in f^n} {\mathfrak{t}}(y) {\Lambda}.$
In particular, for $y \in f^3$ we may write $y = \sum f^2_i p_i = \sum q_i f^2_i r_i$ with $p_i, q_i, r_i \in
K{\mathcal Q}$, $p_i, q_i$ in the ideal generated by the arrows of $K{\mathcal Q}$, and $p_i$ unique. Then [@GS] gives that $Q^3 = \bigoplus_{y \in f^3} {\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(y) \otimes
{\mathfrak{t}}(y) {\Lambda}$ and, for $y \in f^3$ in the notation above, the component of $A_3 ({\mathfrak{o}}(y) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(y))$ in the summand ${\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(f_i^2) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(f_i^2) {\Lambda}$ of $Q^2$ is ${\mathfrak{o}}(y) \otimes p_i -
q_i \otimes r_i.$
Given this part of the minimal projective ${\Lambda}, {\Lambda}$-bimodule resolution of ${\Lambda}$ $$Q^3 \stackrel{A_3}{\rightarrow} Q^2 \stackrel{A_2}{\rightarrow} Q^1
\stackrel{A_1}{\rightarrow} Q^0 \stackrel{g}{\rightarrow} {\Lambda}\rightarrow
0$$ we apply ${{\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits}}(-, {\Lambda})$ to give the complex $$0 \rightarrow {{\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits}}(Q^0, {\Lambda}) \stackrel{d_1}{\rightarrow} {{\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits}}(Q^1, {\Lambda})
\stackrel{d_2}{\rightarrow} {{\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits}}(Q^2, {\Lambda}) \stackrel{d_3}{\rightarrow}
{{\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits}}(Q^3, {\Lambda})$$ where $d_i$ is the map induced from $A_i$ for $i = 1, 2, 3$. Then ${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\Lambda}) = {{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3/{{\operatorname{Im}\nolimits}}\,d_2.$
When considering an element of the projective ${\Lambda}, {\Lambda}$-bimodule $Q^1 = \bigoplus_{a, arrow} {\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(a) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(a) {\Lambda}$ it is important to keep track of the individual summands of $Q^1$. So to avoid confusion we usually denote an element in the summand ${\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(a)
\otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(a) {\Lambda}$ by $\lambda \otimes_a \lambda'$ using the subscript ‘$a$’ to remind us in which summand this element lies. Similarly, an element $\lambda \otimes_{f^2_i} \lambda'$ lies in the summand ${\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(f^2_i)
\otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(f^2_i) {\Lambda}$ of $Q^2$ and an element $\lambda \otimes_{f^3_i}
\lambda'$ lies in the summand ${\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(f^3_i) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(f^3_i) {\Lambda}$ of $Q^3$. We keep this notation for the rest of the paper.
Now we are ready to compute ${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\Lambda})$ for the finite dimensional algebras ${\mathcal A}_1$ and ${\mathcal A}_2$.
${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\mathcal A}_2)$ {#ch3}
==================================================
In this section we determine ${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\mathcal A}_2)$ for the non-standard algebra ${\mathcal A}_2$.
For the non-standard algebra ${\mathcal A}_2$ with ${\operatorname{char}\nolimits}K = 2$, we have $\dim\,{{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\mathcal A}_2)= 4.$
The set $f^2$ of minimal relations was given in Proposition \[prop1\].
Following [@GS; @GSZ], we may choose the set $f^3$ to consist of the following elements: $$\{f^3_1, f^3_2,f^3_3, f^3_4\},\mbox{ where }$$ $$\begin{array}{l c l l l l l l}
f^3_1 &=& f^2_1 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta + f^2_1 \alpha \beta \\
&=& \alpha \delta \gamma \beta f^2_1 + \alpha \beta f^2_1 \in e_1 K{\mathcal Q}e_1, \\
f^3_2 &=& f^2_2 \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon + f^2_2 \xi \beta \alpha \epsilon \\
&=& \xi f^2_4 \beta \alpha \epsilon + \xi f^2_4 \delta \gamma \epsilon
+ \xi \delta \gamma f^2_4 \epsilon + \xi \beta \alpha f^2_4 \epsilon
+ \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon f^2_2 + \xi \beta \alpha \epsilon f^2_2 \in e_2 K{\mathcal Q}e_2, \\
f^3_3 &=& f^2_3 \gamma \beta \alpha \delta + f^2_3 \gamma \epsilon \xi \delta \\
&=& \gamma f^2_4 \epsilon \xi \delta + \gamma f^2_4 \beta \alpha \delta
+ \gamma \beta \alpha f^2_4 \delta + \gamma \epsilon \xi f^2_4 \delta
+ \gamma \beta \alpha \delta f^2_3 + \gamma \epsilon \xi \delta f^2_3 \in e_3 K{\mathcal Q}e_3, \\
f^3_4 &=& f^2_4 \beta \alpha \delta \gamma + f^2_4 \epsilon \xi \delta \gamma \\
&=& \epsilon f^2_2 \xi \delta \gamma + \delta f^2_3 \gamma \beta \alpha
+ \delta f^2_3 \gamma \epsilon \xi + \delta \gamma f^2_4 \beta \alpha
+ \delta \gamma f^2_4 \epsilon \xi \\
&+& \beta \alpha f^2_4 \delta \gamma + \beta \alpha \delta f^2_3 \gamma
+ \delta \gamma \epsilon \xi f^2_4 + \delta \gamma \beta \alpha f^2_4 \in e_4 K{\mathcal Q}e_4.\\
\end{array}$$
Thus (writing $\Lambda$ for ${\mathcal A}_2$) the projective $Q^3 = \bigoplus_{y \in f^3} {\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(y) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(y) {\Lambda}$ $= ({\Lambda}e_1 \otimes e_1{\Lambda}) \oplus ({\Lambda}e_2 \otimes e_2{\Lambda}) \oplus
({\Lambda}e_3 \otimes e_3{\Lambda}) \oplus ({\Lambda}e_4\otimes e_4 {\Lambda}) $. We know that ${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\Lambda}) = {{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3 / {{\operatorname{Im}\nolimits}}\,d_2$. First we will find ${{\operatorname{Im}\nolimits}}\,d_2$. Let $f \in {{\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits}}(Q^1, {\Lambda})$ and so write $$f(e_1 \otimes_{\alpha} e_4) = c_1 \alpha + c_2 \alpha \delta \gamma, \hspace{1cm} f(e_4
\otimes_{\beta} e_1) = c_3 \beta + c_4 \delta \gamma \beta,$$ $$f(e_3 \otimes_{\gamma} e_4) = c_5 \gamma + c_6 \gamma \beta \alpha, \hspace{1cm} f(e_4 \otimes_{\delta} e_3) = c_7 \delta + c_8 \beta \alpha \delta,$$ $$f(e_4 \otimes_{\epsilon} e_2) = c_9 \epsilon + c_{10} \delta \gamma \epsilon
\hspace{1cm} \mbox{and }
f(e_2 \otimes_{\xi} e_4) = c_{11} \xi + c_{12} \xi \delta \gamma,$$ where $c_1, c_2, c_3, c_4, \ldots, c_{12} \in K.$ Now we find $fA_2 = d_2f$. We have $fA_2(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1} e_1) = f(e_1 \otimes_{\alpha} e_4)\beta $+$ \alpha f(e_4 \otimes_{\beta} e_1)
- f(e_1 \otimes_{\alpha} e_4)\delta \gamma \beta
- \alpha f(e_4 \otimes_{\delta} e_3) \gamma \beta - \alpha \delta f(e_3 \otimes_{\gamma} e_4) \beta
- \alpha \delta \gamma f(e_4 \otimes_{\beta} e_1) = c_1 \alpha \beta + c_2 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta
+ c_3 \alpha \beta + c_4 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta - c_1 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta
- c_7 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta - c_5 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta - c_3 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta
= (c_1 + c_2 + c_3 + c_4 - c_1 -c_7 - c_5 - c_3) \alpha \beta
= (c_2 + c_4 + c_7 + c_5) \alpha \beta$.
Also $fA_2(e_2 \otimes_{f^2_2} e_2) = f(e_2 \otimes_{\xi} e_4)\epsilon + \xi f(e_4 \otimes_{\epsilon} e_2)
= (c_{12} + c_{10}) \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon$.
We have $fA_2(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3) = f(e_3 \otimes_{\gamma} e_4)\delta + \gamma f(e_4 \otimes_{\delta} e_3)
= (c_6 + c_8) \gamma \beta \alpha \delta.$
And $fA_2(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) = f(e_4 \otimes_{\beta} e_1)\alpha + f(e_4 \otimes_{\delta} e_3) \gamma
+ f(e_2 \otimes_{\epsilon} e_4) \xi + \beta f(e_1 \otimes_{\alpha} e_4) + \delta f(e_3 \otimes_{\gamma} e_4)
+ \epsilon f(e_2 \otimes_{\xi} e_4) $= $ c_3 \beta \alpha + c_4 \delta \gamma \beta \alpha + c_7 \delta \gamma
+ c_8 \beta \alpha \delta \gamma + c_9 \epsilon \xi + c_{10} \delta \gamma \epsilon \xi + c_1 \beta \alpha
+ c_2 \beta \alpha \delta \gamma + c_5 \delta \gamma + c_6 \delta \gamma \beta \alpha + c_{11} \epsilon \xi
+ c_{12} \epsilon \xi \delta \gamma $ = $ (c_3 + c_1) \beta \alpha + (c_7 + c_5) \delta \gamma + (c_9 + c_{11})
\epsilon \xi + (c_4 + c_2 + c_7 + c_5 + c_{10} + c_{12}) \delta \gamma \beta \alpha $= $(c_3 + c_1 + c_9 + c_{11}) \beta \alpha
+ (c_7 + c_5 + c_9 + c_{11}) \delta \gamma + (c_4 + c_2 + c_7 + c_5 + c_{10} + c_{12}) \delta \gamma \beta \alpha.$
Hence, $fA_2$ is given by $$fA_2(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1} e_1) = d_1 \alpha \beta,$$ $$fA_2(e_2 \otimes_{f^2_2} e_2)= d_2 \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon,$$ $$fA_2(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3)= d_3 \gamma \beta \alpha \delta,$$ $$fA_2(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) = d_4 \beta \alpha + d_5 \delta \gamma + (d_1 + d_2) \delta \gamma \beta \alpha,$$ for some $d_1, \ldots, d_5 \in K$. So $\dim\,{{\operatorname{Im}\nolimits}}\,d_2 = 5$.
Now we determine ${{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3$. Let $h \in {{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3$, so $h \in
{{\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits}}(Q^2, {\Lambda})$ and $d_3h = 0$. Let $h: Q^2 \rightarrow {\Lambda}$ be given by
$$h(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1} e_1) = c_1 e_1 + c_2 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta,$$ $$h(e_2 \otimes_{f^2_2} e_2) = c_3 e_2 + c_4 \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon,$$ $$h(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3) = c_5 e_3 + c_6 \gamma \beta \alpha \delta \mbox{ and }$$ $$h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) = c_7 e_4 + c_8 \beta \alpha + c_9 \delta \gamma + c_{10} \beta \alpha \delta \gamma,$$ for some $c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_{10} \in K$.
Then $hA_3(e_1 \otimes_{f^3_1} e_1) = h(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1}
e_1) \alpha \delta \gamma \beta + h(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1}
e_1) \alpha \beta - \alpha \delta \gamma \beta h(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1} e_1) - \alpha \beta h(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1} e_1)$ $= c_1 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta + c_1 \alpha \beta - c_1 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta - c_1 \alpha \beta = 0,$
In a similar way and recalling that ${\operatorname{char}\nolimits}K = 2$, we can show that $hA_3(e_2 \otimes_{f^3_2} e_2) = 0$ and $hA_3(e_3 \otimes_{f^3_3} e_3) = 0.$
Finally, $hA_3(e_2 \otimes_{f^3_4} e_2) = h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) \beta \alpha \delta \gamma +
h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) \epsilon \xi \delta \gamma
- \epsilon h(e_2 \otimes_{f^2_2} e_2) \xi \delta \gamma - \delta h(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3) \gamma \beta \alpha - \delta h(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3)
\gamma \epsilon \xi - \delta \gamma h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) \beta \alpha - \delta \gamma h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) \epsilon \xi
- \beta \alpha h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) \delta \gamma - \beta \alpha \delta h(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3) \gamma - \delta \gamma \epsilon \xi
h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) - \delta \gamma \beta \alpha h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4)$ $ = c_7 \beta \alpha \delta \gamma + c_7 \epsilon \xi \delta \gamma - c_3 \epsilon \xi \delta \gamma - c_5 \delta
\gamma \beta \alpha - c_5 \delta \gamma \epsilon \xi - c_7 \delta \gamma \beta \alpha - c_7 \delta \gamma \epsilon \xi
- c_7 \beta \alpha \delta \gamma - c_5 \delta \gamma \beta \alpha - c_7 \delta \gamma \epsilon \xi - c_7 \delta \gamma \beta \alpha$ $= (c_7 - c_3 - c_5) \epsilon \xi \delta \gamma.$ As $h \in {{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3$ we have $c_7 = c_3 + c_5.$
Thus $h$ is given by $$h(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1} e_1) = c_1 e_1 + c_2 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta,$$ $$h(e_2 \otimes_{f^2_2} e_2) = c_3 e_2 + c_4 \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon,$$ $$h(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3) = c_5 e_3 + c_6 \gamma \beta \alpha \delta \mbox{ and }$$ $$h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) = (c_3 + c_5) e_4 + c_8 \beta \alpha + c_9 \delta \gamma
+ c_{10} \beta \alpha \delta \gamma.$$ Hence $\dim\,{{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3 = 9.$
Therefore, $\dim\,{{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\mathcal A}_2) = \dim\,{{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3 - \dim\,{{\operatorname{Im}\nolimits}}\,d_2 = 9 - 5
= 4.$
${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\mathcal A}_1)$ {#ch4}
==================================================
In this section we determine ${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\mathcal A}_1)$ for the standard algebra ${\mathcal A}_1$.
For the standard algebra ${\mathcal A}_1$ with ${\operatorname{char}\nolimits}K = 2$, we have $\dim\,{{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\mathcal A}_1) = 3.$
The set $f^2$ of minimal relations was given in Proposition \[prop2\]. Following [@GS; @GSZ], we may choose the set $f^3$ to consist of the following elements: $$\{f^3_1, f^3_2,f^3_3, f^3_4\},\mbox{ where }$$ $$\begin{array}{l c l c l l l l l l l l l }
f^3_1 &=& f^2_1 \alpha \epsilon \xi \beta \\
&=& \alpha f^2_4 \epsilon \xi \beta
&+& \alpha \delta \gamma f^2_4 \beta
&+& \alpha \delta \gamma \beta f^2_1
&+& \alpha \delta f^2_3 \gamma \beta
&+& \alpha \epsilon f^2_2 \xi \beta
&\in& e_1 K{\mathcal Q}e_1, \\
f^3_2 &=& f^2_2 \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon \\
&=& \xi f^2_4 \delta \gamma \epsilon
&+& \xi \beta \alpha f^2_4 \epsilon
&+& \xi \beta f^2_1 \alpha \epsilon
&+& \xi \beta \alpha \epsilon f^2_2
&+& \xi \delta f^2_3 \gamma \epsilon
&\in& e_2 K{\mathcal Q}e_2, \\
f^3_3 &=& f^2_3 \gamma \epsilon \xi \delta \\
&=& \gamma f^2_4 \epsilon \xi \delta
&+& \gamma \beta \alpha f^2_4 \delta
&+& \gamma \beta f^2_1 \alpha \delta
&+& \gamma \beta \alpha \delta f^2_3
&+& \gamma \epsilon f^2_2 \xi \delta
&\in& e_3 K{\mathcal Q}e_3, \\
f^3_4 &=& f^2_4 \beta \alpha \delta \gamma \\
&=& \beta f^2_1 \alpha \delta \gamma
&+& \delta f^2_3 \gamma \epsilon \xi
&+& \epsilon f^2_2 \xi \delta \gamma
&+& \delta \gamma f^2_4 \epsilon \xi
&+& \epsilon \xi f^2_4 \delta \gamma \\
&+& \delta \gamma \beta f^2_1 \alpha
&+& \delta \gamma \epsilon f^2_2 \xi
&+& \epsilon \xi \delta f^2_3 \gamma
&+& \delta \gamma \beta \alpha f^2_4
& & &\in& e_4 K{\mathcal Q}e_4.\\
\end{array}$$ Thus (writing $\Lambda$ for ${\mathcal A}_1$) the projective $Q^3 = \bigoplus_{y \in f^3} {\Lambda}{\mathfrak{o}}(y) \otimes {\mathfrak{t}}(y) {\Lambda}$ $= ({\Lambda}e_1 \otimes e_1{\Lambda})
\oplus ({\Lambda}e_2 \otimes e_2{\Lambda}) \oplus ({\Lambda}e_3 \otimes e_3{\Lambda}) \oplus ({\Lambda}e_4\otimes e_4 {\Lambda}) $.
Again, ${{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\Lambda}) = {{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3 / {{\operatorname{Im}\nolimits}}\,d_2$. First we will find ${{\operatorname{Im}\nolimits}}\,d_2$. Let $f \in {{\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits}}(Q^1, {\Lambda})$ and so write $$f(e_1 \otimes_{\alpha} e_4) = c_1 \alpha + c_2 \alpha \delta \gamma, \hspace{1cm} f(e_4
\otimes_{\beta} e_1) = c_3 \beta + c_4 \delta \gamma \beta,$$ $$f(e_3 \otimes_{\gamma} e_4) = c_5 \gamma + c_6 \gamma \beta \alpha, \hspace{1cm} f(e_4 \otimes_{\delta} e_3) =
c_7 \delta + c_8 \beta \alpha \delta,$$ $$f(e_4 \otimes_{\epsilon} e_2) = c_9 \epsilon + c_{10} \delta \gamma \epsilon
\hspace{1cm} \mbox{and }
f(e_2 \otimes_{\xi} e_4) = c_{11} \xi + c_{12} \xi \delta \gamma,$$ where $c_1, c_2, c_3, c_4, \ldots, c_{12} \in K.$ Now we find $fA_2 = d_2f$. We have $fA_2(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1} e_1) = f(e_1 \otimes_{\alpha} e_4)\beta
$+$ \alpha f(e_4 \otimes_{\beta} e_1)
= c_2 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta
+ c_4 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta
= (c_2 + c_4 ) \alpha \delta \gamma \beta$.
Also $fA_2(e_2 \otimes_{f^2_2} e_2) = f(e_2 \otimes_{\xi} e_4)\epsilon + \xi f(e_4 \otimes_{\epsilon} e_2)
= (c_{12} + c_{10}) \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon$ and $fA_2(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3) = f(e_3 \otimes_{\gamma} e_4)\delta + \gamma f(e_4 \otimes_{\delta} e_3)
= (c_6 + c_8) \gamma \beta \alpha \delta$.
And $fA_2(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) = f(e_4 \otimes_{\beta} e_1)\alpha + f(e_4 \otimes_{\delta} e_3) \gamma
+ f(e_2 \otimes_{\epsilon} e_4) \xi + \beta f(e_1 \otimes_{\alpha} e_4) + \delta f(e_3 \otimes_{\gamma} e_4)
+ \epsilon f(e_2 \otimes_{\xi} e_4) $= $(c_3 + c_9 + c_1 + c_{11}) \beta \alpha
+ (c_7 + c_9 + c_5 + c_{11}) \delta \gamma + (c_4 + c_8 + c_{10} + c_2 + c_6 + c_{12}) \delta \gamma \beta \alpha$. Hence, $fA_2$ is given by $$fA_2(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1} e_1) = d_1 \alpha \beta,$$ $$fA_2(e_2 \otimes_{f^2_2} e_2)= d_2 \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon,$$ $$fA_2(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3)= d_3 \gamma \beta \alpha \delta,$$ $$fA_2(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) = d_4 \beta \alpha + d_5 \delta \gamma
+ (d_1 + d_2 + d_3) \delta \gamma \beta \alpha,$$ for some $d_1, \ldots, d_5 \in K$. So $\dim\,{{\operatorname{Im}\nolimits}}\,d_2 = 5$.
Now we determine ${{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3$. Let $h \in {{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3$, so $h \in
{{\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits}}(Q^2, {\Lambda})$ and $d_3h = 0$. Let $h: Q^2 \rightarrow {\Lambda}$ be given by
$$h(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1} e_1) = c_1 e_1 + c_2 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta,$$ $$h(e_2 \otimes_{f^2_2} e_2) = c_3 e_2 + c_4 \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon,$$ $$h(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3) = c_5 e_3 + c_6 \gamma \beta \alpha \delta \mbox{ and }$$ $$h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) = c_7 e_4 + c_8 \beta \alpha + c_9 \delta \gamma
+ c_{10} \beta \alpha \delta \gamma,$$ for some $c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_{10} \in K$.
It can be easily shown that $hA_3(e_1 \otimes_{f^3_1} e_1) = (-c_5-c_3) \alpha \delta \gamma \beta.$ As $h \in {{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3$ and ${\operatorname{char}\nolimits}K =2$ we have $c_5 = c_3$, and that $hA_3(e_2 \otimes_{f^3_2} e_2) = (-c_1 - c_5) \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon$ so that $c_1 = c_5$. Similarly, $hA_3(e_3 \otimes_{f^3_3} e_3) = (-c_1 - c_3)\gamma \beta \alpha \delta$ so that $c_1 = c_3$. Finally, we have $hA_3(e_2 \otimes_{f^3_4} e_2) = 0.$
Thus $h$ is given by $$h(e_1 \otimes_{f^2_1} e_1) = c_1 e_1 + c_2 \alpha \delta \gamma \beta,$$ $$h(e_2 \otimes_{f^2_2} e_2) = c_1 e_2 + c_4 \xi \delta \gamma \epsilon,$$ $$h(e_3 \otimes_{f^2_3} e_3) = c_1 e_3 + c_6 \gamma \beta \alpha \delta \mbox{ and }$$ $$h(e_4 \otimes_{f^2_4} e_4) = c_7 e_4 + c_8 \beta \alpha + c_9 \delta \gamma
+ c_{10} \beta \alpha \delta \gamma.$$ Hence $\dim\,{{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3 = 8.$
Therefore $\dim\,{{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}}^2({\mathcal A}_1) = \dim\,{{\operatorname{Ker}\nolimits}}\,d_3 - \dim\,{{\operatorname{Im}\nolimits}}\,d_2 = 8 - 5
= 3.$
Thus we have shown that $\dim{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}^2({\mathcal A}_1) \neq
\dim{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}^2({\mathcal A}_2)$. Hence these two algebras are not derived equivalent. Now we state the main result of this paper.
\[cor\] For the finite dimensional algebras ${\mathcal A}_1$ and ${\mathcal A}_2$ over an algebraically closed field $K$ with ${\operatorname{char}\nolimits}K = 2$, we have $\dim{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}^2({\mathcal A}_1) \neq \dim{\operatorname{HH}\nolimits}^2({\mathcal A}_2)$. Hence these two algebras are not derived equivalent.
[99]{} Al-Kadi, D. *Self-injective algebras and the second Hochschild Cohomology group*, J. Algebra **321** (2009), 1049–1078.
Erdmann, K. and Snashall, N., *Preprojective Algebras of Dynkin type, Periodicity and the second Hochschild Cohomology*, Algebras and Modules II, 183–193, CMS Conf. Proc. [**24**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., 1998.
Green, E. L. and Snashall, N., *Projective Bimodule Resolutions of an Algebra and Vanishing of the Second Hochschild Cohomology Group*, Forum Math. **16** (2004), 17–36.
Green, E. L., Solberg, Ø. and Zacharia, D., *Minimal Projective Resolutions*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **353** (2001), 2915–2939.
Holm, T. and Skowroński, A., *Derived equivalence classification of symmetric algebras of polynomial growth*, preprint, 2009.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Natural Language Processing (NLP) has been widely used in the semantic analysis in recent years. Our paper mainly discusses a methodology to analyze the effect that context has on human perception of similar words, which is the third task of SemEval 2020. We apply several methods in calculating the distance between two embedding vector generated by Bidirectional Encoder Representation from Transformer (BERT). Our team *will\_go* won the 1st place in Finnish language track of subtask1, the second place in English track of subtask1.'
author:
- |
Wei Bao\
Southeast University\
[willinseu@gmail.com]{}\
Hongshu Che\
Southeast University\
[hsche1222@gmail.com]{}\
Jiandong Zhang\
Southeast University\
[zjdx1998@gmail.com]{}\
bibliography:
- 'semeval2020.bib'
title: |
Will\_Go at SemEval-2020 Task 3:\
An Accurate Model for Predicting the (Graded) Effect of Context in Word Similarity based on BERT
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Computing the meaning difference between words in the semantic level is a task that has been widely discussed. In the area of natural language processing (NLP) like information retrieval (IR), there are many specific applications using similarity, such as text memorization [@lin-summary], text categorization [@categorization], Text Q&A [@QA], etc.
The task3 of SemEval-2020[^1] focuses on the influence of context when humans perceive similar words. As we all know, polysemous words have different meanings in a totally different context, which the current translation system can recognize very well. However, many translation systems can’t exactly predict the subtle variance on the meanings of words, which is also caused by a different context.
Task3 has two sub-tasks. In subtask1, we are required to predict the extent of change in scores of similarity between two words in different contexts by human annotators. In subtask2, we only predict the absolute score as is in the subtask1 rather than the difference in scores, and we would only discuss subtask1.
Our team uses different algorithms to calculate the distance between two embedding vectors generated by BERT [@BERT] and defines it as the similarity. So we can get the change in similarity by subtraction between two distances. However, this methodology did not get exciting performance in the task evaluation, so we improve this by blending different BERT models, which we will introduce later in Section \[overview\].
Related Work
============
There are many methods and models to estimate the similarity between long paragraphs. Most of them treat it as a binary classification problem, Hatzivassiloglou et al. [@longtext99] compute the linguistic vector of features including primitive features and composite features, then they build criteria by feature vectors to classify paragraphs. As for similarity between short sentences, Foltz et al.[@foltz1998measurement] suggest a method that provides a characterization of the extent of semantic similarity between two adjacent short sentences by comparing their high-dimensional semantic vectors, which is also a Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) model. Both LSA and Hyperspace Analogues to Language (HAL) [@HALburgess1998explorations] are all corpus-based model, the latter one uses lexical co-occurrence to generate high-dimensional semantic vectors set, where words in this set can be represented as a vector or high-dimensional point so that their similarities can be measured by computing their distances.
Although computing similarity between words are less difficult than between texts, there still exist some sophisticated problems. Similarity between words is not only in morphology but more significantly in semantic meaning. The first step of reckoning the similarity between words is using Word2Vec[@word2vecmikolov2013efficient], which is a group of corpus-based models to generate word embedding, and mainly utilizes two architectures: continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) and continuous Skip-gram. In the CBOW model, the distributed representations of context are made as input to the model and predict the center words, while the Skip-gram model uses the center words as its input and predict the context, which predicts one word in many times to produce several context words. Therefore, the Skip-gram model can learn efficiently from context and performs better than the CBOW model, but it takes much more consumption in training time than the CBOW model. But since hierarchical softmax and negative sampling [@mikolov2013distributed] were proposed to optimize the Skip-gram model when training large-scale data.
Word2Vec cannot be used for computing similarity between polysemous words because it generates only one vector for a word, while Embedding from Language Model (ELMo) [@elmopeters2018deep] inspired by semi-supervised sequence tagging [@peters2017semisupervised] can handle this issue. ELMo is consist of bidirectional LSTM [@lstm], which makes the ELMo have an understanding of both next and previous word, it obtains contextualized word embedding by weight summation over the output of hidden layers. Compared with the LSTM used in ELMo, Bidirectional Encoder Representation from Transformer (BERT) [@BERT] is a stack of Transformer Encoder [@transformervaswani2017attention], which can be computed in parallel ways and save much time in training. There are two BERT versions with different size, one is BERT Base, which has 12 encode layers with 768 hidden units and 12 attention heads, and the other is BERT Large, which has 24 encode layers with 1024 hidden units and 16 attention heads, achieved state-of-the-art results according to that paper.
System Overview
===============
Data {#dataset}
----
The source of our test data is from the CoSimLex dataset [@datasetarmendariz2019cosimlex], which is based on the well known SimLex999 dataset [@hill2014simlex999] and provides pairs of words.
In task3, the English dataset consists of 340 pairs; the Finnish, Croatian, Slovenian consist of 24, 112, 111 pairs respectively. Here is the quantity count table.
Language Abbr. Count
----------- ------- -------
English En 340
Croatian HR 112
Finnish FI 24
Slovenian SL 111
\[tab:dataset\]
Each language datafile has eight columns, namely *word1, word2, context1, context2, word1\_context1, word2\_context1, word1\_context2, word2\_context2*, and their meanings are first word, second word, first context, second context, the first word in the first context, the second word in the first context, the first word in the second context, the second word in the second context respectively. In addition, word1 and word2 may have a lexical difference between word1\_context and word2\_context.
Methodology {#overview}
-----------
The BERT model architecture is based on a multilayer bidirectional Transformer as Figure 1.Instead of the traditional left-to-right language modeling objective, BERT is trained on two tasks: predicting randomly masked tokens and predicting whether two sentences follow each other. BERT model gets a lot of state-of-the-art performance in many tasks, and we also use the BERT model in our strategy. We approach this task as one of tasks that calculates the similarity between two words. In our model, context data would be firstly added into BERT like the following Figure 2.
{width="0.90\linewidth"}
{width="0.60\linewidth"}
Our model would calculate the distance by several algorithms immediately when it obtained embedding of each token, then we predict the graded effect of context in word similarity as in the following steps:
- **Step1**: Choose the corresponding two embeddings of word1\_context1 and word2\_context1, compute the distance in several algorithms as $SC_1$.
- **Step2**: Substitute the words in Step 1 with word1\_context2 and word2\_context2, and repeat the last step, then we get the $SC_2$.
- **Step3**: By subtraction, we can get the change on similarity $C = SC_1 - SC_2$
- **Step4**: Change the distance computing algorithm and repeat Step1 $\sim$ Step3.
- **Step5**: After Step1 $\sim$ Step4, we can obtain a vector of change, $C_1, C_2, \cdots, C_n$, where $n$ denotes the number of distance calculating algorithms used in our model and $w_i$ denotes the manual parameter, we get the final change $$C=\sum_{i} w_i C_i, \sum{w_i}=1$$.
Here we provide a flow chart Figure \[fig:model\] to show the process from Step1 to Step4.
{width="\linewidth"} \[fig:model\]
Experiment
----------
We trained one standard BERT Large model and one multilingual BERT Base model by MXNet [@chen2015mxnet]. The dataset we trained BERT Large model is *openwebtext\_book\_corpus\_wiki\_en\_cased*, which were maintained by GluonNLP[^2], and we trained Multilingual BERT (M-BERT)[@pires2019multilingual] Base model by *wiki\_multilingual\_uncased* dataset that also provided by GluonNLP. It takes much time to train the BERT model, so we recommend utilizing the well trained BERT model from [bert-embedding](https://github.com/imgarylai/bert-embedding)[^3].
After configuring the models, we can follow the section \[overview\] by giving the input from section \[dataset\] and get the experiment results which will be introduced in Section \[results\]. Task3 has four language tracks, namely English, Croatian, Finnish, Slovenian. We use the BERT Large model in the English track, and Multilingual BERT Base model in the other three tracks.
In section\[overview\], we use several algorithms to compute similarity. Here we introduce two main algorithms that used in our experiments.
- Cosine Similarity that calculates the cosine of angle between two vectors. $$\bm{sim(w_1,w_2) = \frac{w_1\cdot w_2}{\left \|w_1\right \| \left \|w_2\right\|}=\frac{\sum_i w_{1i}w_{2i}}{\sqrt{\sum_i w_{1i}^2}\sqrt{\sum_i w_{2i}^2}}}$$
- Euclidean Distance that calculates the square root of square distance in each dimension. $$\bm{sim(w_1,w_2) = \sqrt{\sum_i(w_{1i}-w_{2i})^2}}$$
Results
=======
In our experiment targeted at subtask1, the English language track uses the Bert Large model, the Euclidean distance is 0.718 and the cosine distance is 0.752, the Blend result is 0.768, and the online LB ranks second; Croatian, Finnish, and Slovenian languages all use the Multi-lingual Bert model. The Croatian language track’ Euclidean distance of 0.590, the cosine distance is 0.587, the Blend result is 0.594, and the online LB ranks sixth. The Finnish language uses the Euclidean distance of 0.750, the cosine distance is 0.671, the Blend result is 0.772, and the online LB ranks 1, The Slovenian language uses a Euclidean distance of 0.576, a cosine distance of 0.603, a Blend result of 0.583, and an online LB ranking seventh. We sort the result out the following Table \[tab:expresult\].
Language & Abbr. Model Euclidean Dis. Cosine Blend Rank
------------------ ------------- ---------------- -------- ------- ------
English, En BERT Large 0.718 0.752 0.768 2
Croatian, HR M-BERT Base 0.590 0.587 0.594 6
Finnish, FI M-BERT Base 0.750 0.671 0.772 1
Slovenian, SL M-BERT Base 0.576 0.603 0.583 7
\[tab:expresult\]
Conclusion
==========
In our paper, we propose a model that computes the similarity and similarity change by blending cosine similarity and euclidean distance, which calculated by two word embedding vectors. We firstly transform words in dataset that we introduce in section \[dataset\]. into the word embedding vectors by BERT that we discuss in section \[overview\], then we calculate the distance between two vectors, finally we blend the two distances computed by different algorithms as the final predict result. In the subtask1 of task3, our team *will\_go* won a champion in Finnish track and the second place in English track.
[^1]: https://competitions.codalab.org/competitions/20905
[^2]: https://gluon-nlp.mxnet.io/model\_zoo/bert/index.html
[^3]: We can simply use the model by pip or conda install bert-embedding
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We give an exact quantitative solution for the motion of three vortices of any strength, which Poincaré showed to be integrable. The absolute motion of one vortex is generally biperiodic: in uniformly rotating axes, the motion is periodic. There are two kinds of relative equilibrium configuration: two equilateral triangles and one or three colinear configurations, their stability conditions split the strengths space into three domains in which the sets of trajectories are topologically distinct.
According to the values of the strengths and the initial positions, all possible motions are classified. Two sets of strengths lead to generic motions other than biperiodic. First, when the angular momentum vanishes, besides the biperiodic regime there exists an expansion spiral motion and even a triple collision in a finite time, but the latter motion is nongeneric. Second, when two strengths are opposite, the system also exhibits the elastic diffusion of a vortex doublet by the third vortex.
For given values of the invariants, the volume of the phase space of this Hamiltonian system is proportional to the period of the reduced motion, a well known result of the theory of adiabatic invariants. We then formally examine the behaviour of the quantities that Onsager defined only for a large number of interacting vortices.
address: |
Service de physique du solide et de résonance magnétique,\
CEN Saclay, France. DPhG/PSRM/1697/80
author:
- 'R. Conte and L. de Seze'
---
Exact solution of the planar motion of three\
arbitrary point vortices
=============================================
[-5.0truemm]{}
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
------------
Known from a long time, the problem of the motion of a system of point vortices in interaction presents a particular interest for the study of bidimensional turbulence. As predicted by Onsager (1949) the study of the thermodynamics of a large system of vortices shows the possibility of temperatures and eddy viscosities (see e.g. Lundgren and Pointin 1977). The case of a small number of vortices was studied, long ago, by Lord Kelvin and Mayer (1878). They used experimental methods to obtain some results on the stability of simple geometric configurations. Recently Novikov (1975) pointed out the interest of the three vortex system as the first elementary interaction process in isotropic turbulence kinetics. Using properties of the triangle he was able to solve the problem of three identical vortices.
While this work was under submission, the referees pointed out to us the existence of a paper to appear. In this paper, Hassan Aref (March 1979), extending the work of Novikov with a symmetry-preserving presentation, qualitatively solved the relative motion of three vortices and undertook a classification of the topology of the phase space; however, he gave no indication on the nature of the absolute motion and no quantitative results, except for two special cases of great importance which he solved completely: the direct or exchange scattering when two strengths are equal and opposite to the third one, and the self-similar motion of a triple collision or a triple expansion to infinity when both the inertia momentum and the angular momentum vanish.
In this paper, we present a method which quantitatively gives the absolute motion in all cases of strengths or initial conditions. The main idea is to introduce reduced variables with a very simple geometrical interpretation and whose number matches the number of degrees of freedom of the system. For three vortices, this can be done by defining one complex variable $\zeta$ which characterizes the shape of the triangle. Knowing the motion of $\zeta$, which happens to be periodic, is then sufficient to derive the behaviour of any physically interesting variable. We thus have obtained detailed results, which resort mainly to fluid mechanics and partly to the field of differentiable dynamical systems.
In the first part, we describe the problem, introduce the reduced motion and discuss its advantages and inconvenients. In the second part, we give the general solution: generically, i.e. for arbitrary strengths and initial positions, the absolute motion of any given vortex is the product of a periodic motion of period $T$ by a uniform rotation or, stated in other words, the motion is periodic when referred to uniformly rotating axes centered at the center of vorticity; in the case of a vortex plasma (zero total strength), the uniform rotation is merely replaced by a uniform translation. Due to its frequent occurrence in nature, we give special consideration to the case of two or three equal strengths: in a given domain of initial conditions, vortices with equal strengths have the same motion, up to a shift of $\frac{T}{2}$ or $\frac{T}{3}$ in time and a rotation in space.
The third part, following the Smale’s method of study of a differentiable dynamical system, is devoted to the finding of the bifurcation set, i.e. the set of values of the invariants for which the nature of the motion changes. This reduces to the finding of the relative equilibria, which are shown to be of two types, the same than those of the three body problem of celestial mechanics: two equilateral triangles and one or three colinear configurations. The number and stability of these relative equilibria are discussed, thus leading to a separation of the strengths space in three principal domains where the sets of orbits are topologically different; an important result is that, whatever be the strengths domain, the phase space is always multiconnected; for strengths on the boundaries of these domains, the motion must be studied separately for it presents special features.
In the fourth part, we study the absolute motion whenever it differs from the general biperiodic case, i.e. when strengths are on the boundaries of their limiting domains or when initial positions are those of a relative equilibrium. At a relative equilibrium the motion is a rigid body rotation. Otherwise two new generic motions are found. First, for strengths such that the angular momentum vanishes, the vortices can go to infinity in a spiral motion with a fixed asymptotic shape of the triangle; there even exists a spiral motion ending in a triple collision in a finite time, but it is nongeneric since it happens only for a zero value of the inertia momentum. Second, when two strengths are opposite, besides the doubly periodic motion an elastic scattering can occur in which a vortex doublet is diffused by the third vortex; if moreover the third vortex has the strength of one of the two others, a third generic motion exists which is an exchange scattering.
The fifth part consists in formally examining the behaviour of the thermodynamical quantities, of course meaningless for this integrable system, that Onsager defined for a large number of vortices; the volume of the phase space is found to be equal to the period of the relative motion; among the features which could be indicative for a large number of vortices is a possible lack of ergodicity due to a multiple connexity of the phase space.
Description of the problem
--------------------------
We consider three point vortices $M_{j}$ $(j=1,2,3)$ in a plane with strengths $\kappa_{j}$ and given initial positions. Their motion is ruled by the first order system: $$\forall\,j=1,2,3\enskip {:}\enskip 2\pi i\frac{\D\bar{z}_{j}}{\D t}=\sum_{\substack{\ell=1\\
\ell \ne j}}^{3}\frac{\kappa_{\ell}}{z_{j}-z_{\ell}},$$ where $z=x\,{+}\,iy$ and the bar denotes the complex conjugation. This system is equivalent to the set of Hamilton equations for the Hamiltonian: $$H=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{\substack{j\\
j}}\vphantom{\sum}_{\substack{\\ \\ \\ \\ <}}\sum_{\substack{\ell\\[2pt]
\ell}}\kappa_{j}\kappa_{\ell}\enskip{\rm Log}|z_{j}-z_{\ell}|,$$ in the conjugate variables $\sqrt{|\kappa_{j}|}x_{j}$ and $\sqrt{|\kappa_{j}|}$ sign $(\kappa_{j})y_{j}$, $j=1,2,3$; therefore $H$ is an invariant and remains equal to the energy $E$. The invariance of $H$ under translation and rotation yields two other invariants: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hbox{the impulse } B=\sum_{j}\kappa_{j}z_{j}=X+iY,\\[4pt]
&& I=\sum_{j}\kappa_{j}|z_{j}|^{2},\end{aligned}$$ which Poincaré called inertia momentum.
In fact we shall use, instead of $I$, the invariant $$J=\sum_{\substack{j\\
j}}\vphantom{\sum}_{\substack{\\ \\ \\ \\ <}}\sum_{\substack{\ell\\[2pt]
\ell}}\kappa_{j}\kappa_{\ell}|z_{j}-z_{\ell}|^{2}=(\kappa_{1}+\kappa_{2}+\kappa_{3})I-|B|^{2},$$ which depends only on the relative positions of the vortices. There are $6-4=2$ remaining degrees of freedom and we suppose the problem to be nondegenerate: $\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}(z_{2}-z_{3})(z_{3}-z_{1})(z_{1}-z_{2})\ne 0$.
Among the six Poisson brackets built from the four known integrals of motion $H,J,X,Y$, only one is nonzero: $$\{X,Y\}=\sum_{j}\kappa_{j}=K.$$
Since a Hamiltonian system with $2N$ variables is integrable in the sense of Liouville when it has $N$ independent invariants in involution, the three vortex system $(N=3)$ is therefore integrable (Poincaré, 1893). The purpose of this paper is to integrate it.
Let us remark that this problem is not affected by the adjunction of an external velocity field made of a uniform translation and a uniform rotation, since the new equations of motion $$2\pi
i\frac{\D\bar{z}_{j}}{\D t}=\sum_{\ell}'\frac{\kappa_{\ell}}{z_{j}-z_{\ell}}+2\pi
i\bar{v}+2\pi \omega\bar{z}_{j},\quad \omega \in {\mathbb R},\quad v \in {\mathbb
C}$$ reduce to the original ones by the change of variables $$Z_{j}=\frac{iv}{\omega}+\left(z_{j}-\frac{iv}{\omega}\right)e^{-i\omega t}.$$
### The reduced motion {#the-reduced-motion .unnumbered}
The main idea is to match the number of variables and the number of degrees of freedom of this system, so as to keep the minimum number of independent variables. For this purpose, let us define a time dependent complex plane $\zeta$ in which two of the three point vortices remain fixed. This can be achieved by the following transformation $$z\to
\zeta=\frac{(\kappa_{2}+\kappa_{3})z-(\kappa_{2}z_{2}+\kappa_{3}z_{3})}{z_{2}-z_{3}},$$ where 2 and 3 number two vortices whose sum of strengths is nonzero; the affixes of these two vortices become $\kappa_{3}$ and $-\kappa_{2}$ under the transformation.
It is clearly seen from the definition how a reduced point is geometrically deduced from an absolute point. We shall simply note $\zeta$ the transformed of $M_{1}$: $$\zeta=\xi+i\eta=\frac{Kz_{1}-B}{z_{2}-z_{3}},$$ $\zeta$ therefore represents the shape of the triangle, and the inverse transformation is represented by $$\begin{gathered}
z_{1}=z_{1},\quad z_{2}=\frac{(\kappa_{3}K-\kappa_{1}\zeta)z_{1}+(\zeta-\kappa_{3})B}{s\zeta},\nn\\[4pt]
z_{3}=\frac{(-\kappa_{2}K-\kappa_{1}\zeta)z_{1}+(\zeta+\kappa_{2})B}{s\zeta},\end{gathered}$$ where $s=\kappa_{2}+\kappa_{3}\ne 0$.
The reader will have noticed the main disadvantage of the above definition of two reduced coordinates $\xi,\eta$: it does not reflect the invariance of the problem under the permutations of the three elements $(\kappa_{j},z_{j})$ and therefore every result we can get may be uneasy to interpret. Nevertheless, the advantages are numerous. First, every physical quantity can systematically be expressed, as we shall soon see, as a function of $\zeta$ and $Kz_{1}-B$ only; moreover, since $\zeta$ is invariant under a change of length and $Kz_{1}-B$ extensive in the lengths, such a physical function will quite generally be the product of a function of $\zeta$ by a function of $Kz_{1}-B$ and we are going to see that this uncoupling between intensive and extensive variables will enable us to solve the motion not only qualitatively but also quantitatively. Secondly, unlike Novikov and Aref, we do not have to eliminate some unphysical portions of our $\zeta$ plane (which will be seen to be the initial conditions plane) since every $\zeta$ point describes a physical situation. Thirdly, this reduction leaves only the required number of degrees of freedom.
The solution for the general case
---------------------------------
To obtain the absolute motion we need only determine the evolution of $\zeta$ and $z_{1}$, since we have the parametric representation (5). Provided $K$ and $B$ do not simultaneously vanish the motions of $z_{1}$ and $\zeta$ are ruled by: $$\begin{aligned}
2\pi i\frac{\D\bar{z}_{1}}{\D t}&=&\frac{1}{Kz_{1}-B}\frac{s^{2}\zeta(\zeta+d)}{(\zeta+\kappa_{2})(\zeta-\kappa_{3})},\\[3pt]
2\pi i\frac{\D\bar{\zeta}}{\D t}&=&\frac{-1}{|Kz_{1}-B|^{2}}
\frac{s|\zeta|^{2}[\bar{\zeta}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta-Q)-sK(\zeta+d)]}
{(\zeta+\kappa_{2})(\zeta-\kappa_{3})},\end{aligned}$$ where $d=\kappa_{2}-\kappa_{3}$ and $Q=\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}+\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}+\kappa_{3}\kappa_{1}$.
We can express the invariants $E$ and $J$ as functions of $z_{1}$ and $\zeta$: $$\begin{gathered}
J=|Kz_{1}-B|^{2}\frac{\kappa_{1}|\zeta|^{2}+\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K}{s|\zeta|^{2}},\\
e^{-4\pi
E}=|Kz_{1}-B|^{2Q}|\zeta|^{-2Q}\left|\frac{\zeta-\kappa_{3}}{s}\right|^{2\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}}
\left|\frac{\zeta+\kappa_{2}}{s}\right|^{2\kappa_{1}\kappa_{3}},\end{gathered}$$ expressions where we notice the factorized dependency on $\zeta$ and $z_{1}$.
Unless $Q$ and $J$ simultaneously vanish, at least one of the two above equations expresses $|Kz_{1}-B|$ as a function of $\zeta$ and from (7) we obtain a first order differential system for $\zeta$. For example if $J$ is nonzero the elimination of $z_{1}$ between (7) and (8) gives: $$2\pi
i\frac{\D\bar{\zeta}}{\D t}=\frac{-(\kappa_{1}|\zeta|^{2}+\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K)[\bar{\zeta}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta-Q)-sK(\zeta+d)]}
{J(\zeta+\kappa_{2})(\zeta-\kappa_{3})}.$$
There is no need to solve this system since the equation of the reduced trajectory is given by the straightforward elimination of $z_{1}$ between (8) and (9): $$\frac{\kappa_{1}|\zeta|^{2}+\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K}{sQ}\left|\frac{\zeta-\kappa_{3}}{s}\right|^{-2\frac{\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}}{Q}}
\left|\frac{\zeta+\kappa_{2}}{s}\right|^{-2\frac{\kappa_{1}\kappa_{3}}{Q}}=\frac{J}{Q}e^{4\pi\frac{E}{Q}}.$$ This represents in the $\zeta$ plane a set of closed orbits, indexed by the non-dimensional variable $c=\frac{J}{Q}e^{\frac{4\pi E}{Q}}$ which is invariant under a change of length or a change of unit of vorticity.
![The strengths space. The numbering of regions reflects the ternary symmetry.\[fig1\]](\ArtDir b2111contesezaf01)
The set of orbits is symmetrical relative to the $\xi$ axis and also, when $\kappa_{2}$ equals $\kappa_{3}$, to the $\eta$ axis. When two vortices are close to each other, they remain as such and therefore the $\zeta$ curves are near to circles in the vicinity of $-\kappa_{2}, \kappa_{3}$ and $\infty$. Figures \[fig2\] to \[fig6\] show examples of the $\zeta$ plane.
![$\zeta$ plane on the line $Q=0$. The nonperiodic domain is hatched $Q=0$ domain (12 and 1) $\kappa_{1}=-2,\kappa_{2}=3,\kappa_{3}=6$.\[fig5\]](\ArtDir b2111contesezaf05)
![$\zeta$ plane on the line (11 and 12). The diffusion domain is hatched domain (11 and 12) $\kappa_{1}=-2,\kappa_{2}=2,\kappa_{3}=3$.\[fig6\]](\ArtDir b2111contesezaf06)
Since there is in general no stationary point on the orbit, the reduced motion is periodic and the period is expressed by $$T=-\frac{\pi J}{s}\oint\frac{|(\zeta+\kappa_{2})(\zeta-\kappa_{3})|^{2}}
{(\kappa_{1}|\zeta|^{2}+\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K)^{2}}\frac{\D |\zeta|^{2}}{{\rm
Im}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta)}.$$ When $J$ is zero we use (9) instead of (8) to obtain a similar expression, a result which shows that the condition $J=0$ alone represents nothing special as one would believe in the Aref classification (for more details see the third part of this paper). To have a dimensionless result we can take as unit of time $T_{u}=\frac{4\pi^{2}J}{QK}$ which is, as we shall see later, the period of the absolute motion when the vortices are in a configuration of relative equilibrium; therefore, in every domain of the multiply-connected $\zeta$ plane, $\frac{T}{T_{u}}$ depends only on $c$.
### The absolute motion {#the-absolute-motion .unnumbered}
Using the parametric representation of the $z_{j}$’s we easily obtain the following relations: $$\frac{Kz_{1}-B}{s\zeta}=\frac{Kz_{2}-B}{\kappa_{3}K-\kappa_{1}\zeta}=
\frac{Kz_{3}-B}{-\kappa_{2}K-\kappa_{1}\zeta}.$$
Then, using (8) or (9), we conclude that, when the reduced motion is periodic, the modulus of $z_{j}-\frac{B}{K}$ has the period $T$ of the reduced motion. As to the arguments of these affixes, after one period they have all been increased by the same value, modulo $2\pi$: $$\left\{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}
\ds \Delta\varphi_{1}=\left[\arg\left(z_{1}-\frac{B}{K}\right)\right]_{o}^{T}\\[14pt]
\ds \qquad\;=\oint \frac{-K {\rm Re}\{(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta)(\bar{\zeta}^{2}+d\bar{\zeta}-\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3})\}}{2|\zeta|^{2}(\kappa_{1}|\zeta|^{2}+\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K){\rm Im}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta)}\D|\zeta|^{2}=\Delta\varphi,\\[14pt]
\ds \Delta\varphi_{2}=\Delta\varphi_{1}+\left[\arg\left(\frac{\kappa_{3}K-\kappa_{1}\zeta}{s\zeta}\right)\right]_{o}^{T}=\Delta \varphi\ {\rm modulo}\ 2\pi,\\[14pt]
\ds \Delta\varphi_{3}=\Delta\varphi_{1}+\left[\arg\left(\frac{-\kappa_{2}K-\kappa_{1}\zeta}{s\zeta}\right)\right]_{o}^{T}=\Delta \varphi\ {\rm modulo}\ 2\pi.\\
\end{array}\right.$$
For the motion it means that, after a time interval of $T$, the shape and size of the triangle are again the same, i.e. the new positions are deduced from their initial values by a rotation of $\Delta \varphi$ around the center of vorticity. Depending on the domain of initial conditions, the number of turns around the barycentrum may vary from one vortex to another by an integer value. Therefore, when $K$ is nonzero, the absolute motion of any vortex is the product of a uniform rotation about the barycentrum and of a periodic motion, the two periods being the same for the three vortices: $$\forall\,j=1,2,3\enskip{:}\enskip
z_{j}(t)=\frac{B}{K}+\left(z_{j}(0)-\frac{B}{K}\right)e^{i\Delta
\varphi\frac{t}{T}}f_{j}\left(\frac{t}{T}\right),$$ where $f_{j}$ is periodic with period 1. In other words, in uniformly rotating axes centered at the barycentrum, the absolute motion is periodic. Figure \[fig8\] shows the absolute trajectory of $M_{1}$ both in fixed axes and in rotating axes, for $\vec{\kappa}=(-2,1,4)$ and $\zeta_{o}=-\frac{3K}{2}$ (the $\zeta$ orbit is the small curve surrounding $P$ in Figure \[fig2\]).
![Volume $\Omega$ and temperature $\tau$ versus energy in the domain $0(k_{j}K>0)$. Data for these qualitative figures are taken from $\vec{\kappa}=(2,9,13)$.\[fig7\]](\ArtDir b2111contesezaf07)
![Absolute motion of the three vortices for an elastic diffusion. $\vec{\kappa}=(-2,2,3)$, $\zeta_{o}=-\frac{20}{21}K$ $(c=1.170)$.\[fig9\]](\ArtDir b2111contesezaf08)
![Absolute motion of the three vortices for an elastic diffusion. $\vec{\kappa}=(-2,2,3)$, $\zeta_{o}=-\frac{20}{21}K$ $(c=1.170)$.\[fig9\]](\ArtDir b2111contesezaf09)
Some symmetries may exist in the absolute motion: for instance if the $\zeta$ axis is an axis of symmetry of the $\zeta$ orbit, then at intervals distant of $\frac{T}{2}$ the vortices are colinear; if we choose for origin of time an instant of colinearity, the absolute trajectory of every vortex, when run between 0 and $T$, possesses an axis of symmetry (see Figure \[fig8\]).
-1Let us now mention an important result concerning this dynamical system: since integral (14) is a continuous function of both the strengths $\frac{\vec{\kappa}}{K}$ and the initial conditions, the angle $\Delta \varphi$ is generically incommensurable with $2\pi$, i.e. commensurability occurs only for a set of strengths and initial conditions of zero measure. We conclude that generically, due to the incommensurability of $\Delta \varphi$ with $2\pi$, the trajectory of a given vortex completely fills an annulus centered at the barycentrum (see Landau and Lifchitz Figure \[fig9\] Chap. III).
In the case of a vortex plasma $(K=0)$ and when the barycentrum is at infinity $(B\ne 0)$, the variation of $z_{j}$ over one period does not depend on $j$ and is given by $$\frac{i}{B}[\bar{z}_{j}]_{o}^{T}=\oint\frac{(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta)(\bar{\zeta}^{2}+d\bar{\zeta}-\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3})}
{2\kappa_{1}|\zeta|^{4}\;{\rm Im}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta)}\D|\zeta|^{2},$$ which evaluates to a real quantity. The rotation has become a uniform translation in the direction normal to the direction of the impulse. The common mean velocity of the vortices is $[z_{1}]/T$ and, for instance in the case of an initial equilateral triangle where the absolute motion is a uniform translation, this velocity evaluates to $\frac{iQ}{2\pi B}$.
Let us conclude all that with a geometrical remark: the relations $$\kappa_{1}|Kz_{1}-B|^{2}+ \kappa_{2} \kappa_{3}K|z_{2}-z_{3}|^{2}=sJ,$$ and $$2\pi\frac{\D|z_{2}-z_{3}|^{2}}{\D t}=\frac{2\kappa_{1}s^{2}\;{\rm Im}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta)}
{|(\zeta+\kappa_{2})(\zeta-\kappa_{3})|^{2}},$$ show that the extrema of $|z_{j}-\frac{B}{K}|$ occur simultaneously with those of $|z_{\ell}-z_{m}|$ $(j,\ell,m$ permutation of $1,2,3$) and that they are reached when the triangle is either flat or isosceles with $M_{j}$ as a summit.
### The absolute motion for two or three equal strengths {#the-absolute-motion-for-two-or-three-equal-strengths .unnumbered}
An important practical case is that of the invariance of a $\zeta$ orbit under one of the six permutations of the three elements $(\kappa_{j},z_{j})$. For instance the permutation (132) acts by: $\kappa_{2}\to \kappa_{3}$, $\kappa_{3}\to
\kappa_{2}$ and is seen to leave the set of $\zeta$ orbits invariant provided $\kappa_{2}=\kappa_{3}$. Since most of the vortices encountered in nature have equal, or opposite, strengths, we shall consider this particular case in some detail.
-1Let us therefore assume $\kappa_{2}=\kappa_{3}$ and consider a $\zeta$ orbit having the origin as a center of symmetry (e.g. the circle $J=0$ on the Figure \[fig3\] assumed continuously deformed so as to admit the origin as a center of symmetry; note that, on the same figure, the orbit surrounding $T_{1}$ has not the required property). Having chosen such an initial condition $t=0$, $\zeta=\zeta_{o}$, during the evolution there will happen a time when $\zeta$ evaluates to $-\zeta_{o}$; this time is necessarily equal to the half-period $T/2$ and, since the states ($t=0$, $\zeta=\zeta_{o}$) and $(t=\frac{T}{2}$, $\zeta=-\zeta_{o}$) are identical from a point of view of initial conditions, we conclude to the identity of the motions for $0< t < \frac{T}{2}$ and for $\frac{T}{2}<t<T$; the triangle at $t=\frac{T}{2}$ is deduced from the triangle at $t=0$ by some fixed rotation around the barycentrum (a change of size and a translation are excluded because of the invariants) and of course by the exchange of 2 and 3 $(B=0)$: $$\begin{gathered}
\forall\,t\enskip{:}\enskip z_{1}(t)=z_{1}\left(t-\frac{T}{2}\right)e^{i\alpha},\quad z_{2}(t)=z_{3}\left(t-\frac{T}{2}\right)e^{i\alpha},\\
z_{3}(t)=z_{2}\left(t-\frac{T}{2}\right)e^{i\alpha}.\end{gathered}$$
By iterating, we see that $2\alpha$ is equal to $\Delta \varphi$ modulo $2\pi$. Therefore the absolute motions of 2 and 3 are identical, up to a rotation in space and a translation in time. Every absolute trajectory has two independent axes of symmetry and therefore, an infinity: they are defined by the barycentrum and the absolute positions of the vortex when the triangle is either isosceles or flat (i.e. when $\zeta$ crosses one of its two symmetry axes).
If $K$ is zero, i.e. $\vec{\kappa}=(-2,1,1)$, the conclusions are similar, with a translation of $L/2$ instead of a rotation, $L$ being the translation after one period; the initial conditions which have the required symmetry are defined by $0<c<1$.
Let us now study the absolute motion of three identical vortices. The set of orbits is invariant under the six permutations, but a given orbit is only invariant under two or three of them. Two regimes are found:
(1) $\sqrt[3]{2}<c$. The shortest of the three mutual distances is always the same, say $M_{2}M_{3}$, the $\zeta$ orbit is invariant by a permutation of 2 and 3 and the above conclusions apply. The three vortices are colinear at intervals of $T/2$. Choosing for $t=0$ a colinear configuration, the triangle is isosceles at $t=\frac{T}{4}+n\frac{T}{2}$, $n\in Z$ and the summit of the triangle is then always the same vortex $M_{1}$.
(2) $1<c<\sqrt[3]{2}$, i.e. a vicinity of the equilateral configurations. The $\zeta$ orbit is invariant under any circular permutation and, using quite similar arguments, we deduce for instance $(B=0)$: $$\begin{gathered}
\forall\,t\enskip{:}\enskip
z_{1}(t)=z_{2}\left(t-\frac{T}{3}\right)e^{i\alpha},\quad
z_{2}(t)=z_{3}\left(t-\frac{T}{3}\right)e^{i\alpha},\\[4pt]
z_{3}(t)=z_{1}\left(t-\frac{T}{3}\right)e^{i\alpha},\end{gathered}$$ with $3\alpha=\Delta \varphi$ modulo $2\pi$. This time, the three motions are identical. The vortices are never colinear. Choosing for $t=0$ an isosceles configuration, we see that the triangle regains the same shape at $t=n\frac{T}{3}$, successively with the summits $1,2,3$ (or $1,3,2$ depending on the initial conditions), and a second isosceles shape at $t=\frac{T}{6}+n\frac{T}{3}$.
The period $T$, that Novikov gave as a hyperelliptic integral, is reducible to an ordinary elliptic integral (see Appendix I).
The relative equilibria and the bifurcation set
-----------------------------------------------
In two fundamental papers linking topology to mechanics, Smale (1970) explains how to split the study of any dynamical system into two simpler problems. He first defines the integral manifolds as the set of points in the phase space with given values of the invariants, or better as the quotient of that set by the symmetry group of the system. Then the first problem is to find the topology of the integral manifolds of the phase space and more precisely to find the bifurcation set, i.e. the set of values of the invariants $(E, J)$ for which this topology, and therefore the nature of the motion, changes. The second problem, which has been solved above at least in the general case, is the study of the dynamical systems on the integral manifolds.
Since we do not want to insist on the mathematics, we shall only give the bifurcation set, i.e., for every value of the strengths, we shall determine the values of $E$ and $J$ which cause a qualitative change in the absolute motion; such a research will introduce separating lines in the strengths space.
Our discussion will therefore take place in two different spaces: the space of strengths (parameter space) and the space of invariants, spaces which we are now going to describe in more detail.
Due to the homogeneity of the equations of motion, the strengths space may be represented by its section by a plane $K$ $=$ constant and, in this plane, by a figure invariant under a rotation of $\frac{2\pi}{3}$ around the point $\kappa_{1}=\kappa_{2}=\kappa_{3}$. Its dimension is therefore 2 and we shall represent a point by its polar coordinates: $$\rho\,\cos\theta=\frac{\sqrt{3}(\kappa_{2}-\kappa_{3})}{2K},\quad
\rho\,\sin\theta=\frac{-2\kappa_{1}+\kappa_{2}+\kappa_{3}}{2K},$$ $\theta$ describing any interval of amplitude $\frac{2\pi}{6}$ (see Figure \[fig1\]).
The strengths domains are defined in Figure \[fig1\]. Under the heading “degeneracy” are listed by interval of $c$ the number of different states, i.e. of $\zeta$ orbits, having the same value of $c$; for instance, in the domain 11, the limiting values of $c$ are $-\infty,0,+\infty$ (at the points $M_{j}$), 1 (at the triangles), $c_{1}, c_{2},c_{3}$ (at the colinear relative equilibria), they define 6 intervals, hence a sequence of 6 degeneracy numbers; when $Q$ is zero, $e^{4\pi E/K^{2}}$ is used in place of $c$ for the classification.
The column “topology” lists the sequence of the nature of the real remarkable $\zeta$ points along the real axis: $M$ stands for a point $M_{j}$ (we omit $M_{1}$ at infinity), $E, H, P$ for elliptic, hyperbolic, parabolic, $X$ for an $M$ coinciding with $E$ or $H$ and $Q$ for the only higher-order point we found. The information on the nature of the triangles is contained in the column sign $(Q)$. All this is sufficient to draw every $\zeta$ plane.
For given values of the strengths, the space of invariants is a priori bidimensional, since the center of vorticity is not a relevant invariant except when $K$ is zero. Let us compare this space to the space of initial conditions. As we have seen, an initial condition is an orbit in the $\zeta$ plane, since two sets of absolute positions $z_{i}$ whose $\zeta$ values belong to the same $\zeta$ orbit evolve in the same absolute motion, up to a translation in time and a translation, rotation and scale change in space. On a given orbit, $c$ is constant, but, inversely, the equation $c=\hbox{cst}$ represents a finite number (between 0 and 4, see Table \[tab1\]) of orbits. From this fact, we draw two conclusions: first, the space of invariants $(E, J)$ is in fact of dimension one, two points being identified if they lead to the same value of $c=\frac{J}{Q}e^{4\pi\frac{E}{Q}}$; second, an initial condition is characterized by, and therefore equivalent to, a value of the invariant $c$ plus an index of region in the $\zeta$ plane (or of sheet in the phase space). We can therefore identify the space of initial conditions to the product of the one-dimensional space of invariants by the finite set of the indices of region. Accordingly, the most precise graphical representation will be the orbits of the $\zeta$ plane, but we shall also use for simplicity a plane $(E, J)$ or an axis $c$ with some handwritten information on it to take into account the integer index.
Let us now proceed to the determination of the bifurcation set. We exclude the set of collisions, represented in the $\zeta$ plane by three points of affixes $\infty$, $\kappa_{3},-\kappa_{2}$ where $c$ evaluates to $+0$, $-0$, $+\infty$ or $-\infty$ depending on the signs of $J, Q$ and the strengths; these limiting values of $c$ will therefore belong to the bifurcation set.
The nature of the motion (at least its topological nature since it is always generically biperiodic) changes when there is a stationary point on the $\zeta$ orbit; such points, where the velocity of $\zeta$ vanishes, are given by the solutions of the complex equation $$\bar{\zeta}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta-Q)-sK(\zeta+d)=0,$$ equivalent to $$\frac{K\bar{z}_{1}-\bar{B}}{z_{2}-z_{3}}+
\frac{K\bar{z}_{2}-\bar{B}}{z_{3}-z_{1}}+
\frac{K\bar{z}_{3}-\bar{B}}{z_{1}-z_{2}}=0.$$
These points are also the critical points of the function $(\xi,\eta)\to c$ and they give all the relative equilibrium configurations of the three vortices, i.e. the states for which the system moves generally like a rigid body. The solutions of (17) are:
(a) one or three colinear configurations, defined by the real zeros of $P(\zeta)\equiv \zeta^{3}+d\zeta^{2}-(sK+Q)\zeta-sKd$ (points $P_{1},P_{2},P_{3}$ of Figures \[fig2\] to \[fig6\]),
(b) two equilateral triangles, defined by the zeros of $\zeta^{2}+d\zeta+sK-Q$, i.e. $\zeta=\frac{-d\pm is\sqrt{3}}{2}$ (points $T_{1}$ and $T_{2}$ of Figures \[fig2\] to \[fig6\]); these stationary triangles, already known to Kelvin for identical vortices, therefore exist for vortices of any strengths.
(c) When $Q=0$, the isolated zero $\zeta=-d$ of $P$ and every point of the circle $|\zeta|^{2}=sK$ on which lie the summits of the equilateral triangles and the two other real zeros of $P$. On this circle $J$ is equal to zero.
The corresponding absolute motions will be described later. It is interesting to remark that, except for some values of the strengths like for instance $Q=0$, the relative equilibria of the three vortex system are qualitatively the same than those of the three body problem of celestial mechanics, where there are two equilateral triangles and three colinear configurations; in fact, a simple geometric reasoning shows the same qualitative composition of the set of relative equilibria for every planar three body motion ruled by a two body central interaction.
The study of the stability of the relative equilibria is given in Appendix II and only three different behaviours are found (in celestial mechanics, only two cases arise: the three colinear configurations are always unstable, the two triangles are stable for $(m_{1}+m_{2}+m_{3})^{2}-27(m_{1}m_{2}+m_{2}m_{3}+m_{3}m_{1})>0$, unstable otherwise), depending on the signs of two polynoms of the strengths of even degree:
1. unstable triangles, one stable aligned configuration,
2. unstable triangles, two stable aligned configurations, one ,
3. stable triangles, three unstable aligned configurations,
with $$\Delta=-32\sum_{j\ne l}\kappa_{j}^{3}\kappa_{l}-61 \sum_{j<
l}\kappa_{j}^{2}\kappa_{l}^{2}-118\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}\;K.$$
The important role played by $Q$ can easily be understood if we notice that the angular momentum of the system $\sum\kappa_{j}(x_{j}\frac{\D y_{j}}{\D t}-y_{j}\frac{\D x_{j}}{\D t})$ is precisely $\frac{Q}{2\pi}$. Like for the planar three body problem (see Smale II), we are going to see that its sign is a basic element of classification of the topology of the phase space and that very special behaviours of the motion occur when it vanishes.
>From (7) we see that there is no other $\zeta$ orbit where the nature of the motion changes. For given values of the strengths, the bifurcation set is therefore the union, in the $\zeta$ plane, of the three points $\infty$, $\kappa_{3},-\kappa_{2}$ and the three or five orbits going through the stationary points (see Figures \[fig2\] to \[fig4\], where some other ordinary orbits have been added). Note that the circle $|\zeta|^{2}=-\frac{\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K}{\kappa_{1}}$ on which $J$ is zero does not belong to the bifurcation set, except when $Q$ is zero as we shall see. However, when we represent the bifurcation set in the $(E,J)$ plane, the line $J=0$ seems to belong to it for it is for some values of the strengths the limiting curve $c\to 0$ associated with two vortices at the same location; Figure \[fig10\] shows the same bifurcation set as Figure \[fig3\], but represented in the plane $(E,J)$.
![Bifurcation set in the domain 1 $(Q>0$, $\Delta<0$), not to scale. The numbers are the number of periodic solutions in each region.\[fig10\]](\ArtDir b2111contesezaf10)
-1Special behaviour for the motion will be obtained when two or more elements of the bifurcation set come into coincidence. This will give us separating lines in the strengths plane. The only conditions of coincidence between the solutions of (17) and the set (d) of collisions $(\zeta=\infty$, $\kappa_{3},-\kappa_{2})$ are:
(i) coincidence of (a) and (d): $\prod_{j\ne l}(\kappa_{j}+\kappa_{l})=0$,
(ii) coincidence of two zeros of $P\,{:}\,\Delta=0$.
We must add to the above mentioned lines the three lines given by $\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}=0$ which are forbidden. $\prod(\kappa_{j}+\kappa_{l})$ is represented by three lines, $Q=0$ by the circle $\rho=1$ and $\Delta=0$ by a quartic of equation: $$\rho^{4}+8\rho^{3}\sin 3\theta+18\rho^{2}-27=0,$$ the form of which reflects the ternary symmetry.
The intersections of these lines define three distinct remarkable points that we shall study explicitly: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hbox{point A: $\rho=2$},\quad \hbox{$\ds 3\theta=\frac{3\pi}{2}$ (strengths $-1,1,1$)},\\[4pt]
&&\hbox{point B: $\rho=3$},\quad \hbox{$\ds 3\theta=\frac{3\pi}{2}$ (strengths $-5,4,4$)},\\[4pt]
&&\hbox{point C: $\rho=\sqrt{5}$},\quad \hbox{$\ds
\sin\;3\theta=\frac{-11\sqrt{5}}{25}$ (strengths $-2,\sqrt{3},2$).}\end{aligned}$$
The points A, B and some numerical values of the strengths correspond to cases of integrability for the period (see Appendix I).
These lines define different domains in the strengths space, which has been represented on Figure \[fig1\]. When we stay in one of these domains, the topology of the bifurcation set does not change, and Table \[tab1\] summarizes the results concerning the bifurcation set for all domains of the strengths space.
The classification for the bifurcation set is mainly based on the signs of $Q$ and $\Delta$, i.e. on the number and stability of the relative equilibria; among the three quantities, i.e. arithmetic, geometric and harmonic means of the strengths, whose signs were proposed by Aref as a basis for a classification, only the third one $\frac{Q}{3\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}}$ is relevant, although the factor $\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}$ prevents it from being invariant under a strengths reversal, an operation equivalent to a time reversal which must leave invariant any candidate to a classification; moreover, for any $N$, the formula $\sum'\kappa_{j}\kappa_{l}=0$, not $\sum\frac{1}{\kappa_{j}}=0$, expresses the associated physical property of invariance of the energy under a change of length.
In the next part, we describe the behaviour of the three vortex system when it is nongeneric, i.e. when either the strengths are on the boundaries of the domains represented on Figure \[fig1\] or when the initial conditions are those of a relative equilibrium. We shall proceed by studying first the relative equilibria associated with nonsingular strengths, then the strengths on the separating lines of the strengths space and finally the three particular points A, B, C of the strengths space.
Absolute motions for nongeneric strengths\
or initial conditions
------------------------------------------
### Absolute motions for the ordinary relative equilibria {#absolute-motions-for-the-ordinary-relative-equilibria .unnumbered}
Ordinary means that we exclude $\zeta$ points which are the coincidence of two elements of the bifurcation set: this is equivalent to $J$ nonzero and $\zeta$ not a multiple zero of $P$.
For an initial condition in the vicinity of such a $\zeta$ point, every point obeys the general motion, except those lying on the two curves intersecting at an unstable $\zeta$ point, in which case the motion is asymptotic to the motion at the stationary point, motion which we are going to determine:
\(a) $K\ne 0$. From the time variation law $$2\pi\frac{\D |Kz_{1}-B|^{2}}{\D t}=\frac{-2s^{2}{\rm
Im}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta)}{|(\zeta+\kappa_{2})(\zeta-\kappa_{3})|^{2}},$$ it follows that the distance from each point to the barycentrum remains constant. The absolute motion is therefore a solid rotation around the barycentrum; moreover, using $$\sum_{j=1}^{N}\kappa_{j}z_{j}\frac{\D\bar{z}_{j}}{\D t}=\frac{Q}{2\pi i},$$ whose imaginary part yields $$\sum_{j=1}^{N}\kappa_{j}|z_{j}|^{2}\frac{\D\arg z_{j}}{\D t}=\frac{Q}{2\pi},$$ we see that the common angular velocity of every vortex is independent of time and remains equal to $\frac{Q}{2\pi I_{o}}$, where $I_{o}$ is the inertia momentum relative to the barycentrum $$I_{o}=\sum \kappa_{j}\left|z_{j}-\frac{B}{K}\right|^{2}=\frac{J}{K},$$ and $\frac{Q}{2\pi}$ is the angular momentum of the system.
The period of the uniform rotation is therefore $$T_{u}=\frac{4\pi^{2}J}{QK},$$ a formula valid for any number of vortices when there exists a solid rotation.
A particular case is $Q=0$, for which the only isolated relative is $\zeta=-d$, i.e. $\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}z_{1}+\kappa_{3}\kappa_{1}z_{2}+\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}z_{3}=0$; all the vortices remain at rest. This situation is of course unstable (free vortices cannot have a stable rest position since the complex velocity is a nonconstant meromorphic function of the affixes), and the small motions have for pulsation $\omega=\pm\frac{9i\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}}{2\pi J}$
\(b) $K=0$. The three stationary points are ordinary.
$\zeta=0$, stable: the impulse $B$ is zero and the affixes verify: $$\frac{z_{2}-z_{3}}{\kappa_{1}}=\frac{z_{3}-z_{1}}{\kappa_{2}}=
\frac{z_{1}-z_{2}}{\kappa_{3}}.$$
The inertia momentum is nonzero and is the same at every point, and the absolute motion is a uniform solid rotation of period $$T=\frac{4\pi^{2}I}{Q},$$ equal to that of the small motions.
At the two unstable equilateral triangles, $B$ is nonzero and the absolute motion is a uniform translation of velocity $$\forall\,j\enskip{:}\enskip\frac{\D z_{j}}{\D t}=\frac{iQ}{2\pi \bar{B}},$$ orthogonal to the impulse.
### Absolute motions on the boundaries of the strengths domains {#absolute-motions-on-the-boundaries-of-the-strengths-domains .unnumbered}
These lines are: $Q(\kappa_{2}+\kappa_{3})(\kappa_{3}+\kappa_{1})(\kappa_{1}+\kappa_{2})\Delta=0$.
### $Q=0$. Triple collision in a finite time, expanding motion {#q0.-triple-collision-in-a-finite-time-expanding-motion .unnumbered}
In addition to the already studied isolated stationary point, there exists a circle of stationary $\zeta$ points (see Figure \[fig5\]), on which $J$ is zero, On this circle lie the two summits of the equilateral triangles and the two other zeros of $P$. These four points are the points of contact of the circle $J=0$ with the set of $\zeta$ trajectories whose equation is now: $$\left|\frac{\zeta-\kappa_{3}}{s}\right|^{-2\frac{\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}}{K_{2}}}
\left|\frac{\zeta+\kappa_{2}}{s}\right|^{-2\frac{\kappa_{1}\kappa_{3}}{K_{2}}}=e^{\frac{4\pi
E}{K^{2}}}.$$
We shall first study the absolute motion when the $\zeta$ point lies on the circle $J=0$, then examine its neighborhood and finally deduce the bifurcation set.
Let us assume $\zeta$ on the circle $J=0$. This circle is no longer a trajectory and the $\zeta$ point stays at rest. The two conditions $Q\,{=}\,0$, $J\,{=}\,0$ express that both the energy and the inertia momentum relative to the barycentrum are invariant under a change of length, and therefore nothing prevents the vortices from going to infinity or to zero; we see below that both cases are possible. The absolute motion is ruled by Equation (6) which implies that $\frac{d\rho_{1}^{2}}{dt}$ and $\rho_{1}^{2}\frac{d\varphi_{1}}{dt}$ are constant in time ($\rho_{1},\varphi_{1}$ are polar coordinates of $M_{1}$, $B$ is chosen zero). Since the shape of the triangle is conserved, Equation (6) integrates as in $$\begin{aligned}
\forall\,j&=&1,2,3\enskip{:}\enskip z_{j}=z_{j,o}\left(1-\frac{t}{t_{c}}\right)^{1/2-i\omega t_{c}},\\
\hbox{i.e.}\quad
\sqrt{1-\frac{t}{t_{c}}}&=&\frac{\rho_{j}}{\rho_{j,o}}=\exp\{(\varphi_{j}-\varphi_{j,o})/(-2\omega
t_{c})\},\end{aligned}$$ where the characteristic time $t_{c}$ and the initial angular velocity $\omega$ are defined by $$-2\omega+\frac{i}{t_{c}}=\frac{-s^{2}}{\pi
K|z_{1,0}|^{2}}\frac{\zeta^{2}+d\zeta}{\zeta^{2}+d\zeta-\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}}=\frac{1}{3\pi}{\sum}'_{j,\ell}\dots
\frac{\kappa_{\ell}}{(\bar{z}_{j}(z_{\ell}-z_{j}))_{o}}.$$ -1$\omega$ never vanishes and has the sign of $K$. $\frac{1}{t_{c}}$ vanishes and changes sign when $\zeta$ is one of the four points already mentioned where the circle is tangent to the set of $\zeta$ curves. We conclude that, for a $\zeta$ point of the circle $J=0$ distinct of these four points, every vortex runs a logarithmic spiral whose pole is the barycentrum, the shape of the triangle remains constant and, depending on the sign of $t_{c}$, the triangle either expands to infinity in an infinite time or collapses on the barycentrum in a finite time $t_{c}$. At the time of this triple collision all the denominators of the equations of motion (1) simultaneously vanish like $(t_{c}-t)^{1/2}$. After the collision, the system is made of a single motionless vortex of strength $K$ located at what was the center of vorticity.
When $\frac{1}{t_{c}}$ vanishes, the spiral motion degenerates into a uniform circular motion whose period $T=\frac{2\pi}{\omega}$ can also be written as $$T=\frac{4\pi^{2}}{6K}(|z_{2}-z_{3}|^{2}+|z_{3}-z_{1}|^{2}+|z_{1}-z_{2}|^{2}),$$ for the two aligned configurations and twice the same expression for the equilateral triangles.
Let us now examine the motion elsewhere in the $\zeta$ plane $(J\ne 0)$. Figure \[fig5\] shows that two generic situations exist depending on whether the $\zeta$ orbit intersects or not the circle $J=0$ of singular points; the limiting $\zeta$ orbits, which belong to the bifurcation set, are $E=0$ (tangent at $T_{1},T_{2}$) and $E=E(P_{3})$. For an energy $E$ outside the interval $[E(P_{3}),0]$, the motion is the usual biperiodic one.
Inside the energy interval $]E(P_{3}),0[$, striped on Figure \[fig5\], every $\zeta$ trajectory stops on the circle (note that it cannot cross it) and, since $J$ is the product of $|z_{2}-z_{3}|^{2}$ by a function of $\zeta$ vanishing on the circle, every $\zeta$ point having a nonzero $J$ and the energy of a curve intersecting the circle yields an expanding motion in which the trajectory of every vortex is asymptotic to a logarithmic spiral going to infinity. No motion exists which is asymptotic to the triple collision in a finite time: therefore the points of the half circonference (from $P_{1}$ to $T_{1}$ and from $P_{3}$ to $T_{2}$) where such a collision exists are repulsive points, while the other half is made of attractive points.
![Bifurcation set for $Q=0$, not to scale.\[fig11\]](\ArtDir b2111contesezaf11)
Finally, the bifurcation set, which we have also represented in the $(E,J)$ plane on Figure \[fig11\], is the union of the following lines of the $\zeta$ plane: the set of collisions $(\zeta=\infty$, $-\kappa_{2},\kappa_{3}$), the circle $J=0$ (not an orbit), the orbit going through $P_{2}$, the orbit $E=0$ tangent to the circle at $T_{1},T_{2}$, the orbit $E=E(P_{3})$ tangent to the circle at $P_{3}$ and that portion of the orbit $E=E(P_{1})$ which is interior to the circle $J=0$.
### $\Delta=0$ {#delta0 .unnumbered}
Two of the three colinear relative equilibria coincide except at the three points of retrogression $\rho=3$ of the quartic $\Delta=0$ (strengths $-5,4,4$) where the three of them coincide and at the six points $\rho=\sqrt{5}$ (strengths $-2,\sqrt{3},2$) where two of the strengths are opposite (see next case).
For the absolute motion, there is nothing qualitatively changed: in the vicinity of the double point $\zeta_{o}$, the orbits are equivalent to the cubics of equation $$c-c_{o}+A_{2}\eta^{2}+A_{3}(\xi-\xi_{o})^{3}=0,$$ and the period, which behaves like $J\int\frac{\D\xi}{\eta}$, diverges like $|c-c_{o}|^{-1/16}$; the absolute motion is still biperiodic, although the triangle spends quite a long time in nearly aligned states. On the orbit $c=c_{o}$ passing through the unstable $\zeta_{o}$ point, the absolute motion is asymptotic to the usual circular motion, the time law being different: $\xi-\xi_{o}\sim
t^{-2}$, $\eta\sim t^{-3}$.
### $\Pi(\kappa_{j}+\kappa_{\ell})=0$. Elastic diffusion {#pikappa_jkappa_ell0.-elastic-diffusion .unnumbered}
At least two vortices have opposite strengths. To fix the ideas, let us assume $\kappa_{1}+\kappa_{2}=0$. The case $\vec{\kappa}=(-1,1,1)$ will be described in next section. The point $\zeta=\kappa_{3}$, which lies on the circle $J=0$, is singular in the sense that for every $c$ value there exists a $\zeta$ orbit passing through $\kappa_{3}$, which forbids a reduced periodic motion.
Therefore two generic situations exist, as shown on Figure \[fig6\]: outside of the striped domain which contains $J=0$, the absolute motion is biperiodic. Inside this domain, for every $c$ value there is one and only one $\zeta$ orbit and the $\zeta$ point is attracted by $\kappa_{3}$ in an infinite time: it tends to $\kappa_{3}$ normally to the real axis following a law $$i(\zeta-\kappa_{3})t\to \frac{2\pi s}{\kappa_{1}}e^{-4\pi E/Q}.$$
In the absolute space, the point $M_{3}$ stops and the two others go to infinity together with a motion asymptotic to a uniform translation in the direction normal to the line joining the final position of $M_{3}$ to the barycentrum, exactly as if they were alone and obeyed the motion of two vortices of opposite strengths: at the limit, the translation velocity is $\frac{\sqrt{-Q}}{2\pi}e^{2\pi E/Q}$ and the mutual distance is $e^{-2\pi E/Q}$.
This creation of a doublet can also be interpreted in terms of the elastic diffusion of the doublet by the third vortex: if we take for initial condition $\zeta$ near to $K_{3}$ with $\eta/K$ positive, the vortices 1 and 2 are initially a doublet moving towards the third vortex; then the three mutual distances become the same order of magnitude, i.e. there is interaction; finally, the doublet emerges and goes to infinity away from the third vortex with unchanged mutual distance and velocity, but in a different direction. This is exactly a process of elastic diffusion. Figure \[fig9\] shows typical absolute motions. We define the scattering angle $\Delta(\phi)$ by the total variation along the trajectory of $\arg(z_{1})$ ($B$ is chosen zero) and a dimensionless impact parameter by $\frac{\overline{OH}}{\overline{OM_{3}}}$ (Figure \[fig9\]) where $H$ is the projection of the middle of $M_{1}M_{2}$ on the line defined by the barycentrum and the final position of $M_{3}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\overline{OH}}{\overline{OM_{3}}}&=&\frac{{\rm Re}(\bar{z}_{3}\frac{z_{1}+z_{2}}{2})}{\bar{z}_{3}z_{3}}\\[4pt]
&=&\frac{{\rm
Re}((\vec{\zeta}_{3}-\kappa_{3})(\kappa_{3}^{2}-\kappa_{1}\zeta+s\zeta))}{-2\kappa_{1}|\zeta-\kappa_{3}|^{2}}\sim
\frac{s\kappa_{3}}{-2r\kappa_{1}}+\frac{s-\kappa_{1}}{-2\kappa_{1}}=\frac{c+1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $r$ is the radius of curvature in $\kappa_{3}$: $$r=\lim\frac{\eta^{2}}{2(\xi-\kappa_{3})}=\frac{-s\kappa_{3}}{s+\kappa_{1}c}.$$ The impact parameter is then our dimensionless invariant $c$, up to a linear transformation. As to the scattering angle, it can be computed from an integral taken along the $\zeta$ orbit: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \varphi_{1}=[\arg\, z_{1}]_{t=-\infty}^{+\infty}=\oint -sK\frac{{\rm %RC
Re}\left(\frac{\zeta^{2}+d\zeta}{\zeta^{2}+d\zeta-\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}}\right)}
{{\rm
Re}\left(\frac{\zeta[\vec{\zeta}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta-Q)-sK(\zeta+d)]}
{\zeta^{2}+d\zeta-\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}}\right)}\D(\arg\;\zeta).\end{aligned}$$ This integral can be carried out exactly for $c=0$, when the $\zeta$ orbit is a circle: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \varphi_{1}&=&\int_{o}^{2\pi}\frac{2K+d}{2(K+d)}\left(1-\frac{Kd}{2K^{2}+2Kd+d^{2}+2K(K+d)\cos\theta}\right)\D\theta\\[4pt]
&=&\left\{\begin{array}{@{}l@{\quad}l@{}} %RC
\pi&{\rm if}\ |\kappa_{1}|>|K|\\[7pt]
\ds \left(1-2\frac{K}{\kappa_{1}}\right)\pi&{\rm if}\ |\kappa_{1}|<|K|.\\
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
The bifurcation set for this case is made, in the $\zeta$ plane, of the following lines: the set of collisions $(\infty,\kappa_{3},-\kappa_{2})$, the boundary between the two regimes, the point $P_{1}$ and the orbit $c=c(P_{2})$.
### The three particular $\vec{\kappa}$ points {#the-three-particular-veckappa-points .unnumbered}
\(a) Point A (strengths $-1,1,1$). Direct and exchange diffusion.
The $\zeta$ plane looks like the one Figure \[fig6\] assumed continuously deformed so as to admit the origin as a center of symmetry: $M_{3}=P_{1}$, symmetric of $M_{2}$, and $P_{2}=0$.
Aref (1979) has extensively studied the motion and we shall only briefly summarize it. The results obtained for $\kappa_{1}+\kappa_{2}=0$ still apply, but a new physical situation arises from the existence of $\zeta$ orbits which go from $\zeta=\pm K$ to $\zeta=\mp K$ (these are all the orbits which cross the segment $T_{1}T_{2}$): the motion is then an exchange scattering in which the incident pair (1 2) is different from the outgoing doublet (1 3).
To sum up, three generic situations exist, depending on the initial conditions:
$|\frac{\zeta}{K}\pm 1|>2$: in uniformly rotating axes, the absolute motion is periodic.
$|\frac{\zeta}{K}\pm 1|<2$ and $-8<c<1$: exchange scattering; the integral giving the scattering angle is to be taken from 0 to $\pi$ only.
$|\frac{\zeta}{K}\pm 1|<2$ and $c$ outside $[-8,1]$: direct scattering as previously described.
The reduced forms of all the elliptic integrals giving the period and the scattering angle are gathered in Appendix I.
A particular case of exchange scattering is easy to solve and will give an idea of the motion:
For $c=0$, the $\zeta$ orbit is a half-circle and, computing $\frac{\D^{2}z_{1}}{\D t^{2}}$ by deriving Equation (6), we find zero, which means a uniform linear motion $M_{1}$, hence a scattering angle of $\pi$. The motion of $\zeta=Ke^{i\theta}$ is ruled by $\frac{\D\theta}{\D t}=\frac{v}{a}\sin^{2}\theta$ which integrates as $\zeta=K\frac{ia-vt}{\sqrt{a^{2}+v^{2}t^{2}}}$ where we have noted $a=2e^{2\pi E/K^{2}}$, $v=\frac{K}{\pi a}$.
The origin of time being chosen when $M_{1}$ is the summit of an isosceles rectangle triangle, the absolute motions take place on three parallel straight lines: $$\left\{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}
\ds z_{1}=a+i\;v\;t\\[4pt]
\ds z_{2}=\frac{a+i\;v\;t}{2}+\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{a^{2}+v^{2}\;t^{2}}\\[10pt]
\ds z_{3}=\frac{a+i\;v\;t}{2}-\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{a^{2}+v^{2}\;t^{2}}.\\
\end{array}\right.$$
The exchange scattering process is clearly seen on the above equations, and every other exchange scattering motion can be thought of as a continuous deformation of this one.
The bifurcation set is made of the set of collisions and of the boundaries of the domains limiting the three generic situations; note that the circle $J=0(|\zeta|=|K|)$ does not belong to it. This set is simple enough to be represented without any ambiguity by a c axis with the number and type of solutions in each interval:
\(b) Point B summit of the quartic (strengths $-5,4,4$).
Nothing special happens to the motion. At the triple point $\zeta=0$, the vortex of strength $\frac{-5K}{3}$ is motionless as it coincides with the barycentrum, and the two other vortices, which are symmetric with regard to the barycentrum, obey the circular motion. The $\zeta$ orbits around this stable point are equivalent to the quartics of equation $$2^{-4/3}c+1-\frac{15}{8}\left(\frac{\eta}{K}\right)^{2}-\frac{45}{256}
\left(\frac{\xi}{K}\right)^{4}=0,$$ and they correspond to ordinary motions; however the period, which still behaves like $J\int \frac{\D\xi}{\eta}$, diverges as $(c+2^{4/3})^{-1/4}$.
\(c) Point C (strengths $-2, \sqrt{3}, 2$) conjunction of $\Delta=0$ and $\Pi(\kappa_{j}+\kappa_{\ell})=0$. This point has no new properties: the previously studied singularities only add without interfering.
Volume of the phase space
-------------------------
The Hamiltonian system has an invariant element of volume of the phase space equal to $$\D v=\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}\D x_{1}\wedge \D y_{1}\wedge \D x_{2} \wedge \D y_{2}
\wedge \D x_{3}\wedge \D y_{3}.$$
Since there exist four real invariants $E, J, X, Y$ $(X+iY=B)$, we want the density of states $\frac{\D v}{\D E\;\D J\;\D X\;\D Y}$ after integration over two independent variables of the phase space.
By using the two successive changes of variables $(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\to
(z_{2}-z_{3},\zeta,B)$ and $$(\zeta,\bar{\zeta},z_{2}-z_{3},\overline{z_{2}-z_{3}})\to
(E,J,z_{2}-z_{3},\overline{z_{2}-z_{3}}),$$ whose jacobians are respectively $$\frac{D(z_{2}-z_{3},\zeta,B)}{D(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})}=\frac{-sK}{z_{2}-z_{3}},$$ and $$\frac{D(E,J)}{D(\zeta,\bar{\zeta})}=\frac{i\kappa_{1}^{2}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}}{2\pi}|z_{2}-z_{3}|^{2}\frac{{\rm
Im} (\zeta^{2}+d\zeta)}{|(\zeta-\kappa_{3})(\zeta+\kappa_{2})|^{2}},$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\D v&=&\frac{\pi}{\kappa_{1}s^{2}K^{2}}\frac{|(\zeta-\kappa_{3})^{2}(\zeta+\kappa_{2})^{2}|}{{\rm
Im}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta)}\\
&& \ \D(x_{2}-x_{3}) \wedge \D(y_{2}-y_{3})\wedge \D E\wedge \D J \wedge \D X\wedge \D Y,\end{aligned}$$ and we still have to integrate over $x_{2}-x_{3}$ and $y_{2}-y_{3}$. Since $|z_{2}-z_{3}|$ moves in time according to $$2\pi\frac{\D |z_{2}-z_{3}|^{2}}{\D t}=2\kappa_{1}s^{2}\frac{{\rm
Im}(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta)}{|(\zeta-\kappa_{3})(\zeta+\kappa_{2})|^{2}},$$ the integration is quite easy to perform and we finally get $$\D v=\frac{\pi}{K^{2}}T(E,J) \D E\wedge \D J\wedge \D X\wedge \D Y,$$ which shows that the density of states is the period of the reduced motion. This is a well known result of the theory of adiabatic invariants (see e.g. Landau and Lifchitz), for energy and time are conjugate variables: when $J$ is constant and $E$ slowly varying, then the product $ET$ is constant since the volume of the phase space if conserved.
To take into account the fact that the phase space is the union of disconnected parts, we must sum the above expression over the number (between 0 and 4, see Table \[tab1\]) of different domains associated to given values of $E$ and $J$. The resulting volume $\Omega(J,E)$ obeys the scaling law: $$\Omega(E,J)=\frac{\pi}{K^{2}}\sum_{{\rm
domains}}T(E,J)=\left|\frac{J}{QK^{3}}\right|f\left(\frac{J}{Q}e^{4\pi\frac{E}{Q}}\right).$$
Onsager (1949) defined the entropy $S$ and the temperature $\tau$ of an assembly of a large number of interacting vortices: $$S=k_{B}\;{\rm Log}\,\Omega,\quad \frac{1}{\tau}=\frac{\D S}{\D E}.$$
Although it makes no sense to speak of thermodynamics about an integrable system, there may be some interest for the understanding of the behaviour of a large number of vortices to examine what the Onsager’s theory gives when formally applied to the three-vortex system.
The main hypothesis made by Onsager is that the total amount of volume $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\Omega \D E$ available to the system is finite, an hypothesis equivalent to assume the system confined in a box since the phase space and the configuration space are the same. Due to the scaling law for $\Omega$, the integral $\int\Omega \D E$ will be either finite and proportional to $J$ or infinite, depending on the strengths of the vortices. The first arising question is therefore: when $J$ is kept constant, is the integral $\int\Omega(E,J)\D E=\frac{Q}{4\pi}\int_{cQJ>0}\Omega\frac{\D c}{c}$ finite or not, i.e. are all the singularities of $T$ integrable or not?
The singularities of $T$ are: the set of collisions, the unstable relative equilibria and, since $J$ is kept nonzero, the limit $e^{4\pi E/Q}\to 0$ in the domains $\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K<0$ only.
\(a) Two vortices close to each other (vortex $j$ alone): then $$T\sim
\frac{4\pi^{2}J}{(K-\kappa_{j})^{2}\kappa_{j}}\left(\frac{Qc}{\kappa_{j}(K-\kappa_{j})}\right)^{-\frac{Q\kappa_{j}}{\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}}}\to
0,$$ and the singularity $\int\;T$ $\D E=\frac{QJ}{4\pi}\int\frac{T}{J}\frac{\D c}{c}$ is integrable.
\(b) $\zeta$ tends to an unstable $\zeta_{0}$ value, whose $c$ value is $c_{o}$. The equivalent hyperbola having for equation: $$\begin{aligned}
G(\zeta,\bar{\zeta})&\equiv&
\frac{c-c_{o}}{c_{o}}+\frac{J\,\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}}{2Q(\kappa_{1}|\zeta_{0}|^{2}+\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K)^{2}}\\[3pt]
&&\times\,[\mu_{o}(\zeta-\zeta_{o})^{2}+2v_{o}|\zeta-\zeta_{o}|^{2}+\bar{\mu}_{o}(\bar{\zeta}-\bar{\zeta}_{o})^{2}]=0,\end{aligned}$$ the period is equivalent to $$T\sim {\rm cst}\,J\int \frac{\D \bar{\zeta}}{G'_{\zeta}(\zeta,\bar{\zeta})}\sim {\rm cst}\
J\ {\rm Log}|c-c_{o}|,$$ and the singularity is therefore integrable.
\(c) $|\zeta|^{2}\to - \frac{\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K}{\kappa_{1}}$ (possible in every domain, except 0 and 150).
Since $c$ tends to zero with $J$ being kept constant and nonzero, then $e^{4\pi E/Q}$ tends to zero, therefore the period $T=\hbox{cst}$ $e^{-4\pi E/Q}$ has a nonintegrable singularity.
In conclusion, the volume of the phase space, with $J$ being constant, is finite and proportional to $J$ in the domains 0, 150 and $K=0$ and infinite elsewhere. The unit of time we chose, i.e. $4\pi^{2}\frac{J}{QK}$, is a posteriori convenient for it is proportional to the volume.
Let us now examine the behaviour of the thermodynamical quantities, keeping in mind that any conclusion is meaningless for three vortices and can only be indicative for a larger system. For instance in the domain 0 (i.e. $\kappa_{j}K>0$), the function $E_{o}\to
\int_{E<E_{o}}$ $\Omega \D E$ is of course increasing, but the integrand $\Omega$, which is zero at the edges $E\to \pm \infty$, positive and integrable, has three infinite maxima at finite values of the energy (Figure \[fig7\]). Each of these maxima corresponds to an unstable relative equilibrium configuration or, in other words, to a point of the phase space which links two disconnected domains. This feature somehow complicates the correspondence between energy and temperature and there exists some numerical evidence (Lundgren and Pointin, 1977, and references herein) of a possible lack of ergodicity which could come out of a multiple connexity of the phase space. Another interesting observation is that, when the energy tends to $+\infty$, the “temperature” of the three vortex system tends to a constant, negative value (Fig. \[fig7\]), a fact already noticed for a large number of vortices by Lundgren and Pointin (page 334), C.E. Seyler (1974), Edwards and Taylor (1974, page 262).
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
----------
In addition to the fact of being an exactly soluble three body problem, the three vortex system is very interesting in connection with the theory of turbulence. Unfortunately its number of degrees of freedom is too small to yield a chaotic behaviour (the threshold for such a behaviour is 3) and this was confirmed by the results: nonperiodic behaviours are obtained only for very particular values of the parameters. A four vortex system (see some preliminary results in Conte, 1979), with its 3 independent degrees of freedom and because we do not know about its integrability, is the really interesting dynamical system to study in order to have some hints about the integrability of the N vortex system.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We want to thank Y. Pomeau for many fruitful discussions which led to the discovery of the appropriate plane. We also greatly appreciated the formal Reduce-like computer language AMP (Drouffe, 1976) which helped us to establish the numerous necessary formulae.
The work is the first chapter of the unpublished Thèse d’État of the first author. It is an honor and a pleasure for us to dedicate it to Professor Hao Bailin and to wish him a long life.
[00]{} H. Aref (1979), Motion of three vortices, Phys. Fluids [*22*]{}, 393–400.
Bateman manuscript project, (1953), Higher transcendental functions, vol. II, chapter XIII; A. Erdélyi Editor, Mc Graw Hill.
R. Conte (1979), Thèse d’Etat, Université de Paris VI. J.M. Drouffe, AMP language, (1976), same address as authors.
S.F. Edwards and J.B. Taylor (1974), Negative temperature states of two-dimensional plasmas and vortex fluids, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, [*A 336*]{}, .
W. Gröbner and Hofreiter (1965), Integraltafel, vol. 4, Springer-Verlag.
L. Landau and E. Lifchitz (1960), Mechanics, Pergamon Press.
T.S. Lundgren and Y.B. Pointin (1977), Statistical mechanics of two-dimensional vortices, Journal of statistical physics, [*17*]{}, 323–325.
A.M. Mayer (1878), Floating magnets, Nature, [*18*]{}, 258.
E.A. Novikov (1975), Dynamics and statistics of a system of vortices, JETP [*41*]{}, 937–943.
L. Onsager (1949), Statistical hydrodynamics, Nuovo Cimento, [*6*]{} suppl., 279–287.
H. Poincaré (1893), Théorie des tourbillons, pages 77–84, Deslis frères, Paris.
C.E. Seyler, Jr. (1974), Partition function for a two-dimensional plasma in the random phase approximation, Phys. Rev. Letters [*32*]{}, 515–517.
S. Smale (1970), Topology and mechanics, Inventiones math., [*10*]{}, 305–331 and [*11*]{}, 45–64.
W. Thomson (1878), Floating magnets (illustrating vortex-systems), Nature, [*18*]{}, 13–14.
Appendix I {#appendix-i .unnumbered}
----------
Cases of integrability {#cases-of-integrability .unnumbered}
----------------------
For practical applications, it may be of interest to find which values of the $\kappa_{j}$’s lead to integrable expressions for the period (12). A first case is when two strengths are equal: $\kappa_{2}=\kappa_{3}$; then $\xi\eta$ can be expressed only with $|\zeta|^{2}$, using (11), and the period is a simple integral in the variable $|\zeta|^{2}$, which can be easily integrated numerically.
Another case is when, the strengths being rational, the algebraic curve (11) is of genus one or zero (the genus of an algebraic curve of degree $n$ is equal to $\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2}$ minus the number of double points). The only curve of genus zero is the circle $J=0$ but then the period is given by another non-integrable expression. If the trajectory is of genus one, the abelian integral expressing the period can always be reduced to an elliptic integral by a birational transformation of the coordinates (see e.g. Bateman 1953). For small integer values of the strengths, there is some chance of finding curves of genus one.
Let us just mention three particular cases.
$\underline{\vec{\kappa}=(1,1,1) K/3}$. This belongs to the first but not to the second case (degree 6, genus 4 in general). The period is expressed by the hyperelliptic integral in $u=\frac{|\zeta|^{2}}{\kappa_{1}^{2}}$: $$\frac{T}{T_{u}}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\oint \frac{-9(u+3)\;{\rm
sign}(\xi\eta)}{\sqrt{27c^{3}(u+1)^{2}-2(u+3)^{3}}\sqrt{2(u+3)^{3}-27c^{3}(u-1)^{2}}}\D u.$$ Novikov gave this expression in the variable $b=\frac{6}{u+3}=\frac{3\kappa_{1}^{2}|z_{2}-z_{3}|^{2}}{J}$ which always remains between 0 and 2 but he did not integrate it: $$\frac{T}{T_{u}}=\frac{3}{4\pi c^{3}}\oint \frac{{\rm
sign}(\xi\eta)}{\sqrt{f(b)}\sqrt{-g(b)}}\D b$$ with $f(b)\equiv b(b-3)^{2}-\frac{4}{c^{3}}$, $g(b)\equiv
b(b-\frac{3}{2})^{2}-\frac{1}{c^{3}}$. This hyperelliptic integral happens to be reducible to an elliptic integral (Bolza, 1898, mentioned in the tables of Gröbner and Hofreiter, 1965) of the variable $z=\frac{g(b)}{3b}$, due to the relations: $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi(z)\equiv
z^{3}-\frac{3}{2}z^{2}+\left(\frac{9}{16}-\frac{3}{2c^{3}}\right)z+\frac{1}{8c^{3}}-
\frac{1}{4c^{6}}=\frac{f(b)[h(b)]^{2}}{27b^{3}},\\[4pt]
\frac{\D z}{\D b}=\frac{6h(b)}{9b^{2}}\end{gathered}$$ with $h(b)\equiv b^{3}-\frac{3}{2}b^{2}+\frac{1}{2c^{3}}$; this gives for the period: $$\frac{T}{T_{u}}=\frac{1}{8\pi c^{3}}\oint \frac{{\rm sign}(\xi\eta){\rm
sign}(h(b))}{\sqrt{-z\varphi(z)}}\D z$$
Let us call $b_{1}<b_{2}<b_{3}$ the zeros of $f$, $b_{4}<b_{5}<b_{6}$ those of $g$ ($b_{4}$ and $b_{5}$ are not real for $1<c^{3}<2$), $b_{7}<b_{8}<b_{9}$ those of $h$ and $z_{1}<z_{2}<z_{3}$ those of $\varphi$. The correspondence is $(b_{1},b_{9})\to z_{1}$, $(b_{2},b_{8})\to z_{2}$, $(b_{3},b_{7})\to z_{3}$, which gives the following values of the period for the two domains: $$\begin{gathered}
1<c^{3}<2\enskip{:}\enskip {\rm sign}(K)\oint =2\int_{b_{1}}^{b_{2}}\D b=6\int_{z_{1}}^{z_{2}}\D z,\\[3pt]
b_{7}<b_{1}<b_{8}<b_{9}<b_{2}<b_{6}<b_{3}\\[3pt]
\frac{T}{|T_{u}|}=\frac{3}{2\pi c^{3}}\frac{K(k)}{\sqrt{(z_{3}-z_{2})(-z_{1})}},\quad k^{2}=\frac{z_{3}(z_{2}-z_{1})}{(z_{3}-z_{2})(-z_{1})},\quad z_{1}<z_{2}<0<z_{3}\\[3pt]
2<c^{3}\enskip{:}\enskip
b_{7}<b_{1}<b_{4}<b_{8}<b_{5}<b_{9}<b_{6}<b_{2}<b_{3},\quad z_{1}<0<z_{2}<z_{3}.\end{gathered}$$
Two equivalent expressions lead to the period, according to whether $\zeta$ turns around $M_{1}$ or another vortex: $$\begin{gathered}
\hspace*{-.05pc}\hbox{($\zeta$ around $M_{1}$)}\hspace*{2.5pc}:\quad {\rm sign}(K)\oint=4\int_{b_{1}}^{b_{4}}\D b=4\int_{z_{1}}^{o}\D z\\[4pt]
\hbox{($\zeta$ around $M_{2}$ or $M_{3}$)}:\quad {\rm sign}(K)\oint=2\int_{b_{5}}^{b_{6}}\D b=4\int_{z_{1}}^{o}\D z\\[4pt]
\frac{T}{|T_{u}|}=\frac{K(k)}{\pi c^{3}\sqrt{z_{3}(z_{2}-z_{1})}},\quad
k^{2}=\frac{-z_{1}(z_{3}-z_{2})}{z_{3}(z_{2}-z_{1})}\end{gathered}$$ $\underline{\vec{\kappa}=(-1,1,1,)K}$ where three generic situations exist. We assume $K>0$.
The $\zeta$ curves are bicircular quartics of genus one and we derive below the normal forms of the scattering angle and the period of the reduced motion: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \varphi_{1}&=&\oint\frac{(u+u_{o})\;{\rm sign}(\xi\eta)}{2u\sqrt{(u-u_{-})(u-u_{+})}\sqrt{(u-1)(u_{o}-u)}}\D u\\[4pt]
\frac{T}{T_{u}}&=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\oint\frac{4\;{\rm
sign}(\xi\eta)}{c(u-1)\sqrt{(u-u_{-})(u-u_{+})}\sqrt{(u-1)(u_{o}-u)}}\D u\end{aligned}$$ with the notations $u=|\frac{\zeta}{K}|^{2}$, $u_{o}=1+\frac{8}{c}$, $u_{\pm}=\frac{4}{c}-1\pm \frac{4}{c}$ $\sqrt{1-c}$. The variable $b$ in Aref is related to $u$ by $b=\frac{6}{1-u}$. $K, E$ and $\Pi$ are the complete elliptic integrals of the first, second and third kind, the last one being defined as[^1] $$\Pi(n,k)=\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\D x}{(1-nx^{2})\sqrt{(1-x^{2})(1-k^{2}x^{2})}}$$ First regime (exchange scattering). $-8<c<1$. $\oint {\rm
sign}(\xi\eta)\D u=2\int_{1}^{u_{-}}\D u$.
There is no discontinuity for $c=0$ where $\Delta \varphi_{1}$ evaluates to $\pi$. $$\begin{aligned}
&&-8<c<0\enskip{:}\enskip \Delta \varphi_{1}=\frac{-2}{\sqrt{(1-u_{o})(u_{-}-u_{+})}}\\[5pt]
&&\hspace*{5.2pc}\left[\left(1+\frac{u_{0}}{u_{+}}\right)K(k)+\frac{u_{o}(u_{+}-1)}{u_{+}}\Pi(n,k)\right]\\[5pt]
&&\qquad {\rm with}\ k^{2}=\frac{(1-u_{-})(u_{o}-u_{+})}{(1-u_{o})(u_{-}-u_{+})},\quad n=\frac{u_{+}(u_{-}-1)}{u_{-}-u_{+}},\\[5pt]
&&0<c<1\enskip{:}\enskip \Delta \varphi_{1}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{(u_{o}-u_{-})(u_{+}-1)}}\left[2K(k)+\frac{8}{c}\Pi(n,k)\right]\\[5pt]
&&\qquad {\rm with}\ k^{2}=\frac{(u_{o}-u_{+})(u_{-}-1)}{(u_{o}-u_{-})(u_{+}-1)},
\quad n=\frac{u_{o}(1-u_{-})}{u_{o}-u_{-}}\end{aligned}$$
Second regime (direct scattering). $c<-8$ or $1<c$. $\oint {\rm
sign}(\xi\eta)\D u=2\int_{1}^{u_{o}}\D u$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&c<-8\enskip{:}\enskip \Delta \varphi_{1}=\frac{-2}{\sqrt{(1-u_{-})(u_{o}-u_{+})}}\\[4pt]
&&\hspace*{5.2pc}\left[\left(1+\frac{u_{0}}{u_{+}}\right)K(k)+\frac{(u_{+}-1)u_{o}}{u_{+}}\Pi(n,k)\right]\\[4pt]
&&\qquad {\rm with}\ k^{2}=\frac{(1-u_{o})(u_{-}-u_{+})}{(1-u_{-})(u_{o}-u_{+})},\quad n=\frac{u_{+}(u_{o}-1)}{u_{o}-u_{+}},\\[4pt]
&&1<c\enskip{:}\enskip \Delta \varphi_{1}=(u_{o}^{-\frac{1}{4}}-u_{o}^{\frac{1}{4}})K(k)+\frac{(1+\sqrt{u_{o}})^{2}}{2}\Pi(n,k)\\[4pt]
&&\qquad {\rm with}\
k^{2}=\frac{(u_{o}-1)^{2}-4(\sqrt{u_{o}}-1)^{2}}{16\sqrt{u_{o}}}, \quad
n=-\frac{(1-\sqrt{u_{o}})^{2}}{4\sqrt{u_{o}}}\end{aligned}$$ Third regime (biperiodic). $0<c<1$ $\oint {\rm
sign}(\xi\eta)\D u=4\int_{u_{+}}^{u_{o}}\D u$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{T}{T_{u}}=\frac{2}{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{2(u_{o}-1)}{(u_{-}-1)(u_{o}-u_{-})}}\left[K(k)-\frac{u_{o}-u_{-}}{6(u_{o}-1)}E(k)\right]\\
&&\Delta \varphi_{1}=\frac{4}{\sqrt{(u_{-}-1)(u_{o}-u_{-})}}\left[2K(k)-\frac{8}{c+8}\Pi(n,k)\right]\\
&&\qquad {\rm with}\ k^{2}=\frac{(u_{-}-1)(u_{o}-u_{+})}
{(u_{+}-1)(u_{o}-u_{-})},\quad n=\frac{u_{+}-u_{o}}{u_{o}(u_{+}-1)}\end{aligned}$$ $\underline{\vec{\kappa}=(-1,2,2)\frac{K}{3}}$, a case with two possible regimes (biperiodic, expanding).
The $\zeta$ trajectories are the Cassini ovals, whose genus is one. The period for instance is given by $$T=\left(\frac{4\pi^{2}J}{K^{3}}\right)\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\oint\frac{-27\;{\rm
sign}(\xi\eta)}{4(u-3)^{2}\sqrt{(u+1)^{2}-\alpha}\sqrt{\alpha-(u-1)^{2}}}\D u$$ with $u=|\frac{\zeta}{\kappa_{2}}|^{2}$, $\alpha=|(\frac{\zeta}{\kappa_{2}})^{2}-1|^{2}=16$ $e^{18\pi E/K^{2}}$. Its reduced form is not very compact and we shall not give it here.
Appendix II {#appendix-ii .unnumbered}
-----------
Stability of the relative equilibria {#stability-of-the-relative-equilibria .unnumbered}
------------------------------------
In order to obtain the shape of the $\zeta$ trajectories in the vicinity of the relative equilibria we must determine whether they are of elliptic or hyperbolic nature.
The points $\infty,-\kappa_{2},\kappa_{3}$ are elliptic, neighbouring orbits are circles described with a uniform circular motion of period: $$T=\frac{4\pi^{2}J}{(K-\kappa_{j})^{2}\kappa_{j}}\left(\frac{Qc}{\kappa_{j}(K-\kappa_{j})}\right)^{-\frac{Q\kappa_{j}}{\kappa_{1}\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}}}$$
We now assume that $\zeta_{o}$ is the affix of an ordinary relative equilibrium (the case of two coincident r.e. is studied elsewhere in the paper), which implies $J \ne 0$ and we study the vicinity of the equilateral triangles and of the aligned configurations.
By writing $f(\zeta,\bar{\zeta})$ for the right-hand side of Equation (10), the small motions of a $\zeta$ point in the vicinity of a stationary point $\zeta_{o}$ are ruled by: $$2\pi i\frac{\D \bar{\zeta}}{\D t}=(\zeta-\zeta_{o})\frac{\partial f}{\partial \zeta}
(\zeta_{o},\bar{\zeta}_{o})+(\overline{\zeta-\zeta_{o}})\frac{\partial f}{\partial
\bar{\zeta}}(\zeta_{o},\bar{\zeta}_{o}),$$ or, in real matricial notation: $$2\pi\frac{\D}{\D t}\binom{\xi}{\eta}=M\binom{\xi-\xi_{o}}{\eta-\eta_{o}}=
\left(\begin{array}{@{}l@{\quad}l@{}}
\alpha'+\beta'&\alpha-\beta\\
\alpha+\beta&-\alpha'+\beta'\\
\end{array}\right)\binom{\xi-\xi_{o}}{\eta-\eta_{o}}$$ with $\alpha+i\alpha'=\frac{\partial f}{\partial \zeta}(\zeta_{o},\bar{\zeta}_{o}) =\mu$, $\beta+i\beta'=\frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar{\zeta}}(\zeta_{o},\bar{\zeta}_{o})=\nu$.
The stability condition is: ${\rm tr}(M)=0$, ${\rm det}(M)>0$. We find: $$\frac{-(\kappa_{1}|\zeta|^{2}+\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K)}{J(\zeta+\kappa_{2})(\zeta-\kappa_{3})}=
\frac{\mu}{2|\zeta|^{2}+d\bar{\zeta}-sK}=\frac{\nu}{\zeta^{2}+d\zeta-Q}$$ with the condition (17). The trace of $M$ is therefore zero. If $\zeta_{o}$ is elliptic, then the small motions have the period $4\pi^{2}/\sqrt{{\rm det}(M)}$. We now divide the study according to the two types of stationary points.
(a)
${\rm det}(M)=\frac{3Q^{3}}{J^{2}}$. The stability condition is $Q>0$ and, when this is fulfilled, the period of the small motions is $\frac{4\pi^{2}J}{\sqrt{3}Q^{3/2}}$; comparing with the period of the absolute motion which will be derived later, we find: $$\left(\frac{T_{r}}{T_{a}}\right)^{2}=1-\frac{1}{2K^{2}}\sum_{j}\sum_{\ell >
j}(\kappa_{j}-\kappa_{\ell})^{2}.$$ The overall rotation is therefore quicker than the small motions with equality only for identical strengths.
\(b) $${\rm det}\
M=|\nu|^{2}-|\mu|^{2}=\left(\frac{\kappa_{1}\zeta^{2}+\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3}K}{J(\zeta^{2}+d\zeta-\kappa_{2}\kappa_{3})}\right)^{2}
F_{1}(\zeta)F_{2}(\zeta)$$ with the notation $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1}(\zeta)&=&-\zeta^{2}+Ks-Q\\
F_{2}(\zeta)&=&3\zeta^{2}+2d\zeta-sK-Q=P'(\zeta)\end{aligned}$$ and the condition: $\zeta$ is a real zero of $P$.
The determinant of $M$ changes sign when the resultant of $P$ and $F_{1}F_{2}$ vanishes. We find: $${\rm res}(P,F_{1})=-3s^{2}Q^{2},\quad {\rm res}(P,F_{2})=s^{2}\Delta.$$ Then we obtain the nature of the aligned configurations in the parameter space: $$\begin{aligned}
\hbox{$\Delta > 0$ $(Q < 0)$}&:& \hbox{one stable configuration}\\
\hbox{$\Delta < 0$ and $Q<0$}&:& \hbox{two stable configurations, one unstable}\\
\hbox{$\Delta < 0$ and $Q>0$}&:& \hbox{three unstable configurations}.\end{aligned}$$
It is worth observing that in the present problem the nonlinear stability is the same as the linear one.
[^1]: In the tables of Gradshteyn and Ryzhik $4^{{\rm th}}$ edition, the definition 8.111.4 is not consistent with the rest of the book; many formulae concerning elliptic integrals are wrong, among them 3.132.5, 3.132.6, 3.138.8, 3.148.1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We employ an evolutionary algorithm to investigate the optimal design of composite protectors using one-dimensional granular chains composed of beads of various sizes, masses, and stiffnesses. We define a fitness function using the maximum force transmitted from the protector to a “wall" that represents the body to be protected and accordingly optimize the [topology]{} (arrangement), [size]{}, and [material]{} of the chain. We obtain optimally randomized granular protectors characterized by high-energy equipartition and the transformation of incident waves into interacting solitary pulses. We consistently observe that the pulses traveling to the wall combine to form an extended (long-wavelength), small-amplitude pulse.'
author:
- Fernando Fraternali
- 'Mason A. Porter'
- Chiara Daraio
date: 'Received: / Revised version: '
title: Optimal design of composite granular protectors
---
Introduction
============
One-dimensional (1D) lattices (chains) of particles interacting according to nonlinear potentials have been receiving increasing attention in the scientific community because of their special wave dynamics, which allows energy transport through solitary waves [@mackay99; @nesterenko1; @senmanciu01; @HeatPhysicsReport; @focus; @friep1; @friema]. In the case of granular systems, particle interactions are strongly nonlinear because of nonlinear compressive forces and no-tension behavior [@nesterenko1; @senmanciu01; @wang; @hinch99; @sen08]. As a result, granular lattices can support traveling solitary waves with compact support [@nesterenko1]. The evolution of nonlinear particle systems toward energy equipartition (or *thermalization*), predicted by statistical mechanics [@pathria], is also particularly interesting. Stable or transient energy transport through coherent modes (solitary waves, breathers, etc.) can develop ([@friep1; @friep2; @friep3; @friep4; @flach; @peyrard; @mirnov; @eleft]), and eventual thermalization might not occur at all, as investigated in great detail for the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam problem and related nonlinear lattice systems [@focus].
By designing protectors or containers optimally, the strongly nonlinear dynamics of granular systems can be exploited to produce fast decomposition of an external impulse into trains of solitary waves, energy trapping, shock disintegration, and more [@hong05; @nesterenko2; @dar05b; @dar06; @dimer; @donsen05; @donsen06; @wang]. Furthermore, it has been emphasized that using a suitable randomization of the granular system–involving, for example, the variation of particle sizes, masses, and materials–one might induce nonuniformity in the steady states in the velocity profiles; the appearance of negative velocities; marked thermalization; wave-amplitude decay; and anomalous features of wave propagation through interfaces between particles differing in masses, sizes, and/or mechanical properties [@nesterenko1; @nesterenko2; @dar05b; @hong05; @job].
When dealing with the optimal design of granular protectors, one can optimize features such as particle distribution, connectivity, size, and material through either discrete or continuous approaches. (These ideas are known, respectively as [*shape*]{}, [*topology*]{}, [*size*]{}, and [*material*]{} optimization.) Discrete approaches introduce suitable *ground structures*–which refer to background structures in which the material densities of predefined connections are subject to optimization [@rin85; @roz93; @ped93; @ben03; @kir96]. Continuous models instead use *homogenization theory*, as they examine design domains with perforated composite microstructures [@ben88; @ben89; @kik95; @jac98; @all01; @ben03]. Well-established gradient-based optimization techniques include [mathematical programming]{}, [optimality criteria]{} (that is, suitable mathematical conditions defining an optimally designed structure) [@sav85; @ber87], [sequential approximate optimization]{} [@sva87; @fle87; @ma95]. Available methods that are not based on gradients include [simulated annealing]{} [@bal91; @shi97], [biological growth]{} [@mat90; @mro03], and [genetic and evolutionary algorithms]{} [@gol86; @jen92; @cha94; @raj95; @kic05].
[*Evolutionary Algorithms*]{} (EAs) provide a family of optimization methods inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution. They search for the best “phenotype" in a given population of candidate solutions by applying selection mechanisms and genetic operators similar to the intermingling of chromosomes in cell reproduction and replication. First, one evaluates each element (individual) of the population in terms of a quantitative fitness, which represents the feature that discriminates between phenotypes. One then mates the individuals using a recombination operator. Finally, one mutates a given percentage of the individuals, thereby creating a new population. One then repeats these steps cyclically until some termination criterion is reached. The individual with the best fitness in the final population provides a guess of the global optimum of the fitness function. EAs are a natural fit for optimization problems in granular systems, as in such problems one can easily identify the system particles (i.e., the beads) with cells and their geometrical and mechanical properties (including radii, mass densities, elastic moduli, material types, and so on) with the corresponding genes. Furthermore, EAs require little knowledge of the search environment, can escape from local optima (in order to achieve a better global optimum), and are well-suited to problems with large and complex solution spaces [@kic05] (such as those arising from the optimization of strongly nonlinear dynamical systems).
The present work exploits EAs for the optimal design of composite granular protectors. We identify the fitness function with the force $F_{out}$ transmitted from the protector to a “wall" that represents the body to be protected. We compute the performance of the candidate solutions under given impact loadings through a Runge-Kutta time-discretization of Hamilton’s equations of motion. We adopt the hard-sphere model of interactions between adjacent beads for computational reasons, as a very large number of simulations are required by the optimization process. We also ignore dissipative effects, in accord with the standard models in the literature [@nesterenko1]. We note, however, that including relevant dissipative effects [@rosas03; @rosas07] such as friction, plasticity, large deformations, and so on, using (for example) time-stepping techniques of non-smooth contact dynamics [@moreau] or molecular dynamics [@herrmann], would not change the above EA framework. Dissipation is expected to enhance the effectiveness of the protector by further reducing the force amplitude transmitted at the wall, as shown (for example) in the experimental results reported below.
In this paper, we investigate several optimization problems. We focus, in particular, on topology, size, and material optimization of 1D composite granular chains. We compare the dynamics of the optimized systems we obtain with those of granular protectors and special granular systems (*sonic vacua*) available in the literature [@nesterenko1; @donsen06; @dar06; @hong05]. We show that the use of EAs offers a dramatic advantage in the design of granular protectors, leading to a significant decrease of the transmitted force. This EA-driven optimal design generates suitable topology, size, and material randomization by combining effects of wave disintegration and reflection at the interfaces between geometrical and/or mechanical discontinuities. A general feature we observe in the optimized protectors is the transformation of incident waves into a collection of interacting reflected and transmitted solitary pulses, which in particular form an extended (long-wavelength), small-amplitude wave that travels to the wall. We also find that optimization randomizes these systems (adding to their disorder) and produces a marked thermalization. We constantly observe (in the absence of forced symmetry constraints) the appearance of soft/light beads near the wall, hard/heavy beads near the end impacted by the striker, and alternating hard and soft beads in the central section of the optimized chains. The observed “shock mitigation" behavior allows one to think of granular protectors in a new way–as tunable kinetic systems rather than as purely dissipative systems. Consequently, they offer the exciting possibility of creating much more effective energy transformation and shielding devices.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[mech\], we formulate our mechanical and numerical models. We then show how to optimize granular protectors in Section \[granprot\]. We consider, in turn, topology optimization, size optimization, periodic sequences of optimized cells, and material optimization. As an extended example, we investigate the optimization of a container proposed by Hong [@hong05] with both impulsive and shock-type loading. Finally, we summarize our results in Section \[conclusions\].
Mechanical and numerical modeling {#mech}
=================================
Consider a non-dissipative chain of $N$ granular particles described by the Hamiltonian [@nesterenko1] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hamiltonian}
H \ = \ \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( \frac{1}{2} \frac{p_i^2}{m_i} + V_i( q_{i} - q_{i+1} ) - W_i(q_i) \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $m_i$, $q_i$ and $p_i$, respectively, denote the mass, the displacement from the “packed” configuration (particles touching each other without deformation) and the momentum of the $i$th particle, $V_i$ is the potential of the interaction force between particles $i$ and $i+1$, and $W_i$ is the potential of the external forces acting on the $i$th particle (including gravity, static precompression, etc.). We introduce an $(N+1)$st particle in order to model a [wall]{} that constrains the chain. In so doing, we assume that $p_{N+1} = q_{N+1}=0$ during the motion. The Hamiltonian (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]) yields a system of $2N$ first-order differential equations describing the motion of the system: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:motioneqns}
\dot{p}_i \ = \ - \frac{\partial H}{\partial q_i}, \ \ \ \ \ \dot{q}_i \ = \ \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_i}, \ \ \ \ \ i=1,\cdots,N\,,\end{aligned}$$ to be solved with the initial conditions $p_i(t=0)=p_i^{(0)}$, $q_i(t=0)=q_i^{(0)}$, where $t \in [0,\bar{t}]$ denotes the time variable, $\bar{t}$ indicates the final observation instant, and a dot over a variable denotes its derivative with respect to time.
Assuming that stresses remain within the elastic threshold and that particle contact areas and velocities are sufficiently small, we introduce tensionless, Hertzian type power-law interaction potentials [@nesterenko1] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hertz}
{V}_i \ \ = \ \ \frac{1}{n_i + 1} \ \alpha_i \ [ (q_{i} - q_{i+1} )^+]^{n_i + 1}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_i$ and $n_i$ are coefficients depending on material properties and particle geometry, and $(\cdot)^+$ denotes the positive part of $(\cdot)$. Most of the examples that we examine in this paper are spherical grains, for which Hertz’s law implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:alpha}
\alpha_i \ = \ \frac{4 {\cal{E}}_i {\cal{E}}_{i+1} \sqrt{\frac{r_i r_{i+1}}{r_i + r_{i+1}}}} {3 {\cal{E}}_{i+1}(1 - \nu_i^2) + 3 {\cal{E}}_i(1 - \nu_{i+1}^2)}, \ \ \ n_i = \frac{3}{2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $r_i$, ${\cal{E}}_i$, and $\nu_i$ denote, respectively, the radius, elastic (Young) modulus, and Poisson ratio of particle $i$. In the case of the granular container investigated by Hong [@hong05], we instead use the values shown in Table \[tab:Mat2\] for $\alpha_i$ and $n_i$.
Additionally, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:TV}
T = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{1}{2} \frac{p_i^2}{m_i}\,, \quad
V = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left[V_i(q_i - q_{i+1}) - W_i(q_i) \right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ and ${E} = H = T+V$, where $T$ denotes the system’s kinetic energy, $V$ denotes the potential energy, and ${E}$ denotes the total energy. We also introduce the local energies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Ei}
{E}_i \ = \ \frac{1}{2} \frac{p_i^2}{m_i} + \frac{1}{2} \left[ V_i(q_{i-1} - q_{i}) + V_i(q_{i} - q_{i+1}) \right] \,\end{aligned}$$ at each site (bead), and the *energy correlation function* (which is slightly different from that introduced in Ref. [@eleft]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:corr1}
C(t,0) \ = \ \frac{c(t)}{c(0)}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:corr2}
c(t) \ = \ \frac{1}{N} \left\langle \sum_{i=1}^{N} {E}_i^2(t) \right\rangle \ \ - \ \
\left\langle \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} {E}_i(t) \right\rangle^2 \,,\end{aligned}$$ $\left\langle \cdot \right\rangle$ denotes the average over time (from $0$ to the current time), and $C(t,0)$ indicates how the energy is transferred between the different beads. Observe that $C(t,0) = 0$ corresponds to energy equipartition.
Equations (\[eq:motioneqns\]) can be solved numerically using a standard fourth-order Runge-Kutta integration scheme (as discussed in, for example, Ref. [@nesterenko1]) with a time integration step of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Dt}
\Delta t \ \ = \ \ k \left[ \min_{i=1,...,N} \left\{ \frac{r_i}{c_i} \right \}\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_i$ is the sound speed in the material for the $i$th particle and $k \in (0,1]$ is a scaling factor. Equation (\[eq:Dt\]) gives a time-integration step of about $2 \times 10^{-8}$ s for $k=0.1$ and 1 mm stainless steel bead chains (see Table \[tab:Mat1\]), ensuring relative errors lower than $10^{-8}$ in the total energy conservation for times up to few thousand $\mu s$.
We now assume that the configuration of the granular system is described by a collection of design variables or “genes" (which can include particle radii, mass densities, elastic moduli, material types, etc.) $$\label{eq:p_def}
\bx = \left\{x_i \right\}_{i=1,\ldots, M} \,,$$ subject to simple bounds of the form $$\label{eq:x_bounds}
\bx \in X
=
[ x^{lb}_1, x^{ub}_1 ] \times \ldots \times [ x^{lb}_M, x^{ub}_M ]\,.$$ One can always assume assume that $x^{lb}_i = 0$ and $ x^{ub}_i = 1$, for all $i \in \{1,...,M\}$ through suitable rescaling of design variables.
Given an assigned $\bx$, a numerical simulation of the system dynamics under a prescribed impulse or shock loading gives the protection performance (fitness) $f = \| F_{out} \|_{L^{\infty}}$ of the corresponding design configuration. Here, $F_{out}$ denotes the force transmitted from the system to the wall, and $\| F_{out}\|_{L^{\infty}}$ denotes its norm with respect to the Sobolev space $L^{\infty}([0,\bar{t}])$ [@adams]. The optimal design configuration $\bx_{opt}$ can then be identified with the solution of the multivariate optimization problem, $$\label{eq:x_opt}
\min_{\bx \in X} f(\bx)\,,$$ which is expected to be influenced by multiple local optima. The problem (\[eq:x\_opt\]) can be conveniently solved via EAs (see, for example, Refs. [@gol86; @jen92; @haj93; @cha94; @raj95; @kic05]) through the cyclic iterative procedure illustrated in Fig. \[Cycle\]. In the present paper, we will use the Breeder Genetic Algorithm (BGA) presented in Ref. [@dcioppa96]. BGAs, in contrast to other EAs (in which the selection is stochastic), selects only from among the $T_R\%$ best elements of the current population of $N$ individuals (where $T_R\%$ denotes the so-called *truncation rate*) to be recombined and mutated (mimicking animal breeding). This feature makes the BGAs more efficient than standard EAs for performing optimization in large search spaces [@Muh91; @Muh94].
![[]{data-label="Cycle"}](EAs_Cycle_arxiv.eps){width="80mm"}
Optimization of granular protectors {#granprot}
===================================
We deal in the following sections with topology, size, and material optimization of 1D composite granular protectors subject to impulsive and shock-type loadings. We employ formula (\[eq:Dt\]) with $k=0.1$ for time discretization and always assume that genes are continuous variables ranging over $[0,1]$ with a population size of 50 individuals; an initial, randomly-chosen, truncation rate ($T_R$) equal to 15$\%$, Extended Intermediate Recombination (EIR) [@Muh91], and a mutation rate in the interval $[10\%, 50\%]$. (We use the value $10\%$ for size optimization, which consists of genuinely continuous genes and $50\%$ in all the other examples, which instead model discrete design variables using continuous genes.) EIR generates offspring along the line defined by the parents in the search space and allows one to also create offspring outside of the segment joining the parents. See [@dcioppa96; @Muh91; @Muh94] for further technical details of the employed BGA.
The examples of Sections \[topology\] and \[size\] consider chains of stainless steel beads, whereas those in Section \[material\] examine a composite chain composed of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and stainless steel beads. We show the material properties of these beads in Table \[tab:Mat1\]. The final example, discussed in Section \[hongs\], considers a long composite chain–the protector recently investigated by Hong [@hong05])–with the material properties shown in Table \[tab:Mat2\]. We studied protectors with one end in unilateral contact with a rigid wall (simulating the body to be protected) and the other end free. In most cases, we assumed that the free end was impacted by a striker; in the final example, we assumed that it was loaded by a prescribed force. We focused our attention on the short-term dynamics of the protector over an observation time slightly larger than that necessary to transmit the input actions to the wall.
Label $m$ $\alpha$ $n$
------- ------- ---------- -----
mat1 $2.0$ 5657 1.0
mat2 $1.0$ 5657 2.0
mat3 $0.3$ 5657 1.5
mat4 $0.1$ 5657 1.5
: Material properties (mass $m$, contact coefficient $\alpha$, and contact exponent $n$) of the granular container investigated by Hong [@hong05] (in abstract units, as discussed in the main text).[]{data-label="tab:Mat2"}
$\rho$ ($\mbox{kg/m}^3$) $\cal{E}$ (GPa) $\nu$
----------------- -------------------------- ----------------- -------
stainless steel 8000 193.00 0.30
PTFE 2200 1.46 0.46
: Material properties (mass density $\rho$, elastic modulus ${\cal{E}}$, and Poisson ratio $\nu$) of stainless steel and PTFE beads.[]{data-label="tab:Mat1"}
Topology optimization {#topology}
---------------------
Nesterenko used the monicker *sonic vacua* to describe an unprecompressed (or weakly-precompressed) granular chains because the sound speed is zero or very small in such systems [@nesterenko1]. He studied the behavior of two adjacent monodisperse sonic vacua (2SV), characterized by a sharp variation in bead size (a *stepped* 2SV), under the impact of a striker. He observed two remarkable phenomena: disintegration of the incident pulse into a solitary wave train when it passes from the sub-chain with larger radius to the one with smaller radius; and a partial reflection in the opposite case (see also Ref. [@job]). Here we examine the topology optimization of a stepped 2SV in order to determine the particle arrangement that minimizes $F_{out}$ under a given impact event. Figure \[2SV\_force\] shows different force-time histories in a 2SV hit by a striker at the sub-chain with larger radius. The system is composed of 20 large beads of radius $r = r_L=3.95$ mm, 20 small beads of radius $r =r_S= 2.375$ mm, and the striker (particle number 1), which has radius $r=r_L$ and initial velocity $v = 1$ m/s (see $\S$ 1.6.10 of [@nesterenko1]). The plots in Fig. \[2SV\_force\] show the force $F_{in}$ at the contact between the striker and the first bead, the force $F(i)$ that denotes the mean of the contact force between particles $i$ and $i-1$ and that between $i+1$ and $i$, and the force $F_{out}$ recorded at the wall. The observation time is 750 $\mu$s. All of the beads are made of stainless steel (see the material properties in Table \[tab:Mat1\]). The $F(i)$ plots for $i>21$ in Fig. \[2SV\_force\] clearly illustrate the aforementioned pulse disintegration phenomenon. One can also see that the fitness $f = \| F_{out} \|_{L^{\infty}}$ of the 2SV is equal to 0.18 kN.
We ran a topology optimization of the 2SV by introducing $M=N=40$ genes $x_i$ related to the radius size (large or small) of the different beads. (This does not include the striker–particle number 1–which is assumed to have a large radius.) We defined the genes so that $x_i \in [0,0.5]$ implies $r_{i+1}=r_S$, whereas $x_i \in (0.5,1]$ implies $r_{i+1}=r_L$. We used a penalty technique to constrain the number of particles with large and small radii to each be equal to 20; that is, we assigned a very large fitness $f$ to (unfeasible) solutions that do not satisfy this criterion. We show the BGA-optimized system and the corresponding force-time plots in Fig. \[opt2SV\_force\]. The optimized system has many large beads near the end of the chain that is hit by the striker (shown on the right), small beads near the wall, and an alternation of sequences of multiple consecutive large and small particles in the center of the system. We obtained a stable solution (i.e., a solution with constant best fitness) after about 340 generations of the algorithm. Observe that pulse disintegration appears very early (within the first few beads) in the optimized system, so that the leading solitary wave transforms into a train of interacting, small-amplitude pulses. This configuration exhibits a fitness of about 0.049 kN, which is almost four times smaller than that of the 2SV.
We compare the energies (as a function of time) of the stepped 2SV and the optimized system in Fig. \[2SV\_energy\] over a time window preceding the achievement of a loose state (in which there are no interaction forces).[^1] We obtained this by restricting the energy time-histories up to the first instant $t>0$ for which $T = 0.99 {E}$. The kinetic energy $T$ of the 2SV shows a marked peak when the leading wave passes from the larger sub-chain to the smaller one and valleys when the wave is reflected at the wall. The potential energy $V$ behaves in the opposite manner because the total energy is conserved. In the optimized system, on the other hand, the valleys and peaks of $T$ and $V$ arise earlier during wave propagation, and the peaks of the potential energy remain markedly lower than those observed in the 2SV. Denoting by $\langle T\rangle$ and $\langle V\rangle$ the time-averaged values of $T$ and $V$, respectively, over a time of 1000 $ms$ from the striker impact, we observe that in both the 2SV (which has $\langle T\rangle/\langle V\rangle \approx 1.55$) and the optimized system (which has $\langle T\rangle/\langle V\rangle \approx 1.86$), the ratio $\langle T\rangle/\langle V\rangle$ deviates from the value 1.25 predicted by the virial theorem of statistical physics [@pathria]. Nesterenko observed similar results using randomized granular chains subject to piston-like impacts [@nesterenko1].
Figure \[2SV\_density\] shows density plots of particle energies $E_i$ for the stepped 2SV and the optimized system. In each plot, the horizontal axis indicates the particle site, the vertical axis shows the progressive step number (we produced a plot for every five integration steps), and the shading gives a density plot of the energy $E_i$ normalized to unity (i.e., the energy divided by its maximum value, among all the beads). One can clearly recognize the impulse disintegration phenomenon in the stepped 2SV when the incident pulse passes from the large-bead regime to the small-bead regime. In this system, pulse reflection occurs only at the wall (and not along the body of the chain) during the first transmission. Note that when already-reflected pulses pass from the small-bead regime to the large-bead regime, they are reflected for a second time. In the optimized system, one observes a combination of disintegration and reflection of traveling pulses along the entire chain. One also observes the production of interacting pulses that travel in opposite directions. In particular, the pulses moving toward the wall combine to form an extended (long-wavelength), small-amplitude wave that is clearly visible in Fig. \[opt2SV\_force\]. Figure \[topology\_corr\] shows the time histories of the energy correlation function for the stepped 2SV and topology-optimized systems, revealing that the latter exhibits a faster and stronger thermalization (i.e., equipartition of energy) than the former.
![[]{data-label="2SV_force"}](2SV_force_arxiv.eps){width="85mm"}
![[]{data-label="opt2SV_force"}](opt2SV_force_arxiv.eps){width="85mm"}
$\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=2SV_energy_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=opt2SV_energy_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$
$\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=2SV_density_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=opt2SV_density_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$
![[]{data-label="topology_corr"}](topology_corr_arxiv.eps){width="60mm"}
Size optimization {#size}
-----------------
Doney and Sen recently studied the energy absorption capabilities of 1D granular protectors consisting of “tapered" and/or “decorated" chains [@donsen05; @donsen06]. The simplest type of tapered chain is composed of a sequence of progressively larger or progressively smaller beads, and a decorated chain is a composite chain obtained by placing interstitial small grains between the large grains in a monodisperse chain. Using analytical and numerical techniques, Doney and Sen observed marked energy absorption in highly tapered chains. For their analytical work, they employed the hard-sphere approximation. In their numerical studies, they utilized hydrocode simulations up to very high impact velocities (up to 1 km/s). In Figs. \[dec20\_force\] and \[tap20\_force\], we show several numerical force recordings that correspond, respectively, to a decorated and a tapered chain impacted by strikers with different velocities. In both cases, the initial force peak is $F_{in} = 1.4$ kN. The decorated chain consists of a sequence of dimers formed by alternating $r=\hat{r}_L=3.243$ mm and $r=\hat{r}_S=0.973$ mm stainless steel beads with total length $7.78$ cm (not counting the striker). The striker (3.243 mm) impacts this chain with an initial velocity of 18.88 m/s. The tapered chain, on the other hand, is composed of 20 stainless steel beads with decreasing radii, ranging from $r=r_L=5$ mm (the striker, which impacts the chain at a speed of 7.20 m/s) to $r=r_S=0.675$ mm over a length of $7.78$ cm (not counting the striker). That is, the tapering ratio is $q_s = r_{i+1}/r_i = 0.1$. The fitness of the decorated chain is about 1.7 kN, whereas that of the tapered chain is equal to about 0.75 kN.
We carried out a size optimization of the above systems, introducing $M=19$ genes $x_i$ related to the radii of the different beads (not including the striker), which in the present example (in contrast to the previous one) were assumed to change continuously in the interval $[r_S, r_L]$ (with $r_{i+1} = r_S + x_i (r_L - r_S)$). We ran a BGA optimization with a striker radius always equal to 5 mm and an impact speed equal to 10 m/s. We also constrained the total length of the system to remain equal to 7.88 cm (not including the striker). We obtained constant best fitness and the solution shown in Fig. \[opt20\_force\] after about 590 generations. The fitness of the size-optimized system (0.42 kN) is about 1.8 times smaller than that of the (unoptimized) tapered chain. Observe that there is simple reflection at the wall in the decorated chain (see Fig. \[dec20\_force\]), significant pulse disintegration in the tapered chain (see Fig. \[tap20\_force\]), and a transformation of the leading solitary pulses into an extended (long-wavelength), small-amplitude wave in the optimized chain (Fig. \[opt20\_force\]). The choice of the fitness parameters used in this study differs from Doney and Sen’s [@donsen06], which instead minimizes the kinetic energy ratio $K_{out}/K_{in}$ between output and input. Because of the continuum formulation of the genes in the current examples, our work encompasses all geometries considered in Ref. [@donsen06]. We compare the energy profiles of the decorated, tapered, and optimized chains in Fig. \[size\_energy\]. We observed the highest $\langle T\rangle/\langle V\rangle$ in the tapered chain ($\langle T\rangle/\langle V\rangle \approx 1.94$), resulting from the anticipated evolution of this system toward a loose state. Figure \[size\_density\] shows the density plots of particle energies for the three systems under examination. As in the previous example, one can clearly observe from the plots the effects of combined wave disintegration and reflection in the optimized system. The profiles of the energy correlation function shown in Fig. \[size\_corr\] indicate that the size-optimized and the tapered chains both evolve toward thermalization, with slightly faster decay of $C(t,0)$ in the former system. We show in the next section that a similar behavior can also be induced in a long dimeric system (i.e., in a long decorated chain) by introducing suitable alterations of the periodic particle arrangement (i.e., by introducing another form of disorder into the system ).
![[]{data-label="dec20_force"}](dec20_force_arxiv.eps){width="80mm"}
![[]{data-label="tap20_force"}](tap20_force_arxiv.eps){width="80mm"}
![[]{data-label="opt20_force"}](opt20_force_arxiv.eps){width="80mm"}
$\begin{array}{cc}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\epsfig{file=dec20_energy_arxiv,angle=0,width=44mm}}\\
\epsfig{file=tap20_energy_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=opt20_energy_arxiv,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$
$\begin{array}{cc}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\epsfig{file=dec20_density_arxiv,angle=0,width=44mm}}\\
\epsfig{file=tap20_density_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=opt20_density_arxiv,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$
![[]{data-label="size_corr"}](size_corr2_arxiv.eps){width="60mm"}
Periodic sequences of optimized cells {#period}
-------------------------------------
We now consider periodic sequences of the 19-particle size-optimized cells in the decorated chain shown in Fig. \[opt20\_force\]. As discussed above, the single optimized cells that we obtained can be viewed as disordered configurations, so it is interesting to investigate the effects on the wave dynamics of periodically repeating such a structure to obtain a “quasi-disordered" configuration. As can be seen in Fig. \[optspacetime\], a reasonably localized wave structure does develop as long as there are enough periods, just as with periodic arrangements of simpler cells [@dimer; @dimerlong]. However, the original wave disintegrates and emits a significant number of secondary pulses, so that a stable coherent structure does not form.
Using long-wavelength asymptotics, one can obtain a nonlinear partial differential equation (PDE) description of the decorated chain in the continuum limit [@nesterenko1; @dimer; @dimerlong]. This PDE has known compact solitary wave solutions, which we illustrate in the top panels of Fig. \[spacetime\]. However, adding even a small number of impurities to the system can change things completely (introducing some pulse disintegration, pulse reflection, and thermalization), although one still obtains a basically localized pulse. The impurities we consider here consist of particles of radius 5 mm and mass 2.31 g, so that they are much larger and heavier than the other beads in the chain. Throughout the region of the chain that has impurities, we place one of them every 19 particles, giving a cell length that is the same as that in the periodically repeated size-optimized chain of Fig. \[opt20\_force\]. The second through fourth rows of Fig. \[spacetime\] contain regions of different lengths that contain these periodic impurities. In each case, the last impurity is placed before bead 1000. The first impurity is in particle 501 in the second row of Fig. \[spacetime\] The third row of the figure is for a chain with impurities every 19 beads starting from bead 801, and the bottom row is for a chain with impurities every 19 beads starting from bead 951 (so that there are three impurities in total–at beads 970 and 989–in this last example). As shown in these plots, the insertion of such heavy impurities leads to partial reflections of the wave, some thermalization, significant pulse disintegration, and even to a bit of trapping (see the bottom left panel). Also observe in the bottom row that we have induced delays in the wave reflection. By tuning the material properties carefully, one can perhaps optimize the properties of such wave trapping so that they can be exploited in applications. Moreover, these numerical experiments also illustrate the much more complicated series of secondary pulse emission and partial wave reflections that occur in the periodic sequence of optimized/randomized cells in Ref. \[optspacetime\].
$\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=opt_spacetime3_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=opt_slice_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$
$\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=decor_spacetime3_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=decor_slice_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=decor501_spacetime3_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=decor501_slice_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=decor801_spacetime3_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=decor801_slice_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$ $\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=decor951_spacetime3_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=decor951_slice_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$
The study of soliton-like pulses in perturbed uniform Hertzian chains was reported earlier [@sen98; @hong02], suggesting their use as possible systems to detect buried impurities via the analysis of back-scattered signals. Our results show that similar phenomena can also be observed in the “quasi-disordered" systems; as shown in Fig. \[spacetime\], the mass and position of the defects in the chain detectably shift the reflection and the radiation.
It would be interesting to extend this type of discussion by considering increasingly disordered configurations, such as systems with quasiperiodic arrangements of cells (with various lengths and component particles) rather than periodic ones. Some preliminary research in this direction (using, for example, arrangements that follow Fibonacci sequences) has appeared recently in the literature in order to study Anderson localization in atomic chains [@fib1; @fib2]. It would similarly be interesting to consider systems with random arrangements of cells.
Material optimization {#material}
---------------------
In Ref. [@dar06], Daraio, et al. investigated the optimization of a composite granular protector consisting of 22 stainless steel beads and 10 PTFE beads (see Table \[tab:Mat1\]) with a uniform radius of 2.38 mm. The authors examined different design solutions, based on material distribution, using both numerical and laboratory experiments. The protector they considered was impacted by an $\mbox{Al}_2 \mbox{O}_3$ striker (0.47 g) with initial velocity of 0.44 m/s and was initially precompressed by a static force of 2.38 N. Using piezosensors embedded in selected particles, they obtained laboratory measurements of force versus time profiles in several beads and compared them against numerical predictions. Here we report analogous experiments to confirm the results obtained from the optimization analysis. We used a four-garolite-rod stand as the holder for the beads and assembled sensors as described in Refs. [@dimer; @dimerlong]. We selected a steel particle (0.45 g) as the striker and recorded the traveling signal with a TKTDS 2024 oscilloscope (Tektronix, Inc.). The sensors (PiezoSystems, Inc.) were calibrated by conservation of linear momentum. The 1.86 N static precompression included the preloading of the topmost particle with about 190 g of symmetrically suspended masses.
Figure \[FIG2\_force\] shows some numerical and experimental force recordings in a soft-hard-soft configuration (see Fig. 2 of Ref. [@dar06]) with two sequences of five PTFE beads at both the top and bottom of the chain. This system had the minimum value of $F_{out}$ of all of the configurations considered in [@dar06]. (A different hard-soft-hard-soft-hard configuration minimized $F_{out} /$ $F_{in}$ ratio, as shown in Fig. 3 of Ref. [@dar06].) Observe the good qualitative agreement between numerical and experimental results over the initial phase of the pulse propagation. The dynamics of the experiments and numerics subsequently deviate from each other, as the laboratory tests are affected by dissipative effects (not included in the numerics). The latter can arise from effects such as friction, inelastic collisions, viscous drag, etc. The experimental traveling wave is thus progressively damped as it travels through the chain, resulting in an even better protector.
We carried out a material optimization by introducing $32$ genes $x_i$ related to the material identification of the individual beads (not including the striker). They are defined such that $x_i \in [0,0.5]$ implies that the $(i+1)$th bead is made of PTFE, whereas $x_i \in (0.5,1]$ implies that the same bead is instead made of stainless steel. (We assumed that the striker was always made of steel.) We constrained the total number of PTFE beads to be equal to 10 through a penalty technique. We also introduced an additional gene (so that the total number of genes $M$ is equal to 33) related to the intensity of the preload, allowing the static precompression force $F_0$ to vary continuously within the interval \[0, 2.38\] N ($F_0 = 2.38x_{33}$ N). The optimized system, obtained after about 110 BGA generations, is shown in Fig. \[opt33\_force\] together with the corresponding numerical and experimental force plots. As in the previous examples, observe that the material-optimized system contains soft beads near the wall, hard beads near the end impacted by the striker, and alternating hard and soft beads in the central section of the chain. We computed the optimal precompression force to be about 1.86 N. Both the numerical and the experimental force plots of Fig. \[opt33\_force\] show that the leading solitary wave first decomposes into a train of small pulses and subsequently mutates into an extended (long-wavelength), small-amplitude wave. The density plots of Fig. \[material\_density\] illustrate the mechanisms of wave disintegration and reflection characterizing the dynamics of these systems. The experimental results presented in this article and in Ref. [@dar06] confirm the enhanced performance of the BGA-optimized system (minimum $F_{out}$), as compared to all the other examined protectors.
![[]{data-label="FIG2_force"}](FIG2_force_arxiv.eps){width="80mm"}
![[]{data-label="opt33_force"}](opt33_force_arxiv.eps){width="80mm"}
$\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=FIG2_density_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=opt33_density_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$
Long composite protector {#hongs}
------------------------
In a recent paper [@hong05], Hong investigated a long 1D composite granular protector (or “energy container") consisting of nine 20-bead sections. The beads in this chain were made of four different materials with varying particle mass $m$, contact stiffness $\alpha$, and contact exponent $n$ (see the parameter values in Table \[tab:Mat2\]). Hong used abstract units, introducing factors of $10^{-5}$ m, $2.36 \times 10^{-5}$ kg, and $1.0102 \times 10^{-3}$ s to convert the adopted units of length, mass, and time, respectively, into real units. The terminal and central sections of the protector are composed of a (linear) material (“material 1") characterized by a contact exponent $n=1$ and mass $m=2$. The inner sections are composed of beads (made of nonlinear materials) that have different masses and contact exponents greater than 1 (materials 2, 3, and 4). This is used to simulated sharp contact surfaces and rough materials such as sand (see Fig. \[hong\_containers\]). The container has a reflection symmetry about its center and the initial distance between particle centers of mass is uniformly equal to $200$ along its body.
Hong analyzed the behavior of this container (and variations thereof) by considering its dynamics after the impact of a striker of mass $m=100$ traveling with speed $v=10$. He ran numerical simulations of the chain dynamics, employing a hard-sphere model and introducing lateral constraints through additional beads consisting of very heavy grains ($m=100$). He found a universal power-law scaling for how long it took the energy to leak from the protector to the lateral sides. That is, the energy remaining in the protector is given by $E_R = A t^{-\gamma}$, where $A$ is a constant that depends on the protector construction, $t$ is the time, and $\gamma$ is a constant (that Hong estimated in Ref. [@hong05] to be about $0.7055$) independent of the protector construction.
We carried out a joint topology-material optimization of Hong’s container (shown in the top panel of Fig. \[hong\_containers\]), introducing $M = 90$ genes $x_i$ that characterize the material identification of each individual bead. The conditions $x_i \in [0,0.25]$, $x_i \in (0.25,0.5]$, $x_i \in (0.5,0.75]$, and $ x_i \in (0.75,1]$ respectively imply that the $i$th bead of one half of the protector is composed of material 1, 2, 3, and 4. We enforced the symmetry with respect to the center of the chain by suitably relating the material identification numbers of the 90 grains of the second half to those of the grains in the first half. We did not enforce any constraints on the numbers of beads of the different materials. Due to the central symmetry constraint, the optimized protector is not allowed to have different constructions near the impacted and the constrained ends, in contrast to the protectors we examined in the previous sections.
![[]{data-label="hong_containers"}](hong_containers2_arxiv.eps){width="80mm"}
### Impulsive loading
In our first optimization procedure, we considered the impact of an $m=2$ striker (material 1) traveling with speed $v=10$. We show the corresponding optimized protector, which we obtained after about 400 BGA generations, in Fig. \[hong\_containers\]. This *optimal impulse absorber* has nonlinear beads near its extremities and in its center and sequences of linear beads in its remaining sections (a few of them are also near the center of the half chain). We show the corresponding force plots and energy profiles (as well as the ones for Hong’s container) in Fig. \[impulse\_force\] and \[impulse\_energy\], respectively. Observe that the optimized scheme transmits to the wall a maximum force (126) that is about three times smaller than that transmitted by the basic scheme (371). As in the previous examples, the initial pulse is progressively disintegrated, reflected, and transformed into an extended wave within the optimized system (as confirmed also by the density plots of Fig. \[impulse\_density\]). Hong’s container instead shows wave reflection only when the incident wave crosses the central section of the system. The time histories of the energy correlation function, depicted in Fig. \[impulse\_corr\], highlight the fact that the optimized system spreads out energy (i.e., thermalizes) on a faster time scale than Hong’s container.
![[]{data-label="impulse_force"}](opt_impulse_force_arxiv.eps){width="80mm"}
$\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=hong_impulse_energy_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=opt_impulse_energy_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$
$\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=hong_impulse_density_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=opt_impulse_density_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$
![[]{data-label="impulse_corr"}](impulse_corr2_arxiv.eps){width="60mm"}
### Shock-type loading
We also carried out an optimization procedure using a shock-type force profile with constant intensity $F=1000$ on the first bead (composed of material 1), external to the container, for a time equal to 0.25. We show the corresponding optimal container, which we obtained after about 200 BGA generations, in Fig. \[hong\_containers\]. The force-time plots of this *optimal shock absorber* and those of the basic Hong scheme, with the shock-type loading, are shown in Fig. \[shock\_force\]. Observe that the basic protector transmits to the wall a peak force (1300 units) larger than the applied shock, whereas the optimized system is able to reduce the shock at the wall up to 770 units (a 23$\%$ reduction). Note additionally that the optimal shock absorber is characterized by heavy, linear (material 1) grains near the extremities (see Fig. \[hong\_containers\]). This is likely due to the symmetry constraint discussed above. Figure \[shock\_force\] also shows that the input shock gets weakened when traveling along the optimal protector. We show the density plots of particle energies in these two systems in Fig. \[shock\_density\].
![[]{data-label="shock_force"}](opt_shock_force_arxiv.eps){width="80mm"}
$\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfig{file=hong_shock_density_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} &
\epsfig{file=opt_shock_density_arxiv.eps,angle=0,width=44mm} \end{array}$
Conclusions
===========
In summary, we used an evolutionary algorithm to investigate the optimal design of composite granular protectors using one-dimensional chains of beads composed of materials of various size, mass, and stiffness. Identifying the maximum force $F_{out}$ transmitted from the protector to a “wall" that represents the body to be protected as a fitness function, we optimized the [topology]{} (arrangement), [size]{}, and [material]{} of the beads in the chain in order to minimize $F_{out}$. We considered several examples that were investigated recently in the literature, including stepped two sonic vacua, tapered chains, decorated chains, and a recent configuration due to Hong.
The optimization procedure, driven by a Breeder Genetic Algorithm, produced (optimally) randomized/disordered systems, along which the incident waves were disintegrated and reflected, exhibiting marked thermalization. Additionally, the solitary pulses traveling to the wall combined to form extended (long-wavelength), small-amplitude waves. In the absence of enforced central symmetry, the optimal configurations had soft/light beads near the wall, hard/heavy beads near the loaded end, and alternating hard/heavy and soft/light beads in the remaining part of the chain. In the presence of central symmetry, we instead obtained an optimal configuration that had light, nonlinear beads toward the ends in the case of impulsive loading and one that had heavy, linear beads toward the ends in the case of shock-type loading.
The present research paves the way for many interesting developments, as our approach can be generalized to numerous situations. First, the techniques we employed can be applied to more intricate experimental configurations–including two-dimensional systems, three-dimensional systems, systems composed of ensembles of particles with non-spherical geometries or even layered materials. Second, one can incorporate additional physical effects, such as dissipation and more complicated contact mechanics. Third, one can generalize the methods themselves by, for example, adopting continuous optimization techniques such as the material distribution method [@ben03] and the formulation of multiple-scale approaches that involve scale-dependent interaction forces.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Dr. Antonio Della Cioppa from the Department of Information and Electrical Engineering of the University of Salerno for providing the BGA code. F.F. greatly acknowledges the support of the Italian MIUR through the 2007 grant “Energetic Methods in Fracture Mechanics and Biomechanics." FF and MAP thank the Graduate Aeronautics laboratory at Caltech (GALCIT) for hospitality during their visits, and CD acknowledges support from Caltech startup funds.
[10]{}
R. Adams. . Academic Press, New York, NY, 1975.
A. H. G. Allaire. , volume 329. C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 2001.
H. Aynaou, E. H. [El.]{} Boudouti, B. [Djafari-Rouhani]{}, A. Akjouj, and V. R. Velasco. Propagation and localization of acoustic waves in [F]{}ibonacci phononic circuits. , 17:4245–4262, 2005.
R. J. Balling. Optimal steel frame design by simulated annealing. , 117, 1991.
M. P. Bends[ø]{}e. Optimal shape as a material distribution problem. , 1:193–202, 1989.
M. P. Bends[ø]{}e and N. Kikuchi. Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a homogenization method. , 71:197–224, 1988.
M. P. Bends[ø]{}e and O. Sigmund. . Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2003.
L. Berke and N. S. Knot. Structural optimization using optimality criteria. In C. A. Mota Soares, editor, [*Computer Aided Optimal System: Structural and Mechanical Systems*]{}, pages 271–311. Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
D. K. Campbell, P. Rosenau, and G. Zaslavsky. Introduction: [T]{}he [F]{}ermi-[P]{}asta-[U]{}lam problem—[T]{}he first fifty years. , 15(1):015101, 2005.
C. D. Chapman, K. Saitou, and M. J. Jakiela. Genetic algorithms as an approach to configuration and topology design. , 116:1005–1012, 1994.
A. L. Chen and Y. S. Wang. Study of band gaps of elastic waves propagating in one-dimensional disordered phononic crystals. , 392:369–378, 2007.
C. Daraio, V. F. Nesterenko, E. B. Herbold, and S. Jin. Energy trapping and shock disintegration in a composite granular medium. , 96(5):058002, 2006.
C. Daraio, V. F. Nesterenko, E. B. Herbold, and S. Jin. Tunability of solitary wave properties in one-dimensional strongly nonlinear phononic crystals. , 73(2):026610, 2006.
I De Falco, R. Del Balio, A. Della Cioppa, and E. Tarantino. A comparative analysis of evolutionary algorithms for function optimisation. In [*Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Evolutionary Computation ([WEC2]{})*]{}, pages 29–32. Nagoya, [J]{}APAN, 1996.
R. Doney and S. Sen. Impulse aborption by tapered horizontal alignments of elastic spheres. , 72(041304), 2005.
R. Doney and S. Sen. Decorated, tapered, and highly nonlinear granular chain. , 97(15):155502, 2006.
M. Eleftheriou, S. Flach, and S. Tsironis. Breathers in one-dimensional nonlinear thermalized lattice with an energy gap. , 186:20–26, 2003.
S. Flach and C. R. Willis. Discrete breathers. , 295:181–264, 1998.
C. Fleury. Efficient approximation concepts using second order information. , 28:2041–2058, 1987.
G. Friesecke and R. L. Pego. Solitary waves on [FPU]{} lattices [I]{}. qualitative properties, renormalization and continuum limit. , 12:1601–1627, 1999.
G. Friesecke and R. L. Pego. Atomic scale localization of high-energy solitary waves on lattices. , 171:211–220, 2002.
G. Friesecke and R. L. Pego. Solitary waves on [FPU]{} lattices [I]{}. linear implies nonlinear stability. , 15:1343–1359, 2002.
G. Friesecke and R. L. Pego. Solitary waves on [F]{}ermi-[P]{}asta-[U]{}lam lattices [III]{}. [H]{}owland-type [F]{}loquet theory. , 17:207–227, 2004.
G. Friesecke and R. L. Pego. Solitary waves on [F]{}ermi-[P]{}asta-[U]{}lam lattices [IV]{}. proof of stability at low energy. , 17:229–251, 2004.
D. E. Golberg and M. P. Samtani. Engineering optimization via genetic algorithm. , pages 471–482, 1986.
P. Hajela, E. Lee, and C. Y. Lin. Genetic algorithms in structural topology optimization. In C. A. Mota Soares M. P. Bends[ø]{}e, editor, [*Topology Design of Structures*]{}, volume 227, pages 117–133. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1990. NATO ASI Series E: Applied Sciences.
H. J. Herrmann. Molecular dynamics simulations of granular materials. , 4:309–316, 1993.
E.J. Hinch and S. Saint-Jean. The fragmentation of a line of balls by an impact. , 455:3201–3220, 1999.
J. Hong. Universal power-law decay of the impulse energy in granular protectors. , 94(10):108001, 2005.
J. Hong and A. Xu. Nondestructive identification of impurities in granular medium. , 81:4868–4870, 2002.
J. B. Jacobsen, N. Olhoff, and E. R[ø]{}nholt. Generalized shape optimization of three–dimensional structures using materials with optimum microstructures. , 28:207–225, 1998.
W. M. Jenkins. Plane frame optimum design environment based on genetic algorithm. , 118, 1992.
S. Job, F. Melo, A Sokolow, and S. Sen. Solitary wave trains in granular chains: experiments, theory and simulations. , 10(1):13–20, 2007.
R. Kicinger, T. Arciszewsky, and K. De Jong. Evolutionary computation and structural design: A survey of the state-of-the-art. , 83(23-24):1943–1978, 2006.
U. Kirsch. Integration of reduction and expansion processes in layout optimization. , 11:13–18, 1996.
S. Lepri, R. Livi, and A. Politi. Thermal conduction in classical low-dimensional lattices. , 377(1):1–80, 2003.
Z. D. Ma and N. Kikuchi. A new method of the sequential approximate optimization. , 25:231–253, 1995.
Z. D. Ma, N. Kikuchi, H. C. Cheng, and I. Hagiwara. Topological optimization technique for free vibration problems. , 62:200–207, 1995.
R.S. MacKay. Solitary waves in a chain of beads under hertz contact. , 251(3):191–192, 1999.
C. Mattheck and S. Burkhardt. A new method of structural shape optimization based on biological growth. , 12(3):185–190, 1990.
J. J. Moreau. An introduction to unilateral dynamics. In M. Fremond and F. Maceri, editors, [*Lecture Notes in Applied and Computational Mechanics*]{}, volume 14, pages 1–46. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
Z. Mr[ó]{}z and D. Bojczuk. Finite topology variations in optimal design of structures. , 25:153–173, 2003.
H. M[ü]{}hlenbein and D. [Schlierkamp-Voosen]{}. The science of breeding and its application to the breeder genetic algorithm ([BGA]{}). , 1(4):335–360, 1994.
H. M[ü]{}hlenbein, M. Schomisch, and J. Born. The parallel genetic algorithm as function optimizer. , 17(6-7):619–632, Sep 1991.
V.V. Myrnov, A.J. Lichtenberg, and H. Guclu. Chaotic breather formation, coalescence and evolution to energy equipartition in an oscillatory chain. , 157:251–282, 2001.
V. F. Nesterenko. . Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 2001.
V. F. Nesterenko, C. Daraio, E. B. Herbold, and S. Jin. Anomalous wave reflection at the interface of two strongly nonlinear granular media. , 95(15):158702, 2005.
R. K. Pathria. . Pergamon Press, New York, NY, 1984.
P. Pedersen. Topology optimization of three dimensional trusses. In C. A. Mota Soares M. P. Bends[ø]{}e, editor, [*Topology Design of Structures*]{}, volume 227, pages 19–30. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1990. NATO ASI Series E: Applied Sciences.
M. Peyrard. The pathway to energy localization in nonlinear lattices. , 119:184–199, 1998.
M. A. Porter, C. Daraio, E. B. Herbold, I. Szelengowicz, and P. G. Kevrekidis. Highly nonlinear solitary waves in periodic dimer granular chains. , 77:015601(R), 2008.
M. A. Porter, C. Daraio, I. Szelengowicz, E. B. Herbold, and P. G. Kevrekidis. Highly nonlinear solitary waves in heterogeneous periodic granular media. arXiv: 0712.3552, 2007.
S. D. Rajan. Sizing, shape and topology design optimization of trusses using genetic algorithm. , 121(10):1480–1487, 1995.
U. T. Ringertz. On topology optimization of trusses. , 9:209–218, 1985.
A. Rosas and K. Lindenberg. Pulse dynamics in a chain of granules with friction. , 68(4):041304, 2003.
A. Rosas, A.H. Romero, V.F. Nesterenko, and K. Lindenberg. Observation of two-wave structure in strongly nonlinear dissipative granular chains. , 98(16):164301, 2007.
G. I. N. Rozvany and M. Zou. Layout and generalized shape optimization by iterative coc method. In G. I. N. Rozvany, editor, [*Optimization of Large Structural Systems*]{}, volume 1, pages 103–120. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993. NATO/DFG ASI.
M. Save and W. Prager [(eds.)]{}. . Plenum Press, New York, 1985.
S. Sen and M. Manciu. Solitary wave dynamics in generalized hertz chains: An improved solution of the equation of motion. , 64(5), 2001.
S. Sen, M. Manciu, and J.D. Wright. Solitonlike pulses in perturbed and driven hertzian chains and their possible applications in detecting buried impurities. , 57(2):2386–2398, 1998.
Surajit Sen, Jongbae Hong, Edgar Avalos, and Robert Doney. Solitary waves in the granular chain. , 462(2):21–66, 2008.
P. Y. Shim and S. Manoochemri. Generating optimal configurations in structural design using simulated annealing. , 40:1053–1069, 1997.
K. Svanberg. The method of moving asymptotes: a new method for structural optimization. , 24:359–373, 1987.
P. J. Wang, J. H. Xia, Y. D. Li, and C. S. Liu. Crossover in the power-law behavior of confined energy in a composite granular chain. , 76(041305), 2007.
[^1]: In the absence of gravity and precompression, a loose state is reached after a sufficiently long time because the granular chain is constrained only at one end. The dynamics evolve so that the interactions go to zero.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The integration of entangled photon emitters in nanophotonic structures designed for the broadband enhancement of photon extraction is a major challenge for quantum information technologies. We study the potential of quantum dot (QD) microlenses to act as efficient emitters of maximally entangled photons. For this purpose, we perform quantum tomography measurements on InGaAs QDs integrated deterministically into microlenses. Even though the studied QDs show non-zero excitonic fine-structure splitting (FSS), polarization entanglement can be prepared with a fidelity close to unity. The quality of the measured entanglement is only dependent on the temporal resolution of the used single-photon detectors compared to the period of the excitonic phase precession imposed by the FSS. Interestingly, entanglement is kept along the full excitonic wave-packet and is not affected by decoherence. Furthermore, coherent control of the upper biexcitonic state is demonstrated.'
author:
- 'Samir Bounouar$^{1*}$, Christoph de la Haye$^1$, Max Strauß$^1$, Peter Schnauber$^1$, Alexander Thoma$^1$, Manuel Gschrey$^1$, Jan-Hindrik Schulze$^1$, André Strittmatter$^{1,2}$, Sven Rodt$^1$ and Stephan Reitzenstein$^1$'
title: Generation of maximally entangled states and coherent control in quantum dot microlenses
---
Most photonic quantum computation [@knill] and quantum communication protocols [@wheis] rely on the availability of highly entangled photon pairs. Moreover, entanglement plays the pivotal role in linking the nodes of quantum networks [@kimble]. In this context, the excitonic-biexcitonic radiative cascade in quantum dots (QDs) has proved to be a very promising candidate for the generation of polarization entangled photon pairs, in particular because of the triggered emission of photons [@ondem; @bounouar]. The main obstacle encountered in the generation of entangled photon pairs with QDs has been the finite excitonic fine-structure splitting (FSS), giving a “which-path” information on the exciton-biexciton radiative cascade [@akopian]. In recent years various growth and post-growth techniques have been developed to reduce the FSS. Efforts were done in approaches as diverse as epitaxial growth in (111) direction [@versteegh], growth of highly symmetric GaAs QDs [@kapon; @Linz; @Amand; @juska; @juska2], rapid thermal annealing [@young], external piezo-applied stress [@zhang] or electric [@benett] and magnetic field tuning [@steven; @see]. Despite some of them being successful, they are technologically demanding and can negatively affect the quality of the emission, reducing the quantum efficiency [@cohsteven] and the spin coherence [@benett]. A second issue is the efficient broadband extraction of entangled pairs emitted by a semiconductor QD located in the high refractive index host material. While cavity enhanced emission of entangled photon pairs was achieved using a QD coupled to narrow-band hybridized micropillar cavity modes [@dousse], the scalability and the reproducibility of this very demanding concept is still a non-solved issue. Since the spectral separation between the excitonic and the biexcitonic transitions, namely the biexciton binding energy, is typically in the range of a few meV, solutions featuring broadband enhancement of photon extraction are most suitable for the realization of QD based entangled photon-pair sources. Over the last decade, a few approaches including photonic wires and microlenses [@reimer; @claudon; @gschrey] tackled this challenge and are good candidates for the production of entangled photon pairs.
We present here a study on single semiconductor QDs integrated deterministically into microlenses [@gschrey]. Since these structures allow for a broadband extraction of the excitonic (X) and biexcitonic (XX) photons as well as for enhanced focusing of the resonant laser[@bounouar2], they are very interesting structures for applications in the field of photonic quantum information technology. We show that two key requirements are fulfilled by these nanostructures. Firstly, by applying pulsed resonant two-photon excitation of the biexciton, we show that the quantum dot upper-state can be coherently addressed and controlled. Secondly, time resolved quantum tomography is performed on photon pairs emitted by the radiative XX-X cascade of the QD. We take advantage of Heisenberg’s relation, expressing that higher temporal resolution in determining the dynamics of the XX-X decay implies larger uncertainty in energy which can be larger than the related excitonic fine structure of the QD. In this situation the ”which-path information” is lost and quantum entanglement of the paired photons can be measured even in the presence of a FSS. The observed degree of entanglement is actually solely limited by the detectors temporal resolution which has to be compared with the inverse precession frequency of the excitonic phase imposed by the FSS. The latter feature is demonstrated by performing quantum tomography on two QD-microlenses with FSS of 16 $\mu$eV and 30 $\mu$eV, respectively. In both cases, photons emitted by the XX-X cascade remain maximally entangled during the radiative decay and are not affected by decoherence. For practical purposes, we provide an estimation of the entanglement degree as a function of the time window applied for the post-selection of the exciton wavepacket.
![(a) $\mu$PL spectra of QDM1 (left panel) and QDM2 (right panel) under non-resonant excitation (left panel inset: relative energy of the X and XX lines as a function of the detection polarization angle for QDM1 and QDM2. A FSS of 16 $\mu$eV for QDM1 and 30 $\mu$eV for QDM2 are determined by a sinusoidal fit of the experimental data). Right panel inset: exemplary $\mu$PL spectrum of a QD-microlens under resonant two-photon excitation. (b) Scheme of the relevant states in a QD for the generation of entangled photon pairs. (c) $\mu$PL intensity of the XX transition as a function of the two-photon resonant pulse area. (d) SEM image of a deterministically fabricated QD-microlens.[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](FIG1.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Our experiments are carried out on self-assembled InGaAs/GaAs QDs grown by metal-organic chemical vapor deposition. The QDs are integrated into microlenses with a backside distributed Bragg reflector by 3D in-situ electron-beam lithography [@gschrey]. A scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of such a device is displayed in the inset of Fig. \[fig:fig1\] (c). Two different QD-microlenses dubbed QDM1 and QDM2 are studied in the following. Fig. \[fig:fig1\] (a) shows $\mu$PL spectra of QDM1 and QDM2 under non-resonant excitation at 532 nm. Two emission lines in each spectrum are identified as X and XX transitions of the target QD. The inset of Fig. \[fig:fig1\] (a) (right panel inset) shows the typical emission spectrum of a QD-microlense under resonant pulsed two-photon excitation of the biexciton. Fig. \[fig:fig1\] (c) presents the power dependence of the X and XX intensities as a function of the applied pulse area. The laser is placed at an energy resonant to the virtual state enabling the two-photon excitation of the biexciton. This excitation scheme has become a well established and powerful technique [@winik; @bounouar; @jayakumar], and is nowadays considered as a critical prerequisite for the coherent generation of entangled photons by QDs. We perform these measurements in confocal configuration with a resonant excitation setup. Typical Rabi oscillations of the biexcitonic and excitonic line intensities are observed when the laser pulse area is increased, accounting for the coherent control of the QD biexcitonic state in the Bloch-sphere [@stuffler]. The first maximum of the curves plotted in Fig. \[fig:fig1\] (c) represents the first inversion of the biexcitonic population ($\pi$-pulse), and the ideal operation point of the source. The FSS of QDM1 and QDM2 is determined by polarization-dependent $\mu$PL spectroscopy. The inset of Fig. \[fig:fig1\] (a) shows the relative energies of X (blue curve) and XX (red curve) as a function of the detection angle in linear polarization. Sinusoidal fits to the experimental data yield a FSS of ($15\pm$1)$\mu$eV for QDM1 and $(30\pm$1) $\mu$eV for QDM2, respectively.
![16 time resolved polarization-dependent correlation measurements used for the quantum tomography for QDM1. The red (green) line represents the time bin used for the density matrix reconstruction noted $\rho_1$ ($\rho_2$) in the following. []{data-label="fig:fig2"}](FIG2.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
In QDs with a non-zero FSS, the spin up and spin down exciton states (respectively labelled $|X_H\rangle$ and $|X_V\rangle$ in Fig. \[fig:fig1\] (b)) are non-degenerate and are no eigenstates of the system. The exciton state will therefore evolve with time. One can write the resulting two-photon state as follows [@cohsteven]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:solve}
|\psi (\tau)\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|HH\rangle+e^{i\Delta \tau}|VV\rangle),\end{aligned}$$
with $\Delta$ the frequency corresponding to the FSS energy and $\tau$ the time delay between the excitonic and biexcitonic photons. This state can be rewritten in the diagonal basis (D/A) to show that it oscillates between $|\phi^+\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|DD\rangle+|AA\rangle)$ and $|\phi^-\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|DA\rangle+|AD\rangle)$. One obtains a similar result in the circular basis (R/L). This means that the excitonic phase evolution, which leads to this oscillation, can be tracked by correlating the photons when they are projected in these two bases.
For the quantum tomography measurements we use a time resolved polarization-dependent cross-correlation setup. Photons from the coherently driven (under $\pi$-pulse condition) XX-X cascade are polarization-projected in the 3 complementary bases (H/V, D/A and R/L), and the coincidence rate is measured as a function of the delay between the XX photons and the X photons. The 16 measurements necessary for the full quantum tomography and the corresponding normalized correlation functions are plotted in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. The observed time dependent oscillations due to the excitonic phase evolution are discussed above and occur when both photons are projected in the right circular polarization R or in the diagonal polarization D. On the other hand, the measurements in the linear basis (HH and HV), showing no oscillation, exhibit classical correlations. The temporal resolution of the setup is estimated to be 100 ps (full width at half maximum) and each coincidence time bin is 4 ps.
![(a) Density matrices reconstructed for a delay corresponding to the first maximum of the DD coincidence curve (noted $\rho_1$, 4 ps selection time window), for QDM1 (left panel) and for QDM2 (right panel). Real parts are displayed on the top and imaginary parts on the bottom part of the graph. Theoretical real parts and imaginary parts of the maximally entangled state $|\phi^+\rangle$ are plotted between the matrices of QDM1 and QDM2, as a reference. (b) Same density matrices reconstructed for a delay corresponding to the first minimum of the DD coincidence curve (noted $\rho_2$, 4 ps selection time window). Theoretical real parts and imaginary parts of the maximally entangled state $|\phi^-\rangle$ are plotted between the matrices of QDM1 and QDM2, as a reference.[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](FIG3.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Based on the experimental data presented in Fig. \[fig:fig2\], the density matrices of the generated two-photon states are reconstructed using a maximum-likelihood estimation. Fig. \[fig:fig3\] shows the reconstructed density matrices obtained for the first maximum (Fig. \[fig:fig2\], red line) and the first minimum (Fig. \[fig:fig2\], green line) observed on the DD curve of Fig. \[fig:fig2\] (red line marked). Fig. \[fig:fig3\](a) corresponds to the state of the QD directly after the emission of the biexcitonic photon (left panel for QDM1 and right panel for QDM2). For the sake of comparison, the ideal density matrix (real part and imaginary part) of $|\phi^+\rangle$ between the experimental density matrices for QDM1 and QDM2 is displayed in Fig. \[fig:fig3\] (a). The fidelity ($F(\phi^+)=Tr(\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho_1}.\rho(\phi^+).\sqrt{\rho_1}})^2$) of the experimental density matrix ${\rho_1}$ to $|\phi^+\rangle$ is estimated as 0.73$\pm$0.03 for QDM1 and 0.69$\pm$0.04 for QDM2. Since the phase in QDM1 is evolving slower than for QDM2, the setup is able to better resolve the oscillation for QDM1 which also shows a higher degree of entanglement. At longer delays, the QD state rotates towards $|\phi^-\rangle$. Fig. \[fig:fig3\] (b) shows the reconstructed density matrices obtained for the first minimum of the DD coincidence curve (green line marked on Fig. \[fig:fig2\]). They resemble the $|\phi^-\rangle$ state (represented in inset of Fig. \[fig:fig3\] b)). $F(\phi^-)$ is estimated to 0.80$\pm$0.03 for QDM1 and 0.68$\pm$0.04 for QDM2.
![(a) Data obtained for QDM1: (upper panel) Normalized coincidences between a biexcitonic photon and a triggering excitonic photon. (lower panel) Measured fidelities to the maximally entangled Bell states (blue curve for $|\phi^+\rangle$, and red curve for $|\phi^-\rangle$). (b) Same data obtained with QDM2. (c) Measured fidelity as a function of the percentage of the post-selected excitonic wavepacket for QDM1, (d) for QDM2.[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](FIG4.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Fig. \[fig:fig4\] (a) depicts the time evolution of the fidelity to the two Bell states, $F(\phi^+)$ and $F(\phi^-)$ of the two-photon state. As expected, because of the excitonic phase evolution, the entangled two-photon state evolves between $|\phi^+\rangle$ and $|\phi^-\rangle$. Interestingly, the oscillations can be clearly observed along the whole exciton wavepacket (plotted on the top panel of Fig. \[fig:fig4\] (a)), indicating that the entanglement of the QD state is mostly unaffected by decoherence. Fig. \[fig:fig4\] (c) shows $F(\phi^+)$ and $F(\phi^-)$ as a function of the time windows used for the tomography. The fidelities for both quantum dots are decreasing quickly as the time window is enlarged and for a post-selection exceeding 20% of the total exciton wavepacket, no entanglement can be observed any more. An optimal working point is obtained by post-selection of around 15% of the excitonic photons, presenting here a good compromise between fidelity to the Bell state and photon count rate.
![(a) Deconvoluted data obtained for QDM1. Upper panel: normalized coincidences between an excitonic photon and a triggering biexcitonic photon. Intermediate panel: Measured fidelities to the maximally entangled Bell states (blue curve for $|\phi^+\rangle$, and red curve for $|\phi^-\rangle$). Lower panel: Negativity of the two-photon state as a function of the delay after deconvolution, (b) Deconvoluted data obtained with QDM2, (c) Superposed norms of the density matrices reconstructed before convolution (in color), and corrected after deconvolution (in blue) for QDM1 and QDM2.[]{data-label="fig:fig5"}](FIG5.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
In order to evaluate the actual quality of the entanglement between the photons emitted by the QD, we deconvoluted the data from the time response of the experimental tomography setup with a temporal resolution of 100 ps. The theoretical polarization-dependant cross-correlation function [@winik] is convoluted to a Gaussian curve (100 ps full width at half maximum), as measured from the setup response. The resulting curve is fitted to the 16 tomography data curves. All the function parameters, such as the polarization angles, the FSS frequency and the decay time, were obtained from experiment and are kept constant. Only a multiplying factor and an offset are left as free parameters for the data fitting (see supplementary material). The deconvoluted fit function is used in order to reconstruct the new density matrices representing the emitted two-photon states without the effect of the experimental resolution. Fig \[fig:fig5\] shows the results provided by the quantum tomography after deconvolution. Fig. \[fig:fig5\] (a) shows the decay curve (upper panel), the fidelity to the Bell states (middle panel) and the negativity (lower panel) for QDM1. The fidelities are showing oscillations with an amplitude very close to unity without damping along the full wavepacket, showing that QDM1 emits nearly perfectly entangled photons. This is confirmed by the negativity (lower panel), quantifying the separability of the density matrix. A value close to 0.5 (maximal entanglement) is found up to a delay of 0.8 ns.
Fig. \[fig:fig5\] (b) shows very similar results for QDM2 with larger FSS. For instance, oscillations with close to unity amplitude can also be observed on the fidelity curves. For this QD more pronounced damping of the oscillations is observed indicating that the quality of the entanglement is significantly reduced for delays larger than 0.5 ns. The decrease of the negativity with respect to the delay is consistent with this observation. Even if simultaneous jumps of the excitonic and biexcitonic phases do not affect the QD entanglement, cross-dephasing processes, such as exciton spin ’flip-flop’ processes, could be the reason for such a degradation of the entanglement quality for this particular QD. Moreover, the deconvolution is not fully successful at suppressing the periodic drops of the negativity. This can be attributed to the frequency of the phase rotation being too close to the experimental resolution.
In conclusion, we have shown that determinstically fabricated QD-microlenses with broadband photon extraction are very suitable for the reliable generation of entangled photon pairs. This is demonstrated by two-photon excitation of the biexciton in QD-microleneses where for finite FSS the entanglement fidelty is only limited by the experimental time resolution. Interestingly, the decoherence of XX and X is not affecting their fidelity to the Bell states. These achievements open the possibility of using QDs showing FSS exceeding 10 $\mu$eV in photonic quantum technology schemes, but at the price of an event ”post-selection”. In this respect, the microlenses or other high efficiency broadband nanophotonic elements are of great interest. However, a reduction of the FSS is still of great importance since it allows for the use of less narrow post-selection windows, slower detectors and shorter integration times. Entangled photon pair emission from such optical nanodevices represent a significant step towards the practical and generalized realization of entanglement swapping or teleportation experiments which are key requirements for long-distance quantum communication and photonic quantum computation.
The research leading to these results has received funding from the German Research Foundation via Projects No. RE2974/4-1, No. RE2974/12-1, SFB 787, and from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through the VIP-project QSOURCE (Grant No. 03V0630).
[9]{}
E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. A. Milburn Nature 409, 46-52 (2001).
W. Tittel and G. Weihs Quantum Information and Computation 1, 3-56 (2001)
H.J. Kimble Nature 453, 1023–1030 (2008).
M. M[ü]{}ller, S. Bounouar, K.D. J[ö]{}ns, M. Gl[ä]{}ssl, P. Michler, Nature Photon., 8 (3), 224-228 (2014).
S. Bounouar, M. M[ü]{}ller, A. M. Barth, M. Gl[ä]{}ssl, V. M. Axt, and P. Michler, Phonon-assisted robust and deterministic two-photon biexciton preparation in a quantum dot, Phys.Rev.B 91, 161302 (2015).
N. Akopian, N. H. Lindner, E. Poem, Y. Berlatzky, J. Avron, D. Gershoni, B. D. Gerardot, and P. M. Petroff, Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 130501 (2006).
R. J. Young, R. M. Stevenson, A. J. Shields, P. Atkinson, K. Cooper, D. A. Ritchie, K. M. Groom, A. I. Tartakovskii, and M. S. Skolnick, Inversion of exciton level splitting in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 72, 113305 (2005).
M. A. M. Versteegh, M. E. Reimer, K. D. J[ö]{}ns, D. Dalacu, P. J. Poole, A. Gulinatti, A. Giudice, and V. Zwiller, Observation of strongly entangled photon pairs from a nanowire quantum dot, Nat. Commun. 5, 5298 (2014).
A. Mohan, M. Felici, P. Gallo, B. Dwir, A. Rudra, J. Faist, and E. Kapon, Polarization-entangled photons produced with high-symmetry site-controlled quantum dots, Nat. Photon. 4, 302–306 (2010)
D. Huber, M. Reindl, Y. Huo, H. Huang, J. S. Wildmann, O. G. Schmidt, A. Rastelli and R. Trotta Nat. Commun. 8, 15506 (2017)
T. Kuroda, T. Mano, N. Ha, H. Nakajima, H. Kumano, B. Urbaszek, M. Jo, M. Abbarchi, Y. Sakuma, K. Sakoda, I. Suemune, X. Marie, and T. Amand Phys. Rev. B 88, 041306(R)
G. Juska, V. Dimastrodonato, L. O. Mereni, A. Gocalinska and E. Pelucchi Nat. Photon. 10, 782–787 (2016)
T. H. Chung, G. Juska, S. T. Moroni, A. Pescaglini, A. Gocalinska and E. Pelucchi Nat. Photon. 7, 527–531 (2013)
J. Zhang, J. S. Wildmann, F. Ding, R. Trotta, Y. Huo, E. Zallo, D. Huber, A. Rastelli, and O. G. Schmidt, High yield and ultrafast sources of electrically triggered entangled-photon pairs based on strain-tunable quantum dots, Nat. Commun. 6, 10067 (2015).
A. J. Bennett, M. A. Pooley, R. M. Stevenson, M. B. Ward, R. B. Patel, A. B. de La Giroday, N. Sköld, I. Farrer, C. A. Nicoll, D. A. Ritchie et al., Electric-field-induced coherent coupling of the exciton states in a single quantum dot, Nat. Phys. 6, 947 (2010).
R. J. Young, R. M. Stevenson, P. Atkinson, K. Cooper, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Improved fidelity of triggered entangled photons from single quantum dots, New J. Phys. 8, 29 (2006).
R. M. Stevenson, R. J. Young, P. See, D. G. Gevaux, K. Cooper, P. Atkinson, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Magnetic-field-induced reduction of the exciton polarization splitting in InAs quantum dots, Phys.Rev.B 73, 033306 (2006).
R. M. Stevenson, A. J. Hudson, A. J. Bennett, R. J. Young, C. A. Nicoll, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Evolution of Entanglement Between Distinguishable Light States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 170501 (2008).
A. Dousse, J. Suffczynski, A. Beveratos, O. Krebs, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch, P. Voisin, P. Senellart, Ultrabright source of entangled photon pairs, Nature 466, 217–220 (2010).
M. E. Reimer, G. Bulgarini, N. Akopian, M. Hocevar, M. B. Bavinck, M. A. Verheijen, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, V. Zwiller, Bright single-photon sources in bottom-up tailored nanowires, Nat. Comm. 3, 737 (2012)
J. Claudon et al., A highly efficient single-photon source based on a quantum dot in a photonic nanowire. Nature Photon. 4, 174–177 (2010).
M. Gschrey, A. Thoma, P. Schnauber, M. Seifried, R. Schmidt, B. Wohlfeil, L. Kr[ü]{}ger, J.-H. Schulze, T. Heindel, S. Burger, F. Schmidt, A. Strittmatter, S. Rodt and S. Reitzenstein, Nat. Commun. 6, 7662 (2015).
S. Bounouar, M. Strauss, A. Carmele, P. Schnauber, A. Thoma, M. Gschrey, J.-H. Schulze, A. Strittmatter, S. Rodt, A. Knorr, and S. Reitzenstein Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 233601 (2017).
R. Winik, D. Cogan, Y. Don, I. Schwartz, L. Gantz, E. R. Schmidgall, N. Livneh, R. Rapaport, E. Buks and D. Gershoni, On-demand source of maximally entangled photon pairs using the biexciton-exciton radiative cascade. Phys. Rev. B 95, 235435 (2017).
H. Jayakumar, A. Predojev[ć]{}, T. Huber, T. Kauten, G.S. Solomon, and G. Weihs, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110, 135505 (2013).
S. Stufler, P. Machnikowski, P. Ester, M. Bichler, V. M. Axt, T. Kuhn, and A. Zrenner, Phys. Rev. B 73 (2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We consider stationary axially symmetric black holes in SU(2) Einstein-Yang-Mills-dilaton theory. We present a mass formula for these stationary non-Abelian black holes, which also holds for Abelian black holes. The presence of the dilaton field allows for rotating black holes, which possess non-trivial electric and magnetic gauge fields, but don’t carry a non-Abelian charge.'
author:
- '[**Burkhard Kleihaus**]{}'
- '[**Jutta Kunz**]{}'
- '[**Francisco Navarro-Lérida**]{}'
title: 'Global Charges of Stationary Non-Abelian Black Holes'
---
[*Introduction*]{} Black holes in Einstein-Maxwell (EM) theory are uniquely characterized by their global charges: their mass $M$, their angular momentum $J$, their electric charge $Q$, and their magnetic charge $P$ [@nohair1; @nohair2]. For EM black holes remarkable relations between their horizon properties and their global charges hold [@nohair2], such as the Smarr formula [@sma], $$M = 2 TS + 2 \Omega J + \Psi_{\rm el} Q + \Psi_{\rm mag} P
\ , \label{smarr}$$ where $T$ represents the temperature of the black holes and $S$ their entropy, $\Omega$ denotes their horizon angular velocity, and $\Psi_{\rm el}$ and $\Psi_{\rm mag}$ represent their horizon electrostatic and magnetic potential, respectively.
When non-Abelian fields are coupled to gravity, black hole solutions are no longer uniquely characterized by these global charges [@su2bh; @review]. Thus the EM “no-hair” theorem does not readily generalize to theories with non-Abelian gauge fields coupled to gravity, and neither does the mass formula, Eq. (\[smarr\]) [@sudwald; @iso1].
SU(2) Einstein-Yang-Mills (EYM) theory, for instance, possesses sequences of static spherically and axially symmetric hairy black hole solutions, which carry non-Abelian magnetic fields but no non-Abelian charge [@su2bh; @kk]; it further possesses sequences of rotating EYM black holes, which carry non-Abelian electric and magnetic fields, but only a non-Abelian electric charge [@vs; @kkrot].
In many unified theories, including Kaluza-Klein theory and string theory, a scalar dilaton field arises naturally. When a dilaton field is coupled to EM theory, this has profound consequences for the black hole solutions [@emd; @FZB; @Rasheed]. Although uncharged Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton (EMD) black holes simply correspond to the EM black holes, charged EMD black hole solutions possess qualitatively new features. Charged static EMD black hole solutions, for instance, exist for arbitrarily small horizon size [@emd], and the surface gravity of ‘extremal’ solutions depends in an essential way on the dilaton coupling constant $\gamma$. Extremal charged rotating EMD black holes, known exactly only for Kaluza-Klein (KK) theory with $\gamma = \sqrt{3}$ [@FZB; @Rasheed], can possess non-zero angular momentum, while their event horizon has zero angular velocity [@Rasheed].
The known EMD black hole solutions are still uniquely characterized by their mass, their angular momentum, and their electric and magnetic charge; and the mass formula Eq. (\[smarr\]) holds for the KK black hole solutions as well [@Rasheed].
Here we consider stationary black hole solutions of SU(2) Einstein-Yang-Mills-dilaton (EYMD) theory, and present a mass formula for these black holes. After showing, that EMD black holes satisfy the mass formula $$M = 2 TS + 2 \Omega J + \frac{D}{\gamma}+ 2\Psi_{\rm el} Q
\ , \label{emdmass}$$ where the dilaton charge $D$ enters instead of the magnetic charge $P$, we argue that this mass formula holds for all non-perturbatively known black hole solutions of SU(2) EYMD theory [@eymd; @kk; @long]. The mass formula Eq. (\[emdmass\]) generalizes the mass formula obtained previously for static purely magnetic non-Abelian black holes [@kk], $M = 2 TS +D/\gamma $.
We then note that, while similar in many respects to the rotating EYM black holes [@kkrot], the EYMD black holes possess new features. In particular, we show that beyond a certain dilaton coupling strength $\gamma$, the presence of the dilaton allows for a new type of black hole: a rotating black hole which carries both electric and magnetic non-Abelian gauge fields but no non-Abelian charge.
[*Abelian mass formula*]{} Let us first consider the mass formula for EMD black hole solutions of the action $$S=\int \left ( \frac{R}{16\pi} + L_M \right ) \sqrt{-g} d^4x
\ \label{actiona}$$ with matter Lagrangian $$4 \pi L_M=-\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi
-\frac{1}{4} e^{2 \gamma \phi } F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}
\ . \label{lagma}$$
We start from the general expression for the mass of black holes [@wald] $$M=2TS +2\Omega J_{\rm H}
- \frac{1}{4 \pi } \int_\Sigma R_0^0 \sqrt{-g} dx d\theta d\varphi
\ ,$$ and express $R_0^0$ with help of the Einstein equations and the dilaton equation of motion, $$R_0^0 = - \frac{1}{\gamma} \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}
\partial_\mu \left(\sqrt{-g} \partial^\mu \phi\right)
+ 2 e^{2 \gamma \phi} F_{0\alpha} F^{0\alpha}
\ .$$ Evaluating the integral involving the dilaton d’Alembertian we obtain the dilaton term, $D/\gamma$, in the mass formula [@kk].
We then replace the horizon angular momentum $J_{\rm H}$ by the global angular momentum $J$ [@wald], $$J=J_{\rm H} + \frac{1}{4 \pi} \int_\Sigma e^{2 \gamma \phi}
F_{ \varphi \alpha} F^{0\alpha} \sqrt{-g} dx d\theta d\varphi
\ ,$$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&{\displaystyle M-2TS -2\Omega J - \frac{D}{\gamma} =}
\\
&{\displaystyle- \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_\Sigma e^{2 \gamma \phi}
\left( F_{0\alpha}+ \Omega F_{\varphi\alpha} \right) F^{0\alpha}
\sqrt{-g} dx d\theta d\varphi}
\ .
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
To evaluate the remaining integral, we make the replacements $F_{\alpha 0} = \partial_\alpha A_0$ and $F_{\alpha \varphi} = \partial_\alpha A_\varphi$, and employ the gauge field equations of motion. The mass formula Eq. (\[emdmass\]) then holds, provided $$2 \Psi_{\rm el} Q =\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_\Sigma
\partial_\alpha \left[ ( A_0 + \Omega A_\varphi )
e^{2 \gamma \phi} F^{0\alpha} \sqrt{-g} \right] dx d\theta d\varphi
\ . \label{zs}$$ To show Eq. (\[zs\]) we choose a gauge, where the gauge potential vanishes at infinity, and note that the electrostatic potential $\Psi_{\rm el}$ $$\Psi_{\rm el} =
\chi^\mu A_\mu = A_0 + \Omega A_\varphi
\ ,$$ defined with Killing vector $\chi = \xi +\Omega \eta$ ($\xi=\partial_t$, $\eta=\partial_\varphi$) is constant at the horizon. Thus we obtain $$2 \Psi_{\rm el} Q = - \Psi_{\rm el} \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\rm H}
e^{2 \gamma \phi} ({^*F_{\theta\varphi}}) d\theta d\varphi
\ ,$$ which holds because the conserved charge $\tilde Q$ [@isodil], $$\tilde Q = -\frac{1}{4 \pi} \int_{\rm H}
e^{2 \gamma \phi} ({^*F_{\theta\varphi}}) d\theta d\varphi
\ ,$$ does not depend on the choice of 2-sphere, i.e., $\tilde Q(x_{\rm H})= \tilde Q(\infty) = \tilde Q $, and $\tilde Q =Q$ for $\phi(\infty)=0$. When the Smarr formula holds [@Rasheed], Eq. (\[emdmass\]) implies $D/\gamma = \Psi_{\rm mag} P - \Psi_{\rm el} Q$.
[*Non-Abelian black holes*]{} We now turn to the non-Abelian black holes of the SU(2) EYMD action with matter Lagrangian $$4 \pi L_M=-\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi
- \frac{1}{2} e^{2 \gamma \phi } {\rm Tr} (F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu})
\ , \label{lagm}$$ field strength tensor $
F_{\mu \nu} =
\partial_\mu A_\nu -\partial_\nu A_\mu + i \left[A_\mu , A_\nu \right]
$ and gauge field $A_\mu = 1/2 \tau^a A_\mu^a$.
For the metric we choose the stationary axially symmetric Lewis-Papapetrou metric in isotropic coordinates, $$ds^2 = -fdt^2+\frac{m}{f}\left(dx^2+x^2 d\theta^2\right)
+\frac{l}{f} x^2 \sin^2\theta
\left(d\varphi-\frac{\omega}{x}dt\right)^2
\ . \label{metric}$$ For the gauge field we employ the ansatz [@kkrot], $$A_\mu dx^\mu
= \Psi dt +A_\varphi (d\varphi-\frac{\omega}{x} dt)
+\left(\frac{H_1}{x}dx +(1-H_2)d\theta \right)\frac{\tau_\varphi}{2}
\ , \label{a1}$$ $$A_\varphi= -\sin\theta\left[H_3 \frac{\tau_x}{2}
+(1-H_4) \frac{\tau_\theta}{2}\right] \ , \ \
\Psi =B_1 \frac{\tau_x}{2} + B_2 \frac{\tau_\theta}{2}
\ , \label{a3}$$ where the symbols $\tau_x$, $\tau_\theta$ and $\tau_\varphi$ denote the dot products of the Cartesian vector of Pauli matrices with the spherical spatial unit vectors. With respect to the residual gauge degree of freedom [@kk] we choose the gauge condition $x\partial_x H_1-\partial_\theta H_2 =0$ [@kkrot]. All functions depend only on $x$ and $\theta$. The above ansatz satisfies the Ricci circularity and Frobenius conditions [@wald].
The event horizon of stationary black holes resides at a surface of constant radial coordinate $x=x_{\rm H}$, and is characterized by the condition $f(x_{\rm H})=0$. At the horizon we impose the boundary conditions [@kkrot; @long] $f=m=l=0$, $\omega=\omega_{\rm H}=\Omega x_{\rm H}$, $\partial_x \phi = 0$, $H_1=0$, $\partial_x H_2= \partial_x H_3= \partial_x H_4=0$, $B_1-\Omega \cos\theta=0$, $B_2+\Omega \sin\theta=0$, where $\Omega$ is the horizon angular velocity.
The boundary conditions at infinity, $f=m=l=1$, $\omega=0$, $\phi=0$, $H_1 =H_3 = 0$, $H_2=H_4 = \pm 1$, $B_1 = B_2 = 0$, ensure, that black holes are asymptotically flat and magnetically neutral. Axial symmetry and regularity impose the boundary conditions on the symmetry axis ($\theta=0$), $\partial_\theta f = \partial_\theta l =
\partial_\theta m = \partial_\theta \omega = 0$, $\partial_\theta \phi = 0$, $H_1 = H_3 = B_2=0$, $\partial_\theta H_2 = \partial_\theta H_4 = \partial_\theta B_1=0$, and agree with the boundary conditions on the $\theta=\pi/2$-axis, except for $B_1 = 0$, $\partial_\theta B_2 = 0$.
To show the mass formula Eq. (\[emdmass\]) for the non-Abelian black holes, we need to consider the asymptotic expansion for the metric, the gauge field and the dilaton functions [@kkrot; @long]. The mass $M$, the angular momentum $J=aM$, the non-Abelian electric charge $Q$ (where $|Q|$ is the gauge invariant non-Abelian electric charge of Ref. [@iso1]), and the dilaton charge $D$ are obtained from the asymptotic expansion via $$f \rightarrow 1 - \frac{2 M}{x} \ , \ \ \
\omega \rightarrow \frac{2 J}{x^2}
\ , \label{MJ}$$ $$\left( \cos \theta B_1 + \sin \theta B_2 \right)
\rightarrow \frac{Q}{x} \ , \ \
\
\phi \rightarrow - \frac{D}{x}
\ . \label{QD}$$
We further need the horizon area $A$ and the horizon temperature $T= \kappa_{\rm sg}/2 \pi$ with surface gravity $\kappa_{\rm sg}$ [@wald], $$\kappa^2_{\rm sg} = -1/4 (\nabla_\mu \chi_\nu)(\nabla^\mu \chi^\nu)
\ . \label{sgwald}$$
To derive the mass formula for the non-Abelian black holes we first follow the arguments employed in the Abelian case. With the replacements $F_{\alpha 0} = D_\alpha A_0$ and $F_{\alpha \varphi} = D_\alpha (A_\varphi-u)$ [@radu2], (where $u=\tau_z/2$, and $D_\alpha = \partial_\alpha +i[A_\alpha,\cdot\ ]$,) the mass formula holds, provided (see Eq. (\[zs\])), $$\begin{aligned}
& 2 \Psi_{\rm el} Q = \\
& {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_\Sigma
{\rm Tr} \left[ D_\alpha ( A_0 + \Omega (A_\varphi-u) )
e^{2 \gamma \phi}
F^{0\alpha}
\sqrt{-g}\right] dx d\theta d\varphi}
\ , \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Since the trace of a commutator vanishes, we replace the gauge covariant derivative by the partial derivative, and again make use of the fact that the electrostatic potential is constant at the horizon, $\chi^\mu A_\mu = \Psi_{\rm H} = \Omega u$, thus $\Psi_{\rm el}=\Omega$ [@long]. Hence the integral vanishes at the horizon, and we are left with the integral at infinity. Evaluating this integral with help of the asymptotic expansion [@long] then yields the desired result. Thus the mass formula Eq. (\[emdmass\]) holds for the non-Abelian black holes as well [@long].
[*Numerical results*]{} We solve the set of eleven coupled non-linear elliptic partial differential equations numerically, subject to the above boundary conditions, employing compactified dimensionless coordinates, $\bar x = 1-(x_{\rm H}/x)$ [@kkrot].
Starting with a static spherically symmetric SU(2) EYMD black hole with horizon radius $x_{\rm H}$, corresponding to $\omega_{\rm H} =0$, we choose a small but finite value for $\omega_{\rm H}$. The resulting rotating black hole then has non-trivial functions $\omega$, $H_1$, $H_3$, $B_1$, $B_2$. By varying $\omega_{\rm H}$, while keeping the horizon parameter $x_{\rm H}$ and the dilaton coupling constant $\gamma$ fixed, we obtain a set of rotating hairy black holes, analogous in many respects to the EYM black holes [@kkrot].
In Fig. 1 we display the specific angular momentum $a=J/M$, the non-Abelian electric charge $Q$, and the relative dilaton charge $D/\gamma$ for black holes with horizon parameter $x_{\rm H}=0.1$ and dilaton coupling constant $\gamma=1$ as functions of the mass $M$. As expected [@kkrot], these global charges are close to the corresponding global charges of the embedded Abelian solutions [@foot1] with $Q=0$ and $P=1$.
In Fig. 2 we exhibit the global charges as functions of the dilaton coupling constant $\gamma$. With increasing $\gamma$ the mass $M$ and the relative dilaton charge $D/\gamma$ decrease monotonically, the specific angular momentum $a$ and the non-Abelian electric charge $Q$ pass extrema [@long]. Interestingly, the non-Abelian electric charge $Q$ can change sign in the presence of the dilaton field.
Thus we observe the surprising feature that the non-Abelian charge $Q$ of rotating EYMD black holes can vanish. Cuts through the parameter space of solutions with vanishing $Q$ are exhibited in Fig. 3. Solutions with $Q=0$ exist only above $\gamma_{\rm min} \approx 1.15$. These $Q=0$ EYMD black holes represent the first black hole solutions, which carry non-trivial non-Abelian electric and magnetic fields and no non-Abelian charge [@foot2]. As a consequence, these special solutions do not exhibit the generic asymptotic non-integer power fall-off of the stationary non-Abelian gauge field solutions [@kkrot; @long].
Let us now turn to the horizon properties of the EYMD black holes. In Fig. 4 we show the area parameter $x_\Delta = \sqrt{A/4 \pi}$, the temperature $T$, the deformation of the horizon (as quantified by the ratio of equatorial and polar circumferences) $L_e/L_p$, and the Gaussian curvature at the poles $K$. As for EM black holes [@sma], the Gaussian curvature of the horizon can become negative and the topology of the horizon is that of a 2-sphere.
The numerically constructed stationary axially symmetric EYMD black holes satisfy the mass formula, Eq. (\[emdmass\]), with an accuracy of $10^{-3}$. So do the numerically constructed EMD black holes. EYM black holes are included in the limit $\gamma \rightarrow 0$, since $D/\gamma$ remains finite. Further details of the rotating non-Abelian black hole solutions will be given elsewhere [@long].
[*Outlook*]{} The mass formula holds for the non-perturbatively known SU(2) EYMD black hole solutions. However, there may be further black hole solutions in SU(2) EYMD theory, with different boundary conditions and symmetries. For such black holes, the mass formula will have to be reconsidered.
Contrary to expectation, black holes in SU(2) EYMD theory are not uniquely characterized by their mass $M$, their angular momentum $J$, their non-Abelian electric charge $Q$, and their dilaton charge $D$ [@long]. Thus a new uniqueness conjecture for non-Abelian black holes will have to include an additional charge [@ash].
[*Acknowledgment*]{} FNL has been supported in part by a FPI Predoctoral Scholarship from Ministerio de Educación (Spain) and by DGICYT Project PB98-0772.
[000]{}
W. Israel, Commun. Math. Phys. [**8**]{} (1968) 245; D. C. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**34**]{} (1975) 905; P. Mazur, J. Phys. [**A15**]{} (1982) 3173.
M. Heusler, Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems, (Cambrigde University Press, 1996).
L. Smarr, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{} (1973) 71; L. Smarr, Phys. Rev. [**D7**]{} (1973) 289.
M. S. Volkov and D. V. Galt’sov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**51**]{} (1990) 747; P. Bizon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{} (1990) 2844; H. P. Künzle and A. K. M. Masoud-ul-Alam, J. Math. Phys. [**31**]{} (1990) 928.
M. S. Volkov and D. V. Gal’tsov, Phys. Rept. [**319**]{} (1999) 1.
D. Sudarsky and R. Wald, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{} (1993) R5209.
A. Corichi, U. Nucamendi, and D. Sudarsky, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{} (2000) 044046; B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, A. Sood, and M. Wirschins, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{} (2002) 061502.
B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 1595; B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. [**D57**]{} (1998) 6138.
M. S. Volkov and N. Straumann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 1428; O. Brodbeck, M. Heusler, N. Straumann and M. S. Volkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 4310.
B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001) 3704; B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, and F. Navarro-Lérida, gr-qc/0207042, Phys. Rev. [**D**]{} in press.
G. W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. [**B298**]{} (1988) 741; D. Garfinkle, G. T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. [**D43**]{} (1991) 3140.
G. W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**167**]{} (1986) 201; V. Frolov, A.Zelnikov, and U. Bleyer, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) [**44**]{} (1987) 371.
D. Rasheed, Nucl.Phys. [**B454**]{} (1995) 379.
E. E. Donets and D. V. Gal’tsov, Phys. Lett. [**B302**]{} (1993) 411; G. Lavrelashvili and D. Maison, Nucl. Phys. [**B410**]{} (1993) 407; B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, and A. Sood, Phys. Rev. [**D54**]{} (1996) 5070.
R. M. Wald, General Relativity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)
A. Ashtekar and A. Corichi, Class. Quantum Grav. [**17**]{} (2000) 1317.
B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, and F. Navarro-Lérida, in preparation.
J. J. van der Bij and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A17**]{} (2002) 1477.
The boundary conditions for the Abelian solutions agree with those for the non-Abelian solutions except for $H_2(\infty)=H_4(\infty)=0$.
Perturbative studies [@vs] suggested that EYM theory possesses rotating black hole solutions with non-Abelian electric and magnetic fields and no non-Abelian charge, satisfying a different set of boundary conditions. Such solutions, however, could not be obtained numerically [@radu2; @kkrot].
A. Ashtekar, private communication.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'P. Bonifacio'
- 'J. Andersen'
- 'S.M. Andrievsky'
- 'B. Barbuy'
- 'T.C. Beers'
- 'E. Caffau'
- 'R. Cayrel'
- 'E. Depagne'
- 'P. François'
- 'J.I. González Hernández'
- 'C.J. Hansen'
- 'F. Herwig'
- 'V. Hill'
- 'S.A. Korotin'
- 'H.-G. Ludwig'
- 'P. Molaro'
- 'B. Nordström'
- 'B. Plez'
- 'F. Primas'
- 'T. Sivarani'
- 'F. Spite'
- 'M. Spite'
title: 'The ESO Large Programme “First Stars”'
---
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
In ESO period 65 (April-September 2000) the large programme 165.N-0276, led by Roger Cayrel, began making use of UVES at the Kueyen VLT telescope. Known within the Team and outside as “First Stars”, it was aimed at obtaining high resolution, high signal-to-noise ratio spectra in the range 320 nm – 1000 nm for a large sample of extremely metal-poor (EMP) stars identified from the HK objective prism survey [@beers85; @beers92]. The goal was to use these spectra to determine accurate atmospheric parameters and chemical composition of these stars which are among the oldest objects amenable to our detailed study. Although these stars are not the first generation of stars they must be very close descendants of the first generation. One may hope to gain insight on the nature of the progenitors from detailed information on the descendants.
The extremely metal-poor stars are very rare objects and finding them in large numbers requires specially designed surveys. All of the proponents of the large programme had been actively working on the medium-resolution follow-up of the HK survey (results still to be published), from either ESO La Silla, Kitt Peak or Roque de los Muchachos. Such a follow-up is mandatory in order to obtain a good list of candidates on which one can invest the time of an 8 m telescope.
The programme was allocated a total of 39 nights between periods 65 and 68, these were split into 8 observational runs of unequal length. The observations were carried out in visitor mode because UVES was used in non-standard settings. The settings selected were Dic1 396+573 and Dic1 396+850, typically with a $1''$ slit for a resolution $R\sim 43000$. These settings were preferred over the standard Dic1 390+580 and Dic1 390+860, because you gain the Ba[ii]{} 455.4 nm line in the blue, Zn[i]{} 471 nm in the red and Li[i]{} 670.8 nm in the reddest setting.
The main results of the large programme are published on a series of papers “First Stars” on A&A, so far 10 papers have been published, one is in press, a few more in preparation. In addition a number of papers not in the “series” have been published, up to know there are 19 refereed papers published, which make use of the data acquired in the course of this large programme.
In this contribution we highlight the main results of the large programme.
Uranium in a EMP star {#sec:2}
=====================
The first surprise came quite early in the programme, Vanessa Hill was conducting the observations in August 2000 when she realised, from the quick look data, that the giant CS 31082-001 had an exceptional spectrum, characterised by extremely low metallicity and a large enhancement of the r-process elements. She was in fact able to identify immediately the Th[ii]{} 401.9 nm line, which displayed a remarkable strength. This induced her in the following nights to acquire blue spectra of higher resolution with slicer \# 2 in the hope of being able to identify and perhaps measure uranium in this star. The star is now often colloquially dubbed as “Hill’s star”, and in fact her intuition proved correct since this was the first metal-poor star for which it was possible to measure the uranium abundance, opening up a new possibility for nucleochronology[@cayrel01; @hill]. This star actually showed how little we knew on the r-process. While Th/U proved to be a reliable chronometer Eu/Th and Eu/U provided unrealistically small ages, using the then available production ratios. Also Pb in this star is a real puzzle, in fact the majority of lead in this star is what you expect from the decay of Th and U, leaving very little space for Pb production during the r-process[@plez].
The Spite plateau at the lowest metallicities {#sec:3}
=============================================
Ever since Monique and François Spite discovered that warm metal-poor stars share the same Li abundance (the [*Spite plateau*]{})[@spite82a; @spite82b], there has been an active research on this field. What we wish to understand is if this [*plateau*]{} indicates the primordial Li abundance, as initially proposed[@spite82a; @spite82b], or not.
The “First Stars” large programme allowed to explore the [*Spite plateau*]{} at the lowest known metallicities. There are no known dwarf stars with a metallicity (meant as $Z$, total metallicity, not \[Fe/H\]) lower than the stars shown in Fig.\[spitepl\]. The data are those of [@B07] and [@jonay], the picture which emerges is that the plateau seems to continue at the lowest metallicities. It is possible that there is a larger scatter, however the impact on this picture of stars in which lithium may have been partially depleted is yet unclear. The difference in lithium content between the two components of the binary system CS 22876-32 has no clear explanation. The cooler component (star B) has an effective temperature of 5900 K and should not display Li depletion according to standard models.
From the cosmological point of view there is a tension between the value of the [*Spite plateau*]{}, A(Li)$\sim 2.1$ and the value predicted by standard big bang nucleosynthesis, when the baryonic density derived from the power spectrum of the fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background is used[@spergel; @B07], A(Li)$= 2.64$. Several ways to explain this discrepancy have been suggested, and generally they go in two possible directions: a) the [*Spite plateau*]{} does not represent the primordial abundance or b) primordial nucleosynthesis did not proceed as assumed in the “standard” model. At present both solutions are possible and further observations of EMP stars, to understand if there is an excess scatter of Li at the lowest metallicities, could give useful indications.
Abundance ratios, what did we learn ? {#sec:4}
=====================================
When we started the large programme, several of us, were expecting that at the lowest metallicities we would begin to see the effects of the pollution of very few supernovae(SNe), possibly a single supernova. As a consequence we were expecting considerable scatter in the abundance ratios, which would be the signature of the different masses of the polluting SNe and incomplete mixing of the gas in the early Galaxy. To the surprise of several of us we found instead that the majority of elements C to Zn display a remarkable uniformity, with well defined trends with metallicity[@cayrel04]. The scatter in these trends can be totally explained by observational error. One explanation of this low scatter is an efficient mixing of the early Galaxy. Alternatively one could argue in favour of a narrow range of masses of SNe actually contributing to chemical enrichment.
The exceptions, among lighter elements, were Na and Al, that displayed a star to star scatter larger than observed for other elements. This excess scatter also made the definition of trends somewhat ambiguous. A reanalysis of both elements using full NLTE line formation was in fact able to solve the problem[@A07; @A08]. Sodium appears to be constant with metallicity among EMP stars, with \[Na/Fe\]$ = −0.21\pm 0.13 $, and the same is true for aluminium with \[Al/Fe\] $= −0.08\pm 0.12$.
The observations of C and N, showed that in a \[C/Fe\] vs. \[N/Fe\] diagram the giants split nicely into two groups, one with high \[N/Fe\] and low \[C/Fe\], which we call “mixed”, the other with lower \[N/Fe\] and higher \[C/Fe which we call “unmixed”[@spite05; @spite06]. As expected from the theory of stellar evolution “mixed’ stars are typically the more luminous giants, although there are a few exceptions.
At variance with lighter elements the n-capture elements display a large scatter, which cannot be explained by observational errors[@F07]. Such scatter, coupled with the very uniform ratios of the lighter elements demands an inhomogeneous chemical evolution. Already from the results of CS 31082-001 it was clear that the r-process is not “universal” and several r-processes may be needed. The data on n-capture elements clearly indicates that a [*second*]{} r-process is the main production channel at \[Ba/H\]$<-2.5$.
Among the dwarf stars we found four which were C enhanced [@S04; @S06]. In all of them the C-enhancement has come about as a consequence of mass-transfer from an AGB companion. The abundance pattern of n-capture elements is rather diverse among the stars, suggesting nucleosynthesis taking place under different physical conditions.
The giant CS 22949-037 is one of the most extraordinary found in the course of the large programme[@depagne]. With \[Fe/H\]$\sim -4.0$ it is one of the most iron poor stars found in the sample, however its high abundances of CNO (\[O/Fe\]$\sim +2$, \[C/Fe\]$\sim +1.2$, \[N/Fe\]$\sim +2.6$) make its global metallicity $Z$ not so extreme as that of the four giants with \[Fe/H\]$\sim -4$[@F03], which are, so far, the star with the lowest $Z$ known. There is no totally satisfactory model to explain the abundance pattern in CS 22949-037, however it is clear that some special kind of SN is needed to explain such an extraordinary pattern.
Needs for the future
====================
One would like to extend the work done so far, with high resolution, high S/N ratio spectra of stars of even lower metallicities. Such stars should be found by on-going and projected surveys (SEGUE, LAMOST, SkyMapper...). Most of these are however expected to be around 18th magnitude or fainter, UVES can work at these faint magnitudes, but...slowly. The proposed high resolution spectrograph ESPRESSO (see Pasquini this meeting) in the mode combining the 4UTs, would be ideal for these targets. According to the preliminary estimates ESPRESSO 4UTs, at a resolution of $R\sim 45000$ should beat UVES in efficiency for all targets fainter than V=17.5, when read-out-noise begins to be important.
Andrievsky, S. M., et al.: A&A **464**, 1081 (2007)
Andrievsky, S. M., et al.: A&A **accepted**
Beers, T. C., Preston, G. W., Shectman, S. A.: AJ **90**, 2089 (1985)
Beers, T. C., Preston, G. W., Shectman, S. A.: AJ **103**, 1987 (1992)
Bonifacio, P., et al.: A&A **462**, 851 (2007) \[Paper VII\]
Cayrel, R., et al.: Natur **409**, 691 (2001)
Cayrel, R., et al.: A&A **416**, 1117 (2004) \[Paper V\]
Depagne, E., et al.: A&A **390**, 187 (2002) \[Paper II\]
Fran[ç]{}ois, P., et al.: A&A **403**, 1105 (2003) \[Paper III\]
Fran[ç]{}ois, P., et al.: A&A **476**, 935 (2007) \[Paper VIII\]
González Hernández J.I, et al.: A&A **accepted**, arXiv 0712.2949 \[Paper XI\]
Hill, V., et al.: A&A **387**, 560 (2002) \[Paper I\]
Plez, B., et al.: A&A **428**, L9 (2004)
Sivarani, T., et al.: A&A **459**, 125 (2006) \[Paper X\]
Sivarani, T., et al.: A&A **413**, 1073 (2004) \[Paper IV\]
Spergel, D. N., et al.: ApJS **170**, 377 (2007)
Spite, M., Spite, F.: Natur **297**, 483 (1982)
Spite, F., Spite, M.: A&A **115**, 357 (1982)
Spite, M., et al.: A&A **430**, 655 (2005) \[Paper VI\]
Spite, M., et al.: A&A **455**, 291 (2006) \[Paper IX\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Statistical learning methodologies are nowadays applied in several scientific and industrial settings; in general, any application that strongly relies on data and would benefit from predictive capabilities is a candidate for such approaches. In a Bayesian learning setting, the posterior distribution of a predictive model arises from a trade-off between its prior distribution and the conditional likelihood of observed data. Such distribution functions usually rely on additional hyperparameters which need to be tuned in order to achieve optimum predictive performance; this operation can be efficiently performed in an Empirical Bayes fashion by maximizing the posterior marginal likelihood of the observed data. Since the score function of this optimization problem is in general characterized by the presence of local optima, it is necessary to resort to global optimization strategies, which require a large number of function evaluations. Given that the evaluation is usually computationally intensive and badly scaled with respect to the dataset size, the maximum number of observations that can be treated simultaneously is quite limited. In this paper, we consider the case of hyperparameter tuning in Gaussian process regression. A straightforward implementation of the posterior log-likelihood for this model requires $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ operations for every iteration of the optimization procedure, where $N$ is the number of examples in the input dataset. We derive a novel set of identities that allow, after an initial overhead of $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$, the evaluation of the score function, as well as the Jacobian and Hessian matrices, in $\mathcal{O}(N)$ operations. We prove how the proposed identities, that follow from the eigendecomposition of the kernel matrix, yield a reduction of several orders of magnitude in the computation time for the hyperparameter optimization problem. Notably, our solution provides computational advantages even with respect to state of the art approximations that rely on sparse kernel matrices. A simulation study is used to validate the presented results. In conclusion, it is shown how the contribution of the present paper is the new state of the art for exact hyperparameter tuning in Gaussian process regression.'
author:
- |
Andrea Schirru$^{1}$, Simone Pampuri$^1$, Giuseppe De Nicolao$^1$ and Se’an McLoone$^2$\
$^{(1)}$ University of Pavia, Italy, $^{(2)}$ National University of Ireland, Maynooth\
`andrea.schirru@unipv.it`, `simone.pampuri@unipv.it`,\
`giuseppe.denicolao@unipv.it`, ` sean.mcloone@eeng.nuim.ie`
bibliography:
- 'krrtuning.bib'
title:
- Efficient Marginal Likelihood Computation for Gaussian Process Regression
- Efficient Marginal Likelihood Computation for Gaussian Processes and Kernel Ridge Regression
---
INTRODUCTION {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Statistical learning methodologies are nowadays applied in a wide spectrum of practical situations: notable examples can be easily found in economics [@demiguel2009generalized], advanced manufacturing [@lynn2009virtual], biomedical sciences [@dreiseitl2001comparison], robotics [@vijayakumar2002statistical], and generally any data-intensive application that would benefit from reliable prediction capabilities. In short, the goal of statistical learning is to characterize the behavior of a phenomenon from a representative *training set* of observations. Such characterization, referred to as a *model*, then allows a probabilistic characterization (or prediction) of unobserved data [@hastie2005elements]. In the following, let
$$\mathcal{S} = \{\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times P}, \mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{N}\}$$
denote a training set consisting of an *input matrix*, $\mathbf{X}$, and a target *output vector*, $\mathbf{y}$. Typically, the former is associated with easily obtainable information (for instance, sensor readings from an industrial process operation), while the latter relates to more valuable data (such as a qualitative indicator of the aforementioned process, resulting from a costly procedure). The goal is then to find a probabilistic model $f(\cdot)$ such that, given a new observation $\mathbf{x}_{new} \notin \mathcal{S}$, $f(\mathbf{x}_{new})$ will yield an accurate probabilistic description of the unobserved $y_{new}$.
Here, we focus on the well known Bayesian learning paradigm, according to which the structure of the model $f$ arises as a trade-off between an $\emph{a priori}$ distribution $p(f)$, reflecting the prior prejudice about the model structure, and a $\emph{likelihood}$ distribution $p(\mathbf{y}|f)$, that can be seen as a measure of the approximation capabilities of the model [@Bernardo94]. In more rigorous terms, Bayes’ theorem states that
$$p(f|\mathbf{y}) \propto p(\mathbf{y}|f)p(f)$$ where $p(f|\mathbf{y})$ is referred to as *a posteriori* distribution. In general the prior and likelihood distributions rely on a set of unknown *hyperparameters* $\theta$ that must be estimated as part of the training process; it is well known that an optimal tuning of $\theta$ is critical to achieving maximum prediction quality. It is common to employ non-informative hyperprior distributions for $\theta$ (i.e., $p(\theta) = \mathrm{const}$ for every feasible $\theta$) and then to maximize with respect to $\theta$ the *residual likelihood distribution*
$$p(\mathbf{y}|\theta) \label{evidence}$$
obtained by marginalizing $p(\mathbf{y}|f, \theta)$ with respect to $f$. There are two major challenges to achieving this result: **(i)** score function evaluation is usually computationally demanding and badly scaled with respect to the size of $\mathcal{S}$; and **(ii)** in nontrivial cases, the score function has multiple local maxima [@carlin1997bayes]. While iterative global optimization techniques can be employed to overcome these challenges, in general, they require a large number of function evaluations/iterations to converge [@karaboga2008performance]. It is immediately apparent that the combination of these issues can lead to computationally intractable problems for many real life datasets. Remarkably, this problem is so relevant that a number of approximate formulations have been researched in the last decade in order to reduce the computational demand: see for example [@smola2001sparse] and [@lázaro2010sparse].
In this paper, a novel set of equations is developed for the efficient computation of the marginalized log-distribution, as well as its Jacobian and Hessian matrices, for the specific case of Gaussian process regression. The proposed computation, which exploits an eigendecomposition of the Kernel matrix, has an initial overhead of $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$, after which it is possible to calculate the quantities needed for the iterative maximization procedure with a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N)$ per iteration. Notably, this result makes the proposed solution amenable even in comparison to the aforementioned approximations.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: The problem of tuning hyperparameters via marginal likelihood maximization in the cases of Gaussian process regression is introduced in Section \[sec1\]. Section \[sec2\] then derives and presents the main results of the paper, and states the computational advantage with respect to the state of the art. The results are validated with the aid of a simulation study in Section \[sec3\]. Finally, following the conclusions of the paper, Appendix A provides mathematical proofs of the main results.
PROBLEM STATEMENT {#sec1}
=================
In this section, the hyperparameter optimization problem for Gaussian process regression is presented. In the following, let
$$G(\mathbf{\mu}, \mathbf{\Sigma}; \mathbf{x}) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}|\mathbf{\Sigma}|^{1/2}}\displaystyle{\mathrm{exp}\left({-\displaystyle\frac{1}{2} (\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{\mu})\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1}(\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{\mu})'}\right)}$$
be the probability distribution function of a multivariate Gaussian random variable with expected value $\mathbf{\mu}$ and covariance matrix $\mathbf{\Sigma}$, and let
$$\mathcal{L} = -\frac{1}{2}\log{|\mathbf{\Sigma}|} - \frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{\mu})\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1}(\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{\mu})' \label{logl}$$
be the log-likelihood of such a distribution up to an additive constant. Furthermore, consider the following theorem that was first defined in [@miller1964miller].
\[theorem1\] Let $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{s\times s}$, $\mathbf{a} \in \mathbb{R}^s$, $\mathbf{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{t \times t}$, $\mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{R}^t$ and $\mathbf{Q} \in \mathbb{R}^{s \times t}$. Let $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^t$ be an input variable. It holds that
$$G(\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{A}; \mathbf{Q}\mathbf{x})G(\mathbf{b}, \mathbf{B}; \mathbf{x}) = G(\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{A} + \mathbf{Q}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{Q}'; \mathbf{b})G(\mathbf{d}, \mathbf{D}; \mathbf{x})$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{D} &=& (\mathbf{Q}'\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{Q} + \mathbf{B}^{-1})^{-1}\\
\mathbf{d} &=& \mathbf{b} + \mathbf{D}\mathbf{Q}'\mathbf{A}^{-1}(\mathbf{a} - \mathbf{Q}\mathbf{b})\end{aligned}$$
${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$
Given a training set $\mathcal{S}$, let $\mathbf{K} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ be the full kernel matrix whose $[i, j]$ entry is defined as
$$\mathbf{K}[i, j] = \mathcal{K}(\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{x}_j) \label{kernelmatrix}$$
where $\mathcal{K(\cdot,\cdot)}$ is a suitable positive definite kernel function and $\mathbf{x}_k$ is the $k$-th row of $\mathbf{X}$. Furthermore, consider a parametrization of the model $f$ such that
$$f(\tilde{x};\ \mathbf{c}) = \mathbf{k_{\tilde{x}}}\mathbf{c} + \epsilon \label{modelstruct}$$
where $\epsilon \sim N(0, \sigma^2)$ is a noise term, $\mathbf{k_{\tilde{x}}} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times N}$ is a row vector whose $j$-th element is
$$\mathbf{k_{\tilde{x}}}[j] = \mathcal{K}(\mathbf{\tilde{x}}, \mathbf{x}_j)$$
and $\mathbf{c}$ is the unknown parameter vector. This model structure relies on RKHS (Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces) theory, the details of which are beyond the scope of this paper; the interested reader is referred to [@schölkopf2002learning] and [@shawe2004kernel]. In the following, we restrict consideration to the case where the observation likelihood is derived from equation (\[modelstruct\]) as
$$\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{c} \sim N(\mathbf{K}\mathbf{c}, \sigma^2\mathbf{I}) \label{likelihood}$$
and the prior distribution of $\mathbf{c}$ is
$$\mathbf{c} \sim N(0, \lambda^2\mathbf{K}^{-1}) \label{prior}$$
The hyperparameter $\lambda^2$ accounts for the variability of the coefficient vector $\mathbf{c}$, while $\sigma^2$ is the output variance defined in equation (\[modelstruct\]). Notably, equations (\[likelihood\]) and (\[prior\]) describe Gaussian process regression [@rasmussen2004gaussian] as well as the Bayesian interpretation of kernel ridge regression. Applying Bayes’ theorem yields
$$p(\mathbf{c}|\mathbf{y}) \propto p(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{c})p(\mathbf{c})$$
and the posterior distribution of $\mathbf{c}$ can be readily computed using Theorem \[theorem1\] as
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{c}|\mathbf{y} &\sim & N(\mathbf{\mu_c}, \mathbf{\Sigma_c}) \label{postc}\\
\mathbf{\mu_c} &=& \left(\mathbf{K} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{y} \label{mu_c}\\
\mathbf{\Sigma_c} &=& \sigma^2 \left(\mathbf{K} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{K}^{-1} \label{Sigma_c} \end{aligned}$$
By combining (\[modelstruct\]) and (\[postc\]), the prediction distribution for $\tilde{y}$ is
$$f(\mathbf{\tilde{x}};\ \mathbf{c}|\mathbf{y}) \sim N(\mathbf{k_{\tilde{x}}}\mathbf{\mu_c}, \mathbf{k_{\tilde{x}}}\mathbf{\Sigma_c}\mathbf{k_{\tilde{x}}}' + \sigma^2)$$
The posterior distribution of $\mathbf{y}$, obtained by marginalizing with respect to $\mathbf{c}$, reads then
$$\mathbf{y}|(\sigma^2, \lambda^2) \sim N\left(\mathbf{\mu_y}, \mathbf{\Sigma_y}\right)$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_\mathbf{y} &=& \mathbf{K}\mu_c = \mathbf{K}\left(\mathbf{K} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{y} \label{muY}\\
\mathbf{\Sigma_y} &=& \mathbf{K}\mathbf{\Sigma_c}\mathbf{K} + \sigma^2\mathbf{I} = \sigma^2\left(\mathbf{K}\left(\mathbf{K} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1} + \mathbf{I}\right) \label{SigmaY}\end{aligned}$$
It is apparent that, after the marginalization with respect to $\mathbf{c}$, the posterior distribution $p(\mathbf{y}|(\sigma^2, \lambda^2) )$ depends only on the unknown hyperparameters $\sigma^2$ and $\lambda^2$. The optimal values for these hyperparameters arise as the solution to the optimization problem
$$\{\hat\sigma^2, \hat\lambda^2\} = \arg \underset{\sigma^2, \lambda^2}{\max}\ p(\mathbf{y}|(\sigma^2, \lambda^2)) \label{scorefun0}$$
subject to the constraints $$\begin{cases}
\sigma^2 > 0 \\
\lambda^2 > 0 \label{const}
\end{cases}$$
Equation (\[scorefun0\]) is usually log-transformed for numerical reasons and converted to a minimization problem, that is:
$$\{\hat\sigma^2, \hat\lambda^2\} = \arg \underset{\sigma^2, \lambda^2}{\min}\ \mathcal{L}_y \label{scorefun1}$$
again subject to (\[const\]), where $$\mathcal{L}_y := \mathcal{L}_y(\sigma^2, \lambda^2) = -2\log p(\mathbf{y}|(\sigma^2, \lambda^2))$$
Notably, equation (\[scorefun1\]) defines a global optimization problem whose score function derives from equation (\[logl\]) as
$$\mathcal{L}_y = -2\log(p(\mathbf{y}|(\sigma^2, \lambda^2)) = \log{|\mathbf{\Sigma_y}|} + (\mathbf{\mu_y} -\mathbf{y})\mathbf{\Sigma_y}^{-1}(\mathbf{\mu_y} - \mathbf{y})' \label{loglfull}$$
Optimization Strategies for Likelihood Maximization {#oldoptim}
---------------------------------------------------
In order to minimize the nonconvex score function $\mathcal{L}_y$, it is necessary to resort to a global optimization procedure. The optimal solution is typically obtained in two steps: first, an approximate global minimizer is found by means of a global optimization procedure; notable examples include grid search strategies, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Genetic Algorithms [@petelin2011optimization]. Usually, such methods rely only on evaluations of the score function itself, and not on its derivatives, and can generally avoid being trapped in local minima. The approximate minimizer obtained is subsequently used as the starting point for a descent algorithm (such as the Steepest Descent or Newton-Raphson method) that exploits the Jacobian (and possibly the Hessian) of the score function to converge to a local optimal solution. To summarize,
- The global optimization step requires a large number of evaluations of the score function $\mathcal{L}_y$ in order to span the parameter space in a dense way
- The local optimization step requires the evaluation of $\mathcal{L}_y$, and its Jacobian (and Hessian, if needed by the method) once per iteration, but usually only needs a small number of iterations to converge
In order to characterize the computational costs associated with each iteration, consider the identity
$$(\mathbf{\mu_y} - \mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{\sigma^2}(\mathbf{\Sigma_y} - 2\sigma^2\mathbf{I})\mathbf{y}$$
This allows $\mathcal{L}_y$ to be conveniently expressed as
$$\mathcal{L}_y = \log{|\mathbf{\Sigma_y}|} + \frac{1}{\sigma^4}\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{\Sigma_y}\mathbf{y} + 4\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{\Sigma_y}^{-1}\mathbf{y} - 4\frac{\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}}{\sigma^2}$$
It is apparent, given equation (\[SigmaY\]), that it is necessary to compute the inverse of an $N \times N$ matrix in order to evaluate $\mathcal{L}_y$, an operation that has a computational complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$. The Jacobian computation also has an $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ bottleneck due to the term
$$\frac{\partial{\log|\mathbf{\Sigma_y}|}}{\partial \sigma^2} = \operatorname{tr}\left(\mathbf{\Sigma_y}^{-1}\frac{\partial{\mathbf{\Sigma_y}}}{\partial \sigma^2}\right)$$
At this point, having both $\mathbf{\Sigma_y}$ and $\mathbf{\Sigma_y}^{-1}$ stored in memory, it is possible to compute the Hessian matrix with a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$. In conclusion, a computational complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$, along with a memory storage of $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$, is required to perform each iteration of both the global and local optimization steps. This poses a severe constraint on the maximum size of dataset that can be employed to solve the hyperparameter optimization problem: for this reason, state of the art techniques for overcoming such complexity constraints commonly rely on sparse approximations [@quiñonero2005unifying].
MARGINAL LOGLIKELIHOOD VIA KERNEL DECOMPOSITION {#sec2}
===============================================
Section \[sec1\] showed that the marginalized likelihood maximization problem for Gaussian process regression is characterized by local optimality and high computational complexity. In practical applications this represents a strict constraint on the size of the training dataset $\mathcal{S}$. In this section, a novel set of identities to efficiently compute the quantities involved in the optimization problem are derived and discussed. Specifically, in order to perform both the global and local optimization steps described in the previous section, the following quantities need to be repeatedly computed for different parameter values:
- Score function $\mathcal{L}_y(\sigma^2, \lambda^2)$
- First order derivatives $\displaystyle\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_y(\sigma^2, \lambda^2)}{\partial\sigma^2}$ and $\displaystyle\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_y(\sigma^2, \lambda^2)}{\partial\lambda^2}$
- Second order derivatives $\displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{L}_y(\sigma^2, \lambda^2)}{\partial^2\sigma^2}$, $\displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{L}_y(\sigma^2, \lambda^2)}{\partial^2\lambda^2}$ and $\displaystyle\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{L}_y(\sigma^2, \lambda^2)}{\partial\sigma^2\partial\lambda^2}$
In the following, let $\mathbf{U} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ be the eigenvector matrix and $\mathbf{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ be the diagonal eigenvalues matrix such that
$$\mathbf{USU'} = \mathbf{K}$$
where $\mathbf{K}$ is defined in equation (\[kernelmatrix\]) and let $s_i$ be the $i$-th ordered eigenvalue of $\mathbf{K}$. Furthermore, let $\tilde{y}_i$ be the $i$-th element of the vector
$$\mathbf{\tilde{y} = U'y}$$
Since the kernel matrix $\mathbf{K}$ has, in general, full rank, the cost of its eigendecomposition is $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$: this is the initial overhead associated with the proposed set of identities. Propositions \[prop1\] to \[prop3\] summarize the main results of the present contribution. Supporting proofs are included in Appendix A.
\[prop1\] It holds that
$$\mathcal{L}_y = N\log{\sigma^2} + \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \log{d_i} + \tilde{y}_i^2g_i \right) - 4 \frac{\mathbf{y'y}}{\sigma^2} \label{specscore}$$
where
$$d_i = \frac{s_i}{s_i + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}} + 1 = \frac{2\lambda^2s_i + \sigma^2}{\lambda^2s_i + \sigma^2}$$
is the $i$-th eigenvalue of $\mathbf{\Sigma_y}$, and
$$g_i = \frac{d_i^2 + 4}{\sigma^2d_i} = \frac{8\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^2 + 12\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\, \sigma^2 + 5\, {\sigma^4}}{\sigma^2\, \left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)\, \left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}$$
is the $i$-th eigenvalue of $\left(\sigma^{-4}\mathbf{\Sigma_y} + 4\mathbf{\Sigma_y}^{-1}\right)$
${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$
Proposition \[prop1\] exploits the *simultaneously diagonalizable* property of the following pairs of matrices:
- $\mathbf{K}$ and $\left(\mathbf{K} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\right)^{-1}$
- $\mathbf{K}\left(\mathbf{K} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\right)^{-1}$ and $\left(\mathbf{K}\left(\mathbf{K} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\right)^{-1} + \mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}$
to compute $\mathcal{L}_y$ as a function of the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{K}$ with a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N)$.
\[prop2\] It holds that
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_y}{\partial{\sigma^2}} &=& \frac{N}{\sigma^2} + 4\frac{\mathbf{y'y}}{\sigma^4} + \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \frac{\partial \log{d_i}}{\partial\sigma^2} + \tilde{y}_i^2\frac{\partial g_i}{\partial \sigma^2} \right) \label{specscore2}\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_y}{\partial{\lambda^2}} &=& \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \frac{\partial \log{d_i}}{\partial\lambda^2} + \tilde{y}_i^2\frac{\partial g_i}{\partial \lambda^2} \right)\label{specscore3}\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \log d_i}{\partial \sigma^2} &=& \frac{1}{\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}} - \frac{1}{\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}}\\
\frac{\partial \log d_i}{\partial \lambda^2} &=& \frac{s_{i}\, \sigma^2}{\left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)\, \left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}\end{aligned}$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial g_i}{\partial \sigma^2} &=& - \frac{4}{{\sigma^4}} - \frac{{\sigma^8} - 2\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^2\, {\sigma^4}}{{\sigma^4}\, {\left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2\, {\left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2}\\
\frac{\partial g_i}{\partial \lambda^2} &=& \frac{s_{i}}{{\left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2} - \frac{4\, s_{i}}{{\left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2}\end{aligned}$$
${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$
\[prop3\]
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{L}_y}{\partial^2 \lambda^2} &=& \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \frac{\partial^2 \log{d_i}}{\partial^2\lambda^2} + \tilde{y}_i^2\frac{\partial^2 g_i}{\partial^2 \lambda^2} \right)\label{specscore4}\\
\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{L}_y}{\partial \lambda^2\partial \sigma^2} &=& \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \frac{\partial^2 \log{d_i}}{\partial\lambda^2\partial\sigma^2} + \tilde{y}_i^2\frac{\partial^2 g_i}{\partial^2\lambda^2 \partial\sigma^2} \right)\label{specscore5}\\
\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{L}_y}{\partial^2 \sigma^2} &=& - \frac{N}{\sigma^4} - 8\frac{\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}}{\sigma^6} + \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \frac{\partial^2 \log{d_i}}{\partial^2\sigma^2} + \tilde{y}_i^2\frac{\partial^2 g_i}{\partial^2 \sigma^2} \right)\label{specscore6}\\\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 \log d_i}{\partial^2 \lambda^2} &=& \frac{{s_{i}}^2}{{\left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2} - \frac{4\, {s_{i}}^2}{{\left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2}\\
\frac{\partial^2 \log d_i}{\partial \sigma^2 \partial \lambda^2} &=& \frac{s_{i}}{{\left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2} - \frac{2\, s_{i}}{{\left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2}\\
\frac{\partial^2 \log d_i}{\partial^2 \sigma^2} &=& \frac{1}{{\left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2} - \frac{1}{{\left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2}\end{aligned}$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 g_i}{\partial^2 \lambda^2} &=& \frac{16\, {s_{i}}^2}{{\left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^3} - \frac{2\, {s_{i}}^2}{{\left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^3}\\
\frac{\partial^2 g_i}{\partial\sigma^2\partial\lambda^2} &=& \frac{8\, s_{i}}{{\left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^3} - \frac{2\, s_{i}}{{\left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^3}\\
\frac{\partial^2 g_i}{\partial^2 \sigma^2} &=& \frac{8}{{\sigma^6}} - \frac{12\, {\lambda^6}\, {s_{i}}^3\, {\sigma^6} + 12\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^2\, {\sigma^8} - 2\, {\sigma^{12}}}{{\sigma^6}\, {\left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^3\, {\left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^3}\end{aligned}$$
${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$
Propositions \[prop2\] and \[prop3\] apply standard calculus rules to compute the Jacobian and Hessian matrices of $\mathcal{L}_y$ with a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N)$; it should be noted that all the presented quantities are also valid when $\mathbf{K}$ does not have full rank. Versions of Equations (\[specscore\]), (\[specscore2\]), (\[specscore3\]), (\[specscore4\]), (\[specscore5\]) and (\[specscore6\]) that are expressed directly in terms of the eigenvalues $s_i$ are included in Appendix A. Remarkably, by employing the proposed set of identities, it is possible to compute the current score function, Jacobian vector and Hessian matrix in $\mathcal{O}(N)$ for every iteration of an optimization algorithm, following an initial overhead of $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ for the eigendecomposition of $\mathbf{K}$.
The convenient properties of the proposed set of equations allow to assess the uncertainty of the estimated model, described by equation (\[Sigma\_c\]), with reduced computational complexity: this result, whose proof is not reported because of its simplicity, is summarized in the following
\[prop4\]
It is apparent that, in order to compute the quantity
$$\mathrm{Var}[\mathbf{c}|\mathbf{y}] = \mathbf{\Sigma_c} = \sigma^2 \left(\mathbf{K} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{K}^{-1} \label{sigmacinv}$$
two $N \times N$ matrices need to be inverted; this results in a cost of $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$. By exploiting again the SVD of $\mathbf{K}$, it follows that
$$\mathbf{\Sigma_c} = \mathbf{U}\mathbf{Q}\mathbf{U}' \label{sigmacmult}$$
where $\mathbf{Q}$ is a diagonal matrix whose $i$-th element is
$$q_i = \frac{\sigma^2\lambda^2}{(\lambda^2s_i + \sigma^2)s_i}$$
It follows that the matrix $\mathbf{\Sigma_c}$ can be computed using Strassen’s algorithm in $\mathcal{O}(N^{\log_2 7}) \approx \mathcal{O}(N^{2.807})$ operations [@strassen1969gaussian]. In most cases, only a part of the uncertainty matrix is of interest (for example, only the diagonal elements). It is immediate to notice that, using equation (\[sigmacmult\]), it is possible to compute directly only the interesting elements (in $\mathcal{O}(N)$ each), where equation (\[sigmacinv\]) would still require matrix inversion operations of the usual $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ complexity. ${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$
Proof of Computational Advantage
--------------------------------
In order to characterize the advantage that the new formulation brings to the problem at hand, we consider an iterative global optimization technique that is able to solve problem (\[scorefun1\]) in $k^*$ steps. As discussed in Section \[oldoptim\], when the new set of identities is not employed the solution of (\[scorefun1\]) costs
$$\mathrm{\tau}_0 = k^*\mathcal{O}(N^3)$$
In contrast, when the new set of identities is used, the cost is instead
$$\mathrm{\tau}_1 = \mathcal{O}(N^3) + k^*\mathcal{O}(N)$$
Provided the number of examples, $N$, is such that $N^3 \gg N$, it follows that
$$\frac{\mathrm{\tau}_0}{\mathrm{\tau}_1} = \mathcal{O}(k^*) \label{gain1}$$
Hence, the eigendecomposition formulation results in a speed-up in the solution of (\[scorefun1\]) by a factor $k^*$. The number of iterations $k^*$ depends, of course, on the characteristics of $\mathcal{S}$, the optimization algorithm employed and the stopping criteria selected. In practice it is common to encounter problems where the value of $k^*$ is in the hundreds. Note that there exists an upper bound on the achievable speed-up:
$$\underset{k^* \rightarrow \infty}{\lim} \frac{\mathrm{\tau}_0}{\mathrm{\tau}_1} = \mathcal{O}(N^2) \label{gain2}$$
For reasonably sized dataset this upper limit has little practical implication (for $N = 200$, equation (\[gain2\]) would only be relevant if the number of steps needed, $k^*$, is of the order of 40000). By combining (\[gain1\]) and (\[gain2\]), the final speed-up order reads
$$\frac{\mathrm{\tau}_0}{\mathrm{\tau}_1} = \mathcal{O}(\min\left\{k^*,\ N^2\right\})$$
In order to practically implement the proposed set of equations, memory storage of $\mathcal{O}(N)$ is required: specifically, all the quantities defined in Proposition \[prop1\], \[prop2\] and \[prop3\] are computable as a function of the eigenvalues $s_i$ and the projected target values $\tilde{y}_i$ (since, following from the properties of Singular Value Decomposition, $\mathbf{\tilde{y}'\tilde{y} = y'y}$). This represents an additional advantage with respect to the procedure described in Section \[sec2\], which has $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ storage requirements. In conclusion, it has been proven that the proposed methodology is able to speed-up hyperparameter tuning operations by many orders of magnitude (up to a factor of $N^2$) and can be implemented with much lower memory requirements than conventional approaches. Furthermore, in the case of multiple-output training datasets, such that
$$\mathcal{S} = \{\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{y}_1,\ \dots,\ \mathbf{y}_M\}$$
the proposed technique has the advantage that the eigendecomposition need only be computed once (since $\mathbf{K}$ depends only on $\mathbf{X}$), to solve the $M$ tuning problems: no additional computational overhead is needed for multiple output-problems. Since state of the art sparse approximations have a computational complexity of $\mathcal{O}(Nm^2)$ per evaluation, where $m^2$ is the number of non-zero elements of the approximation of $\mathbf{K}$ [@quiñonero2005unifying], it is apparent that the proposed set of identities provides a speed-up of hyperparameter tuning even with respect to approximate methods, at least if $k^*$ exceeds a certain threshold that depends on the sparsity rate $m/N$.
Kernel Hyperparameters Tuning
-----------------------------
It is quite common for the kernel function $\mathcal{K}$ to depend on additional hyperparameters, such that
$$\mathcal{K}(x, y) := \mathcal{K}(x, y;\ \theta)$$
Notable examples of such parameters are the bandwidth parameter $\xi^2$ of the Radial Basis Function kernel
$$\mathcal{K}(x, y) = \mathrm{exp}\left(-\frac{||x - y||^2}{2\xi^2}\right)$$
and the degree $l$ of the Polynomial kernel
$$\mathcal{K}(x, y) = (\left\langle x, y \right\rangle + 1)^l$$
Since the matrix $\mathbf{K}$ depends on $\theta$, it is in general necessary to recompute the eigendecomposition every time a better value of $\theta$ is found. It is possible, however, to exploit the convenient features of the proposed calculations with an efficient two-step strategy, summarized in the following algorithm.
It is then possible to reduce the number of required $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ operations by implementing an efficient ($\mathcal{O}(N)$) internal loop: this allows a conventional line search to be performed on the “expensive” hyperparameter, while solving the inner loop problems with a much higher efficiency.
SIMULATION RESULTS {#sec3}
==================
![Simulation results for the evaluation of the score function $\mathcal{L}_y$[]{data-label="fig:score"}](Score.pdf){width="10cm"}
In order to precisely assess the computational complexity of evaluating the proposed set of identities, a simulation study was conducted for a range of datasets of different sizes. For the sake of reproducibility, we briefly describe the simulation environment: the results were obtained using the MATLAB R2010a numerical engine, running on an Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9550 with a clock speed of 2.83GHz, 8 GB of RAM memory and running a 64 bit edition of Windows 7. Given that Propositions \[prop1\] to \[prop3\] predict that $\tau_1(N) = \mathcal{O}(N)$, the goal is to estimate the coefficients of the linear models
$$\tau(N) = a + bN$$
for the computational complexity of the score function evaluation (\[specscore\]), Jacobian evaluation (\[specscore2\] and \[specscore3\]) and Hessian evaluation (\[specscore4\], \[specscore5\] and \[specscore6\]). In order to obtain a representative dataset, the average execution time (on $10^5$ iterations) of these quantities was evaluated for values of $N$ ranging from 32 to 8192 on a logarithmic scale.
![Simulation results for the evaluation of the Jacobian of the score function $\mathcal{L}_y$[]{data-label="fig:jac"}](Jacobian.pdf){width="10cm"}
Figure \[fig:score\] shows the simulation results obtained for the evaluation of the proposed score function equation (\[specscore\]). Here, the x-axis is the number of datapoints, $N$, in the dataset and the y-axis is the average computation time (in microseconds). The estimated complexity function is
$$\tau_L(N) \simeq 42.26 + 0.05N\ [\mu s] \label{scorecomp}$$
Remarkably, the computational overhead for evaluating $\mathcal{L}_y$ is only $0.05$ microseconds per observation: This is especially relevant for the global optimization step, which involves a large number of such evaluations.
Figure \[fig:jac\] shows the simulation results for the estimation of the computational complexity of equations (\[specscore2\]) and (\[specscore3\]). The estimated complexity is
$$\tau_J(N) \simeq 44.54 + 0.086N\ [\mu s] \label{jaccomp}$$
As two values need to be computed to build the Jacobian, it is not surprising that the slope coefficient is about twice that of the score function evaluation (equation (\[scorecomp\])).
The Hessian evaluation, arising from equations (\[specscore4\]), (\[specscore5\]) and (\[specscore6\]), yields somewhat surprising results. As shown in Figure \[fig:hes\], the piecewise linear model
![Simulation results for the evaluation of the Hessian of the score function $\mathcal{L}_y$[]{data-label="fig:hes"}](Hessian.pdf){width="10cm"}
$$\tau_{H}(N) \simeq \begin{cases} 64.04 + 1.39N\ [\mu s] & N \leq 1024 \\ 1347.81 + 0.13N\ [\mu s] & N > 1024 \end{cases} \label{hescomp}$$
was needed in order to fit the data. Surprisingly, a large reduction (about an order of magnitude) in the slope is observed for $N > 1024$. As this feature cannot be linked to the theoretical formulation of Proposition \[prop3\], the authors conjecture that it relates to internal procedures of the MATLAB numerical engine. Indeed, the simulation experiment was conducted on several computers yielding similar results. It is interesting to observe that the slope of $\tau_H$ for $N > 1024$ is about one and half times the slope of $\tau_J$ and three times the slope of $\tau_L$: this is consistent with the number of unique quantities needed for the Hessian computation.
These simulation results allow the amount of time needed to evaluate all the quantities of the optimization to be estimated. Following on from equations (\[scorecomp\]), (\[jaccomp\]) and (\[hescomp\]) (with $N > 1024$), and assuming a local descent algorithm that makes use of Hessian information, the per iteration computational time for the local optimization step is given by
$$\tau_{LC}(N) \simeq 1434.61 + 0.266N\ [\mu s] \label{LOptComp}$$
while the per iteration computation time for the global optimization step, which depends only on the evaluation of $\mathcal{L}_y$ is given by
$$\tau_{GC}(N) \simeq 44.54 + 0.086N\ [\mu s] \label{GOptComp}$$
Thus for a dataset with $N = 8000$ datapoints, for example, the local optimization step computation time is only 3.56 milliseconds per iteration while that of the global optimization step is a mere 440 microseconds. These numbers are even more impressive when one realizes that without the new set of identities, an optimization problem of this size would normally be considered intractable [@rasmussen2004gaussianb].
CONCLUSIONS {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
In practical statistical learning applications, hyperparameter tuning plays a key role in achieving the desired prediction capabilities. Such tuning is usually performed by means of maximization of marginalized posterior likelihood, which presents two main challenges: **(i)** being a nonconvex optimization problem with local optimal points, global optimization techniques (that are usually demanding in terms of number of function evaluation) must be used, and **(ii)** such evaluations are usually computationally intensive and scale badly with the number of examples in the training dataset. In the cases considered in this paper, namely kernel ridge regression and Gaussian process regression techniques, evaluating the score function has a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$: as a consequence, it is often impractical to tune the hyperparameters using a dataset of sufficient dimensions.
In this paper, a set of new identities derived from a spectral decomposition of the kernel matrix are employed to reduce drastically such complexity. Specifically, after the initial decomposition (that costs $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$), all the quantities involved in the problem are computable in $\mathcal{O}(N)$. This represents an advantage of several orders of magnitude with respect to the state of the art for exact solutions: specifically, it allows the hyperparameter tuning problem to be solved with a speed-up factor $\mathcal{O}(k^*)$, where $k^*$ is the number of required iterations. Furthermore, the required memory storage for the new equations is $\mathcal{O}(N)$, as opposed to $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$. It is then possible to use much larger datasets for hyperparameter tuning purposes, without the need to resort to sparse approximations. A two-stage procedure has also been proposed and discussed, which enables the efficiencies offered by the new identities to be exploited when additional hyperparameters have to be optimized. Finally simulation results are presented that verify the computational advantages of the new formulation.
APPENDIX A {#Appendix .unnumbered}
==========
Let us consider the following
\[theorem2\] Let $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ and $\mathbf{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$. If $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ commute, such that
$$\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{B}\mathbf{A}$$
$\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ are simultaneously diagonalizable. This means that, given an eigendecomposition of $\mathbf{A}$ such that
$$\mathbf{U}\mathbf{D_A}\mathbf{U'} = \mathbf{A}$$
it holds that
$$\mathbf{U}\mathbf{D_B}\mathbf{U'} = \mathbf{B}$$
where $\mathbf{D_A}$ and $\mathbf{D_B}$ are the diagonal eigenvalues matrices associated to $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$. ${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$
of Proposition \[prop1\]. Considering the identity
$$(\mathbf{\mu_y} - \mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{\sigma^2}(\mathbf{\Sigma_y} - 2\sigma^2\mathbf{I})\mathbf{y}$$
it follows that, up to an additive constant,
$$\mathcal{L}_y = \log{|\mathbf{\Sigma_y}|} + \frac{1}{\sigma^4}\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{\Sigma_y}\mathbf{y} + 4\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{\Sigma_y}^{-1}\mathbf{y} - 4\frac{\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}}{\sigma^2} \label{logl0}$$
In order to efficiently compute $\mathcal{L}_y$ and its derivatives with respect to $\sigma^2$ and $\lambda^2$, consider the eigendecomposition of $\mathbf{K}$ such that
$$\mathbf{K} = \mathbf{U}\mathbf{S}\mathbf{U}'$$
where $\mathbf{U}$ is an orthogonal matrix such that $\mathbf{U}\mathbf{U}' = \mathbf{I}$ and $\mathbf{S}$ is a diagonal matrix whose $i$-th entry $s_i$ is the $i$-th ordered eigenvalue of $\mathbf{K}$. It is easy to prove that $\mathbf{K}$ and $(\mathbf{K} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\mathbf{I})^{-1}$ commute, and hence
$$\mathbf{U}\left(\mathbf{S}\left(\mathbf{S} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\right)\mathbf{U}' = \mathbf{K}(\mathbf{K} + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}\mathbf{I})^{-1}$$
Following from (\[SigmaY\]),
$$\sigma^2\mathbf{U}\mathbf{D}\mathbf{U}' = \mathbf{\Sigma_y}$$
where the $i$-th entry of the diagonal matrix $D$ is
$$d_i = \frac{s_i}{s_i + \frac{\sigma^2}{\lambda^2}} + 1 = \frac{2\lambda^2s_i + \sigma^2}{\lambda^2s_i + \sigma^2}$$
Recalling that
$$|\mathbf{A}| = \prod_i \xi_i$$
where $\mathbf{A}$ is a square matrix and $\xi_i$ is its $i$-th eigenvalue, it follows that
$$\log|\mathbf{\Sigma_y}| = \sum_{i=1}^N \log (\sigma^2d_i) = N\log\sigma^2 + \sum_{i=1}^N\log{d_i}$$
After this substitution, equation (\[logl0\]) reads
$$\mathcal{L}_y = N\log{\sigma^2} + \sum_{i=1}^N \log{d_i} + \frac{1}{\sigma^4}\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{\Sigma_y}\mathbf{y} + 4\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{\Sigma_y}^{-1}\mathbf{y} - 4\frac{\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}}{\sigma^2}$$
Since $\mathbf{\Sigma_y}$ and $\mathbf{\Sigma_y^{-1}}$ commute, they are simultaneously diagonalizable. Letting
$$\mathbf{\tilde{y}} = \mathbf{U}'\mathbf{y}$$
and letting $\tilde{y}_j$ be the $j$-th element of $\mathbf{\tilde{y}}$,
$$\mathcal{L}_y = N\log{\sigma^2} + \sum_{i=1}^N \log{d_i} + \mathbf{y}'\mathbf{U}\mathbf{G}\mathbf{U}'\mathbf{y} - 4 \frac{\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}}{\sigma^2}$$
where $\mathbf{G}$ is a diagonal matrix whose $i$-th entry is
$$g_i = \frac{d_i^2 + 4}{\sigma^2d_i} = \frac{8\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^2 + 12\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\, \sigma^2 + 5\, {\sigma^4}}{\sigma^2\, \left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)\, \left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}$$
The final form of $\mathcal{L}_y$ is then
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_y &=& N\log{\sigma^2} + \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \log{d_i} + \tilde{y}_i^2g_i \right) - 4 \frac{\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}}{\sigma^2} \label{finalL}\\
&=& N\log{\sigma^2} - 4 \frac{\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}}{\sigma^2} \nonumber\\
&& + \sum_{i=1}^N \log{\left(\frac{2\lambda^2s_i + \sigma^2}{\lambda^2s_i + \sigma^2}\right)} \nonumber\\
&& + \sum_{i=1}^N \tilde{y}_i^2\left(\frac{8\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^2 + 12\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\, \sigma^2 + 5\, {\sigma^4}}{\sigma^2\, \left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)\, \left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$
of Proposition \[prop2\]. By applying derivative rules to equation (\[finalL\]),
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_y}{\partial{\sigma^2}} &=& \frac{N}{\sigma^2} + 4\frac{\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}}{\sigma^4} - \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \frac{4\, \tilde{y}_i^2}{{\sigma^4}} + \frac{{\lambda^4}\, \left(3\, {s_{i}}^2\, {\sigma^6} - 2\, {s_{i}}^2\, {\sigma^4}\, \tilde{y}_i^2\right) + {\sigma^8}\, \tilde{y}_i^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\, {\sigma^8} + 2\, {\lambda^6}\, {s_{i}}^3\, {\sigma^4}}{{\sigma^4}\, {\left(\sigma^2 + \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2\, {\left(\sigma^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\right)}^2}\right) \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_y}{\partial{\lambda^2}} &=& -\sum_{i=1}^N \left(\frac{ - 2\, \sigma^2\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^3 + \left(4\, \sigma^2\, \tilde{y}_i^2 - 3\, {\sigma^4}\right)\, \lambda^2\, {s_{i}}^2 + \left(3\, {\sigma^4}\, \tilde{y}_i^2 - {\sigma^6}\right)\, s_{i}}{{\left(2\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^2 + 3\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\, \sigma^2 + {\sigma^4}\right)}^2}\right) \end{aligned}$$
${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$
of Proposition \[prop3\]. By applying derivative rules to equation (\[finalL\]),
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{L}_y}{\partial^2 \lambda^2} &=&\sum_{i=1}^N \left(\frac{ - 8\, \sigma^2\, {\lambda^6}\, {s_{i}}^5 + \left(24\, \sigma^2\, \tilde{y}_i^2 - 18\, {\sigma^4}\right)\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^4 + \left(36\, {\sigma^4}\, \tilde{y}_i^2 - 13\, {\sigma^6}\right)\, \lambda^2\, {s_{i}}^3 + \left(14\, {\sigma^6}\, \tilde{y}_i^2 - 3\, {\sigma^8}\right)\, {s_{i}}^2}{{\left(2\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^2 + 3\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\, \sigma^2 + {\sigma^4}^2\right)}^3}\right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{L}_y}{\partial \lambda^2\partial \sigma^2} &=& \sum_{i=1}^N \left(\frac{4\, {\lambda^8}\, {s_{i}}^5 + \left(6\, \sigma^2 - 8\, \tilde{y}_i^2\right)\, {\lambda^6}\, {s_{i}}^4 + \left(12\, {\sigma^4}\, \tilde{y}_i^2 - 3\, {\sigma^6}\right)\, \lambda^2\, {s_{i}}^2 + \left(6\, {\sigma^6}\, \tilde{y}_i^2 - {\sigma^8}\right)\, s_{i}}{{\left(2\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^2 + 3\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\, \sigma^2 + {\sigma^4}\right)}^3}\right)\\
\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{L}_y}{\partial^2 \sigma^2} &=& - \frac{N}{\sigma^4} - 8\frac{\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}}{\sigma^6} + \sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\\\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\eta_i = \frac{8\, \tilde{y}_i^2}{{\sigma^6}} + \frac{{s_{i}}^2\, \left(9\, {\lambda^4}\, {\sigma^{10}} - 12\, {\lambda^4}\, {\sigma^8}\, \tilde{y}_i^2\right) + {s_{i}}^3\, \left(13\, {\lambda^6}\, {\sigma^8} - 12\, {\lambda^6}\, {\sigma^6}\, \tilde{y}_i^2\right) + 2\, {\sigma^{12}}\, \tilde{y}_i^2 + 2\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\, {\sigma^{12}} + 6\, {\lambda^8}\, {s_{i}}^4\, {\sigma^6}}{{\sigma^6}\, {\left(2\, {\lambda^4}\, {s_{i}}^2 + 3\, \lambda^2\, s_{i}\, \sigma^2 + {\sigma^4}\right)}^3}$$
${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this work we explore the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$ in the production of two Higgs bosons via vector boson scattering at the LHC. Although these production channels, concretely $W^+W^- \to HH$ and $ ZZ \to HH$, have lower rates than gluon-gluon fusion, they benefit from being tree level processes, being independent of top physics and having very distinctive kinematics that allow us to obtain very clean experimental signatures. This makes them competitive channels concerning the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling. In order to give predictions for the sensitivity to this coupling, we first study the role of $\lambda$ at the subprocess level, both in and beyond the Standard Model, to move afterwards to the LHC scenario. We characterize the $pp\to HHjj$ case first and then provide quantitative results for the values of $\lambda$ that can be probed at the LHC in vector boson scattering processes after considering the Higgs boson decays. We focus mainly on $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$, since it has the largest signal rates, and also comment on the potential of other channels, such as $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$, as they lead to cleaner, although smaller, signals. Our whole study is performed for a center of mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV and for various future expected LHC luminosities.'
---
IFT-UAM/CSIC-18-66\
FTUAM-18-17\
**<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Probing the Higgs self-coupling through double Higgs production\
\[.25em\] in vector boson scattering at the LHC</span>**
[Ernesto Arganda$^{1,2}$[^1], Claudia Garcia-Garcia$^2$[^2]]{} and
**
$^1$IFLP, CONICET - Dpto. de Física, Universidad Nacional de La Plata,\
C.C. 67, 1900 La Plata, Argentina
$^2$Departamento de Física Teórica and Instituto de Física Teórica, IFT-UAM/CSIC,\
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain
Introduction {#intro}
============
The observation of the Higgs boson by the ATLAS and CMS experiments [@Aad:2012tfa; @Chatrchyan:2012xdj] in 2012 confirmed the prediction of the last particle of the Standard Model (SM) of fundamental interactions. Although this discovery allowed us to answer many important and well established questions about elementary particle physics, it also posed a lot of new mysteries concerning the scalar sector of the SM.
One of these mysteries is that of the true value of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$, involved in trilinear and quartic Higgs self-interactions, and its relation to other parameters of the SM. Particularly, understanding and testing experimentally the relation between $\lambda$ and the Higgs boson mass, $m_H$, will provide an excellent insight into the real nature of the Higgs particle. This relation, given in the SM at the tree level by $m_H^2=2 v^2 \lambda$, with $v=246$ GeV, arises from the Brout-Englert-Higgs (BEH) mechanism [@Higgs:1964ia; @Englert:1964et; @Higgs:1964pj; @Higgs:1966ev], so to really test this theoretical framework one needs to measure $\lambda$ independently of the Higgs mass. Unfortunately, the value of the Higgs self-coupling has not been established yet with precision at colliders, but there is (and will be in the future) a very intense experimental program focused on the realization of this measurement (for a review, see for instance [@Simon:2012ik; @Dawson:2013bba; @Baer:2013cma; @Abramowicz:2016zbo; @deFlorian:2016spz]).
The Higgs trilinear coupling can be probed in double Higgs production processes at the LHC, process that have been extensively studied both theoretically in [@Glover:1987nx; @Dicus:1987ic; @Plehn:1996wb; @Dawson:1998py; @Djouadi:1999rca; @Baur:2003gp; @Grober:2010yv; @Dolan:2012rv; @Papaefstathiou:2012qe; @Baglio:2012np; @Yao:2013ika; @deFlorian:2013jea; @Dolan:2013rja; @Barger:2013jfa; @Frederix:2014hta; @Liu-Sheng:2014gxa; @Goertz:2014qta; @Azatov:2015oxa; @Dicus:2015yva; @Dawson:2015oha; @He:2015spf; @Dolan:2015zja; @Cao:2015oaa; @Cao:2015oxx; @Huang:2015tdv; @Behr:2015oqq; @Kling:2016lay; @Borowka:2016ypz; @Bishara:2016kjn; @Cao:2016zob; @deFlorian:2016spz; @Adhikary:2017jtu; @Kim:2018uty; @Banerjee:2018yxy; @Goncalves:2018qas; @Bizon:2018syu; @Borowka:2018pxx; @Gorbahn:2019lwq], and experimentally in [@Aaboud:2016xco; @CMS:2016foy; @CMS:2017ihs; @Aaboud:2018knk; @Sirunyan:2018iwt; @Aaboud:2018ftw]. At hadron colliders, these processes can take place through a variety of production channels, being gluon-gluon fusion (GGF) and vector boson scattering (VBS), also called vector boson fusion (VBF) in the literature, the main ones regarding the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling. Focusing on the LHC case, on which we will base our posterior study, the dominant contribution to double Higgs production comes from GGF, which for $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV is about a factor 17 larger than from VBS [@Frederix:2014hta]. Because of this, most of the works present nowadays in the literature focus on this particular $HH$ production channel, GGF, to study the sensitivity to $\lambda$. In fact, all these works and the best present measurement at the LHC have made possible to constraint this parameter in the range $\lambda\in[-8.2,13.2]\cdot \lambda_{\rm SM}$ at the 95% CL [@Aaboud:2018ftw].
Although GGF benefits from the highest statistics and rates, it suffers the inconveniences of having large uncertainties, being a one loop process initiated by gluons, and being dependent of the top Yukawa coupling. Double Higgs production via VBS [@Grober:2010yv; @Dawson:2013bba; @Baglio:2012np; @Frederix:2014hta; @Liu-Sheng:2014gxa; @Dicus:2015yva; @He:2015spf; @Bishara:2016kjn; @deFlorian:2016spz] is, in contrast, a tree level process not initiated by gluons and it is independent of top physics features, leading therefore to smaller uncertainties. Also, at a fundamental level, it is well known that VBS processes involving longitudinally polarized gauge bosons, like the process $V_L V_L\to HH$ that we are interested in, probe genuinely the self interactions of the scalar sector of the SM. This would happen specially at high energies, such as those available at the LHC, since, in this regime, each $V_L$ behaves as its corresponding would-be-Goldstone boson $\phi$. Therefore, testing $V_L V_L\to HH$ is closely related to testing $\phi \phi HH$ interactions. In this way, a new window, qualitatively different than GGF, would be open with VBS to test $\lambda$, meaning that being able to measure these processes for the first time will be a formidable test of the SM itself, and it could even lead to the discovery of physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM). Moreover, the VBS production channel is the second largest contribution to Higgs pair production, and the VBS topologies have very characteristic kinematics, which allow us to select these processes very efficiently as well as to reject undesired backgrounds. In fact, the selection techniques for VBS configurations at the LHC have experienced a great development in the last years and have improved considerably, especialy in the context of electroweak (EW) vector boson scattering $VV \to VV$ [@Doroba:2012pd; @Szleper:2014xxa; @deFlorian:2016spz; @Fabbrichesi:2015hsa; @Delgado:2017cls]. Thus, in summary, VBS double Higgs production might be very relevant to study the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling, despite the fact that it is considerably smaller in size than GGF, since it could lead to a cleaner experimental signal. Besides, it will be a complementary measurement to that of GGF and will, in any case, help to improve the determination of this $\lambda$ coupling with better precision.
In this work, motivated by the above commented advantages, we analyze in full detail Higgs pair production via VBS at the LHC to probe the Higgs self-coupling. To this end, we first explore and characterize the subprocesses of our interest, $VV\to HH$ with $V=W,Z$, both for the SM with $\lambda= \lambda_{SM}$ and for BSM scenarios with $\lambda=\kappa\,\lambda_{SM}$, and consider values of $\kappa$ between 10 and -10. For this study, we fix $m_H$ to its experimental value, $m_H=125.18\pm 0.16$ GeV [@PDG2018], and set the Higgs vacuum expectation value (vev) to $v=246$ GeV. In this way, studying the sensitivity to $\lambda$ in VBS will provide the desired independent test of this coupling.
Once we have deeply studied double Higgs production at the subprocess level, we then explore in this work the LHC scenario. First we analyze the process $pp\to HHjj$, to fully understand the properties of this scattering, and then we study and give quantitative results for the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling after the Higgs decays. The production of $HHjj$ at the LHC, including VBS and GGF, has been studied previously in [@Dolan:2013rja; @Dolan:2015zja], where they focus on $b\bar{b}\tau\bar{\tau} jj$ final states. Our main study is performed, in contrast, in the four bottoms and two jets final state, $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$, since it benefits from the highest rates. We also make predictions for the interesting $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma j j$ process which, although with lower rates, leads to cleaner signatures. We would like to point out that all computations and simulations are performed at the parton level with no hadronization or detector response simulation taken into account, since the work is aimed to be a first and simple approximation to the sensitivity to $\lambda$ in VBS processes at the LHC.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section \[Subprocess\] we study VBS double Higgs production at the subprocess level in and beyond the SM. Afterwards, in Section \[LHC\], we move on to the LHC case, exploring first the $pp\to HHjj$ scattering in Subsection \[HHjj\] and considering later the Higgs decays, both leading $H \to b \bar b$ decay and subleading $H \to \gamma \gamma$ one. Then, we study both signal and background rates for $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ in Subsection \[4b2j\] and $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma j j$ in Subsection \[2b2a2j\], providing our results for the sensitivity to $\lambda$ in VBS Higgs pair production at the LHC for a center of mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV and for different and future expected luminosities. Section \[Conclusions\] summarizes our main conclusions.
Double Higgs production in vector boson scattering {#Subprocess}
==================================================
As already stated in the paragraphs above, we are interested in exploring the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling, $\lambda$, through VBS processes, in particular at the LHC. For that purpose, we have to study and characterize first the subprocess that leads to the specific signal we will be dealing with once we perform the full collider analysis. This subprocess will be, in our case, the production of two Higgs bosons in the final state from the scattering of two EW gauge bosons, $VV\to HH$, with $V=W,Z$. Within this context, in this section we aim to understand the role of the Higgs trilinear coupling in the SM and beyond, as well as the generic characteristics of the scattering processes $W^+W^-\to HH$ and $ZZ\to HH$.
The Higgs self-coupling is only present, at the tree level and in the Unitary gauge, in the $s-$channel diagram of the studied processes, so the sensitivity to $\lambda$ will only depend on this particular configuration. However, a contact diagram, a $t-$channel diagram and a $u-$channel diagram have to be taken into account too as shown in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_diagrams\]]{}, in which we display all the possible tree level contributions to the mentioned scattering processes in the Unitary gauge. Each of these diagrams has its own energy dependence and its own relative size, so they participate differently in the total amplitude $A\big(V_1(p_1,\varepsilon_1) V_2(p_2,\varepsilon_2) \to H_1(k_1) H_2(k_2)\big)$. This can be seen in [Eqs. (\[amplitudeHHs\])-(\[amplitudeHHu\])]{}, where we show the amplitude of each diagram of the process $W^+W^-\to HH$, $A_d$, with $d=s,c,t,u$ from $s$, contact, $t$ and $u$ channels respectively, computed consistently in the Unitary gauge: $$\begin{aligned}
A_s(W^+W^-\to HH)=&~3 g^2v^2\dfrac{ \lambda}{s-m_H^2}(\varepsilon_1 \cdot \varepsilon_2)\, ,\label{amplitudeHHs} \\
A_c(W^+W^-\to HH)=& ~\dfrac{g^2}{2}(\varepsilon_1 \cdot \varepsilon_2)\, , \label{amplitudeHHc}\\
A_t(W^+W^-\to HH)=&~\dfrac{g^2}{t-m_W^2}(m_W^2(\varepsilon_1 \cdot \varepsilon_2) +(\varepsilon_1 \cdot k_1) (\varepsilon_2 \cdot k_2) )\, , \label{amplitudeHHt}\\
A_u(W^+W^-\to HH)=&~\dfrac{g^2}{u-m_W^2}(m_W^2(\varepsilon_1 \cdot \varepsilon_2) +(\varepsilon_1 \cdot k_2) (\varepsilon_2 \cdot k_1) )\, .\label{amplitudeHHu}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $g$ is the EW coupling constant, $m_W$ is the mass of the $W$ boson, and $s,t$ and $u$ are the usual Mandelstam variables. The amplitudes for the $ZZ\to HH$ case are identical except for a global factor $1/c_{\rm w}^2$ (with $c_{\rm w}=\cos\theta_{\rm w}$ and with $\theta_{\rm w}$ being the weak angle), that has to be included in each amplitude, and the substitution of $m_W^2$ by $m_Z^2$ in the $t$ and $u$ channel expressions.
![Tree level diagrams that contribute to double Higgs production in vector boson scattering in the Unitary gauge. The cyan circle represents the presence of the Higgs self-coupling in the interaction vertex.[]{data-label="fig:subprocess_diagrams"}](Figs/DiagramsdoubleH.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
On the other hand, the contribution of each polarization state of the initial EW gauge bosons behaves differently, not only energetically, but also in what concerns to the sensitivity to $\lambda$. There are only two polarization channels that do depend on $\lambda$: the purely longitudinal, $V_LV_L$, and the purely transverse in which both vector bosons have the same polarization, $V_{T^+}V_{T^+}$ and $V_{T^-}V_{T^-}$. All the other channels have vanishing $s$-channel contributions and will not actively participate, therefore, in the study of the Higgs trilinear coupling, although all polarization states contribute to the total cross section. Moreover, this total cross section is dominated, specially at high energies, by the purely longitudinal $V_LV_L$ configuration, and so is each diagram contribution. All these features can be seen in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_polarizations\]]{}, where we display the predictions for the cross sections of $W^+W^-\to HH$ and $ZZ\to HH$ as a function of the center of mass energy for three different values of $\lambda$ separated by polarizations of the gauge bosons, including, also, the unpolarized cross section. In this figure two things are manifest: the first one is that the $V_LV_T$ configuration is indeed independent of $\lambda$. The second one is that the total cross section is clearly strongly dominated by the purely longitudinal contribution at all energies. This is a very interesting result, since it means that, if this process was measured, we would be being sensitive to the purely longitudinal configurations of the gauge bosons, and therefore to the heart of the self-interactions of the SM scalar sector.
![Predictions of the cross sections of $W^+W^-\to HH$ (left panel) and $ZZ\to HH$ (right panel) as a function of the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ for three different values of $\lambda$ and for different polarizations of the initial gauge bosons: $V_LV_L$ (upper dot-dashed lines), $V_TV_T$ (middle dashed lines) and $V_LV_T+V_TV_L$ (lower dotted lines). The unpolarized cross section is also included (solid lines). Each polarized cross section contributes with a factor 1/9 to the unpolarized (averaged) cross section.[]{data-label="fig:subprocess_polarizations"}](Figs/Plot_polarizations.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Predictions of the cross sections of $W^+W^-\to HH$ (left panel) and $ZZ\to HH$ (right panel) as a function of the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ for three different values of $\lambda$ and for different polarizations of the initial gauge bosons: $V_LV_L$ (upper dot-dashed lines), $V_TV_T$ (middle dashed lines) and $V_LV_T+V_TV_L$ (lower dotted lines). The unpolarized cross section is also included (solid lines). Each polarized cross section contributes with a factor 1/9 to the unpolarized (averaged) cross section.[]{data-label="fig:subprocess_polarizations"}](Figs/Plot_polarizations_ZZ.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The $V_LV_L$ dominance can be understood through the inspection of the energy dependence of the longitudinal polarization vectors, $\varepsilon_V$, at high energies. They are all proportional, for $\sqrt{s}\gg m_V$, to a power of the energy over the mass, $E_V/m_V$. This leads to a behavior of the amplitudes, presented in Eqs.(\[amplitudeHHc\])-(\[amplitudeHHu\]), for the contact, $t$ and $u$ channels respectively, proportional to $s$, and to a constant behavior with energy of the $s$-channel amplitude given in Eq.(\[amplitudeHHs\]). Including the extra $1/s$ suppression factor to compute the cross section from the squared amplitude one obtains the energy dependence seen in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_diagrams\_effect\]]{}, where we present the contribution of each diagram to the total cross sections of $W^+W^-\to HH$ and $ZZ\to HH$ in the SM, as well as the sum of the contact, $t$-channel and $u$-channel diagrams, $(c+t+u)$, and the total cross section taking all diagrams into account. In this figure, we see clearly that the sum of the contact, $t$ and $u$ channels tends at high energy to a constant value. This happens because in the SM there is a cancellation of the linear terms in $s$ among these three channels. In contrast, the $s$-channel contribution decreases as $1/s$ and is subleading numerically in the SM with respect to the other $(c+t+u)$ contributions. It is only, at lower energies near the production threshold of two Higgs bosons, where the s-channel contribution is numerically comparable to the other channels and, in fact, a mild cancellation occurs between this $s$-channel and the rest $(c+u+t)$. Therefore, the s-channel and in consequence $\lambda$, do not effectively participate in the constant behavior at high energies of the total cross section in the SM. At this point, it is worth recalling that these constant behaviors of the cross sections with energy are characteristic of VBS processes at high energies, precisely because of the above commented dominance of the longitudinal configurations.
![Contribution to the total cross section of $W^+W^-\to HH$ (left panel), and of $ZZ\to HH$ (right panel) in the SM, i.e., $\lambda=\lambda_{SM}$, of each diagram displayed in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_diagrams\]]{} as a function of the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}$. The sum of the contributions of the contact, $t$-channel and $u$-channel diagrams as well as the sum of all diagrams that contribute are also presented.[]{data-label="fig:subprocess_diagrams_effect"}](Figs/Plot_diagramcontribution_subprocess.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Contribution to the total cross section of $W^+W^-\to HH$ (left panel), and of $ZZ\to HH$ (right panel) in the SM, i.e., $\lambda=\lambda_{SM}$, of each diagram displayed in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_diagrams\]]{} as a function of the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}$. The sum of the contributions of the contact, $t$-channel and $u$-channel diagrams as well as the sum of all diagrams that contribute are also presented.[]{data-label="fig:subprocess_diagrams_effect"}](Figs/Plot_diagramcontribution_subprocess_ZZ.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
When going beyond the SM by taking $\lambda \neq \lambda_{SM}$, the previously described dependence with energy and the delicate cancellations commented above among the various contributing diagrams may change drastically. In fact, varying the size of the Higgs trilinear coupling could modify the relative importance of the contributing diagrams and, in particular, it could allow for the s-channel contribution to be very relevant or even dominate the scattering. This could happen not only at low energies close to the threshold of $HH$ production, but also at larger energies, where the pattern of cancellations among diagrams could be strongly modified. This may lead to a different high energy behavior, and, hence, to a different experimental signature. The crucial point is that such a large deviation in $\lambda$ with respect to the SM value is still experimentally possible, as the present bounds on the trilinear coupling are not yet very tight. The best bounds at present set $\kappa = \lambda/\lambda_{SM}\in[-8.2,13.2]$ [@Aaboud:2018ftw], so values of order 10 times the SM coupling are still allowed by LHC data. Then, if in the future the LHC could improve this sensitivity to lower values of $\lambda$ it would be a formidable test of the presence of new physics beyond the SM. We will show next that this sensitivity can be indeed reached in the future by means of VBS.
It is important to understand in more detail at this point the implications of setting $\lambda$ to a different value than $\lambda_{SM}$ in the kinematical properties of the VBS processes we are studying here. For this purpose, we present in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_varylambda\]]{} the total cross section of the process $W^+W^-\to HH$ as a function of the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ and the differential cross section with respect to the pseudorapidity $\eta_H$ of one of the final Higgs bosons (notice that the distribution with respect to the pseudorapidity of the other Higgs particle is the same) for different values of positive, vanishing and negative $\lambda$[^3]. The results for $ZZ\to HH$ (not shown) are very similar to those of $W^+W^-\to HH$. From this figure, it can be seen that, first and most evidently, the total cross section changes in magnitude and in energy dependence with respect to the SM one, as already announced. This happens especially near the $HH$ production threshold, confirming that the sensitivity to deviations in $\lambda$ with respect to the SM value is larger in this region. For the case of positive $\lambda$ the total BMS cross section can be larger or lower than that in the SM, depending on the size of the deviations in $\lambda$ with respect to $\lambda_{SM}$, since in this case there is a destructive interference between the $s$ channel contribution and the rest $(c+t+u)$. In contrast, for the case of negative $\lambda$ values, the sum of diagrams is always constructive and one obtains bigger cross sections than the SM one independently of the absolute value of the coupling. The details of these features will be extended when commenting the next figure. Regarding the angular dependence of the differential cross section, or correspondingly the distribution respect to $\eta _H$ also shown in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_varylambda\]]{}, we see clearly that it also changes in the BSM scenarios respect to the SM one. We particularly learn from this figure that for central values of the Higgs pseudorapidity, concretely for $|\eta_H|<2.5$, it is much easier to distinguish between different values of $\lambda$. Therefore, this suggests the kind of optimal cuts in this variable $\eta _H$, or the equivalent one in terms of the final particles from the Higgs decays, we should be giving to enhance the sensitivity to the signal when moving to the realistic case of the $pp$ collisions at the LHC.
![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $W^+W^-\to HH$, as a function of the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ (left panel) and as a function of the pesudorapidity of one of the final $H$ at a fixed center of mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=1500$ GeV (right panel) for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. Solid (dashed) lines correspond to positive (negative) values of $\lambda$.[]{data-label="fig:subprocess_varylambda"}](Figs/Plot_lambdaeff_subprocess.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $W^+W^-\to HH$, as a function of the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ (left panel) and as a function of the pesudorapidity of one of the final $H$ at a fixed center of mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=1500$ GeV (right panel) for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. Solid (dashed) lines correspond to positive (negative) values of $\lambda$.[]{data-label="fig:subprocess_varylambda"}](Figs/Plot_lambdaeff_etah.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Prediction for the total cross section of the VBS process $W^+W^- \to HH$ (left panel) and of $ZZ\to HH$ (right panel) as a function of the ratio of a generic $\lambda$ value over the SM value for four different center of mass energies: $\sqrt{s}=$ 260, 500, 1000 and 3000 GeV.[]{data-label="fig:subprocess_cancellation_energy"}](Figs/Plot_lambdacancellations_energies.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Prediction for the total cross section of the VBS process $W^+W^- \to HH$ (left panel) and of $ZZ\to HH$ (right panel) as a function of the ratio of a generic $\lambda$ value over the SM value for four different center of mass energies: $\sqrt{s}=$ 260, 500, 1000 and 3000 GeV.[]{data-label="fig:subprocess_cancellation_energy"}](Figs/Plot_lambdacancellations_energies_ZZ.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
In [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_cancellation\_energy\]]{} we display our predictions for the total cross section of the two relevant VBS processes as a function of $\kappa$ for four different values of fixed center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}=260,\,500,\,1000,\,3000$ GeV. We also display the parabolic fits that allow us to describe each of the curves to have a more analytical insight into the details of how the above commented cancellations among diagrams do actually occur. The formulas of the fits in this figure manifest that, in general, the cross section has a quadratic, a constant and a linear term in $\kappa$, coming, respectively, from the $s$-channel contribution, from the $(c+t+u)$ contribution and from the interference of these two. The sign of the interference is negative for positive values of $\kappa$ and positive for negative values of $\kappa$. This destructive interference for $\lambda>0$ produces that the minima of these lines are placed at $\lambda > \lambda_{SM}$. Besides, depending on the energy and on the size of $\kappa$, the behavior of the cross section will be dominantly constant, linear or quadratic in $\lambda$, and therefore the sensitivity to $\lambda$ will vary accordingly. Near the production threshold, i.e., at energies around 250 GeV, two issues can be seen. The first one is that, as we already saw in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_varylambda\]]{}, the differences in the cross section when we vary $\lambda$ are maximal, and so will be the sensitivity to differences in this coupling. The second one is that, at these low energies, the SM, corresponding to $\kappa=1$, suffers, as already said, a mild cancellation between the linear and the constant terms, and therefore the sensitivity to $\lambda$ will be mainly quadratic. We can also see that the minima of the parabolas soften, in the sense that the variations in the cross section when we vary $\lambda$ become smaller, and that their position moves from $\lambda/\lambda_{SM}$ close to 2 to larger values as the energy is increased. Because of this, the bigger the energy, the bigger the value of $\lambda$ that maximizes the cancellations. Thus, as a first conclusion at this point, we will have to keep in mind, once we perform the full collider analysis, that the sensitivity to different values of the trilinear coupling and the issue of delicate cancellations among diagrams in VBS are clearly correlated and this will affect the final results at the LHC.
A final comment has to be made in this section, and it is that of a potential unitarity violation problem for large $|\lambda|$ values in the processes of our interest here, $VV \to HH$. To check this unitarity issue, we have evaluated the partial waves $a_J$ of the dominant polarization channels for this VBS, which, as we have said, are the longitudinal ones, i.e., $V_LV_L \to HH$. These $a_J$ of fixed angular momentum $J$ are evaluated as usual, by computing: $$\begin{aligned}
a_J&=\dfrac{1}{64\pi}\int_{-1}^1 d\cos\theta~ A(V_LV_L\to HH)\, P_J(\cos\theta) \,, \label{unitarity}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_J(\cos\theta)$ are the Legendre polynomials. For a given energy, $\sqrt{s}$, we then define the unitarity violation limit as the value of $\lambda$ for which $|a_J(s)|=1$. By doing this exercise, we find that all the partial waves $|a_J|$ that we have computed are below 0.1 for values of $\lambda$ between -10 and 10 times the SM value at all energies. So, for the present study, we are safe from unitarity violation problems. For completeness, we have also made a fast estimate of the value of $\lambda$ that would be required to violate unitarity in this process. For large values of $|\lambda|$, the dominant contribution to the total amplitude comes from the $s$-channel. This contribution, as we mentioned before, behaves, at high energies and for the purely longitudinal case, as a constant. In particular, one obtains that $A_s(V_LV_L\to HH)\sim 6\,\lambda$ for $\sqrt{s}\gg m_H$. With this amplitude, one can compute the value of $\lambda$ for which the biggest partial wave (in this case we have checked that it is the one corresponding to $J=0$) becomes one. We obtain $\lambda_{\rm unit}\sim 17$. Notice that this upper limit of $\lambda$ is above the perturbativity limit given naively by $\lambda_{\rm pert}\sim\sqrt{16\pi}\sim 7$.
With all these features in mind, we can move on from the subprocess level to the full process at the LHC to study the sensitivity of this collider to the Higgs self coupling in VBS processes.
Sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC {#LHC}
=================================================
Once we have characterized completely the scattering $VV \to HH$, it is time to explore the full process at the LHC to quantify how sensitive this machine could be to the Higgs trilinear coupling in VBS processes. At this point, we would like to stress again the fact that this double Higgs production channel, via the scattering of two EW gauge bosons, has been poorly studied previously in the literature, due to the fact that it provides less statistics than the GGF one. Nevertheless, now that the LHC is close to reach its nominal energy, $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV, and that it is already achieving high integrated luminosities, close to $L = 40$ [${\rm fb}^{-1}$]{}, the possibility of measuring VBS processes, that were inaccessible before, opens up. In fact, several VBS measurements have been already performed at this collider by ATLAS [@Aad:2014zda; @Aad:2016ett; @Aaboud:2016uuk; @Aaboud:2016ffv; @Aaboud:2017pds; @ATLAS:2018ogo; @ATLAS:2018ucv] and CMS [@Khachatryan:2014sta; @Khachatryan:2016vif; @Khachatryan:2017jub; @Sirunyan:2017fvv; @Sirunyan:2017ret; @Sirunyan:2017jej; @CMS:2018hlo; @CMS:2018ysc]. Taking this into account, and the fact that the kinematics of the VBS processes are incredibly characteristic and allow for a very efficient signal selection and background rejection, a dedicated study of the sensitivity to $\lambda$ via VBS processes is on demand.
This is precisely the aim of this section, in which we first promote the analysis of Section \[Subprocess\] to that of its LHC signal, $pp\to HHjj$, so that we can fully understand its behavior and properties, and then we give more quantitative and realistic results for the sensitivity to $\lambda$ once the Higgs bosons have decayed. Specifically, we will focus first on the dominant Higgs decays to bottoms, leading to the process [$pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ ]{}. This process benefits from having more statistics due to the large branching ratios involved, and, because of this, it is presumably the one that will lead to the best sensitivities. We will also present results on other channels, concretely for $p p \to b \bar{b} \gamma\gamma jj$, where one of the two Higgs bosons has decayed to photons, that, despite their smaller number of events, might also provide interesting results since they suffer from less severe backgrounds.
For all computations and results of the signal events we use MadGraph5$@$NLO [@Alwall:2014hca], setting the factorization scale to $Q^2=m_Z^2$ and using the set of PDF’s NNPDF2.3 [@Ball:2013hta]. We have found that changing the chosen value of $Q^2$ does not lead to relevant changes in the signal rates. Concerning the backgrounds, all of them are simulated with the same settings and PDF’s as the signal, using MadGraph5$@$NLO as well. For the case of the multijet QCD background in the $pp \to b \bar{b} b \bar{b} jj$ channel, due to its complexity, we have simulated events using both MadGraph5 with the previous mentioned settings and PDF’s, and AlpGen [@Mangano:2002ea], this time choosing $Q^2=(p_{T_b}^2+p_{T_{\bar{b}}}^2+\sum p_{T_j}^2)/6$ and selecting the set of PDF’s CTEQ5L [@Lai:1999wy]. We have found agreement between the results of these two Monte Carlos, within the provided errors, in the total normalization of the cross section with the basic cuts, and in the shape of the relevant distributions. All results are presented for a center of mass energy of $\sqrt{s}= 14$ TeV.
Our study is aimed to be a first and simple approach to the sensitivity to $\lambda$ in VBS processes at the LHC. This means that, in order to simplify the procedure, the analysis is done at the parton level, and no hadronization or detector response simulation are performed, leaving always room for more expert improvement towards a full and dedicated experimental study.
![Schematic representation of partonic double Higgs production though VBS at the LHC. The green blob represents the presence of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$ in the process, although all diagrams in Fig.(\[fig:subprocess\_diagrams\]) are considered.[]{data-label="fig:LHC_diagrams"}](Figs/DiagramsdoubleHLHC.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
Study and characterization of $pp\to HHjj$ signal events {#HHjj}
--------------------------------------------------------
In order to be able to estimate the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling in VBS at the LHC, we need to understand how the results of the previous section translate into the full process when we start with protons as initial particles. This full process, $pp\to HHjj$, can be produced via many different channels, and not only in VBS configurations. In fact, it is well known that this VBS subset of diagrams contributing to $q_1 q_2 \to q_3 q_4 H H$ is not gauge invariant by itself and all kinds of contributing diagrams have to be included to get gauge invariant result. This is indeed what we are doing here, since when we use MadGraph to compute the signal all kind of diagrams are included.
The crucial point regarding the phenomenological interest of VBS, that indeed motivates this work, is that the specific VBS configuration can be very efficiently selected by choosing the appropriate kinematic regions of the two extra jets variables, as it is well known [@Goncalves:2018qas; @Doroba:2012pd; @Szleper:2014xxa; @Delgado:2017cls]. In particular, at the LHC, the VBS topologies are characterized by large separations in pseudorapidity of the jets, $|\Delta\eta_{jj}|=|\eta_{j_1}-\eta_{j_2}|$, and by large invariant masses of the dijet system, $M_{jj}$. Imposing proper cuts over these two variables makes possible to obtain events that come dominantly from VBS processes and, as we will see later on, also to reject many background events.
![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to HHjj$ as a function of the absolute value of the difference between pseudorapidities of the two jets $|\Delta\eta_{jj}|$ (upper panels) and as a function of the invariant mass of the two jets $M_{jj}$ (lower panels) for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We display positive (left panels) and negative (right panels) values of $\lambda$ for comparison. We also include the case $\lambda=0$. Cuts in Eq.(\[basiccutsHHjj\]) have been applied and the center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:HHjj_VBSdistributions"}](Figs/plotHHjj_difeta.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to HHjj$ as a function of the absolute value of the difference between pseudorapidities of the two jets $|\Delta\eta_{jj}|$ (upper panels) and as a function of the invariant mass of the two jets $M_{jj}$ (lower panels) for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We display positive (left panels) and negative (right panels) values of $\lambda$ for comparison. We also include the case $\lambda=0$. Cuts in Eq.(\[basiccutsHHjj\]) have been applied and the center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:HHjj_VBSdistributions"}](Figs/plotHHjj_difetan.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to HHjj$ as a function of the absolute value of the difference between pseudorapidities of the two jets $|\Delta\eta_{jj}|$ (upper panels) and as a function of the invariant mass of the two jets $M_{jj}$ (lower panels) for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We display positive (left panels) and negative (right panels) values of $\lambda$ for comparison. We also include the case $\lambda=0$. Cuts in Eq.(\[basiccutsHHjj\]) have been applied and the center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:HHjj_VBSdistributions"}](Figs/plotHHjj_Mjj.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to HHjj$ as a function of the absolute value of the difference between pseudorapidities of the two jets $|\Delta\eta_{jj}|$ (upper panels) and as a function of the invariant mass of the two jets $M_{jj}$ (lower panels) for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We display positive (left panels) and negative (right panels) values of $\lambda$ for comparison. We also include the case $\lambda=0$. Cuts in Eq.(\[basiccutsHHjj\]) have been applied and the center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:HHjj_VBSdistributions"}](Figs/plotHHjj_Mjjn.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The VBS processes involved in $pp\to HHjj$ can be seen schematicaly in [Fig. \[fig:LHC\_diagrams\]]{}, where the green blob represents all diagrams in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_diagrams\]]{}, including the presence of the $s$-channel with the generic Higgs trilinear coupling $\lambda$. This kind of processes will inherit the properties of the sub-scatterings we have studied, but will also have differences with respect to them due to the fact that we now have protons in the initial state. Then, it is important to know at this stage how close to the “pure” VBS configuration our $pp\to HHjj$ signal is. To this end, we have generated with MadGraph5 $pp\to HHjj$ signal events for this process for different values of $\lambda$ with a set of basic cuts that allow for the detection of the final particles, given by: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{T_j} & > 20~ {\rm GeV}\,,~~~ |\eta_j|<5\,,~~~ \Delta R_{jj} > 0.4\,,~~~ |\eta_H|<2.5\,,\label{basiccutsHHjj} \end{aligned}$$ where $p_{T_j}$ is the transverse momentum of the jets, $\eta_{j,H}$ is the pseudorapidity of the jets or of the Higgs bosons, and $\Delta R_{jj}$ is the angular separation between two jets defined as $\Delta R_{jj}=\sqrt{\Delta\eta_{jj}^2+\Delta\phi_{jj}^2}$, with $\Delta\eta_{jj}$ and $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ being the angular separation in the longitudinal and transverse planes, respectively.
With these generated events, we have studied some relevant distributions for the signal cross section that we have found give the most efficient access to the VBS configuration in $pp \to HH jj$ events: distributions with $M_{jj}$, $\Delta\eta_{jj}$ and $M_{HH}$.
In [Fig. \[fig:HHjj\_VBSdistributions\]]{} we present the predictions for the cross section of the process $pp\to HHjj$ for different values of $\lambda$ as a function of the separation in pseudorapidity of the final jets $|\Delta\eta_{jj}|$ and as a function of the invariant mass of these two jets $M_{jj}$. In these plots we can see that our signal is indeed dominated by the VBS configuration, since a very large fraction of the events populate the kinematic regions that correspond to VBS topologies. To have a quantitative estimation, we can take, for instance, the VBS selection cuts proposed in [@Delgado:2017cls] and impose them to the events shown in [Fig. \[fig:HHjj\_VBSdistributions\]]{}. Thus, by imposing these cuts: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm VBS\,\, CUTS :\,}\,\,\,\,\,|\Delta\eta_{jj}|&>4\,,~~~ M_{jj}>500~ {\rm GeV}\,,\label{VBSselectioncuts}\end{aligned}$$ we obtain that between 50% and 75% (depending on the value of $\lambda$, with closer values to 75% for the larger values of $|\lambda|$) of the events are accepted within them, which means that the VBS topologies amount[^4] , at least, to half of the total cross section of $pp\to HHjj$. This is indeed a very interesting result, since, as we will see in the forthcoming section, the VBS cuts allow us to reduce some backgrounds even in two orders of magnitude. The fact that the signal is practically left unaffected by these cuts is an excellent outcome as the signal to background ratio will favor a better sensitivity to $\lambda$.
![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to HHjj$ as a function of the invariant mass of the di-Higgs system $M_{HH}$ for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We display positive (left panel) and negative (right panel) values of $\lambda$ for comparison. We also include the case $\lambda=0$. Cuts in Eq.(\[basiccutsHHjj\]) and VBS selection cuts presented in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]) have been applied. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:MHH_distributions"}](Figs/plotHHjj_MHH.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to HHjj$ as a function of the invariant mass of the di-Higgs system $M_{HH}$ for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We display positive (left panel) and negative (right panel) values of $\lambda$ for comparison. We also include the case $\lambda=0$. Cuts in Eq.(\[basiccutsHHjj\]) and VBS selection cuts presented in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]) have been applied. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:MHH_distributions"}](Figs/plotHHjj_MHHn.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Furthermore, knowing that the process of our interest at the LHC has a dominant VBS configuration, we would expect the translation from the subprocess results to the complete ones at this level to be straightforward. This appears to be the case, as shown in [Fig. \[fig:MHH\_distributions\]]{}, where we display the predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to HHjj$ as a function of the invariant mass of the diHiggs system, $M_{HH}$, for different values of the Higgs self-coupling after imposing the cuts given in Eqs. (\[basiccutsHHjj\]) and (\[VBSselectioncuts\]). In these plots, it is manifest that the curves follow the same tendency as the subprocess when we vary $\lambda$. Near the $HH$ production threshold the difference in the cross sections for different values of the coupling is more pronounced, and one can see again that the cancellations play a role in the same way we learnt at the subprocess level. The SM cross section ($\kappa=1$, in red) lies between the $\kappa=0$ (in green) one, which is bigger, and the $\kappa=2$ (in light blue) one, which is smaller. Again, for negative values of $\kappa$ the cross section is always larger than the SM one, so we will have, for the same absolute value of the coupling, better sensitivities for negative $\lambda$ values.
The issue of the cancellations that take place between the diagram that depends on $\lambda$ and the rest is shown in more detail in [Fig. \[fig:cancelations\]]{}. In this figure, we present the predictions for the total cross section for $pp\to HHjj$, and for the ratio of the total cross section over its SM value as a function of the Higgs self-coupling. We also compare the results with and without imposing the VBS cuts given in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]) to explore how the cancellation happens at the LHC, and how it depends on the selection of the VBS topologies. We learn again, that, for the same absolute value of $\lambda$, negative values give rise to larger cross sections, and therefore to better sensitivities. The smallest cross section corresponds roughly to $\kappa\sim1.6$, which is the value that will be harder to reach at the LHC. One may notice that this value does not coincide exactly with that in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_cancellation\_energy\]]{}, even for the dominant contribution close to the threshold. This slight displacement of the minimum is due to the fact that many different topologies in addition to those of VBS contribute to this final state, in contrast with the results in [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_cancellation\_energy\]]{} that took into account only VBS configurations. In fact, once we apply the VBS cuts the minimum gets closer to that of [Fig. \[fig:subprocess\_cancellation\_energy\]]{}. Besides, and interestingly, the effect of imposing the VBS selection cuts can ameliorate the sensitivity to $\lambda$ . Although the cross sections reduce in value after applying the cuts, the ratio of the total cross section for a given trilinear coupling over the SM cross section increases when we are away from the region in which the cancellations are relevant, i.e., for $\kappa>3$ and $\kappa<1$.
![Predictions for the total cross section (left panel) and for the ratio of the total cross section over its SM value (right panel) as a function of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$ with and without imposing the VBS selection cuts given in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]). Cuts in Eq.(\[basiccutsHHjj\]) have been applied and the center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV. []{data-label="fig:cancelations"}](Figs/cancelation_HHjj.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Predictions for the total cross section (left panel) and for the ratio of the total cross section over its SM value (right panel) as a function of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$ with and without imposing the VBS selection cuts given in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]). Cuts in Eq.(\[basiccutsHHjj\]) have been applied and the center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV. []{data-label="fig:cancelations"}](Figs/cancelation_HHjj_ratio.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The last issue we would like to point out in this section refers to the kinematical behavior of the VBS subsystem, that is then translated to the kinematics of the final Higgs bosons. Usually, in vector boson scattering processes at the LHC, most of the energy of the initial $pp$ state is transmitted to the radiated EW gauge bosons. This leads, as a consequence, to a very boosted system of final $HH$ pairs, which can be profitable to select these kind of events against backgrounds. If the final Higgs particles are very boosted, their decay products, will have, in general, small angular separations. This, together with the fact that the invariant mass of the two particles that come from the Higgs decay has to lie near the Higgs mass, will allow us to characterize very efficiently the Higgs boson candidates as we will see in the next section. With this and the VBS topologies under control, we can study the full processes in which the Higgs bosons have decayed, and compute the sensitivities to $\lambda$ in these realistic BSM scenarios.
Analysis after Higgs boson decays: sensitivity to $\lambda$ in $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ events {#4b2j}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, once we have fully characterized our most basic process, $pp\to HHjj$, we need to take into account the Higgs decays to perform a realistic analysis at the LHC. The channel we are going to focus on is $p p\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$, since the decay of the Higgs boson to a bottom-antibottom pair benefits from the biggest branching ratio, BR($H\to b\bar{b}$) $\sim$ 60 %. Because of this, we will obtain the largest possible rates for our signal, which will allow us to probe the broadest interval of deviations in the Higgs self-coupling.
Although this process is really interesting because of its large statistics, it is important to mention that it also suffers from having a severe background: the one coming from pure multijet QCD events. This QCD background, of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_S^3)$ at the amplitude level, leads to the same final state as our signal, $p p\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$, and, although in general they have very different kinematics, their rates are so high that some of the events can mimic the signal coming from the decay of two Higgs particles. For this reason, we need to be very efficient when applying selection cuts and criteria to be able to reject this particular background.
We learnt in the previous sections that our signal is very dominated by the VBS configuration. Oppositely, the multijet QCD background is composed primarily by topologies that do not share kinematical properties with VBS processes. This is the reason why we will first select those QCD events that can be misidentified as those signal events coming from VBS, and take them as a starting point to perform our more refined study of the signal and background.
To have a first insight on how efficient the VBS selection criteria are, we have generated with MadGraph5 ten thousand events for our signal, $p p\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ in the SM, i.e., $\kappa=1$, and for the multijet QCD background with a set of basic cuts that ensure the detection of the final state particles: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{T_{j,b}}>20~ {\rm GeV}\,;~|\eta_j|<5\,;~|\eta_b|<2.5\,;~\Delta R_{jj,jb}>0.4\,;~\Delta R_{bb}>0.2\,.\label{basiccuts4b2j}
\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{T_j,b}$ is the transverse momentum of the jets and bottoms, $\eta_{j,b}$ are the pseudorapidities of the jets or of the bottom particles, and $\Delta R_{ij}$ is the angular separation between the $i$ and $j$ particles.
![Distribution of 10000 Monte Carlo events of multijet QCD background $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (left panel) and signal $pp\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (right panel) in the plane of the absolute value of the difference between pseudorapidities of the two jets $|\Delta\eta_{jj}|$ versus the invariant mass of the two jets $M_{jj}$. Cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} have been implemented. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=$14 TeV.[]{data-label="fig:4b2j_VBSvariables2D"}](Figs/Plot_2D_QCDVBSvars.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Distribution of 10000 Monte Carlo events of multijet QCD background $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (left panel) and signal $pp\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (right panel) in the plane of the absolute value of the difference between pseudorapidities of the two jets $|\Delta\eta_{jj}|$ versus the invariant mass of the two jets $M_{jj}$. Cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} have been implemented. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=$14 TeV.[]{data-label="fig:4b2j_VBSvariables2D"}](Figs/Plot_2D_VBSVBSvars.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
In [Fig. \[fig:4b2j\_VBSvariables2D\]]{} we display the localization of these events in the $|\Delta\eta_{jj}|-M_{jj}$ plane, the two variables that better characterize the VBS processes. One can see, indeed, that the QCD events populate mostly the region of small invariant masses of the dijet system and of small differences in pseudorapidity of the jets, as opposed, precisely, to the signal events. Thus, imposing the proper VBS cuts, like those in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{}, should relevantly reduce the QCD background leaving the signal nearly unaffected.
In [Fig. \[fig:4b2j\_2D\_Mbb\]]{} we aim precisely to see this effect, since we present the same set of events as in [Fig. \[fig:4b2j\_VBSvariables2D\]]{} for the QCD background and for the signal highlighting in orange those events that fulfill the VBS selection criteria given in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{} as an example. This time we show the results in the $M_{bb_1}-M_{bb_2}$ plane, where $M_{bb_{1,2}}$ are the corresponding invariant masses of the two bottom pairs that are the best candidates to come from the decay of a Higgs boson, as we will see later.
The first thing one can observe in both plots of [Fig. \[fig:4b2j\_2D\_Mbb\]]{} is that very few QCD events survive the imposition of the VBS cuts, whereas practically all events of the signal do. The concrete fraction of the events ($\mathcal{A}$) that survive in both cases is also presented in the plots. We call $\mathcal{A_{\rm VBS}}$ the acceptance of the VBS cuts, defined as $$\mathcal{A}_{\rm VBS}\equiv\dfrac{\sigma(pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj)|_{\rm VBS}}{\sigma(pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj)}\,,$$ i.e., the ratio between the cross section of the process after applying the VBS cuts like those in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{} over the cross section of the process without having applied them. The basic cuts are imposed in all cases. Taking a look at these numbers, we see that 60% of the signal events pass these cuts while only 9% of the QCD events do. At this point, one might wonder wether these results are very dependent on the specific VBS cuts we impose or not. In [Table \[table:VBS\]]{} we show the predictions for the acceptances, $\mathcal{A}_{\rm VBS}$, of different sets of VBS selection cuts, i.e., different cuts in $|\Delta\eta_{jj}|$ and in $M_{jj}$, for both the multijet QCD background and the signal with $\kappa=1$. From those predictions we can see that all the sets of cuts considered lead to very similar results: around 60% of the signal fulfills the VBS selection criteria whereas a 5-10% of the multijet QCD background does. We have checked that for other values of $\kappa$ the acceptance for the signal varies between a 55% and a 75%. From now on we will apply the VBS selection cuts given in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{}, since this set is well explored in the literature and qualitatively provides the same results as the other sets of cuts that we have analyzed.
![Distribution of 10000 Monte Carlo events of multijet QCD background $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (left panel) and signal $pp\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (right panel) in the plane of the invariant mass of one bottom pair identified as a Higgs candidate following the criteria presented in the text $M_{bb_1}$ versus the invariant mass of the other bottom pair identified as the other Higgs candidate $M_{bb_2}$. Orange dots correspond to those events that pass the implemented VBS selection cuts given in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]). Cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} have been implemented. The value of the acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is also included. The red cross represents the value of the Higgs mass The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=$14 TeV.[]{data-label="fig:4b2j_2D_Mbb"}](Figs/Plot_2D_QCDVBS.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Distribution of 10000 Monte Carlo events of multijet QCD background $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (left panel) and signal $pp\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (right panel) in the plane of the invariant mass of one bottom pair identified as a Higgs candidate following the criteria presented in the text $M_{bb_1}$ versus the invariant mass of the other bottom pair identified as the other Higgs candidate $M_{bb_2}$. Orange dots correspond to those events that pass the implemented VBS selection cuts given in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]). Cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} have been implemented. The value of the acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is also included. The red cross represents the value of the Higgs mass The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=$14 TeV.[]{data-label="fig:4b2j_2D_Mbb"}](Figs/Plot_2D_VBSVBS.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The second issue that we can notice about [Fig. \[fig:4b2j\_2D\_Mbb\]]{} is that, again, the QCD events populate a very different region of this plane than those of the signal. QCD events tend to lie on low values of ${M_{bb_i}}$, somehow away from the region close to the $[M_{bb_1}=m_H,M_{bb_2}=m_H]$ point in the $M_{bb_1}-M_{bb_2}$ plane, in which most of our signal settles. Evidently, two particles coming from the decay of a Higgs boson should have a total invariant mass value near the Higgs boson mass, $m_H$, as our signal does. This motivates the next selection criteria we are going to apply, following the search strategies of ATLAS [@Aaboud:2018knk] and CMS [@CMS:2016foy] for double Higgs production, that are aimed to efficiently identify the $HH$ candidates.
The $HH$ candidate identification criteria are also based on what we have learned in the previous sections. Logically, each $H$ candidate corresponds to a $b$-quark pair, and therefore we first need to define how we are going to pair the final $b$-quarks. From now on, it is worth mentioning that we will not distinguish between bottom and anti-bottom, similarly to what is done in experimental analyses. Therefore, with four bottom-like particles in the final state we have three possible double pairings. Among these three possibilities, we select the one in which the values of the invariant masses of the pairs are closer, i.e., the one that minimizes $|M_{bb_1}-M_{bb_2}|$, where $M_{bb_1}$ is the invariant mass of one of the $bb$ pairs and $M_{bb_2}$ is the invariant mass of the other pair. Once we have defined the $b$-quark pairing, we can profit from the fact that, as mentioned before, if two $b$-quarks come from the decay of a boosted Higgs boson, as it happens in VBS processes, the angular separation between them should be small. Thus, we should look for pairs of $b$-quarks with small (and yet enough to resolve the particles) $\Delta R_{bb}$. Furthermore, we have already discussed that our signal is characterized by the fact that the invariant mass of each $b$-quark pair should be around the Higgs mass, $m_H$. Therefore, imposing this criterion will ensure that we are maximizing the selection of events that come from the decays of two Higgs bosons.
[ c @ c @ c ]{} Set of VBS cuts & $\mathcal{A}_{\rm VBS}^{\rm QCD}$ & $\mathcal{A}_{\rm VBS}^{{\rm Signal};\kappa=1}$\
$|\Delta\eta_{jj}|>4,~M_{jj} > 500$ GeV & 0.086 & 0.631\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$|\Delta\eta_{jj}|>4,~M_{jj} > 600$ GeV & 0.066 & 0.597\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$|\Delta\eta_{jj}|>4,~M_{jj} > 700$ GeV & 0.054 & 0.558\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$|\Delta\eta_{jj}|>3,~M_{jj} > 500$ GeV& 0.098 & 0.669\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$|\Delta\eta_{jj}|>3,~M_{jj} > 600$ GeV & 0.071 & 0.626\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$|\Delta\eta_{jj}|>3,~M_{jj} > 700$ GeV& 0.057 & 0.580\
With all these features in mind, and guided by the ATLAS search strategies [@Aaboud:2018knk], we define the following set of cuts as the requirements to efficiently select the candidates to Higgs boson pairs: $$\begin{aligned}
&HH \,\,\, {\rm CANDIDATE\,\,\, CUTS \,\,\,:} \nonumber \\[0.3em]
&p_{T_b}> 35~ {\rm GeV}\,,\label{cutsHH1}\\
&\hat{\Delta}R_{bb}\equiv\left\{ \begin{array}{l} 0.2 < \Delta R_{bb^l} < \frac{653}{M_{4b}}+0.475\,;~0.2 < \Delta R_{bb^s} < \frac{875}{M_{4b}}+0.35\,,~M_{4b}<1250~{\rm GeV}\,, \\0.2 < \Delta R_{bb^l} < 1\,;~0.2 < \Delta R_{bb^s} < 1\,,~M_{4b}>1250~{\rm GeV}\,, \end{array} \right.\label{cutsHH2}\\
&\hat{p}_{T_{bb}}\equiv p_{T_{bb^l}}>M_{4b}/2-103 {\rm GeV}\,;~ p_{T_{bb^s}}>M_{4b}/3-73{\rm GeV}\,,\label{cutsHH3}\\
&\chi_{HH}\equiv\sqrt{\left(\dfrac{M_{bb^l}-m_H}{0.05\,m_H}\right)^2+\left(\dfrac{M_{bb^s}-m_H}{0.05\,m_H}\right)^2}<1\,,\label{cutsHH}\end{aligned}$$ where the super-indices $l$ and $s$ denote, respectively, leading and subleading, defining the leading $b$-quark pair as the one with largest scalar sum of $p_T$. One might notice that the requirement of small angular separation between the two $b$-quarks of a pair, and the fact that the invariant mass of each $b$-quark pair has to lie near the mass of the Higgs, are encoded in the $\hat{\Delta}R_{bb}$ and in the $\chi_{HH}$ cuts, respectively. The latter is equivalent to impose that the events in the $M_{bb_1}-M_{bb_2}$ plane have to lie inside a circle of radius $0.05\,m_H=6.25$ GeV centered in the point $[M_{bb_1}=m_H,M_{bb_2}=m_H]$.
Nevertheless, although multijet QCD events represent the most severe background, there are other processes that can fake our signal. One of them is the $t\bar{t}$ background, with the subsequent decays of the top quarks and $W$ bosons, $t\bar{t}\to b W^+ \bar{b} W^-\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$. This is, however, a very controlled background, since it is well suppressed by non-diagonal CKM matrix elements and its kinematics are radically different than those of VBS. Starting from a cross section of $5.4\cdot 10^{-5}$ pb with all the basic cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} applied, one ends up in $1.7\cdot 10^{-7}$ pb after applying the $HH$ candidate cuts, and in $2.0 \cdot 10^{-10}$ pb after applying the VBS cuts afterwards. Therefore, since this background is five orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest of our signals, we will neglect it from now onwards. Finally, we still have to deal with other potentially important backgrounds corresponding to $pp\to HZjj \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ and $pp\to ZZjj \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$. These two $HZ$ and $ZZ$ production processes, receiving contributions of order ($\alpha\cdot\alpha_S$) and ($\alpha^2$) at the amplitude level, also drive to the same final state as our signal and may give rise to similar kinematics, since they can also take place through VBS configurations. In fact, their rates are very close to those of our signal after applying the VBS selection cuts, that reduce these backgrounds less efficiently than the multijet QCD one. However, we can again take advantage of the fact that the $b$-quark pairs have to come from a Higgs boson with a well defined mass. Therefore the $HH$ candidate cuts should allow us to reject these backgrounds.
Cut $\sigma_{\rm QCD}$ \[pb\] $\sigma_{ ZHjj,ZZjj}$ \[pb\] $\sigma_{{\rm Signal};\kappa=1}$ \[pb\]
----------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
Basic detection cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} 602.72 0.028 5.1$\cdot 10^{-4}$
$p_{T_b}>$ 35 GeV, [Eq. (\[cutsHH1\])]{} 98.31 0.01 3.0$\cdot 10^{-4}$
$\hat{\Delta}R_{bb}$, [Eq. (\[cutsHH2\])]{} 33.80 $6.3\cdot 10^{-3}$ 1.1$\cdot 10^{-4}$
$\hat{p}_{T_{bb}}$, [Eq. (\[cutsHH3\])]{} 29.77 5.8$\cdot 10^{-3}$ 9.0$\cdot 10^{-5}$
$\chi_{HH}<1$, [Eq. (\[cutsHH\])]{} $7.9\cdot10^{-2}$ 8.6$\cdot 10^{-6}$ 9.0$\cdot 10^{-5}$
VBS cuts in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{} $6.8\cdot10^{-3}$ 5.5$\cdot 10^{-6}$ 4.1$\cdot 10^{-5}$
: Predictions for the total cross section of the multijet QCD background, of the combined $pp\to HZjj \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ and $pp\to ZZjj \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ background and of the signal with $\kappa=1$ after imposing each of the cuts given in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} and in Eqs. (\[cutsHH1\])-(\[cutsHH\]) subsequently. We show as well the total cross section after applying, afterwards, the VBS selection cuts in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{}. []{data-label="table:cutflow"}
In [Table \[table:cutflow\]]{} we present the cross sections of the multijet QCD background, of the combined $pp\to HZjj \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ and $pp\to ZZjj \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ background and of the signal with $\kappa=1$, with the basic cuts already set, after applying each of the cuts in Eqs.(\[cutsHH1\])-(\[cutsHH\]) subsequently. This way, we see the reduction factor after each cut, and the total cross section of both signal and background once we have performed our complete $HH$ candidate selection. We show as well the effect of applying the VBS cuts given in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{} afterwards, since we have checked that both sets of cuts ($HH$ candidate cuts and VBS cuts) are practically independent. Thus, we have the total cross sections of the two main backgrounds and of our SM signal after applying all the selection criteria. In [Table \[Tab:allSig\_4b2j\]]{} we provide the total cross sections of the signal for all the values of $\lambda$ considered in this work, again after applying all the selection criteria, for comparison.
$\kappa$ $0$ $1$ $-1$ $2$ $-2$ $5$ $-5$ $10$ $-10$
---------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- -------- -------- ---------
$\sigma_{\rm Signal}\cdot 10^4$ \[pb\] $1.9$ $0.4$ $5.0$ $0.4$ $9.7$ $10.1$ $33.2$ $56.4$ $102.6$
: Predictions for the total cross section of the signal $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b} j j$ after imposing all the selection criteria, VBS cuts given in in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{} and $HH$ candidate cuts given in Eqs. (\[cutsHH1\])-(\[cutsHH\]) for all the values of $\kappa$ considered in this work: $\kappa=0,\pm 1, \pm 2, \pm 5, \pm 10$. Basic cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} are also applied.[]{data-label="Tab:allSig_4b2j"}
From the results in [Table \[table:cutflow\]]{} we can learn that the sum of the two backgrounds, $ZHjj$+$ZZjj$, is under control after applying the $HH$ candidate cuts, since its cross section lies an order of magnitud below the SM signal. On the other hand, the multijet QCD background remains being very relevant even after imposing all the selection criteria. However, as we will see later, the total reduction that it suffers still allows to be sensitive to interesting values of $\kappa$ even for low luminosities. This reduction, along with that suffered by the $ZHjj$+$ZZjj$ backgrounds and with that suffered by the SM signal, is presented in [Table \[table:acceptances\]]{}. There we show the acceptances of the VBS cuts and the $HH$ candidate cuts separately and together for the multijet QCD background, for the combined $pp\to HZjj \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ and $pp\to ZZjj \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ background and for the SM signal, for comparison.
Cut $\mathcal{A}^{\rm QCD}$ $\mathcal{A}^{ ZHjj,ZZjj}$ $\mathcal{A}^{{\rm Signal};\kappa=1}$
-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------
VBS cuts in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{} 0.086 0.630 0.631
$HH$ candidate cuts in Eqs. (\[cutsHH1\])-(\[cutsHH\]) 1.3$\cdot 10^{-4}$ 3.1$\cdot 10^{-4}$ 0.17
VBS cuts $+$ HH candidate cuts 1.1$\cdot 10^{-5}$ 2.0$\cdot 10^{-4}$ 0.081
: Predictions for acceptances of the VBS cuts given in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{}, of the $HH$ candidate cuts given in Eqs. (\[cutsHH1\])-(\[cutsHH\]), and of both sets of cuts combined for the multijet QCD background, for the combined $pp\to HZjj \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ and $pp\to ZZjj \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ background and for the signal with $\kappa=1$. All the results are computed with the basic cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} already applied.[]{data-label="table:acceptances"}
It must be noticed that other backgrounds apart from those having the same final particle content as our signal can contribute relevantly. This would be the case if some final state particles were misidentified, leading to a “fake” $ b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ state. The most important of these backgrounds is the production of a $t\bar{t}$ pair decaying into two $b$ quarks and four light jets, $t\bar{t}\to b W^+ \bar{b} W^-\to b\bar{b}jjjj$ with two of these final light jets being misidentified as two $b$ jets. In order to estimate the contribution of this background, we have generated with MadGraph5 $t\bar{t}\to b W^+ \bar{b} W^-\to b\bar{b}jjjj$ events applying first the minimal cuts $|p_{T_{j,b}}|>20$ GeV, $|\eta_{j,b}|<5$ and $\Delta R_{jj,bj,bb}>0.2$, with a total cross section of 246 pb. Applying a mistagging rate of 1% per each light jet misidentified as a $b$ jet, we obtain $246\cdot(0.01)^2=2.5\cdot 10^{-2}$ pb as starting point to compare to our main multijet QCD $ b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ background. Now we need to apply our selection cuts described in [Eqs. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])-(\[cutsHH\])]{} to see their impact on this particular background. We apply first the VBS selection cuts asking that there is at least one pair of light jets fulfilling the criteria in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{}. These cuts reduces the cross section to $1.3\cdot 10^{-4}$ pb. Now analyzing the events that pass the VBS cuts, if there is only one pair of “VBS-like” light jets, the other two light jets are identified as $b$ quarks. If there is more than one, we select as $b$ quarks those that minimize $|M_{pp_1}-M_{pp_2}|$, with $p=b,j$ among all possibilities. Once we have characterized our two light jet candidates and our four $b$-quark candidates, we proceed with the $HH$ candidate selection cuts. This way, applying subsequently the criteria explained in [Eqs. (\[cutsHH1\])-(\[cutsHH\])]{}, we obtain the following cross sections: $1.2\cdot 10^{-5}$ pb ($p_{T_b}$), $2.5\cdot 10^{-6}$ pb ($\hat{\Delta}R_{bb}$), $4.4\cdot 10^{-7}$ pb ($\hat{p}_{T_{bb}}$) and finally $2.1\cdot 10^{-8}$ pb ($\chi_{HH}$). Therefore, since this $t\bar{t}$ background is five orders of magnitude below our main considered background, whose final cross section given in [Table \[table:cutflow\]]{} is $6.8\cdot10^{-3}$ pb, we conclude that it can be safely neglected.
We have also considered the possible backgrounds coming from multijet QCD processes leading to different final states than that of $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$, such as $6j$ and $b\bar{b}jjjj$, in which some of the final state light jets are again misidentified as $b$ jets. To estimate their contribution to the background we have used the total cross sections of these processes given in [@Mangano:2002ea]. These are, for a center of mass of 14 TeV, $1.3\cdot10^5$ pb and $7.5\cdot 10^3$ pb, respectively. If we apply now the corresponding misidentification rates we end up with $1.3\cdot10^5 \cdot (0.01)^4=1.3\cdot10^{-3}$ pb for the case in which we have six light jets, and $7.5\cdot 10^3 \cdot (0.01)^2=7.5\cdot10^{-1}$ pb for the case in which we have two $b$ jets and four light jets. We now assume that the selection cuts we specify in Eqs. (\[VBSselectioncuts\]) -(\[cutsHH\]) will have a similar impact on these backgrounds as they do on the multijet QCD production of four $b$ jets and two light jets, since they all take place through similar QCD configurations. Thus, applying the corresponding acceptance factor of these cuts we obtain the following total cross sections: $1.3\cdot10^{-3}\cdot 1.1 \cdot 10^{-5}=1.4 \cdot 10^{-8}$ pb for the six light jets case and $7.5\cdot10^{-1}\cdot 1.1 \cdot 10^{-5}=8.2 \cdot 10^{-6}$ pb for the two $b$ jets and four light jets case. Both of these cross sections are more than three orders of magnitude below that of the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ background, so we conclude that they can also be safely neglected without introducing big uncertainties.
Once we have the possible backgrounds under control, we can move on to fully explore the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$ in $p p\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ events. In [Fig. \[fig:M4b\_distributions\]]{} we display the predictions for the total cross section of the total SM background (the sum of multijet QCD background and the combined $ZHjj+ZZjj$ backgrounds) and of the signal for different values of $\lambda$ as a function of the invariant mass of the four-bottom system $M_{b\bar{b}b\bar{b}}$. These distributions should be the analogous to those in [Fig. \[fig:MHH\_distributions\]]{} after the Higgs boson decays, as it is manifest since the signal curves follow the same tendency and are very similar except for the global factor of the Higgs-to-bottoms branching ratio. In this figure we can also see that the total SM background is of the same order of magnitude than the $\kappa=10$ and $\kappa=-5$ signals, and it is even below the $\kappa=-10$ signal prediction. This is a very interesting result, since it means that if, for example, the true value of $\lambda$ was minus five times that of the SM, the LHC should be able to measure twice as many events as those expected from the SM background only in this VBS configuration. Similar conclusions can be extracted for other values of $\kappa$.
![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ as a function of the invariant mass of the four-bottom system $M_{b\bar{b}b\bar{b}}$ for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We display the predictions for the signal with positive (left panel) and negative (right panel) values of $\lambda$ for comparison, as well as the total SM background given by the sum of $ZHjj$, $ZZjj$ and the multijet QCD background. Cuts in Eq.(\[basiccutsHHjj\]) and VBS selection cuts presented in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]) have been applied. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:M4b_distributions"}](Figs/Plot_4b2j_4M.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ as a function of the invariant mass of the four-bottom system $M_{b\bar{b}b\bar{b}}$ for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We display the predictions for the signal with positive (left panel) and negative (right panel) values of $\lambda$ for comparison, as well as the total SM background given by the sum of $ZHjj$, $ZZjj$ and the multijet QCD background. Cuts in Eq.(\[basiccutsHHjj\]) and VBS selection cuts presented in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]) have been applied. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:M4b_distributions"}](Figs/Plot_4b2j_4Mn.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Given the encouraging previous results, our last step is to give quantitative predictions for the sensitivity to $\lambda$ in $p p\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ processes at the LHC. To this end, we compute the statistical significance $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, as defined in [@Cowan:2010js] by: $$\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}=\sqrt{-2\left((N_S+N_B)\log\left(\dfrac{N_B}{N_S+N_B}\right)+N_S\right)}\,,\label{signieq}$$ where $N_S$ and $N_B$ are the number of events of signal and background, respectively. Notice that for $N_S/N_B \ll 1$, this definition of $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$ tends to the usual $N_S/\sqrt{N_B}$ expression. This computation is going to be performed for four different values of the luminosity: $L=50,300,1000,3000$ fb${}^{-1}$, that correspond to a near-future LHC value for the current run (50 fb${}^{-1}$), and to planned luminosities for the third run (300 fb${}^{-1}$) and the High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) (1000 and 3000 fb${}^{-1}$) [@Barachetti:2016chu].
In [Fig. \[fig:significances\_4b2j\]]{} we present the results of the statistical significance of our signal, $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, in $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ events as a function of the value of $\kappa$, for the four luminosities considered. We display as well a closer look for the values of $\kappa$ ranging between 0.5 and 2.5, interesting for an elevated number of well motivated BSM models. In the lower part of the left panel we also present the corresponding predictions for the total number of signal events, $N_S$, as a function of $\kappa$. The marked points correspond to our evaluated predictions. We show as well, in the right panel of this figure, our predictions for the value of the total integrated luminosity, $L$, as a function of the value of $\kappa$ as well, that will be required to obtain a sensitivity to a given $\kappa$ in $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b} jj$ events at the 3$\sigma$ and 5$\sigma$ level. In this plot, we have also marked the areas in luminosity where the number of predicted signal events $N_S$ is below 1, 10 and 100, respectively, to get a reference of the statistics obtained.
![Prediction of the statistical significance, $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, of the process $p p\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b} jj$ for the four luminosities considered $L=50,300,1000,3000$ fb${}^{-1}$ (left panel) and of the value of the luminosity that will be required to probe a given $\kappa$ at the LHC at 3$\sigma$ and at 5$\sigma$ (right panel), as a function of the value of $\kappa$. The marked points represent our evaluations. In the left panel, a zoom is performed on the interesting values of $\kappa$ ranging between 0.5 and 2.5. The shadowed areas in the right panel correspond to the regions where the number of predicted signal events $N_S$ is below 1, 10 and 100. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV. []{data-label="fig:significances_4b2j"}](Figs/plot4b2j_Sstat.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Prediction of the statistical significance, $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, of the process $p p\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b} jj$ for the four luminosities considered $L=50,300,1000,3000$ fb${}^{-1}$ (left panel) and of the value of the luminosity that will be required to probe a given $\kappa$ at the LHC at 3$\sigma$ and at 5$\sigma$ (right panel), as a function of the value of $\kappa$. The marked points represent our evaluations. In the left panel, a zoom is performed on the interesting values of $\kappa$ ranging between 0.5 and 2.5. The shadowed areas in the right panel correspond to the regions where the number of predicted signal events $N_S$ is below 1, 10 and 100. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV. []{data-label="fig:significances_4b2j"}](Figs/plot4b2j_Lumis.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
$L$ 50 300 1000 3000
-------------- -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- -----------------------
$\kappa > 0$ $\kappa > 5.4 ~(7.0)$ $\kappa > 4.3 ~(4.8)$ $\kappa > 3.7 ~ (4.2)$ $\kappa> 3.2 ~ (3.7)$
$\kappa < 0$ $\kappa < -2.4 ~ (-3.8)$ $\kappa < -1.0 ~(-1.7)$ $\kappa < -0.3 ~(-0.8)$ $\kappa < 0 ~ (-0.2)$
: Predictions for the values of $\kappa\equiv\lambda/\lambda_{SM}$ that the LHC would be able to probe in $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ events, with a sensitivity equal or better than $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) for the four luminosities considered: $L=50,300,1000,3000$ fb${}^{-1}$.[]{data-label="Tab:range_4b2j"}
From these plots, we can extract directly the conclusions on the sensitivity to $\lambda$ in VBS processes at the LHC in $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ events. The first thing one might observe is the high statistics and significances of the signal for most of the studied cases, except for the region close to the SM value, say for $\kappa$ between 1 and 2. Studying carefully this particular region of the parameter space, we conclude that it is the most challenging one to access at the LHC, since all the predicted statistical significances given for $\kappa\in[0.5,2]$ are below 2$\sigma$ even for the highest luminosity considered. The second one is that, for the same absolute value of the coupling, the sensitivities to negative values of $\kappa$ are higher than to positive values of $\kappa$. The third conclusion is that the LHC should be sensitive to very broad intervals of $\kappa$, even for the lowest luminosity considered, $L=50$ fb${}^{-1}$, with high statistical significance. These means that VBS processes could allow us to probe the value of $\lambda$ with very good accuracy in the near future. More specifically, in [Table \[Tab:range\_4b2j\]]{} we show the summary of the predictions for the values of $\kappa\equiv\lambda/\lambda_{SM}$ that the LHC would be able to probe in $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ events, with a sensitivity equal or better than $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) for the four luminosities considered: $L=50,300,1000,3000$ fb${}^{-1}$.
These results are indeed very interesting, since the sensitivities to $\lambda$ that one can obtain from studying VBS double Higgs production are very promising even for the lowest luminosity considered $50$ fb${}^{-1}$. The ranges of $\lambda$ that the LHC could be able to probe in this kind of processes indicate that it is worth to study VBS as a viable and useful production mechanism to measure the Higgs trilinear coupling. On the other hand, it can be seen that the HL-LHC should be able to test very small deviations in the value of the Higgs self-coupling and that it should be sensitive to all the explored negative values for $\kappa$. Although the present work is a naive study, since it is performed at the parton level and does not take into account hadronization and detector response simulation, the results in [Table \[Tab:range\_4b2j\]]{} show that the VBS production channel could be very promising to measure the true value of $\lambda$, and, therefore, to understand the nature of the Higgs mechanism.
Analysis after Higgs boson decays: sensitivity to $\lambda$ in $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ events {#2b2a2j}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $p p\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b} jj$ process is, as we have seen, a very promising channel to study the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC due to its large event rates. However, it is clear that it suffers from quite severe backgrounds, coming specially from multijet QCD events, so one could think of studying complementary channels with smaller rates but with a cleaner experimental signature. This is the reason why we would like to explore the case in which one of the Higgs bosons decays to a $b$-quark pair, as before, while the other one decays to two photons through gauge bosons and fermion loops. This implies a large reduction factor in statistics due to the comparative low branching ratio BR$(H \to \gamma \gamma)\sim 0.2\%$, a factor 0.003 smaller than that of $H \to b\bar{b}$.
The analysis of the process $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ implies to go through its main backgrounds as well. We will consider in this section the same background $ZH$ of the previous case, since the $ZH$ final state can also lead to processes with two photons and two bottoms, $pp\to HZjj \to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$, coming from the decays of the $H$ and the $Z$. In addition, we also consider the mixed QCD-EW $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ background, of ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha\cdot\alpha_S^2)$ at the amplitude level, that should be the most severe one.
As we did before, to study signal and background, we first need to establish a set of cuts that ensure particle detection, so we apply the following basic cuts: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{T_{j,b}}>20~ {\rm GeV}\,;~p_{T_{\gamma}}>18 ~{\rm GeV}\,;~|\eta_j|<5\,;~|\eta_{b,\gamma}|<2.5\,;~\Delta R_{jj,jb,\gamma\gamma,\gamma b,\gamma j}>0.4\,;~\Delta R_{bb}>0.2\,,\label{basiccuts2b2a2j}
\end{aligned}$$ and afterwards, to reject the QCD-EW and the $ZHjj$ backgrounds we will apply first the VBS cuts given in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{} and subsequently the following kinematical cuts given by CMS in [@Sirunyan:2018iwt]: $$p_{T_{\gamma^l}}/M_{\gamma\gamma}>1/3\,;~~~p_{T_{\gamma^s}}/M_{\gamma\gamma}>1/4\,,\label{bkgcuts2b2a2j}$$ where $l$ and $s$ stand for leading (highest $p_T$ value) and subleading photons, and where $M_{\gamma\gamma}$ is the invariant mass of the photon pair. The final ingredient is to apply the $\chi_{HH}$ cut, taking now into account that we have a $b$-quark pair and a photon pair in the final state: $$\chi_{HH}=\sqrt{\left(\dfrac{M_{bb}-m_H}{0.05\,m_H}\right)^2+\left(\dfrac{M_{\gamma\gamma}-m_H}{0.05\,m_H}\right)^2}<1\label{chiHHphotons}\,.$$ This ensures that the two $b$-quarks and the two photons come from the decay of a Higgs particle.
Once again, there might be important background contributions from multijet QCD processes leading to different final states than that of $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$, such as $6j$ and $b\bar{b}jjjj$, in which some of the final state light jets are again misidentified as $b$ jets and some are misidentified as photons. Taking again as the presumably leading QCD background processes the production of six light jets and of two $b$ jets and four light jets, applying a misidentification rate of 0.1% per each jet misidentified as a photon, and considering a similar reduction factor after our selection cuts as before, since the selection cuts are very similar, we obtain: $1.3\cdot10^5 \cdot (0.01)^2\cdot (0.001)^2\cdot 1.1 \cdot 10^{-5}= 1.4 \cdot 10^{-10}$ pb for the six light jets case and $7.5\cdot 10^3 \cdot (0.001)^2\cdot 1.1 \cdot 10^{-5}= 8.2 \cdot 10^{-8}$ pb for the $2b4j$ case. Again in both cases the final cross sections are more than one order of magnitude smaller than the main background we have considered, being of order $10^{-6}$ pb, concluding again that they can be neglected as well.
$\kappa $ 0 1 -1 2 -2 5 -5 10 -10
---------------------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------
$\sigma_{\rm Signal}\cdot 10^6$ \[pb\] 2.0 0.7 4.5 0.5 8.0 6.4 25.2 38.4 76.0
: Predictions for the total cross section of the signal $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma j j$ after imposing all the selection criteria, VBS cuts given in [Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\])]{} and cuts given in Eqs. (\[bkgcuts2b2a2j\]) and (\[chiHHphotons\]) for all the values of $\kappa$ considered in this work: $\kappa=0,\pm 1, \pm 2, \pm 5, \pm 10$. The cross section of the SM background for this same cuts amounts to $\sigma_{\rm Background}=1.4\cdot 10^{-6}$ pb. Basic cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts2b2a2j\])]{} are also applied.[]{data-label="Tab:allSig_2b2a2j"}
![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ as a function of the invariant mass of the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ system $M_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma}$ for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We display the predictions for the signal with positive (left panel) and negative (right panel) values of $\lambda$ for comparison, as well as the total SM background. Cuts in Eqs.(\[basiccuts2b2a2j\])-(\[chiHHphotons\]) and VBS selection cuts presented in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]) have been applied. The center of mass energy is set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:M2b2a_distributions"}](Figs/plot2b2a2j_M4.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ as a function of the invariant mass of the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ system $M_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma}$ for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We display the predictions for the signal with positive (left panel) and negative (right panel) values of $\lambda$ for comparison, as well as the total SM background. Cuts in Eqs.(\[basiccuts2b2a2j\])-(\[chiHHphotons\]) and VBS selection cuts presented in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]) have been applied. The center of mass energy is set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:M2b2a_distributions"}](Figs/plot2b2a2j_M4n.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Having all this in mind, we present in [Fig. \[fig:M2b2a\_distributions\]]{} the predictions for the total cross section of the process $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ as a function of the invariant mass of the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ system $M_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma}$, for different values of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$. We also display the prediction for the total SM background (sum of the QCD-EW and the $ZHjj$ background) for comparison. Once again, one can see that the signal distributions for different values of $\kappa$ are very similar to those shown in [Fig. \[fig:MHH\_distributions\]]{}, and that the main difference is due to the reduction factor of the branching ratios into photons and into $b$-quarks. They are very similar, too, to the results of the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ final state, in [Fig. \[fig:M4b\_distributions\]]{}, although two-three orders of magnitude smaller. The background is, however, very different with respect to the one for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ events. It is smaller in comparison with the signal, specially at high $M_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma}$, since it decreases much more steeply. Therefore, we would expect to have good sensitivities to the Higgs self-coupling despite the lower rates of the process involving photons. For completeness, we display in [Table \[Tab:allSig\_2b2a2j\]]{} the predictions for the total cross section of the signal, for the set of $\kappa$ values considered, and after applying all cuts given in Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\]) and in Eqs. (\[basiccuts2b2a2j\])-(\[chiHHphotons\]). The prediction for the cross section of the total SM background for this same cuts amounts to $\sigma_{\rm Background}=1.4\cdot 10^{-6}$ pb.
$L$ 50 300 1000 3000
------------- -------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
$\kappa> 0$ $\kappa > 9.9~(14.2)$ $\kappa > 6.4~(8.4)$ $\kappa > 4.6 ~(6.0)$ $\kappa > 3.8~(4.7)$
$\kappa <0$ $\kappa < -6.7~(-10.0)$ $\kappa < -2.7~(-4.6)$ $\kappa < -1.1~(-2.3)$ $\kappa < -0.2~(-1.0)$
: Predictions for the values of $\kappa\equiv\lambda/\lambda_{SM}$ that the LHC would be able to probe in $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ events, with a sensitivity equal or better than $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) for the four luminosities considered: $L=50,300,1000,3000$ fb${}^{-1}$. []{data-label="Tab:range_2b2a2j"}
![Prediction of the statistical significance, $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, of the process $p p\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ for the four luminosities considered $L=50,300,1000,3000$ fb${}^{-1}$ (left panel) and of the value of the luminosity that will be required to probe a given $\kappa$ at the LHC at 3$\sigma$ and at 5$\sigma$ (right panel), as a function of the value of $\kappa$. The marked points represent our evaluations. In the left panel, a zoom is performed on the interesting values of $\kappa$ ranging between 0.5 and 2.5. The shadowed areas in the right panel correspond to the regions where the number of predicted signal events $N_S$ is below 1, and 10. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:significances_2b2a2j"}](Figs/plot2b2a2j_Sstat.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Prediction of the statistical significance, $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, of the process $p p\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ for the four luminosities considered $L=50,300,1000,3000$ fb${}^{-1}$ (left panel) and of the value of the luminosity that will be required to probe a given $\kappa$ at the LHC at 3$\sigma$ and at 5$\sigma$ (right panel), as a function of the value of $\kappa$. The marked points represent our evaluations. In the left panel, a zoom is performed on the interesting values of $\kappa$ ranging between 0.5 and 2.5. The shadowed areas in the right panel correspond to the regions where the number of predicted signal events $N_S$ is below 1, and 10. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:significances_2b2a2j"}](Figs/plot2b2a2j_Lumis.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
In [Fig. \[fig:significances\_2b2a2j\]]{} we show the predictions for the statistical significance $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, computed in the same way as in the previous section, making use of [Eq. (\[signieq\])]{}, for the four luminosities considered previously, $L=50,300,1000,3000$ fb${}^{-1}$ and taking again a closer look for the values of $\kappa$ ranging between 0.5 and 2.5. We also show the predictions of the final number of signal events, $N_S$ as a function of $\kappa$, for these same luminosities. On the right panel of this figure we present the prediction for the value of the luminosity that will be required to probe a given $\kappa$ value with sensitivities at 3$\sigma$ and 5$\sigma$, as a function of the value of $\kappa$. In these plots, due to the lower statistics of this process, some of the computed significances correspond to scenarios in which there is not even one signal event. The concrete predictions for these signal event rates can be read from the lower plot of the left panel.
Taking a look at these figures, we can again extract the conclusions on the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC in VBS processes, this time in $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma j j$ events. One might notice that, although the results are less encouraging than those of $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b} j j$ events, this channel could also be very useful to measure the value of $\lambda$. Analogously to the previous section, in [Table \[Tab:range\_2b2a2j\]]{} we present the values of $\kappa\equiv\lambda/\lambda_{SM}$ that would be accessible at the LHC in these type of events, $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$, with a statistical significance equal or better than $3\sigma$($5\sigma$), for the four luminosities considered.
These results show again that the values of $\kappa$ that can be probed in the future at LHC through the study of VBS processes leading to the final state $ b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ could be very competitive as well. Except for the lowest luminosity considered, $L=50$ fb${}^{-1}$, where the signal rates found at the parton level are too low as to survive the extra factors suppression due to the missing detector efficiencies, hadronization effects etc, the sensitivities found point towards the potential of VBS processes in order to obtain a precise measurement of $\lambda$. The values close to the SM value, are, again, very challenging to reach at the LHC, since the statistical significances of $\kappa\in[0.5,2]$ are always below 2$\sigma$ for this case as well. However, the HL-LHC should be able to probe deviations in $\lambda$ very efficiently in this channel.
Discussion
----------
Finally, to close this section of results, we find pertinent to discuss on how the precision of our predictions could be improved by including additional considerations. We comment here just on those that we consider are the most relevant ones.
- Our computation of the $HHjj$ signal rates incorporates just those coming from the subprocess $qq \to HH jj$, which includes VBS, but this is not the only contributing channel. It is well known that also the subprocess $gg \to HH jj$, initiated by gluons, does contribute to these signal rates, and it is also sensitive to large BSM $\lambda$ values [@Dolan:2013rja]. Although it is a one-loop subprocess, mediated mainly by top quark loops, it provides a sizable contribution to the total $HHjj$ signal cross section. For instance, for the case of $\lambda=\lambda_{SM}$, the total cross section at the LHC with $\sqrt{s}$ = 14 TeV is, according to [@Dolan:2015zja], $5.5$ fb from $gg \to HH jj$ to be compared with $2$ fb from VBS. Therefore, when considering both contributions to the signal, the sensitivity to $\lambda$ presumably increases. However, we have explicitly checked that once we apply our optimized VBS selection cuts summarized in Eq. (\[VBSselectioncuts\]) and in [Table \[table:VBS\]]{}, we get a notably reduced cross section for this $gg$ subprocess. In particular, our estimate of the signal rates at the LHC with $\sqrt{s}$ = 14 TeV from $gg \to HH jj$, after applying the stringent $M_{jj}>500$ GeV cut and using the results in [@Dolan:2015zja] for the $M_{jj}$ distribution, gives a strong reduction in the corresponding cross section, and leads to smaller rates for $gg$ than those from VBS by about a factor of 20. Therefore its contribution to the signal rates studied here can be safely neglected, and no much better precision will be obtained by including this new contribution in the signal rates. We have also checked that this finding is true for other BSM values of $\lambda$.
- When considering next to leading order (NLO) QCD corrections in our estimates of both the signal and background rates, we expect some modifications in our results. These can be very easily estimated, as usual, by using the corresponding $K$-factors. Thus, for instance, for the leading $b \bar b b \bar b j j$ final state, we can include these NLO corrections by taking into account the $K$-factors for the VBS signal and for the main background from multijet QCD. For the signal we take the $K$-factor from [@Frederix:2014hta], given by $K_{\rm VBS}=1.09$. For the QCD-multijet background the corresponding $K$-factor is, to our knowledge, not available in the literature, and different choices are usually assumed. We consider here two choices: $K_{\rm QCD}=1.5$, and another more conservative one $K_{\rm QCD}=3$. This implies that our predictions for the signal rates are practically unchanged, but those for the background rates are increased by a factor of 1.5 and 3 respectively. This modifies our predictions for the statistical significance of the $b \bar b b \bar b j j$ signal, from the $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$ results given [Fig. \[fig:significances\_4b2j\]]{} to $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}^{\rm NLO}\sim K_{\rm VBS}/\sqrt{K_{\rm QCD}}\,\,\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat} \sim 0.9\,\, \mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$ and $0.6\,\, \mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$ for $K_{\rm QCD}=1.5$ and $K_{\rm QCD}=3$, respectively. For instance, for the high luminosity considered of $1000 \,{\rm fb}^{-1}$ we get sensitivities of $\kappa >3.8 (4.3)$ for $K_{\rm QCD}=1.5$, and of $\kappa >4.5 (4.8)$ for $K_{\rm QCD}=3$, both at the $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) level, to be compared with our benchmark result in [Table \[Tab:range\_4b2j\]]{} of $\kappa >3.7 (4.2)$. Therefore ignoring these NLO corrections does not provide large uncertainties either.
- When including $b$-tagging efficiencies in our estimates of the $b \bar b b \bar b j j$ signal and background rates, our predictions of the statistical significance do also change. However, an estimate of this change can be easily done by adding the corresponding modifying factors. For instance, by assuming well known $b$-tagging efficiencies of $70\%$, that apply to both the signal and background, the two rates are reduced by a factor of ${0.7}^ 4 \sim 0.24$ . Therefore we get a reduced statistical significance of $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}^{b-{\rm tag}}\sim 0.24/\sqrt{0.24}\,\, \mathcal{S}_{\rm stat} \sim 0.5 \,\,\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$ with respect to the ones that we have reported previously. This factor of $0.5$ will change our predicted sensitivities to BSM $\lambda$ values. Again, as an example, for the considered luminosity of $1000 \,{\rm fb}^{-1}$ we get sensitivities of $\kappa >4.3 (4.9)$ at the $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) level to be compared with our benchmark result in [Table \[Tab:range\_4b2j\]]{} of $\kappa >3.7 (4.2)$.
Similarly, considering also photon-identification efficiencies (also called in this work $\gamma$- tagging) of $95\%$, as presented in the literature, we get reduced signal and background rates for the $b \bar b \gamma \gamma j j$ final state by a factor of ${0.7}^ 2 \times {0.95}^ 2 \sim 0.44$. Accordingly, we obtain a reduction in the statistical significance of the $b \bar b \gamma \gamma j j$ events, given by $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}^{b, \gamma-{\rm tag}}\sim 0.44/\sqrt{0.44} \,\,\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat} \sim 0.7 \,\,\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$ with respect to our results reported in the pages above. The changes in the sensitivities to $\kappa$ can be easily derived. using the same illustrative example, for $1000 \,{\rm fb}^{-1}$ of luminosity, we get sensitivities of $\kappa > 6.0 (8.0)$ at the $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) level to be compared with our benchmark result in [Table \[Tab:range\_2b2a2j\]]{} of $\kappa >4.6 (6.0)$.
- One of the largest uncertainties comes from the choice of the energy resolution needed for the reconstruction of the $HHjj$ signal events from the corresponding final state. This basically can be translated into the choice for the particular definition of the $\chi_{HH}$ variable which is very relevant for the selection of the $HH$ candidates. Thus, for the $b \bar b b \bar b j j$ final state, in our benchmark scenario we have taken $0.05 \times m_H$ around $m_H$ in the definition of $X_{HH}$ in Eq. (\[cutsHH\]), i.e.[^5], $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{HH}\equiv\sqrt{\left(\dfrac{M_{bb^l}-m_H}{ \Delta_{E}\,m_H}\right)^2+\left(\dfrac{M_{bb^s}-m_H}{ \Delta_{E}\,m_H}\right)^2}<1\,,
\label{cutXHH}\end{aligned}$$ with $ \Delta_{E}$ being the energy resolution, which in this case was set to 0.05, leading to a mass resolution of 5% of the Higgs mass, since this value optimizes the selection efficiency and could be useful for future experiments with better energy resolution. However a more realistic choice, given the current energy resolution at the LHC experiments, could rather be $\Delta_E\cdot m_H = 0.1 \times m_H$ GeV $\sim 12.5$ GeV. We have redone the analysis with this alternative and more conservative choice and we have obtained, as expected, a reduced statistical significance. The signal rates do not change (we still get $4.1 \times 10^{-5}$ pb) , but the main QCD-background does (we get $1.8 \times 10^{-2}$ pb instead of our benchmark value of $6.8 \times 10^{-3}$ pb). This translates in a reduction of the significance given by a factor $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}^{\chi_{HH}}\sim 1/\sqrt{18/6.8}\,\, \mathcal{S}_{\rm stat} \sim 0.7 \,\,\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$. The implication of this reduction can directly be seen as a modification of the sensitivity to $\kappa$. Once again, for our benchmark case of $1000 \,{\rm fb}^{-1}$, we obtain sensitivities of $\kappa > 4.0 (4.5)$ at the $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) level to be compared with our benchmark result in [Table \[Tab:range\_4b2j\]]{} of $\kappa >3.7 (4.2)$.
Apart from redoing the analysis for this 10% resolution[^6], we have also studied other possible and realistic values such as $\Delta_E=20\%$ and $\Delta_E=30\%$, to have a better idea of the implications of the value of the mass determination uncertainty in our predictions. The results for both of our signals are shown in [Fig. \[fig:XHHcut\]]{} by the green lines and green shaded areas, where we present the values for the statistical significance at $1000 \,{\rm fb}^{-1}$ as a function of the value of $\kappa$ for different energy resolutions of $\Delta_E=$ 5% (original scenario throughout the work), 10%, 20% and 30% (the purple lines and purple areas of this figure will be discussed in the next point of this discussion section). One can see that, as expected, the statistical significance decreases as the energy resolution worsens, but in any case, from the most optimistic case ($\Delta_E=5\%$) to the less optimistic one ($\Delta_E=30\%$), we only obtain a reduction factor of at most 0.4 in the statistical significance.
![Prediction of the statistical significance, $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, of the process $p p\to b\bar{b} b\bar{b} jj$ (left panel) and of the process $p p\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ (right panel) for $L=1000$ fb${}^{-1}$ as a function of the value of $\kappa$ for different values of the energy resolution, ($\Delta_E$%), applied through the variable $\chi_{HH}$ defined in [Eq. (\[cutXHH\])]{}. These different values are marked with different symbols. We show the predictions for the original events (green lines and green shaded areas; notice that the upper green line corresponds to the green line presented in [Fig. \[fig:significances\_4b2j\]]{} (left panel) and [Fig. \[fig:significances\_2b2a2j\]]{} (right panel)), and for the events with a Gaussian smearing applied in order to account for detector effects (purple lines and purple shaded area). The marked points represent our evaluations. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:XHHcut"}](Figs/plot4b2j_Sstatsmeared.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Prediction of the statistical significance, $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, of the process $p p\to b\bar{b} b\bar{b} jj$ (left panel) and of the process $p p\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ (right panel) for $L=1000$ fb${}^{-1}$ as a function of the value of $\kappa$ for different values of the energy resolution, ($\Delta_E$%), applied through the variable $\chi_{HH}$ defined in [Eq. (\[cutXHH\])]{}. These different values are marked with different symbols. We show the predictions for the original events (green lines and green shaded areas; notice that the upper green line corresponds to the green line presented in [Fig. \[fig:significances\_4b2j\]]{} (left panel) and [Fig. \[fig:significances\_2b2a2j\]]{} (right panel)), and for the events with a Gaussian smearing applied in order to account for detector effects (purple lines and purple shaded area). The marked points represent our evaluations. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:XHHcut"}](Figs/plot2b2a2j_Sstatsmeared.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Distribution of 10000 Monte Carlo signal events of $pp\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (left panel) and of $pp\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}\gamma \gamma jj$ (right panel) in the plane of the invariant mass of one the Higgs candidates ($M_{bb_1}$ in the left panel and $M_{bb}$ in the right panel) versus the invariant mass of the other Higgs candidate ($M_{bb_2}$ in the left panel and $M_{\gamma\gamma}$ in the right panel) after applying a Gaussian smearing to the energy of all final state partons as explained in the text. See details of $HH$ candidate selection in the text. Orange dots correspond to those events that pass the implemented VBS selection cuts given in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]). Cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} (left panel) and in [Eq. (\[basiccuts2b2a2j\])]{} (right panel) have been implemented. The value of the acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ of the VBS cuts is also included. The red cross represents the value of the Higgs mass. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=$14 TeV.[]{data-label="fig:MMplanesmearing"}](Figs/Plot_2D_VBSVBSsmearE.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Distribution of 10000 Monte Carlo signal events of $pp\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (left panel) and of $pp\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}\gamma \gamma jj$ (right panel) in the plane of the invariant mass of one the Higgs candidates ($M_{bb_1}$ in the left panel and $M_{bb}$ in the right panel) versus the invariant mass of the other Higgs candidate ($M_{bb_2}$ in the left panel and $M_{\gamma\gamma}$ in the right panel) after applying a Gaussian smearing to the energy of all final state partons as explained in the text. See details of $HH$ candidate selection in the text. Orange dots correspond to those events that pass the implemented VBS selection cuts given in Eq.(\[VBSselectioncuts\]). Cuts in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} (left panel) and in [Eq. (\[basiccuts2b2a2j\])]{} (right panel) have been implemented. The value of the acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ of the VBS cuts is also included. The red cross represents the value of the Higgs mass. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=$14 TeV.[]{data-label="fig:MMplanesmearing"}](Figs/Plot2D_2b2a2j.png "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
- Another important point that might change significantly our predictions is that introduced by the Higgs mass reconstruction uncertainty coming from detector effects. To estimate this uncertainty, we have applied a Gaussian smearing to the energy of all final state partons. Following [@Pascoli:2018heg], this gaussian dispersion has been introduced as $1/\sqrt{2\pi\sigma}\cdot e^{-x^2/(2\sigma^2)}$, with $\sigma=0.05\cdot E_{j,b}$ for the energy dispersion of the final light and $b$ jets and with $\sigma=0.02\cdot E_\gamma$ for the energy dispersion of the final photons. We have performed this for each studied signal and for their corresponding backgrounds in order to characterize the impact that these detector effects have regarding the distribution of our events on the relevant kinematical variables. In [Fig. \[fig:MMplanesmearing\]]{} we show the distribution of 10000 Monte Carlo signal events of $pp\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ (left panel) and of $pp\to HHjj\to b\bar{b}\gamma \gamma jj$ (right panel) in the plane of the invariant mass of one the Higgs candidates ($M_{bb_2}$ in the left panel and $M_{bb}$ in the right panel) versus the invariant mass of the other Higgs candidate ($M_{bb_1}$ in the left panel and $M_{\gamma\gamma}$ in the right panel). No other cuts than those of the basic selection, given in [Eq. (\[basiccuts4b2j\])]{} (left panel) and in [Eq. (\[basiccuts2b2a2j\])]{} (right panel) have been implemented. The orange points correspond to those events that fulfill the VBS selection criteria. The impact of these VBS cuts does not change appreciably after the smearing, not on the signal nor on the background events. The selection of the Higgs candidates in the case of the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ signal is performed as explained in the text, following the minimization of $|M_{bb_1}-M_{bb_2}|$. This is the reason why we obtain several points distributed in the diagonal of the left panel. As expected, the detector effects translate into a dispersion of the signal points from the Higgs mass point outwards. In the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b} jj$ case, the dispersion is isotropic, since the smearing affects all four $b$-quarks in the same way, whereas in the $b\bar{b}b\gamma\gamma jj$ case, the dispersion in the $M_{bb}$ direction is bigger with respect to that in the $M_{\gamma\gamma}$ direction, accordingly to the difference in the energy resolution of $b$-quarks and photons in the detector. These results are compatible to those obtained in reference [@Kling:2016lay]. In any case, both signals seem to lie inside a circle of radius around 12 GeV, which corresponds to a 10% of the Higgs mass value. This suggests that the effects of the smearing on our predictions of the statistical significance will severely depend on the $\Delta_E$ we use in the $\chi_{HH}$ selection cut, and, in principle, we expect that for $\Delta_E=10\%$ we will obtain the best sensitivities. This is so because, for this $\Delta_E=10\%$, we select the minimum possible number of background events compatible with selecting all of our signal events simultaneously.
In order to better understand the impact of the $\Delta_E$ value once the detector effects have been taken into account, we present in the purple lines and purple shaded areas of [Fig. \[fig:XHHcut\]]{} the values for the statistical significance at $1000 \,{\rm fb}^{-1}$ as a function of the value of $\kappa$ for different energy resolutions of 5% (original scenario throughout the work), 10%, 20% and 30% after the smearing on the energy of all final state partons has been applied. Is it clear from this figure that, indeed, taking $\Delta_E=10\%$ in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ case maximizes the statistical significance once the detector effects are included. In the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj $ case (notice that the purple area overlaps with the green one) the $\Delta_E=5\%$ is still the value that gives the best sensitivities, since the signal to background ratio is larger. In any case, from the upper green line to the upper purple line, there is at most a reduction factor of 0.4 in the statistical significance.
![Prediction of the statistical significance, $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, of the process $p p\to b\bar{b} b\bar{b} jj$ (left panel) and of the process $p p\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ (right panel) for $L=1000$ fb${}^{-1}$ as a function of the value of $\kappa$ for two different scenarios: the original parton level analysis (dark grey line, corresponding to the green lines in [Fig. \[fig:significances\_4b2j\]]{} (left panel) and [Fig. \[fig:significances\_2b2a2j\]]{} (right panel)) and the analysis performed taking into account the tagging efficiencies of the final state particles, the NLO corrections, the estimation of the detector effects via a Gaussian smearing on the energy of all final state partons and with a 10% Higgs mass determination uncertainty (blue line, see details of these considerations in the text). The marked points represent our evaluations. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:errorband"}](Figs/plot4b2j_Sstatsmeared_errorband.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Prediction of the statistical significance, $\mathcal{S}_{\rm stat}$, of the process $p p\to b\bar{b} b\bar{b} jj$ (left panel) and of the process $p p\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ (right panel) for $L=1000$ fb${}^{-1}$ as a function of the value of $\kappa$ for two different scenarios: the original parton level analysis (dark grey line, corresponding to the green lines in [Fig. \[fig:significances\_4b2j\]]{} (left panel) and [Fig. \[fig:significances\_2b2a2j\]]{} (right panel)) and the analysis performed taking into account the tagging efficiencies of the final state particles, the NLO corrections, the estimation of the detector effects via a Gaussian smearing on the energy of all final state partons and with a 10% Higgs mass determination uncertainty (blue line, see details of these considerations in the text). The marked points represent our evaluations. The center of mass energy has been set to $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:errorband"}](Figs/plot2b2a2j_Sstatsmeared_errorband.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
- Considering in addition the effects from showering and clustering of the final jets will presumably change our naive parton level predictions. As we have said, it is not the purpose of this paper to provide a full complete analysis including these important effects. It is clearly beyond the scope of this work and they will require a more sophisticated and devoted analysis with full computing power and the use of additional techniques like Boost Decision Trees (BDT) and others. This is particularly involved if we wish to control efficiently the background form QCD-multijets and, consequently, we have postponed this full analysis for a future work in collaboration with our experimental colleagues[^7]. However, to get a first indication of the importance of these effects in the signal rates, we have performed a computation of the $b \bar b b \bar b j j$ signal MadGraph events after showering with PYTHIA8 [@Sjostrand:2014zea] and clustering with MadAnalysis5 [@Conte:2012fm; @Conte:2014zja; @Dumont:2014tja; @Conte:2018vmg] by using the anti-$k_t$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. We have performed this signal estimate for one BSM example with $\kappa=5$ and we have obtained that the cross-section after applying our basic and VBS cuts is $3.0. 10^{-3}$ pb if we include showering+clustering, which should be compared with our parton level estimate of $3.7.10^{-3}$ pb , i.e. without applying showering+clustering. Therefore, the effect from showering+clustering at this signal level is not very relevant. However, it is expected that it could be relevant in the $HH$ selection candidates and, as we have said, in the reduction efficiency of the QCD-multijet background. Nevertheless this is left for our future project.
Finally, to conclude this discussion section and in order to give a more accurate and realistic prediction, all the above mentioned considerations must be taken into account simultaneously. To this aim, we present, in [Fig. \[fig:errorband\]]{}, the predictions of the statistical significance as a function of the value of $\kappa$ at $1000~ {\rm fb}^{-1}$ for two comparative scenarios: the original analysis from LO parton level predictions (dark grey line) and the analysis performed after taking into account the main distorting effects which are the tagging efficiencies of the final state particles, described in point 3.- of this discussion, the NLO corrections described in point 2.- and the estimation of the detector effects, introduced in point 5.- with a 10% Higgs mass determination uncertainty. We give these predictions for both of the studied signals: $p p\to b\bar{b} b\bar{b} jj$ (left panel) and $p p\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ (right panel). The main conclusion is that the biggest uncertainty in our predictions comes from the fact that we are not taking into account, a priori, detector effects. We have already seen that this can reduce the statistical significance by a factor of 0.4. The second biggest source of uncertainty is the choice of the value of the Higgs mass resolution, $\Delta_E$. Taking a 10% mass resolution instead of a 5% can account for a reduction of 0.7 in the statistical significance. Similarly, the $b$-tagging efficiencies in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ case can lead to a similar reduction factor of 0.7. Finally, the NLO corrections play the less relevant role when estimating the uncertainties of the calculation. All the main effects together lead to a reduction factor of at most 0.2 in the statistical significance for $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ and of at most 0.5 for $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$. The corresponding changes in the sensitivities to $\kappa$ can be easily derived from [Fig. \[fig:errorband\]]{}. Using the same illustrative example, for $1000 \,{\rm fb}^{-1}$ of luminosity, we get sensitivities to $\kappa > 6.2 (7.7)$ at the $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) level to be compared with our benchmark result in [Table \[Tab:range\_4b2j\]]{} of $\kappa >3.7 (4.2)$ for the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b} jj$ case and of $\kappa > 7.7 (9.4)$ at the $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) level to be compared with our benchmark result in [Table \[Tab:range\_2b2a2j\]]{} of $\kappa >4.6 (6.0)$ for the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ one.
Based on the discussion above we believe that a more dedicated analysis, including more accurately all the considerations above with showering, clustering, and detector effects, and optimizing the selection criteria accordingly[^8], might lead to a sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling of the same order of magnitude, although a bit smaller, than the one obtained with our naive original analysis. We believe that our findings indicate that double Higgs production via vector boson scattering is a viable and promising observable to measure the Higgs self-coupling in BSM scenarios.
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
Being able to determine with precision the value of the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda$ would allow us to understand the true nature of the Higgs mechanism and, therefore, of the scalar sector of the SM. In particular, an independent measurement of $\lambda$ and $m_H$ will be crucial in this understanding. At the LHC, the most sensitive channel to this coupling $\lambda$ is that of double Higgs production, that can take place through several initial configurations. Most of the theoretical and experimental studies of $HH$ production focus on gluon-gluon fusion since it benefits from the largest rates. Nevertheless, double Higgs production by vector boson scattering has important advantages with respect to gluon-gluon fusion that, despite its lower statistics, make of it a very promising and competitive channel to probe the Higgs self coupling at the LHC. These features have motivated our study here.
In the present work, we have analyzed the sensitivity to $\lambda$ in double Higgs production via vector boson scattering at the LHC, taking advantage of the fact that these processes have very characteristic kinematics that allow us to select them very efficiently against competing SM backgrounds. We have first explored and characterized the VBS subprocesses of our interest, $WW\to HH$ and $ZZ\to HH$, both for the SM with $\lambda=\lambda_{SM}$, and for BSM scenarios with $\lambda=\kappa\,\lambda_{SM}$, considering values of $\kappa$ between -10 and 10, to move afterwards to the LHC scenario. We have then studied the process $pp\to HHjj$, in order to understand the properties of this scattering, and finally we have explored and provided quantitative results for the sensitivity to the Higgs self-coupling after the Higgs decays.
We have focused mainly on the $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ process since it benefits from the largest rates. After applying all our selection criteria, based on the VBS characteristic kinematical configuration and in the $HH$ candidates reconstruction, we give predictions for the sensitivity to $\lambda$ in $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ events at the parton level for $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV and for different future expected luminosities: $L=50,300,1000,3000$ fb${}^{-1}$. Our main results for this channel are summarized in [Table \[Tab:range\_4b2j\]]{} and in [Fig. \[fig:significances\_4b2j\]]{}, in which we present the values of $\kappa$ that the LHC would be sensitive to at the $3\sigma$ and at the $5\sigma$ level. The sensitivities we obtain here, at the parton level, even for the lowest luminosity, are very encouraging and clearly invite to explore this channel further with the new technology applied to control the QCD-multijet background, including hadronization and detector effects, which will allow us to get a fully realistic result. Furthermore, our predictions show that the HL-LHC should be able to probe small deviations in $\lambda$ respect to the SM value, reaching very good sensitivities with the highest luminosity to up to $\kappa > 3.2\,(3.7) $ at the $3\sigma\,(5\sigma)$ level in the best scenario for positive values. In the case of negative values, the HL-LHC would be sensitive to all the $\kappa<0$ values that have been considered in this work.
We give as well predictions for $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ events, also at the parton level and for $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV, due to the fact that it provides a cleaner, although with smaller rates, signature. The results of the sensitivities to the Higgs self-coupling in this channel, after applying the proper selection criteria, are collected in [Table \[Tab:range\_2b2a2j\]]{} and in [Fig. \[fig:significances\_2b2a2j\]]{}. Again, we obtain very promising results for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ events, except for the lowest luminosity considered, where the signal rates found are too low. Interestingly, we show that the statistical significance grows faster with luminosity in this channel. This would imply that for bigger luminosities, very small deviations in $\lambda$ could also be measured in $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ events. In particular, for the highest luminosity considered, our predictions show that the HL-LHC could reach sensitivities to $\kappa > 3.8\,(4.7) $ at the $3\sigma\,(5\sigma)$ level in this channel.
Furthermore, we give predictions for the interesting case of $L=1000$ fb${}^{-1}$ of how the sensitivity to $\lambda$ will change from our naive parton level results when taking into account the main distorting effects. We have discussed the impact of $b$-tagging and of $\gamma$ identification efficiencies, of detector effects and of Higgs mass reconstruction resolution. All these main effects together lead to a reduction factor of at most 0.2 in the statistical significance for $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}jj$ and of at most 0.5 for $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$, as it can be seen in [Fig. \[fig:errorband\]]{}. The corresponding changes in the sensitivities to $\kappa$ translate into the fact that, at this luminosity, the LHC will be sensitive to $\kappa > 6.2 \,(7.7)$ at the $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) level for the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b} jj$ case and of $\kappa > 7.7 \,(9.4)$ at the $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) level for the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ one. In the also interesting case of $L=3000$ fb${}^{-1}$, we get similar reduction factors. The reachable values of $\kappa$ at this last HL-LHC stage via VBS configurations are predicted to be $\kappa > 5.0 \,(6.3)$ at the $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) level for the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b} jj$ case and of $\kappa > 6.1 \,(8.0)$ at the $3\sigma$ ($5\sigma$) level for the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ one.
In both cases we have seen that the values of $\kappa$ that are closer to the SM value, say, $\kappa\in[0.5,2]$, are the most challenging ones to reach at the LHC. Even for the largest luminosity considered in this work, their corresponding statistical significances are always below 2$\sigma$. Hopefully, in this case gluon gluon fusion will be undoubtedly the only way to reach enough sensitivity, see refs [@Baur:2003gp; @Baglio:2012np; @Yao:2013ika; @Barger:2013jfa; @Huang:2015tdv; @Kling:2016lay]. It is predicted, that, at $L=3000$ fb${}^{-1}$, statistical significances above 2$\sigma$ will be always achieved in the gluon gluon fusion channel for $\lambda\sim\lambda_{\rm SM}$.
The present study shows that double Higgs production via vector boson scattering is a viable and promising window to measure BSM deviations to the Higgs self-coupling and to deeply understand the scalar sector of the SM. Although all simulations are performed at the parton level, without hadronization or detector response simulation, and should be understood as a naive first approximation, we obtain very competitive results for the sensitivity to $\lambda$ at the LHC. Because of this, we believe that the vector boson scattering $HH$ production channel will lead to very interesting (and complementary to those of gluon-gluon fusion) findings about the true nature of the Higgs boson.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to warmly thank Michelangelo L. Mangano for his invaluable help and generosity in guiding us with the use of AlpGen, taking active part in the running of this Monte Carlo, which has been a very important part of the QCD background evaluation for this work. We would also like to thank Juan Antonio Aguilar Saavedra for fruitful discussions and Richard Ruiz for his help and suggestions in the use of MadGraph. C.G.G. wishes to thank Víctor Martín Lozano, Javier Quilis and especially Xabier Marcano for supportive and helpful conversations. E.A. warmly thanks IFT of Madrid for its hospitality hosting him during the completion of this work. This work is supported by the European Union through the ITN ELUSIVES H2020-MSCA-ITN-2015//674896 and the RISE INVISIBLESPLUS H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015//690575, by the CICYT through the projects FPA2016-78645-P, by the Spanish Consolider-Ingenio 2010 Programme CPAN (CSD2007-00042) and by the Spanish MINECO’s “Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa” Programme under grant SEV-2016-0597. This work has also been partially supported by CONICET and ANPCyT projects no. PICT 2016-0164 and no. PICT-2017-2765 (E. A.).
[10]{}
collaboration, G. Aad et al., *[Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B716**]{} (2012) 1](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020) \[[[ 1207.7214]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214)\].
collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., *[Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B716**]{} (2012) 30](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021) \[[[1207.7235]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235)\].
P. W. Higgs, *[Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**12**]{} (1964) 132](https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9).
F. Englert and R. Brout, *[Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons]{}*, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**13**]{} (1964) 321](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321).
P. W. Higgs, *[Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons]{}*, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**13**]{} (1964) 508](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508).
P. W. Higgs, *[Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Bosons]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [ **145**]{} (1966) 1156](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156).
F. Simon, *[Prospects for Precision Higgs Physics at Linear Colliders]{}*, [*PoS* [**ICHEP2012**]{} (2013) 066]{} \[[[1211.7242]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.7242)\].
S. Dawson et al., *[Working Group Report: Higgs Boson]{}*, in *[Proceedings, 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S. Particle Physics: Snowmass on the Mississippi (CSS2013): Minneapolis, MN, USA, July 29-August 6, 2013]{}*, 2013, [[1310.8361]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8361), <http://inspirehep.net/record/1262795/files/arXiv:1310.8361.pdf>.
H. Baer, T. Barklow, K. Fujii, Y. Gao, A. Hoang, S. Kanemura et al., *[The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 2: Physics]{}*, [[1306.6352]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6352).
H. Abramowicz et al., *[Higgs physics at the CLIC electron–positron linear collider]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J.* [**C77**]{} (2017) 475](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4968-5) \[[[1608.07538]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07538)\].
collaboration, D. de Florian et al., *[Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector]{}*, [[1610.07922]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.07922).
E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij, *[Higgs boson pair production via gluon fusion]{}*, [*Nucl. Phys.* [**B309**]{} (1988) 282](https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(88)90083-1).
D. A. Dicus, C. Kao and S. S. D. Willenbrock, *[Higgs Boson Pair Production From Gluon Fusion]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B203**]{} (1988) 457](https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(88)90202-X).
T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, *[Pair production of neutral Higgs particles in gluon-gluon collisions]{}*, [*Nucl. Phys.* [**B479**]{} (1996) 46](https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(96)00418-X,
10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00406-4) \[[[hep-ph/9603205]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9603205)\].
S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier and M. Spira, *[Neutral Higgs boson pair production at hadron colliders: QCD corrections]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D58**]{} (1998) 115012](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.115012) \[[[hep-ph/9805244]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9805244)\].
A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. Muhlleitner and P. M. Zerwas, *[Production of neutral Higgs boson pairs at LHC]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J.* [ **C10**]{} (1999) 45](https://doi.org/10.1007/s100529900083) \[[[ hep-ph/9904287]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9904287)\].
U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. L. Rainwater, *[Probing the Higgs selfcoupling at hadron colliders using rare decays]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D69**]{} (2004) 053004](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.053004) \[[[hep-ph/0310056]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0310056)\].
R. Grober and M. Muhlleitner, *[Composite Higgs Boson Pair Production at the LHC]{}*, [*JHEP* [**06**]{} (2011) 020](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2011)020) \[[[ 1012.1562]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1562)\].
M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, *[Higgs self-coupling measurements at the LHC]{}*, [*JHEP* [**10**]{} (2012) 112](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2012)112) \[[[1206.5001]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5001)\].
A. Papaefstathiou, L. L. Yang and J. Zurita, *[Higgs boson pair production at the LHC in the $b \bar{b} W^+ W^-$ channel]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D87**]{} (2013) 011301](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.011301) \[[[1209.1489]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1489)\].
J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Gr[ö]{}ber, M. M. M[ü]{}hlleitner, J. Quevillon and M. Spira, *[The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status]{}*, [*JHEP* [**04**]{} (2013) 151](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2013)151) \[[[1212.5581]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5581)\].
W. Yao, *[Studies of measuring Higgs self-coupling with $HH\rightarrow b\bar b \gamma\gamma$ at the future hadron colliders]{}*, \[[[1308.6302]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.6302)\].
D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli, *[Higgs Boson Pair Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD]{}*, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**111**]{} (2013) 201801](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.201801) \[[[1309.6594]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.6594)\].
M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, N. Greiner and M. Spannowsky, *[Further on up the road: $hhjj$ production at the LHC]{}*, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**112**]{} (2014) 101802](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.101802) \[[[1310.1084]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.1084)\].
V. Barger, L. L. Everett, C. B. Jackson and G. Shaughnessy, *[Higgs-Pair Production and Measurement of the Triscalar Coupling at LHC(8,14)]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B728**]{} (2014) 433](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.12.013) \[[[1311.2931]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.29310)\].
R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, P. Torrielli et al., *[Higgs pair production at the LHC with NLO and parton-shower effects]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B732**]{} (2014) 142](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.03.026) \[[[1401.7340]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7340)\].
L.-S. Ling, R.-Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, L. Guo, W.-H. Li and X.-Z. Li, *[NNLO QCD corrections to Higgs pair production via vector boson fusion at hadron colliders]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D89**]{} (2014) 073001](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.073001) \[[[1401.7754]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7754)\].
F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, L. L. Yang and J. Zurita, *[Higgs boson pair production in the D=6 extension of the SM]{}*, [*JHEP* [**04**]{} (2015) 167](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2015)167) \[[[1410.3471]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3471)\].
A. Azatov, R. Contino, G. Panico and M. Son, *[Effective field theory analysis of double Higgs boson production via gluon fusion]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D92**]{} (2015) 035001](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.035001) \[[[1502.00539]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00539)\].
D. A. Dicus, C. Kao and W. W. Repko, *[Interference effects and the use of Higgs boson pair production to study the Higgs trilinear self coupling]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D92**]{} (2015) 093003](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.093003) \[[[1504.02334]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02334)\].
S. Dawson, A. Ismail and I. Low, *[What’s in the loop? The anatomy of double Higgs production]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D91**]{} (2015) 115008](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.115008) \[[[1504.05596]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.05596)\].
H.-J. He, J. Ren and W. Yao, *[Probing new physics of cubic Higgs boson interaction via Higgs pair production at hadron colliders]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D93**]{} (2016) 015003](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.015003) \[[[1506.03302]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03302)\].
M. J. Dolan, C. Englert, N. Greiner, K. Nordstrom and M. Spannowsky, *[$hhjj$ production at the LHC]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J.* [**C75**]{} (2015) 387](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3622-3) \[[[1506.08008]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.08008)\].
Q.-H. Cao, B. Yan, D.-M. Zhang and H. Zhang, *[Resolving the Degeneracy in Single Higgs Production with Higgs Pair Production]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B752**]{} (2016) 285](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.11.045) \[[[1508.06512]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06512)\].
Q.-H. Cao, Y. Liu and B. Yan, *[Measuring trilinear Higgs coupling in WHH and ZHH productions at the high-luminosity LHC]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D95**]{} (2017) 073006](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.073006) \[[[1511.03311]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03311)\].
P. Huang, A. Joglekar, B. Li and C. E. M. Wagner, *[Probing the Electroweak Phase Transition at the LHC]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D93**]{} (2016) no.5, 055049](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.055049) \[[[1512.00068]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.00068)\].
J. K. Behr, D. Bortoletto, J. A. Frost, N. P. Hartland, C. Issever and J. Rojo, *[Boosting Higgs pair production in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state with multivariate techniques]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J.* [**C76**]{} (2016) 386](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4215-5) \[[[1512.08928]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.08928)\].
F. Kling, T. Plehn and P. Schichtel, *[‘Maximizing the significance in Higgs boson pair analyses]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D95**]{} (2017) no.3, 035026](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.035026) \[[[1607.07441]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07441)\].
S. Borowka, N. Greiner, G. Heinrich, S. P. Jones, M. Kerner, J. Schlenk and T. Zirke, *[Full top quark mass dependence in Higgs boson pair production at NLO]{}*, [*JHEP.* [**1610**]{} (2016) 107 ](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2016)107) \[[[1608.04798]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04798)\].
F. Bishara, R. Contino and J. Rojo, *[Higgs pair production in vector-boson fusion at the LHC and beyond]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J.* [**C77**]{} (2017) 481](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5037-9) \[[[1611.03860]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.03860)\].
Q.-H. Cao, G. Li, B. Yan, D.-M. Zhang and H. Zhang, *[Double Higgs production at the 14 TeV LHC and a 100 TeV $pp$ collider]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D96**]{} (2017) 095031](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.095031) \[[[1611.09336]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.09336)\].
A. Adhikary, S. Banerjee, R. K. Barman, B. Bhattacherjee and S. Niyogi, *[Revisiting the non-resonant Higgs pair production at the HL-LHC]{}*, [*Physics* [ **2018**]{} (2018) 116](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2018)116) \[[[ 1712.05346]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05346)\].
J. H. Kim, Y. Sakaki and M. Son, *[Combined analysis of double Higgs production via gluon fusion at the HL-LHC in the effective field theory approach]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D98**]{} (2018) no.1, 015016](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.015016) \[[[1801.06093]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.06093)\].
S. Banerjee, C. Englert, M. L. Mangano, M. Selvaggi and M. Spannowsky, *[$hh+\text{jet}$ production at 100 TeV]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J.* [**C78**]{} (2018) 322](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5788-y) \[[[1802.01607]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01607)\].
D. Gon[ç]{}alves, T. Han, F. Kling, T. Plehn and M. Takeuchi, *[Higgs boson pair production at future hadron colliders: From kinematics to dynamics]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D97**]{} (2018) 113004](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.113004) \[[[1802.04319]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.04319)\].
W. Bizon, U. Haisch and L. Rottoli, *[Constraints on the quartic Higgs self-coupling from double-Higgs production at future hadron colliders]{}*, \[[[1810.04665]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04665)\].
S. Borowka, C. Duhr, F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, A. Shivaji and X. Zhao, *[Probing the scalar potential via double Higgs boson production at hadron colliders]{}*, \[[[1811.12366]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.12366)\].
M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, *[Two-loop amplitudes for Higgs plus jet production involving a modified trilinear Higgs coupling]{}*, \[[[1902.05480]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05480)\].
collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., *[Search for pair production of Higgs bosons in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state using proton–proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D94**]{} (2016) 052002](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.052002) \[[[1606.04782]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04782)\].
collaboration, C. Collaboration, *[Search for non-resonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the $\rm{b} \bar{\rm{b}} \rm{b}
\bar{\rm{b}}$ final state with 13 TeV CMS data]{}*, [*CMS-PAS-HIG-16-026* (2016) ]{}.
collaboration, C. Collaboration, *[Search for Higgs boson pair production in the final state containing two photons and two bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~\mathrm{TeV}$]{}*, [*CMS-PAS-HIG-17-008* (2017) ]{}.
collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., *[Search for pair production of Higgs bosons in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector]{}*, [[1804.06174]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.06174).
collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., *[Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $\gamma\gamma\mathrm{b\overline{b}}$ final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV]{}*, [[1806.00408]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.00408).
collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., *[Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $\gamma\gamma b\bar{b}$ final state with 13 TeV $pp$ collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment]{}*, [[1807.04873]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.04873).
K. Doroba, J. Kalinowski, J. Kuczmarski, S. Pokorski, J. Rosiek, M. Szleper et al., *[The $W_L W_L$ Scattering at the LHC: Improving the Selection Criteria]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D86**]{} (2012) 036011](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.036011) \[[[1201.2768]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2768)\].
M. Szleper, *[The Higgs boson and the physics of $WW$ scattering before and after Higgs discovery]{}*, [[1412.8367]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.8367).
M. Fabbrichesi, M. Pinamonti, A. Tonero and A. Urbano, *[Vector boson scattering at the LHC: A study of the WW $\to$ WW channels with the Warsaw cut]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D93**]{} (2016) 015004](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.015004) \[[[1509.06378]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06378)\].
R. L. Delgado, A. Dobado, D. Espriu, C. Garcia-Garcia, M. J. Herrero, X. Marcano et al., *[Production of vector resonances at the LHC via WZ-scattering: a unitarized EChL analysis]{}*, [*JHEP* [**11**]{} (2017) 098](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2017)098) \[[[ 1707.04580]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.04580)\].
collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al., *[Review of Particle Physics]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D98**]{} (2018) 030001]{}.
collaboration, G. Aad et al., *[Evidence for Electroweak Production of $W^{\pm}W^{\pm}jj$ in $pp$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS Detector]{}*, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**113**]{} (2014) 141803](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.141803) \[[[1405.6241]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6241)\].
collaboration, G. Aad et al., *[Measurements of $W^\pm Z$ production cross sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector and limits on anomalous gauge boson self-couplings]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D93**]{} (2016) 092004](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.092004) \[[[1603.02151]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02151)\].
collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., *[Search for anomalous electroweak production of $WW/WZ$ in association with a high-mass dijet system in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D95**]{} (2017) 032001](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.032001) \[[[1609.05122]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05122)\].
collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., *[Measurement of $W^{\pm}W^{\pm}$ vector-boson scattering and limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings with the ATLAS detector]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D96**]{} (2017) 012007](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.012007) \[[[1611.02428]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02428)\].
collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., *[Studies of $Z\gamma$ production in association with a high-mass dijet system in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector]{}*, [*JHEP* [**07**]{} (2017) 107](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2017)107) \[[[ 1705.01966]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01966)\].
collaboration, T. A. collaboration, *[Observation of electroweak production of a same-sign $W$ boson pair in association with two jets in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector]{}*, [*ATLAS-CONF-2018-030* (2018) ]{}.
collaboration, T. A. collaboration, *[Observation of electroweak $W^{\pm}Z$ boson pair production in association with two jets in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13TeV with the ATLAS Detector]{}*, [*ATLAS-CONF-2018-033* (2018) ]{}.
collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., *[Study of vector boson scattering and search for new physics in events with two same-sign leptons and two jets]{}*, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**114**]{} (2015) 051801](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.051801) \[[[1410.6315]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.6315)\].
collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., *[Measurement of electroweak-induced production of W$\gamma$ with two jets in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=8 $ TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings]{}*, [*JHEP* [**06**]{} (2017) 106](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2017)106) \[[[ 1612.09256]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.09256)\].
collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., *[Measurement of the cross section for electroweak production of Z$\gamma$ in association with two jets and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings in proton–proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B770**]{} (2017) 380](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.04.071) \[[[1702.03025]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.03025)\].
collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., *[Measurement of vector boson scattering and constraints on anomalous quartic couplings from events with four leptons and two jets in proton–proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B774**]{} (2017) 682](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.020) \[[[1708.02812]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02812)\].
collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., *[Observation of electroweak production of same-sign W boson pairs in the two jet and two same-sign lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV]{}*, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**120**]{} (2018) 081801](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.081801) \[[[1709.05822]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05822)\].
collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., *[Electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV]{}*, [*Submitted to: Eur. Phys. J. C* (2017) ]{} \[[[1712.09814]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.09814)\].
collaboration, C. Collaboration, *[Measurements of the $\mathrm{pp}\to\mathrm{WZ}$ inclusive and differential production cross section and constraints on charged anomalous triple gauge couplings at $\sqrt{s} = 13~\mathrm{TeV}$.]{}*, [*CMS-PAS-SMP-18-002* (2018) ]{}.
collaboration, C. Collaboration, *[Measurement of electroweak WZ production and search for new physics in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV]{}*, [*CMS-PAS-SMP-18-001* (2018) ]{}.
J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., *[The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations]{}*, [*JHEP* [**07**]{} (2014) 079](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079) \[[[ 1405.0301]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0301)\].
collaboration, R. D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti et al., *[Parton distributions with QED corrections]{}*, [*Nucl. Phys.* [**B877**]{} (2013) 290](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.10.010) \[[[1308.0598]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0598)\].
M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A. D. Polosa, *[ALPGEN, a generator for hard multiparton processes in hadronic collisions]{}*, [*JHEP* [ **07**]{} (2003) 001](https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2003/07/001) \[[[ hep-ph/0206293]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0206293)\].
collaboration, H. L. Lai, J. Huston, S. Kuhlmann, J. Morfin, F. I. Olness, J. F. Owens et al., *[Global QCD analysis of parton structure of the nucleon: CTEQ5 parton distributions]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J.* [ **C12**]{} (2000) 375](https://doi.org/10.1007/s100529900196) \[[[ hep-ph/9903282]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9903282)\].
G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, *[Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J.* [**C71**]{} (2011) 1554](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0,
10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z) \[[[1007.1727]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1727)\].
A. Barachetti, L. Rossi and A. Szeberenyi, *[Final Project Report: Deliverable D1.14]{}*, [*CERN-ACC-2016-0007* (2016) ]{}.
S. Pascoli, R. Ruiz and C. Weiland, *[Heavy Neutrinos with Dynamic Jet Vetoes: Multilepton Searches at $\sqrt{s} = 14,~27,$ and $100$ TeV]{}*, \[[[1812.08750]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.08750)\].
T. Sjöstrand [*et al.*]{}, *An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,* Comput. Phys. Commun. [**191**]{}, 159 (2015) \[arXiv:1410.3012 \[hep-ph\]\].
E. Conte, B. Fuks and G. Serret, *MadAnalysis 5, A User-Friendly Framework for Collider Phenomenology,* Comput. Phys. Commun. [**184**]{} (2013) 222 \[arXiv:1206.1599 \[hep-ph\]\].
E. Conte, B. Dumont, B. Fuks and C. Wymant, *Designing and recasting LHC analyses with MadAnalysis 5,* Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{} (2014) 3103 \[arXiv:1405.3982 \[hep-ph\]\].
B. Dumont [*et al.*]{}, *Toward a public analysis database for LHC new physics searches using MADANALYSIS 5,* Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{} (2015) 56 \[arXiv:1407.3278 \[hep-ph\]\].
E. Conte and B. Fuks, *Confronting new physics theories to LHC data with MadAnalysis 5,* arXiv:1808.00480 \[hep-ph\].
[^1]: <ernesto.arganda@fisica.unlp.edu.ar>
[^2]: <claudia.garcia@uam.es>
[^3]: We assume here a phenomenological approach when setting $\lambda\neq\lambda_{SM}$ , meaning that it is not our aim to understand the theoretical implications of such a result like potential instabilities for negative values of $\lambda$, etc. We understand that the deviations in this coupling would come together with other BSM Lagrangian terms that would make the whole framework consistent.
[^4]: In the sense of the fraction of events that pass the VBS cuts with respect to the total number of events.
[^5]: Equivalently in the case of $pp\to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma jj$ substituting $M_{bb^s}$ by $M_{\gamma\gamma}$.
[^6]: When mentioning a percentage for the energy resolution we refer to that percentage of the Higgs mass.
[^7]: We wish to thank our experimental colleague Aurelio Juste for his interesting discussions on this issue and for his involvement in this future project in collaboration with us.
[^8]: As previously said, we have postponed this full analysis for a future work in collaboration with our experimental colleagues.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We study the spontaneous parity breaking and generating of Hall viscosity and angular momentum in holographic p+ip model, which can describe strongly-coupled chiral superfluid states in many quantum systems. The dual gravity theory, an SU(2) gauge field minimally coupled to Einstein gravity, is parity-invariant but allows a black hole solution with vector hair corresponding to a parity-broken superfluid state. We show that this state possesses a non-vanishing parity-odd transport coefficient – Hall viscosity – and an angular momentum density. We first develop an analytic method to solve this model near the critical regime and to take back-reactions into account. Then we solve the equation for the tensor mode fluctuations and obtain the expression for Hall viscosity via Kubo formula. We also show that a non-vanishing angular momentum density can be obtained through the vector mode fluctuations and the corresponding boundary action. We give analytic results of both Hall viscosity and angular momentum density near the critical regime in terms of physical parameters. The near-critical behavior of Hall viscosity is different from that obtained from a gravitational Chern-Simons model. We find that the magnitude of Hall viscosity to angular momentum density ratio is numerically consistent with being equal to 1/2 at large SU(2) coupling corresponding to the probe limit, in agreement with previous results obtained for various quantum fluid systems and from effective theory approaches. In addition, we find the shear viscosity to entropy density ratio remains above the universal bound.'
author:
- '****'
title: '****'
---
*Kadanoff Center for Theoretical Physics and Enrico Fermi Institute*
*University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA*
**``**``
Introduction
============
Systems with broken parity and time-reversal symmetries have long been attractive and active fields to both experimentalists and theorists in physics. When these discrete symmetries are allowed to be broken, additional transport coefficients can arise in the hydrodynamic description of the systems. In $2+1$-dimensional systems, Hall conductivity, the parity-odd and dissipationless counterpart of the ordinary longitudinal conductivity, is probably the most famous and best-studied example. It is also been known that the viscosity can have a parity-odd and dissipationless part as well, called Hall viscosity. On contrary to the parity-even and dissipative shear viscosity, which, in classical picture of fluids, tends to accelerate or decelerate nearby flows in the presence of a gradient of velocity, Hall viscosity tends to repel or attract the nearby flows. The underlying force (sometimes referred to as “Lorentz shear force” in the literature) is perpendicular to the flow, thus is dissipationless. A pictorial illustration can be found in [@Hughes:2012vg]. An example of Hall viscosity in classical fluid systems is given by a plasma moving in magnetic field [@Lifshitz:Book]. Recently, Hall viscosity was studied for various non-relativistic quantum systems such as quantum Hall fluids [@Avron:1995fg; @Avron:1998; @Tokatly:1; @Tokatly:2; @Read:2008rn; @Haldane:2009ke; @Read:2011] and chiral superfluids and superconductors [@Read:2008rn; @Read:2011], and relativistic quantum systems such as topological insulators with massive Dirac fermions [@Hughes:2011hv; @Hughes:2012vg]. It was also studied using general approaches such as linear response theory [@Bradlyn:2012ea], effective field theories [@Nicolis:2011ey; @Hoyos:2011ez; @Hoyos:2013eha; @Son:2013rqa], viscoelastic-electromagnetism [@Hidaka:2012rj] and quantum hydrodynamics of vortex flow [@Wiegmann:1211; @Wiegmann:1305; @Wiegmann:1309]. Hall viscosity possesses many interesting properties. In quantum Hall fluids it is related to the Berry curvature and the Wen-Zee shift [@Wen:1992ej], thus reflects the topological feature of the quantum Hall states. Hall viscosity also enters as a finite wave number correction to Hall conductivity [@Hoyos:2011ez]. Of particular interest is a general relation between Hall viscosity $\eta_{H}$ and angular momentum density $\ell$ of the system: $$\eta_{H}=-\frac{1}{2}\ell\:,\label{HL_Relation}$$ which is derived first in [@Read:2008rn] for quantum Hall states and $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ superfluids, then in [@Nicolis:2011ey; @Hoyos:2013eha; @Son:2013rqa] from effective field theory methods. In this paper we try to understand Hall viscosity and the above relation to angular momentum density in strongly-interacting quantum many-body systems, particularly the $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ paired states, from the holographic point of view.
Over the last decade, holography, or gauge/gravity duality [@Maldacena:1997re; @Gubser:1998bc; @Witten:1998qj] has been widely applied to study many strongly interacting systems. One of its remarkable early successes is to study hydrodynamic transport coefficients of strongly coupled relativistic conformal fluids [@Policastro:2002se; @Policastro:2002tn], in particular the shear viscosity to entropy density ratio [@Kovtun:2003wp] (for an recent review, see [@Cremonini:2011iq]), whose theoretical value obtained via holography is very close to that of the quark-gluon plasma extracted from RHIC and LHC data.
Another recent application of holography is on superconducting and superfluid phase transitions in condensed matter systems. The hope is to gain insight into systems that cannot be described by the BCS theory, like high $T_{c}$ superconductors. The superconducting phase transition is characterized by a charged operator $\mathcal{O}$, whose expectation value $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle$ is zero above a certain critical temperature $T_{c}$ (the normal phase), but becomes non-zero below $T_{c}$ (the superconducting phase). In the dual gravity theory, the normal phase at non-zero temperature is usually described by a charged AdS black hole. The operator $\mathcal{O}$ is dual to a certain charged matter field $\phi$ that couples to this black hole. Below the critical temperature $T_{c}$, $\phi$ can develop a non-trivial profile outside the black hole horizon [@Gubser:2005ih; @Gubser:2008px]. The resulting hairy black hole, which is thermodynamically preferred over the hairless one, describes the superconducting phase. Depending on whether the matter field $\phi$ is a scalar, a non-Abelian gauge field, or a symmetric tensor field, it describes holographically the $s$-wave [@Hartnoll:2008vx; @Hartnoll:2008kx; @Horowitz:2008bn; @Herzog:2008he], $p$-wave [@Gubser:2008zu; @Gubser:2008wv; @Roberts:2008ns] or $d$-wave [@Chen:2010mk; @Benini:2010pr] superconductors respectively. In [@Hartnoll:2008kx] it is shown that such holographic superconductors are Type II superconductors. For reviews in this subject, see [@Herzog:2009xv; @Horowitz:2010gk].
A third application of holography is to strongly coupled systems with broken parity and time-reversal symmetries, such as quantum Hall systems [@HallReview1; @HallReview2; @HallReview3; @HallReview4; @HallReview5]. For $2+1$-dimensional systems, dyonic AdS black hole is a simple holographic realization of the classical Hall effect and produces unquantized Hall conductivity [@Hartnoll:2007ai]. To address quantum Hall effects, including the integer and fractional quantized Hall conductivities, quantum plateau transitions and edge states, models with various matter fields or brane configurations were considered [@KeskiVakkuri:2008eb; @Davis:2008nv; @Fujita:2009kw; @Bergman:2010gm; @Gubankova:2010rc; @Kristjansen:2012ny], and these added structures usually include Chern-Simons terms, which break the parity of the theories explicitly or spontaneously. In $3+1$ dimensions, two other parity-violating effects – the chiral magnetic effect and chiral vortical effect – are also realized in holographic models [@Erdmenger:2008rm; @Banerjee:2008th; @Gynther:2010ed; @Kalaydzhyan:2011vx; @Amado:2011zx; @Landsteiner:2011cp; @Landsteiner:2011iq; @Landsteiner:2012dm; @Landsteiner:2012kd].
Hall viscosity was obtained in [@Saremi:2011ab] for the first time in a holographic model, with a dynamical axion coupled to Chern-Simons modified gravity [@Alexander:2009tp], and numerics was soon followed [@Chen:2011fs; @Chen:2012ti]. [@Cai:2012mg; @Zou:2013fua] studied both Hall viscosity and Curl viscosity using similar holographic models with Chern-Simons terms. Angular momentum generated in holographic models was also studied [@Liu:2012zm; @Liu:2013cha]. However, whether a holographic model can generate both Hall viscosity and angular momentum density simultaneously and whether their relation (\[HL\_Relation\]) can hold remain mysterious. For example, for the models considered in both [@Jensen:2011xb] and [@Liu:2012zm] there exists an angular momentum but no Hall viscosity.
What we study in this paper is an overlap of all the aforementioned areas in holography. We will show that for the holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model of [@Gubser:2008zu], in the superconducting phase, both non-vanishing Hall viscosity and angular momentum density emerge. Using analytic method to compute both of them near the critical regime, we find that the relation (\[HL\_Relation\]) holds at the probe limit regime, but has a deviation when back-reactions are taken into account. This model is different from most other holographic models constructed for Hall effects and those used in [@Saremi:2011ab; @Liu:2012zm] to compute Hall viscosity and angular momentum: it does not contain an explicit Chern-Simons term in the action, nor external magnetic field or rotation [@Sonner:2009fk], which all break parity and time-reversal symmetry in a manifest way. It is known that in some types of superconducting phase transitions the breaking of $U(1)$ symmetry is accompanied by a spontaneous parity breaking. In the field theory picture of this model, the parity is broken spontaneously below the critical temperature by the formation of $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ paired ground state of the BCS theory. The total orbital angular momentum of the Cooper pairs is at eigenstate $|lm\rangle=|11\rangle$, which breaks parity and time-reversal symmetry. In the dual gravity theory which involves Einstein gravity and $SU(2)$ gauge field, the parity is broken by the $SU(2)$ hair of the black hole, which is dual to the $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ paired ground state. This particular background locks the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ symmetry of spatial reflection in the two conformally flat spatial directions to the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ symmetry in the $SU(2)$ vector space. The $SU(2)$ gauge connection term breaks the latter $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ symmetry explicitly, and this breaking is propagated to the former spatial $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ symmetry through the background. This finally produces non-trivial parity-breaking effects such as the emergence of Hall conductivity and angular momentum density, and as expected, they are both proportional to the $SU(2)$ gauge coupling. The $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model has a gapped zero temperature ground state, which also ensures that the dissipationless transport can take place and Hall viscosity is non-vanishing. The gap energy and thermal Hall conductivity was numerically calculated in [@Roberts:2008ns].
The holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model of [@Gubser:2008zu] was previously studied mostly in the context of superconductivity and superfluidity. However it is worth to note here that it may have richer physics yet to explore, for example, the parity-breaking effects on transport studied in [@Roberts:2008ns] and this paper. In fact the $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model is more than just a description of chiral superfluid states in, for example, the A-phase of Helium-3 [@StoneRoy:2003; @Sauls:2011; @Tsutsumi:2012us] and layered Sr~2~RuO~4~ superconductors [@Sr2RuO4-1; @Sr2RuO4-2]. It also plays an important role in understanding the $\nu=5/2$ quantum Hall state and all interesting physics associated with it, such as non-Abelian anyons and its potential application to quantum computation (for recent reviews on this subject, see [@Stern:Review; @Nayak:2008zza; @Willet:Review]).
It is worth noting here that [@Gubser:2008wv] shows the $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ superconducting state can be unstable upon perturbations and tunnel to an anisotropic $p$-wave ground state. However, this problem might be overcome by adding non-linear terms in the action to stabilize the $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ solution, similar as in [@Radu:2011ip]. As long as the solution remains homogeneous and isotropic, the parity breaking properties studied in this paper will still hold qualitatively in the new model, with added corrections from the non-linear effect.
The paper is organized as following. In Section 2, we briefly review first order relativistic parity-violating hydrodynamics, including the definition of Hall viscosity in this context and Kubo formulae associated to it. In Section 3 we give the general formalism of Einstein-$SU(2)$ system, which is the basis where the holographic $p$-wave superconductor models are built on. In Section 4 we review the $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model of [@Gubser:2008zu] and propose our refined analytic method to solve this model near the critical regime. Our method takes the back-reactions between the metric and the matter field into full consideration. In the next two sections we compute Hall viscosity and angular momentum density from tensor and vector mode bulk fluctuations respectively, and then the ratio between them. In Section 7 the low temperature limit of the model is investigated. In the last section we will make conclusion remarks and comments. Except that in Section 3 that we work in general $d+1$ dimensions, we always work in $3+1$ dimensions in the gravity theory, thus the dual field theory or condensed matter systems are in $2+1$ dimensions.
Relativistic First Order Parity-Violating Hydrodynamics
=======================================================
Hydrodynamics is a large-scale effective description of fluids and many other classical and quantum systems at non-zero temperature. The fundamental EOMs are the conservation of the energy-stress tensor and the current: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu} & = & F^{\nu\mu}J_{\mu}\:,\label{eq:Conserv_StressTensor}\\
\nabla_{\mu}J^{\mu} & = & 0\:.\label{eq:Conserv_Current}\end{aligned}$$ Here we allow the current to couple to an external gauge field whose strength is $F_{\mu\nu}$. For simplicity we assume there is only a $U(1)$ symmetry associated with the conserved current. This is obviously not true like in the case of $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry considered in the rest of this paper. In that case it is straightforward to generalize by letting the current and transport coefficients associated with it carry $SU(2)$ vector indices, but the Kubo formulae for viscosities will remain the same. When the system has conformal symmetry, there is an additional equation of state due to scale invariance: $$T_{\mu}^{\mu}=0\:.$$ This is the case we will study in this paper. To solve the above equations for a particular system, one need to supplement them with constitutive relations which specify the form of $T^{\mu\nu}$ and $J^{\mu}$ in terms of derivative expansion of local macroscopic functions such as energy density, pressure and velocity field, among others. Terms allowed in these constitutive relations can be determined based on symmetries of the systems and thermodynamical considerations, up to some arbitrary constants to be determined by the underlying microscopic theory. These constants are the transport coefficients. For relativistic conformal systems, there is only one possible first order term allowed by symmetries in each of $T^{\mu\nu}$ and $J^{\mu}$, whose coefficients are the shear viscosity and conductivity, respectively.
When parity is not respected, there are additional terms allowed in the constitutive relations, with additional transport coefficients. Based on symmetries and thermodynamic considerations,[@Jensen:2011xb] systematically studied this case for relativistic fluid in 2+1 dimensions and obtained complete first order constitutive relations (the non-relativistic version was also studied recently in [@Kaminski:2013gca]). In this paper, we are interested in the sourceless case when external $F^{\mu\nu}=0$, and for simplicity we also assume that the temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu$ are not local functions. The constitutive relations up to first order in derivatives are $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu} & = & \varepsilon u^{\mu}u^{\nu}+\left(p-\zeta\nabla_{\alpha}u^{\alpha}-\zeta_{H}\Omega\right)\Delta^{\mu\nu}-\eta\sigma^{\mu\nu}-\eta_{H}\tilde{\sigma}^{\mu\nu}\:,\\
J^{\mu} & = & \rho u^{\mu}\:.\end{aligned}$$ The velocity field is normalized to $u^{\mu}u_{\mu}=-1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{\mu\nu} & = & g^{\mu\nu}+u^{\mu}u^{\nu}\:,\\
\sigma^{\mu\nu} & = & \Delta^{\mu\alpha}\Delta^{\nu\beta}\left(\nabla_{\alpha}u_{\beta}+\nabla_{\beta}u_{\alpha}-g_{\alpha\beta}\nabla_{\gamma}u^{\gamma}\right)\:,\\
\tilde{\sigma}^{\mu\nu} & = & \frac{1}{2}\left(\epsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta}u_{\alpha}\sigma_{\beta}^{\phantom{\beta}\nu}+\epsilon^{\nu\alpha\beta}u_{\alpha}\sigma_{\beta}^{\phantom{\beta}\mu}\right)\:,\\
\Omega & = & -\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha}u_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}u_{\alpha}\:.\end{aligned}$$ In the above definitions, the expression for shear flow $\sigma^{\mu\nu}$ quoted here is only valid in $2+1$ dimensions. For general $d$-dimensional spacetime, the last term will have a coefficient $-\frac{2}{d-1}$ rather than $-1$. The definitions of $\tilde{\sigma}^{\mu\nu}$ and $\Omega$ are only possible for $2+1$ dimensions because the rank-$3$ totally anti-symmetric tensor $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha}$ only exists in this case. An analogous case in $d=4$ has also been studied, for example, in [@Amado:2011zx; @Landsteiner:2012kd]. The coefficients $\zeta$, $\eta$ and $\eta_{H}$ are bulk, shear and Hall viscosities and $\varepsilon$, $p$ and $\rho$ are energy density, pressure and charge density of the system. For a conformal system, $\nabla_{\alpha}u^{\alpha}$ and $\Omega$ parts will drop off, so $\zeta=\zeta_{H}=0$, and this is the case we will consider in this paper. A double perturbative expansion in derivatives and metric fluctuations [@Saremi:2011ab] gives $$T^{xy}=-ph_{xy}-\eta\frac{\partial}{\partial t}h_{xy}+\frac{1}{2}\eta_{H}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(h_{xx}-h_{yy}\right)+O\left(\vec{\partial},h^{2}\right)\:,\label{eq:Txy_hydroexp}$$ where $h_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric fluctuation around the flat Minkowskian background metric and the coordinates are $x^{\mu}=(t,x,y)$. Using $$\langle T^{\mu\nu}(x)\rangle_{h}=\langle T^{\mu\nu}(x)\rangle_{h=0}-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{3}x'G_{\textrm{ra}}^{\mu\nu,\alpha\beta}(x,x')h_{\alpha\beta}(x')+O\left(h^{2}\right)\:,$$ where the causal 2-point functions of energy-stress tensor in position space are defined as $$G_{\textrm{ra}}^{\mu\nu,\alpha\beta}(x,x')=-i\theta(t-t')\langle[T^{\mu\nu}(x),T^{\alpha\beta}(x')]\rangle$$ and those in momentum space are defined as $$G_{\textrm{ra}}^{\mu\nu,\alpha\beta}(k)=\int d^{3}xe^{-ikx}G_{ra}^{\mu\nu,\alpha\beta}(x,0)$$ with momentum $k^{\mu}=(\omega,\vec{k})$, we obtain the hydrodynamic expansions for the following 2-point functions $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\textrm{ra}}^{xy,xx-yy}(\omega,\vec{k}=0) & = & 2i\eta_{H}\omega+O\left(\omega^{2}\right)\:,\label{eq:Kubo_HallVisc}\\
G_{\textrm{ra}}^{xy,xy}(\omega,\vec{k}=0) & = & p-i\eta\omega+O\left(\omega^{2}\right)\:.\label{eq:Kubo_ShearVisc}\end{aligned}$$ These will then give the Kubo formulae for the viscosities.
At this point it is reasonable to ask whether the above formulae are valid and can be applied to the calculation of holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model. There are two subtleties. The first one is regarding the global symmetry. Clearly, the above analysis and that of [@Jensen:2011xb] assume only a global $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, but the model to be discussed in the rest of this paper has an $SU(2)$ global symmetry. Some terms in the above equations, particularly those involving electromagnetic response in the conservation equations and hydrodynamic expansion, will change once the global gauge group is changed. For example, both the current $J^{\mu}$ and field strength $F_{\mu\nu}$ will be $SU(2)$-valued now. But the part involving gravitational response, such as $u^{\mu}$, $\sigma^{\mu\nu}$ and $\tilde{\sigma}^{\mu\nu}$, will not change. The only assumption lying behind (\[eq:Txy\_hydroexp\]), (\[eq:Kubo\_HallVisc\]) and (\[eq:Kubo\_ShearVisc\]) are homogeneity and isotropy, not the global gauge symmetry. A further subtlety is that the ground state of holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model, (\[BackgroundAnsatz\]), seems to break the apparent rotational invariance and spoil isotropy. As explained in the text below (\[BackgroundAnsatz\]), this apparent “breaking” of spatial rotational symmetry is restored by combining the rotational symmetry of the $SU(2)$ gauge group. Since the energy-stress tensor is an $SU(2)$ singlet which does not see the rotation in the gauge group, the isotropy is preserved in the hydrodynamic analysis involving only the energy-stress tensor. Thus the formulae (\[eq:Kubo\_HallVisc\]) and (\[eq:Kubo\_ShearVisc\]) are still valid.
The second subtlety is about the extra degrees of freedom in superfluids, namely the superfluid velocity $\xi_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}\varphi-A_{\mu}$, where $\varphi$ is the Goldstone boson. On contrary, the velocity $u^{\mu}$ we introduce before is the normal fluid velocity. In general, they are both non-vanishing and point on different directions in the lab frame, thus there are additional first order derivative terms involving $\xi^{\mu}$ that can be added to constitutive relations of $T^{\mu\nu}$ and $J^{\mu}$ and give rise to new transport coefficients and possibly modify the existing Kubo formulae as well. Superfluid hydrodynamics in 3+1 dimensions has been studied in [@Bhattacharya:2011eea; @Bhattacharya:2011tra; @Neiman:2011mj] and that in d+1 dimensions with Lifshitz scaling recently in [@Chapman:2014hja] and in [@Hoyos:2014nua] for 2+1-dimensional non-Abelian case. [@Hoyos:2014nua] shows that for the case relevant to ours, the $SU(2)$ superfluids, the Kubo formula for Hall viscosity (\[eq:Kubo\_HallVisc\]) remains valid. However, [@Hoyos:2014nua] also shows that there are additional first order transport coefficients due to superfluid velocity, i.e. what they call $\tilde{\eta}_{H}$, the “locking dependent Hall viscosity”, and $\kappa_{H}$, whose Kubo formulae are given by 2-point functions of energy-stress tensor and $SU(2)$ current. The $\tilde{\eta}_{H}$ is different from the Hall viscosity $\eta_{H}$ that is studied in the rest of this paper and in the previous literature, thus will not be further considered in this paper, even though this quantity itself is interesting on its own and deserves further study. We will concentrate on the Hall viscosity given by (\[eq:Kubo\_HallVisc\]).
The holographic prescription for computing causal 2-point functions had been studied in [@Herzog:2002pc] and that for higher n-point functions in [@Barnes:2010jp; @Arnold:2011ja]. In the rest of this paper we will follow those prescriptions to compute the above two 2-point functions for holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ superconductor model of [@Gubser:2008zu] and obtain the viscosities in that model.
Einstein-$SU(2)$ System
=======================
Bulk and Boundary Actions
-------------------------
In this section, for generality we will work in $(d+1)$-dimensional curved spacetime. $z$ is the radial coordinate and $z=\infty$ is where the $d$-dimensional time-like boundary locates. The bulk action for Einstein-$SU(2)$ system is
$$S_{\textrm{bulk}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int d^{d+1}x\sqrt{-g}\left\{ \mathcal{R}-2\Lambda-\frac{1}{4}\left(F_{\mu\nu}^{\mathbf{I}}\right)^{2}\right\} \:,$$
where the cosmological constant $\Lambda=-\frac{d(d-1)}{2R^{2}}$ and $R$ the AdS radius. The $SU(2)$ field strength is
$$F_{\mu\nu}^{\mathbf{I}}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}^{\mathbf{I}}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}^{\mathbf{I}}+\lambda\epsilon^{\mathbf{IJK}}A_{\mu}^{\mathbf{J}}A_{\nu}^{\mathbf{K}}\:,$$
where $\lambda$ is the Yang-Mills coupling, $\mathbf{I},\mathbf{J},\mathbf{K}=\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2},\mathbf{3}$ and $\epsilon^{\mathbf{IJK}}$ is the totally antisymmetric tensor with $\epsilon^{\mathbf{123}}=1$. The boundary terms include the Gibbons-Hawking term
$$S_{\textrm{GH}}=\frac{1}{\kappa^{2}}\int_{z=\infty}d^{d}x\sqrt{-\gamma}K$$
and a counter term
$$S_{\textrm{ct}}=-\frac{d-1}{\kappa^{2}R}\int_{z=\infty}d^{d}x\sqrt{-\gamma}\:,$$
where $\hat{n}_{\mu}$ is the outgoing unit normal 1-form of the boundary, $\gamma_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}-\hat{n}_{\mu}\hat{n}_{\nu}$ is the induced metric on the boundary and $K=\nabla_{\mu}\hat{n}^{\mu}$ is the extrinsic curvature of the boundary. To compute first order hydrodynamics this single counter term is enough. For higher order hydrodynamics, one need to include more counter terms such as the boundary Ricci scalar etc [@Emparan:1999pm; @Kraus:1999di; @deHaro:2000xn].
Perturbative Expansion of Actions and EOMs
------------------------------------------
To compute 2-point functions, we perturbatively expand the on-shell actions around the background up to second order in field fluctuations. The metric and gauge fields are $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu} & = & \bar{g}_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}\:,\\
A_{\mu}^{\mathbf{I}} & = & \bar{A}_{\mu}^{\mathbf{I}}+a_{\mu}^{\mathbf{I}}\:,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{g}_{\mu\nu}$ and $\bar{A}_{\mu}^{\mathbf{I}}$ are the background and $h_{\mu\nu}$ and $a_{\mu}^{\mathbf{I}}$ are fluctuations. To fully consider the back-reactions of the gauge fields on the metric, we assume $h_{\mu\nu}$ and $a_{\mu}^{\mathbf{I}}$ are of the same order. The first order on-shell action which is linear in fluctuations is $$S_{\textrm{bulk}}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int d^{d+1}x\partial_{\mu}\left\{ \sqrt{-\bar{g}}\left(\bar{\nabla}_{\nu}h^{\mu\nu}-\bar{\nabla}^{\mu}h-\bar{F}^{\mathbf{I}\mu\nu}a_{\nu}^{\mathbf{I}}\right)\right\} \:.\label{S1_onshell}$$ The second order on-shell action quadratic in fluctuations is[^1] $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\textrm{bulk}}^{(2)} & = & \frac{1}{4\kappa^{2}}\int d^{d+1}x\partial_{\mu}\Big\{\sqrt{-\bar{g}}\Big[\frac{1}{2}h\bar{\nabla}_{\nu}h^{\mu\nu}+\frac{3}{2}h^{\mu\nu}\bar{\nabla}_{\nu}h-h^{\rho\sigma}\bar{\nabla}_{\rho}h_{\sigma}^{\mu}-2h^{\mu\rho}\bar{\nabla}^{\sigma}h_{\rho\sigma}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad+\frac{3}{2}h^{\rho\sigma}\bar{\nabla}^{\mu}h_{\rho\sigma}-\frac{1}{2}h\bar{\nabla}^{\mu}h-a_{\nu}^{\mathbf{I}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\bar{F}^{\mathbf{I}\mu\nu}h+\bar{F}_{\phantom{\mathbf{I}}\rho}^{\mathbf{I}\phantom{\rho}[\mu}h^{\nu]\rho}+F^{\mathbf{I}(1)\mu\nu}\right)\Big]\Big\}\:.\label{S2_onshell}\end{aligned}$$ Here all co-variant derivative $\bar{\nabla}$ and raising and lowering indices are with respect to the background metric $\bar{g}_{\mu\nu}$, with $h\equiv h_{\mu}^{\mu}$ and $$F_{\mu\nu}^{\mathbf{I}(1)}=\bar{\nabla}_{[\mu}a_{\nu]}^{\mathbf{I}}+\lambda\epsilon^{\mathbf{IJK}}\bar{A}_{[\mu}^{\mathbf{J}}a_{\nu]}^{\mathbf{K}}\:.$$ These actions are written as integrals of total derivatives, which means they are boundary terms. Choosing the gauge condition $\bar{g}_{\mu z}=0$ for $\mu\neq z$ and $h_{\mu z}=0$ for any $\mu$, the first order boundary actions are $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\textrm{GH}}^{(1)} & = & \frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int_{z=\infty}d^{d}x\sqrt{-\bar{\gamma}}\left(\bar{K}+\bar{\hat{n}}^{\mu}\bar{\nabla}_{\mu}\right)h\:,\\
S_{\textrm{ct}}^{(1)} & = & -\frac{d-1}{2\kappa^{2}R}\int_{z=\infty}d^{d}x\sqrt{-\bar{\gamma}}h\:,\end{aligned}$$ and the second order boundary actions are $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\textrm{GH}}^{(2)} & = & \frac{1}{4\kappa^{2}}\int_{z=\infty}d^{d}x\sqrt{-\bar{\gamma}}\left\{ \left(\bar{K}+\bar{\hat{n}}^{\mu}\bar{\nabla}_{\mu}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}h^{2}-h^{\mu\nu}h_{\mu\nu}\right)\right\} \:,\\
S_{\textrm{ct}}^{(2)} & = & -\frac{d-1}{4\kappa^{2}R}\int_{z=\infty}d^{d}x\sqrt{-\bar{\gamma}}\left\{ \frac{1}{2}h^{2}-h^{\mu\nu}h_{\mu\nu}\right\} \:.\end{aligned}$$ The background EOMs are $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathcal{R}}_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\bar{\mathcal{R}}\bar{g}_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda\bar{g}_{\mu\nu} & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[\bar{F}_{\mu\rho}^{\mathbf{I}}\bar{F}_{\phantom{\mathbf{I}}\nu}^{\mathbf{I}\phantom{\nu}\rho}-\frac{1}{4}\bar{g}_{\mu\nu}\left(\bar{F}^{\mathbf{I}}\right)^{2}\right]\:,\\
\bar{\nabla}_{\mu}\bar{F}^{\mathbf{I}\mu\nu}+\lambda\epsilon^{\mathbf{IJK}}\bar{A}_{\mu}^{\mathbf{J}}\bar{F}^{\mathbf{K}\mu\nu} & = & 0\:,\end{aligned}$$ and the linearized EOMs are $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\bar{\nabla}^{2}+\bar{\mathcal{R}}-2\Lambda-\frac{1}{4}\left(\bar{F}^{\mathbf{I}}\right)^{2}\right]h_{\mu\nu}+\bar{\nabla}_{\mu}\bar{\nabla}_{\nu}h-\bar{\nabla}_{\rho}\bar{\nabla}_{(\mu}h_{\nu)}^{\rho}\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\nonumber \\
=h^{\rho\sigma}\left(\bar{F}_{\mu\rho}^{\mathbf{I}}\bar{F}_{\nu\sigma}^{\mathbf{I}}-\frac{\bar{g}_{\mu\nu}}{d-1}\bar{F}_{\rho\eta}^{\mathbf{I}}\bar{F}_{\phantom{\mathbf{I}}\sigma}^{\mathbf{I}\phantom{\sigma}\eta}\right)+\bar{F}_{\rho(\mu}^{\mathbf{I}}F_{\phantom{\mathbf{I}(1)}\nu)}^{\mathbf{I}(1)\phantom{\nu}\rho}+\frac{1}{d-1}\bar{g}_{\mu\nu}\bar{F}^{\mathbf{I}\rho\sigma}F_{\rho\sigma}^{\mathbf{I}(1)}\:,\label{LinearEinstein}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\nabla}_{\mu}\left(F^{\mathbf{I}(1)\mu\nu}-\bar{F}_{\phantom{\mathbf{I}}\rho}^{\mathbf{I}\phantom{\rho}\nu}h^{\mu\rho}\right)+\lambda\epsilon^{\mathbf{IJK}}\bar{A}_{\mu}^{\mathbf{J}}\left(F^{\mathbf{K}(1)\mu\nu}-\bar{F}_{\phantom{\mathbf{K}}\rho}^{\mathbf{K}\phantom{\rho}\nu}h^{\mu\rho}\right)\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\nonumber \\
+\bar{F}_{\phantom{\mathbf{I}}\rho}^{\mathbf{I}\phantom{\rho}\mu}\bar{\nabla}_{\mu}h^{\nu\rho}+\frac{1}{2}\bar{F}^{\mathbf{I}\mu\nu}\bar{\nabla}_{\mu}h+\lambda\epsilon^{\mathbf{IJK}}a_{\mu}^{\mathbf{J}}\bar{F}^{\mathbf{K}\mu\nu}=0\:.\label{LinearYangMills}\end{aligned}$$
Holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ Model
================================
Background and its Symmetries
-----------------------------
A general discussion on the AdS-black hole type solutions to the Einstein-$SU(2)$ system can be found in [@Manvelyan:2008sv]. Here we will only restrain to the simple model of [@Gubser:2008zu]. We now go back to $d=3$ case and work in it for the rest of this paper. We choose the ansatz for the background to be $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & ds^{2}=-F(z)dt^{2}+\frac{1}{F(z)}dz^{2}+r(z)^{2}\left(dx^{2}+dy^{2}\right)\\
& \bar{A}_{t}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)\equiv\Phi(z),\quad\bar{A}_{x}^{\mathbf{1}}(z)=\bar{A}_{y}^{\mathbf{2}}(z)\equiv A(z)
\end{aligned}
\right.\label{BackgroundAnsatz}$$ and all other background gauge fields vanishing. $z=\infty$ is the boundary and $z=z_{H}$ is the horizon. When $A(z)=0$, the above background, and thus the ground state of the dual field theory, has two separate $U(1)$ symmetries, one related to the rotation in $(x,y)$-plane and the other to the rotation in $(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2})$-vector space. The appearance of non-vanishing $A(z)$ breaks both symmetries, but preserves a combination of them – the $U(1)$ symmetry of the joint rotations by the same angle in both $(x,y)$-plane and $(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2})$-vector space: $$U(1)_{\theta}^{xy}\otimes U(1)_{\phi}^{\mathbf{12}}\rightarrow U(1)_{\theta=\phi}^{xy,\mathbf{12}}\:.$$ We can see that by introducing the non-vanishing $A(z)$ background, the originally separate symmetries in spacetime and $SU(2)$ vector space are “locked” together. Similarly $A(z)$ breaks the separate parity symmetries in both spaces. When $\lambda=0$, i.e. when the $SU(2)$ gauge field becomes a product of three $U(1)$ fields, the joint parity symmetry in both spaces (reflection applied to both $(x,y)$-plane and $(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2})$-vector space simultaneously) is preserved: $$\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{xy}\otimes\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{\mathbf{12}}\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{xy,\mathbf{12}}\:.$$ However, when $\lambda\neq0$, the parity in $(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2})$-vector space is broken explicitly by the non-Abelian gauge connection $\lambda\epsilon^{\mathbf{IJK}}A_{\mu}^{\mathbf{J}}A_{\nu}^{\mathbf{K}}$ in the field strength, thus the parity in $(x,y)$-plane is also broken indirectly by this gauge connection term through the “locking” mechanism introduced by $A(z)$. Now we have a spacetime parity-breaking ground state thus the theory “appears” to be parity-broken and will have non-vanishing parity-violating transport coefficients such as Hall viscosity and Hall conductivity. In summary, to reach a spacetime parity-violating state, we first introduce a non-vanishing $A(z)$ to lock the spacetime symmetries and $SU(2)$ vector space symmetries together, then break the $SU(2)$ parity explicitly by making it non-Abelian, and this breaking will propagate to spatial parity.
The EOMs for background fields are $$\begin{aligned}
2r(z)\left(\frac{d^{2}}{dz^{2}}r(z)\right)+\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)^{2}+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi(z)^{2}}{F(z)^{2}}A(z)^{2} & = & 0\:,\label{EQ1}\\
\left(\frac{d^{2}}{dz^{2}}F(z)\right)-2\frac{F(z)}{r(z)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dz}r(z)\right)^{2}-\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Phi(z)\right)^{2}-\frac{\lambda^{2}}{r(z)^{4}}A(z)^{4} & = & 0\:,\label{EQ2}\\
\frac{d}{dz}\left[r(z)^{2}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Phi(z)\right)\right]-\frac{2\lambda^{2}\Phi(z)}{F(z)}A(z)^{2} & = & 0\:,\label{EQ4}\\
\frac{d}{dz}\left[F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)\right]+\lambda^{2}\left(\frac{\Phi(z)^{2}}{F(z)}-\frac{A(z)^{2}}{r(z)^{2}}\right)A(z) & = & 0\:,\label{EQ3}\end{aligned}$$ with a constraint equation derived from the trace of Einstein equation $$\left(\frac{d^{2}}{dz^{2}}F(z)\right)+4\frac{F(z)}{r(z)}\left(\frac{d^{2}}{dz^{2}}r(z)\right)+2\frac{F(z)}{r(z)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dz}r(z)\right)^{2}+\frac{4}{r(z)}\left(\frac{d}{dz}r(z)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}F(z)\right)=\frac{12}{R^{2}}\:.\label{EQ5}$$ Given that (\[EQ1\])-(\[EQ3\]) are solved, (\[EQ5\]) only fixes an integration constant (near boundary leading order coefficient of $F(z)$) in terms of the AdS radius $R$, thus it is not an independent differential equation, but rather an algebraic equation. This fact will play a role in later calculations.
Boundary Conditions and Thermodynamical Functions
-------------------------------------------------
The boundary conditions are imposed near the boundary $z=\infty$ by requiring the metric goes asymptotic AdS. Solving the above five equations near the boundary, we get $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & r(z)=\frac{z}{R}+r_{1}+O\left(\frac{1}{z^{3}}\right)\\
& F(z)=\left(\frac{z}{R}+r_{1}\right)^{2}+\frac{\Gamma}{z}+O\left(\frac{1}{z^{2}}\right)\\
& \Phi(z)=\Phi_{0}+\frac{\Phi_{1}}{z}+O\left(\frac{1}{z^{2}}\right)\\
& A(z)=\alpha_{0}+\frac{\alpha_{1}}{z}+O\left(\frac{1}{z^{2}}\right)
\end{aligned}
\right.\:,\label{NB Conditions}$$ where $r_{1}$, $\Gamma$, $\Phi_{0}$, $\Phi_{1}$, $\alpha_{0}$ and $\alpha_{1}$ are constants. Two of them will be determined by two physical conditions to be discussed later, and the rest will be determined by the following (regularity) conditions near the horizon $z=z_{H}$: $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & r(z)=r(z_{H})+O\left(z-z_{H}\right)\\
& F(z)=4\pi T(z-z_{H})+O\left((z-z_{H})^{2}\right)\\
& \Phi(z)=O\left(z-z_{H}\right)\\
& A(z)=A(z_{H})+O\left(z-z_{H}\right)
\end{aligned}
\right.\:,\label{NH Conditions}$$ where $T$ is the Hawking temperature of the black hole and equals to the temperature of the field theory system on the boundary. The entropy density $s$, energy density $\varepsilon$, chemical potential $\mu$, charge density $\rho$ and order parameter $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle$ can be expressed in the above asymptotic constants [@Gubser:2008zu]: $$\begin{aligned}
s & = & \frac{2\pi}{\kappa^{2}}r(z_{H})^{2}\:,\label{EntropyDensity}\\
\varepsilon & = & -\frac{\Gamma}{\kappa^{2}R^{2}}\:,\\
\mu & = & \frac{\Phi_{0}}{2R}\:,\\
\rho & = & -\frac{\Phi_{1}}{\kappa^{2}R}\:,\\
\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle & = & \frac{\alpha_{1}}{\kappa^{2}R}\:,\end{aligned}$$ and $\alpha_{0}$ can be identified with an external source $J\sim\alpha_{0}$. Since we are looking for spontaneous symmetry breaking without an external source, the first physical (boundary) condition we impose is the vanishing of the source: $$\alpha_{0}=0\:.\label{NoSource}$$ The second physical condition is to fix either $\rho$ or $\mu$, depending on which ensemble one choose: $$\begin{cases}
\rho=\textrm{constant} & \qquad\textrm{(Canonical\,\ Ensemble)}\\
\mu=\textrm{constant} & \qquad\textrm{(Grand\,\ Canonical\,\ Ensemble)}
\end{cases}\:.\label{EnsembleCondition}$$ The characteristic function of the Canonical Ensemble – the Helmholtz free energy density $f_{\textrm{Helmholtz}}$ and that of the Grand Canonical Ensemble – the Grand Potential density $\Omega_{\textrm{Grand}}$ (equal to minus of the pressure) are $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\textrm{Helmholtz}} & = & \varepsilon-Ts\:,\label{FreeEnergyDef}\\
\Omega_{\textrm{Grand}} & = & f_{\textrm{Helmholtz}}-\mu\rho\:.\label{GrandPotentialDef}\end{aligned}$$
Background On-Shell Action
--------------------------
The on-shell background bulk action is $$\bar{S}_{\textrm{bulk}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int d^{3}x\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}dz\left\{ \sqrt{-\bar{g}}\left[\mathcal{\bar{R}}-2\Lambda-\frac{1}{4}\left(\bar{F}_{\mu\nu}^{\mathbf{I}}\right)^{2}\right]\right\} \:.$$ By adding to the Lagrangian (the integrand inside “$\left\{ \,\right\} $”) the following combination of background equations: $\frac{1}{2}r(z)^{2}\cdot\left[\textrm{(\ref{EQ2})}+\textrm{(\ref{EQ5})}\right]-A(z)\cdot\textrm{(\ref{EQ3})}$, the integrand becomes a total derivative. Noticing the near horizon conditions (\[NH Conditions\]), there is no contribution from the horizon. Thus we have $$\bar{S}_{\textrm{bulk}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int_{z=\infty}d^{3}x\left\{ -F(z)\frac{d}{dz}\left(r(z)^{2}+\frac{1}{2}A(z)^{2}\right)\right\} \:.$$ Together with the on-shell background boundary terms $$\bar{S}_{\textrm{GH}}+\bar{S}_{\textrm{ct}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int_{z=\infty}d^{3}x\left\{ r(z)\left[r(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}F(z)\right)+4F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}r(z)\right)-\frac{4}{R}r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}\right]\right\} \:,$$ the total on-shell background action is $$\bar{S}=\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int_{z=\infty}d^{3}x\left\{ \frac{d}{dz}\left(r(z)^{2}F(z)\right)-F(z)A(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)-\frac{4}{R}r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}\right\} \:.$$ Applying the boundary condition (\[NB Conditions\]) it can be written as $$\bar{S}=\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int_{z=\infty}d^{3}x\frac{-\Gamma+\alpha_{0}\alpha_{1}}{R^{2}}\:.$$ The grand potential density equals to $-T$ multiplying the Euclidean on-shell action ($t$ is integrated from $0$ to $\frac{1}{T}$) mod the volume: $$\Omega_{\textrm{Grand}}=-\frac{T}{V}\bar{S}_{\textrm{Euclidean}}=\frac{\Gamma-\alpha_{0}\alpha_{1}}{2\kappa^{2}R^{2}}\:,\label{GrandPotentialExpression}$$ and by (\[GrandPotentialDef\]) the free energy density is $$f_{\textrm{Helmholtz}}=\frac{\Gamma-\Phi_{0}\Phi_{1}-\alpha_{0}\alpha_{1}}{2\kappa^{2}R^{2}}\:.\label{FreeEnergyExpression}$$
There is a useful identity for the background fields that can directly link the constants in near-boundary conditions (\[NB Conditions\]) to those in near-horizon conditions (\[NH Conditions\]). The combination of background equations $-F(z)\cdot\textrm{(\ref{EQ1})}+r(z)^{2}\cdot\textrm{(\ref{EQ2})}-\Phi(z)\cdot\textrm{(\ref{EQ4})}-A(z)\cdot\textrm{(\ref{EQ3})}$ is a total derivative, thus its integral is a constant: $$r(z)^{2}\frac{d}{dz}\left(F(z)-\frac{1}{2}\Phi(z)^{2}\right)-F(z)\frac{d}{dz}\left(r(z)^{2}+\frac{1}{2}A(z)^{2}\right)=\textrm{constant}\:.$$ Evaluating it at both horizon and boundary using (\[NH Conditions\]) and (\[NB Conditions\]), we have $$4\pi Tr(z_{H})^{2}=\frac{1}{R^{2}}\left(-3\Gamma+\Phi_{0}\Phi_{1}+\alpha_{0}\alpha_{1}\right)\:.\label{HB Relation}$$ So through (\[HB Relation\]) one can see that the free energy density obtained above through the on-shell action and (\[GrandPotentialDef\]) is indeed the same as one can obtain directly from (\[FreeEnergyDef\]) by computing its right hand side.
AdS-Reissner-Nordström Solution
-------------------------------
One solution to equations (\[EQ1\])-(\[EQ5\]) is the AdS-Reissner-Nordström (AdS-RN) solution: $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & r^{(0)}(z)=\frac{z}{R}\\
& F^{(0)}(z)=\frac{z^{2}}{R^{2}}-\left(1+\frac{q^{2}}{4\lambda^{2}R^{2}}\right)\frac{z_{H}^{3}}{R^{2}z}+\frac{q^{2}z_{H}^{4}}{4\lambda^{2}R^{4}z^{2}}\\
& \Phi^{(0)}(z)=\frac{qz_{H}}{\lambda R^{2}}\left(1-\frac{z_{H}}{z}\right)\\
& A^{(0)}(z)=0
\end{aligned}
\right.\:,\label{AdSRN Solution}$$ where $q$ is the dimensionless charge and it is related to the temperature $T$ and other parameters as $$T=\frac{3z_{H}}{4\pi R^{2}}\left(1-\frac{q^{2}}{12\lambda^{2}R^{2}}\right)\:.\label{Temperature}$$ The parameter $q$ and $T$ are confined between two limiting cases - the Schwarzschild limit $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & T=\frac{3z_{H}}{4\pi R^{2}}\\
& q=0
\end{aligned}
\right.\label{Schwarzschild Limit}$$ and the Extremal limit $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & T=0\\
& q=2\sqrt{3}\lambda R
\end{aligned}
\right.\label{Extremal Limit}$$ and as charge $q$ increases, the temperature $T$ decreases. The relation between $\mu$, $\rho$ and $T$ given by the AdS-Reissner-Nordström solution is $$\rho=\frac{4\pi T\mu R^{2}}{3\kappa^{2}}\left(1+\sqrt{1+\frac{3\mu^{2}}{4\pi^{2}T^{2}}}\right)\:.\label{AdSRN Thermal Relation}$$
Analytic Approach to the Symmetry-Breaking Solution
---------------------------------------------------
When the temperature $T$ is below a certain critical temperature $T_{c}$ there exists another non-trivial solution to (\[EQ1\])-(\[EQ5\]) that satisfies boundary conditions (\[NB Conditions\]), (\[NH Conditions\]), (\[NoSource\]) and (\[EnsembleCondition\]). This symmetry-breaking solution have been systematically discussed and numerically computed in [@Gubser:2008zu]. Analytic approaches to solve similar models near the critical temperature in the Probe limit have also been studied in [@Siopsis:2010uq; @Zeng:2010zn]. The Probe limit is where the Yang-Mills coupling $\lambda R\gg1$ while dimensionless charge $q$ is kept finite, or equivalently both chemical potential $\mu$ and charge density $\rho$ are very small compared to temperature $T$. In this limit, the back-reactions from the gauge fields to the metric is negligible at the leading order, so the background metric is an AdS-Schwarzschild black hole. But here, we will propose a more refined perturbative approach based on variational method to solve the system analytically for finite $\lambda R$ near the critical regime. The advantages of our approach are that it is a systematic method to go beyond the Probe limit and compute all the back-reactions between metric and gauge fields, and it is extremely suitable to be directly applied on the analytic computation of Hall viscosity and its ratio to angular momentum density, as will be shown in the next two sections.
Before proceeding to the actual calculation, we will first make a note here about how we will present our finite $\lambda R$ results in this paper. In our calculations we don’t make any assumptions about how big or small $\lambda R$ is. But the expressions we obtain from the variational method for finite $\lambda R$ are usually very complicated and not illuminating. To present them in a better way, for every result we will make a large $\lambda R$ series expansion and keep only the first two leading terms. The leading terms are the same as one can get from the Probe limit; the next-to-leading terms can only be obtained by fully taking into account the back-reactions. The next-to-next-to-leading order terms are usually of order $O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)$ compared to the leading terms. This means that even for, say $\lambda R=2$, the relative error due to the series expansion is just about $6\%$. So it is reasonable to believe that results presented in this way are not only accurate for $\lambda R\gg1$, but also very good down to $\lambda R\sim O\left(1\right)$. The regime where $\lambda R$ is really small and the above series expansion can not hold corresponds to the low temperature limit, and we will deal this regime separately in a late section at the end of this paper. Thus we will eventually get a qualitatively complete result for all possible range of $\lambda R$.
Critical Line and Phase Diagram
-------------------------------
The first step in our analytic approach is to find the expression for the critical temperature $T_{c}$ in terms of other physical parameters, i.e. the phase diagram.
To start, notice that at $T=T_{c}$ the symmetry-breaking solution with $A(z)\neq0$ transits continuously to the AdS-Reissner-Nordström solution with $A(z)=0$. So when $T$ is below but very close to $T_{c}$, $A(z)$ is very small and can be treated perturbatively, thus the non-linear equations (\[EQ1\])-(\[EQ5\]) can be linearized and solved order by order. Let $\epsilon\ll1$ be a book-keeping parameter of the perturbative expansion. It marks the “smallness” of $A(z)$ near the critical temperature, thus marks the deviation from the AdS-Reissner-Nordström solution (\[AdSRN Solution\]) order by order, and at the end we will always set $\epsilon=1$. The ansatz for the background fields is: $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & A(z)=A^{(1)}(z)\epsilon+A^{(2)}(z)\epsilon^{3}+O\left(\epsilon^{5}\right)\\
& r(z)=r^{(0)}(z)+r^{(1)}(z)\epsilon^{2}+r^{(2)}(z)\epsilon^{4}+O\left(\epsilon^{6}\right)\\
& F(z)=F^{(0)}(z)+F^{(1)}(z)\epsilon^{2}+F^{(2)}(z)\epsilon^{4}+O\left(\epsilon^{6}\right)\\
& \Phi(z)=\Phi^{(0)}(z)+\Phi^{(1)}(z)\epsilon^{2}+\Phi^{(2)}(z)\epsilon^{4}+O\left(\epsilon^{6}\right)
\end{aligned}
\:.\right.\label{A_Expansion}$$ The first equation to solve is the linearized equation for $A^{(1)}(z)$ from (\[EQ3\]): $$\frac{d}{dz}\left[F^{(0)}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A^{(1)}(z)\right)\right]+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi^{(0)}(z)^{2}}{F^{(0)}(z)}A^{(1)}(z)=0\:.\label{EQ3_1}$$ Near horizon $z=z_{H}$, this equation has two characteristic solutions for $A^{(1)}(z)$: one is regular and the other contains $\ln(z-z_{H})$. We require $A^{(1)}(z)$ to be regular near horizon, thus choose one of the two integration constants to kill the $\ln(z-z_{H})$ solution. Now for generic parameters this completely fixes the solution (particularly its near-boundary behavior at $z\rightarrow\infty$) up to an overall normalization constant. This means near the boundary $z\rightarrow\infty$ we have $$A^{(1)}(z)=\alpha_{0}^{(1)}+\frac{\alpha_{1}^{(1)}}{z}+O\left(\frac{1}{z^{2}}\right)\:,$$ where $\alpha_{0}^{(1)}$ being a fixed function of all parameters is generally non-vanishing. Thus generally the sourceless condition (\[NoSource\]) can not be achieved only at linear level; its full realization requires the inclusion of higher order terms through the nonlinear term in (\[EQ3\]), and this will also determine the behavior of the order parameter $\alpha_{1}^{(1)}$. However, there are special cases that the sourceless condition (\[NoSource\]) can be achieved at linear level, when the parameters take some special discrete values. This corresponds to an eigenvalue problem for (\[EQ3\_1\]), and the eigensolution with the highest eigenvalue of $T$ (thus the lowest eigenvalue of $q$) corresponds precisely to the case $T=T_{c}$. So we have the condition for the critical temperature: $$\alpha_{0}^{(1)}(T=T_{c},\lambda,\ldots)=0\:.\label{Tc Condition}$$ The above equation gives the expression for $T_{c}$ in terms of the other physical parameters $\lambda,\ldots$, thus the phase diagram.
Given the complicated form of (\[AdSRN Solution\]), (\[EQ3\_1\]) can not be solved analytically in terms of special functions. We use variational method to solve it. Even though this is an approximate method, we will later see that its accuracy is surprisingly high. Solving (\[EQ3\_1\]) with appropriate boundary conditions corresponds to finding the extrema of the action $$I^{(1)}=\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}dz\left[-F^{(0)}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A^{(1)}(z)\right)^{2}+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi^{(0)}(z)^{2}}{F^{(0)}(z)}A^{(1)}(z)^{2}\right]+I_{\textrm{boundary}}^{(1)}\:,$$ where $I_{\textrm{boundary}}^{(1)}$ contains boundary terms such that under given boundary conditions the variational problem is well-defined (i.e. the variations of all boundary terms are vanishing). We have already imposed one regularity condition near the horizon. Given that the blackening function $F^{(0)}(z)$ is vanishing at the horizon, this condition does not introduce any boundary term to $I_{\textrm{boundary}}^{(1)}$. Now we fix the normalization of $A^{(1)}(z)$ by requiring that[^2] $$\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\textrm{ is fixed.}$$ This introduces a boundary term $$I_{\textrm{boundary}}^{(1)}=-\frac{2\alpha_{0}^{(1)}\alpha_{1}^{(1)}}{R^{2}}\:.$$ Now we choose a form of the trial function:[^3] $$A^{(1)}(z)=\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\left(1+\frac{z_{H}}{z}+\frac{z_{H}^{2}}{z^{2}}-\frac{q^{2}z_{H}^{3}}{4\lambda^{2}R^{2}z^{3}}\right)\left(c_{0}^{(1)}+\frac{1-z_{H}c_{0}^{(1)}}{z}+\sum_{i=2}^{n}\frac{c_{i}^{(1)}}{z^{2}}\right)\:,\label{A1_trial}$$ and then compute the action $I^{(1)}$ and solve $c_{i}^{(1)}$ by minimizing it: $$\frac{\partial I^{(1)}}{\partial c_{i}^{(1)}}=0\quad(i=0,2,3,\ldots,n)\:.$$ Notice that given the above trial ansatz, $$\alpha_{0}^{(1)}=c_{0}^{(1)}\alpha_{1}^{(1)}$$ and the condition for critical temperature (\[Tc Condition\]) becomes $c_{0}^{(1)}(T=T_{c},\lambda,\ldots)=0$. We will not give the full expressions for $c_{i}^{(1)}$, since they are messy and interested readers can easily repeat the calculation. The numerator of $c_{0}^{(1)}$ is a bi-polynomial of $q$ and $\lambda R$ with high ranks, and finding the critical temperature according to the condition (\[Tc Condition\]) corresponds to finding the roots of this polynomial: $q=q_{\textrm{root}}(\lambda R)$. However, even for the simplest ansatz the polynomial usually goes beyond rank-5 thus it does not have an explicit analytic expression for its roots. But numeric plot shows that these roots all have similar and simple behaviors in $(q,\lambda R)$-plane: they start at the origin, go closely along the extremal lines (\[Extremal Limit\]) and then at some points turn rapidly to constant-$q$ lines. Thus before the turning point, the solutions are essentially $T=0$. After the turning point, to obtain the constant-$q$ solutions, we can take the $\lambda R\gg1$ limit in the numerator of $c_{0}^{(1)}$ and keeping only the first two leading terms will give good enough results. The actual critical temperature corresponds to the smallest $q_{\textrm{root}}$: $$q_{c}=3.69-\frac{0.662}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\:.\label{Critical Line}$$ To obtain the expression for critical temperature $T_{c}$, we need to use the ensemble conditions (\[EnsembleCondition\]) to convert $z_{H}$ in (\[Temperature\]) to physical parameters. For Canonical ensemble we have $$\frac{T_{c}}{\sqrt{\hat{\rho}}}=1.96\sqrt{\lambda R}\left[1-\frac{1.04}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\label{Tc_Canonical}$$ where $\hat{\rho}=\frac{\kappa^{2}}{(2\pi)^{3}R^{2}}\rho$ as defined in [@Gubser:2008zu]. For Grand Canonical ensemble we have $$\frac{T_{c}}{\mu}=0.129\lambda R\left[1-\frac{0.954}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\label{Tc_Grand}$$ where $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. From the above two expressions we can see that $T_{c}$ will reach zero at a critical coupling around $\lambda_{c}R\approx1$. We will deal with $T\rightarrow0$ limit separately later to give a more accurate expression for this critical coupling $\lambda_{c}$. The phase diagrams are shown in Figure \[Fig:PhaseDiagrams\]. Comparing with the numeric plot FIG.1(A) and equation (B8) in [@Gubser:2008zu] we see quantitatively they are almost the same. Away from but close to the critical line (\[Critical Line\]) we find $$\begin{aligned}
c_{0}^{(1)} & = & \frac{1}{\kappa R^{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{\rho\lambda}}\left[-2.10+\frac{8.31}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{\mu\lambda R^{3}}\left[-1.01+\frac{1.80}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:,\label{c0_1}\end{aligned}$$ where the first line is for Canonical ensemble and second line Grand Canonical ensemble. This result will be very useful later.
![Phase diagrams for Canonical ensemble (left) and Grand Canonical ensemble (right). The blue lines are the critical lines given by equations (\[Tc\_Canonical\]) and (\[Tc\_Grand\]). The shaded areas are the superconducting/superfluid phase and the unshaded areas the normal phase.[]{data-label="Fig:PhaseDiagrams"}](PhaseDiagram_Canonical "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![Phase diagrams for Canonical ensemble (left) and Grand Canonical ensemble (right). The blue lines are the critical lines given by equations (\[Tc\_Canonical\]) and (\[Tc\_Grand\]). The shaded areas are the superconducting/superfluid phase and the unshaded areas the normal phase.[]{data-label="Fig:PhaseDiagrams"}](PhaseDiagram_Grand "fig:"){width="7cm"}
Near-Critical Behavior of Order Parameter
-----------------------------------------
Now going back to the boundary condition (\[Tc Condition\]), we can see away from but close to $T_{c}$, we have $$\alpha_{0}^{(1)}{\Big|_{T\rightarrow T_{c}}}=-a^{(1)}\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:,\label{alpha1_0}$$ where $a^{(1)}$ is a positive quantity one can retrieve from (\[c0\_1\]). The fulfillment of the sourceless condition (\[NoSource\]) now requires to include the next order solution: $$\alpha_{0}^{(1)}+\alpha_{0}^{(2)}{\Big|_{T\rightarrow T_{c}}}=0\:,\label{NoSource_2}$$ where near the boundary $$A^{(2)}(z)=\alpha_{0}^{(2)}+\frac{\alpha_{1}^{(2)}}{z}+O\left(\frac{1}{z^{2}}\right)\:.\label{A2_NB}$$
To proceed, we need to solve the other first order fields $r^{(1)}(z)$, $F^{(1)}(z)$ and $\Phi^{(1)}(z)$ first. They satisfy a set of coupled second order inhomogeneous linear equations derived from (\[EQ1\])-(\[EQ4\]), with all source terms quadratic in $A^{(1)}(z)$. These equations can be all put to integrable forms using the $O\left(\epsilon^{2}\right)$ order of the trace equation (\[EQ5\]) and background equations which (\[AdSRN Solution\]) satisfies, and then be integrated out one by one. The results are listed in Appendix (C), with six arbitrary integration constants $C_{1}$-$C_{6}$ to be fixed by appropriate boundary conditions. $C_{1}$ is fixed by requiring that $r(z)$ goes asymptotically AdS near the boundary, that is, there is no $z$ term in $r^{(1)}(z)$ when $z\rightarrow\infty$. We also require $F(z)\rightarrow4\pi T(z-z_{H})$ near the horizon, which means both the horizon position $z_{H}$ and the AdS-RN temperature-charge relation (\[Temperature\]) are unchanged in the presence of the condensate $A^{(1)}(z)$. This implies $F^{(1)}(z)\rightarrow O\left((z-z_{H})^{2}\right)$, which fixes $C_{5}$ and $C_{6}$ in terms of the other constants through the vanishing of constant and linear terms near horizon. Notice that the asymptotic AdS requirement for $F^{(1)}(z)$ is automatically satisfied, thus fixes no more constant. The $O\left(\epsilon^{2}\right)$ order of the trace equation listed in Appendix (C) fixes the constant $C_{2}$ in terms of the remaining. When solving this equation, one shall bear in mind that the equation (\[EQ3\_1\]) is not solved exactly, but just approximately by variational method. The consequence of that is that the $O\left(\epsilon^{2}\right)$ order trace equation will never be solved exactly either. To avoid this complication, we shall not require that the whole trace equation hold; instead, we will just look at the near boundary leading order of its left hand side and require this term alone to vanish. It is not hard to see that all the non-vanishing near boundary sub-leading orders we have omitted here are a consequence of (\[EQ3\_1\]) being solved approximately, and if (\[EQ3\_1\]) was solved exactly, they will all vanish automatically. Now we are left with two constants $C_{3}$ and $C_{4}$ to be fixed by conditions for $\Phi^{(1)}(z)$. One condition is obvious: we require $\Phi^{(1)}(z)\rightarrow O\left(z-z_{H}\right)$ near horizon such that $\Phi(z)\rightarrow O\left(z-z_{H}\right)$ in (\[NH Conditions\]) holds. The vanishing of the near-horizon constant term fixes one of $C_{3}$ and $C_{4}$ in term of the other. By now, we have essentially exhausted all the boundary conditions we *must* impose for $r^{(1)}(z)$, $F^{(1)}(z)$ and $\Phi^{(1)}(z)$ that are consequences of (\[NB Conditions\]) and (\[NH Conditions\]), but we are still left with an undetermined constant, basically a combination of $C_{3}$ and $C_{4}$. This is not surprising, because this is just a reflection of gauge freedoms related to $\Phi^{(1)}(z)$ and other fields at this order: the undetermined constant is associated with a pure-gauge solution, and this constant, if kept arbitrary, will not appear in any physical results that are expressed in terms of *physical* variables such as $T$, $\rho$, $\mu$ and $\lambda$ (note that $q$ and $z_{H}$ are *not* physical variables). We have explicitly verified this claim by keeping this constant arbitrary in all follow-up computations. But to make the computations more compact and transparent, we can use the gauge freedom to fix this arbitrary constant. There are two natural choices: if we choose to work in Canonical ensemble, in which $\rho\sim\Phi_{1}$ is kept fixed, we will hope that $\Phi_{1}$ is not altered in the presence of $A^{(1)}(z)$, thus we can require $\Phi^{(1)}(z)\rightarrow\textrm{const.}+O\left(z^{-2}\right)$, i.e. $\Phi_{1}=\Phi_{1}^{(0)}$ and $\Phi_{1}^{(1)}=0$; on the other hand, if we choose to work in Grand Canonical ensemble, in which $\mu\sim\Phi_{0}$ is fixed, we can require $\Phi^{(1)}(z)\rightarrow O\left(z^{-1}\right)$, i.e. $\Phi_{0}=\Phi_{0}^{(0)}$ and $\Phi_{0}^{(1)}=0$, which means $\Phi_{0}$ is not altered in the presence of $A^{(1)}(z)$. Both choices, among others, shall give the same physical results at the end.
Since the actual calculation based on $A^{(1)}(z)$ obtained from variational method gives extremely baroque expressions for $r^{(1)}(z)$, $\Phi^{(1)}(z)$ and $F^{(1)}(z)$ (as well as all second order fields to be discussed later), we will not give their explicit expressions in this paper. Interested readers should be able to repeat our calculation easily following the procedures we have outlined here. We will only list some simple key results derived from them.
We are now at a position to solve second order fields. $A^{(2)}(z)$ satisfies $$\frac{d}{dz}\left[F^{(0)}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A^{(2)}(z)\right)\right]+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi^{(0)}(z)^{2}}{F^{(0)}(z)}A^{(2)}(z)+\Upsilon^{(2)}(z)=0\:,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Upsilon^{(2)}(z) & = & \left(\frac{d}{dz}A^{(1)}(z)\right)\left[\left(\frac{d}{dz}F^{(1)}(z)\right)-\frac{F^{(1)}(z)}{F^{(0)}(z)}\left(\frac{d}{dz}F^{(0)}(z)\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & -\lambda^{2}A^{(1)}(z)\left(\frac{A^{(1)}(z)^{2}}{r^{(0)}(z)^{2}}+2\frac{\Phi^{(0)}(z)^{2}F^{(1)}(z)}{F^{(0)}(z)^{2}}-2\frac{\Phi^{(0)}(z)\Phi^{(1)}(z)}{F^{(0)}(z)}\right)\end{aligned}$$ is a known source function in terms of the above solved first order fields. The action associated with the variational problem is $$I^{(2)}=\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}dz\left[-F^{(0)}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A^{(2)}(z)\right)^{2}+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi^{(0)}(z)^{2}}{F^{(0)}(z)}A^{(2)}(z)^{2}+2\Upsilon^{(2)}(z)A^{(2)}(z)\right]+I_{\textrm{boundary}}^{(2)}\:.$$ Since $A^{(2)}(z)$ satisfies an inhomogeneous equation with a source $\Upsilon^{(2)}(z)$, we can impose two boundary conditions to completely determine $A^{(2)}(z)$ in term of $\Upsilon^{(2)}(z)$: one is again the regularity condition near the horizon, and the second is chosen to be $$\alpha_{1}^{(2)}=0\:,$$ where $\alpha_{1}^{(2)}$ is defined in (\[A2\_NB\]). Actually in the perturbative expansion of $A(z)$, the splitting between $A^{(1)}(z)$ and $A^{(2)}(z)$ is arbitrary: one can always take a small part of $A^{(1)}(z)$ which is of the same order of $A^{(2)}(z)$ and sneak it into the latter and the perturbative expansion still holds. The meaning of the above boundary condition is just to make the splitting unique, or equivalently one can think it is the definition of $A^{(1)}(z)$. The above boundary condition introduces no more boundary term since itself is vanishing, thus $$I_{\textrm{boundary}}^{(2)}=0\:.$$ Using a trial ansatz $$A^{(2)}(z)=\left(1+\frac{z_{H}}{z}+\frac{z_{H}^{2}}{z^{2}}-\frac{q^{2}z_{H}^{3}}{4\lambda^{2}R^{2}z^{3}}\right)\left(\alpha_{0}^{(2)}-\frac{z_{H}\alpha_{0}^{(2)}}{z}+\sum_{i=2}^{n}\frac{c_{i}^{(2)}}{z^{2}}\right)$$ we can solve $\alpha_{0}^{(2)}$ and $c_{i}^{(2)}$ in a similar fashion as before. Since the source $\Upsilon^{(2)}(z)$ is cubic in $A^{(1)}(z)$ thus cubic in $\alpha_{1}^{(1)}$, it’s not hard to see that close to $T_{c}$ $$\alpha_{0}^{(2)}{\Big|_{T\rightarrow T_{c}}}=a^{(2)}\left(\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\right)^{3}\:.$$ $a^{(2)}$ is a positive quantity in terms of other parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
a^{(2)} & = & \frac{1}{\kappa^{5}R^{\frac{7}{2}}\rho^{\frac{5}{2}}\sqrt{\lambda}}\left[1.44-\frac{3.98}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{R^{11}\mu^{5}\lambda^{3}}\left[0.688-\frac{0.783}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\:,\label{a_2}\end{aligned}$$ where the first line is for Canonical ensemble and the second line Grand Canonical ensemble. Now the sourceless condition (\[NoSource\_2\]) reads $$-a^{(1)}\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\left(T_{c}-T\right)+a^{(2)}\left(\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\right)^{3}=0\:.$$ Since both $a^{(1)}$ and $a^{(2)}$ are positive,[^4] when $T>T_{c}$ there is only one trivial solution $\alpha_{1}^{(1)}=0$, which means $A(z)=0$. This reproduces the AdS-RN solution and shows it is the only possible solution when $T>T_{c}$. When $T<T_{c}$ there is another non-trivial solution $$\alpha_{1}^{(1)}=\left(\frac{a^{(1)}}{a^{(2)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{T_{c}-T}\qquad\quad(T<T_{c})\:,$$ which yields a non-vanishing $A(z)$. Notice that $\alpha_{1}$ is proportional to the order parameter $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle$, we obtain $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle\sim\sqrt{T_{c}-T}\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)$, which agrees with Ginzburg-Landau theory. For Canonical ensemble, we get[^5] $$\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle}{\rho}=1.21\left[1-\frac{0.594}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:.\label{eq:Condensate_Canon}$$ For Grand Canonical ensemble $$\frac{\langle\mathcal{\hat{O}}\rangle}{\mu^{2}}=4.88\times10^{-3}\lambda R\left[1-\frac{0.322}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:,\label{eq:Condensate_GrandCanon}$$ where $\langle\mathcal{\hat{O}}\rangle=\frac{\kappa^{2}}{(2\pi)^{3}R^{2}}\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle$ as defined in [@Gubser:2008zu].
Near-Critical Behaviors of Charge Density and Chemical Potential
----------------------------------------------------------------
We can also compute the change of chemical potential $\mu$ or charge density $\rho$, when the other one is fixed, as a function of $T_{c}-T$ near the critical temperature. There are two contributions to it. The first one is from the AdS-RN part $\Phi^{(0)}$, which we can obtain by directly vary (\[AdSRN Thermal Relation\]), and it is proportional to $T_{c}-T$. The second contribution is from $\Phi^{(1)}$, by computing either $\Phi_{1}^{(1)}$ for $\rho$ or $\Phi_{0}^{(1)}$ for $\mu$, which is proportional to $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle^{2}$, thus also to $T_{c}-T$. So we can see that they are of the same order. For Canonical ensemble, we get $$\mu-\mu_{c}=0.165\sqrt{\frac{\rho}{\lambda}}\frac{\kappa}{R^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left[1-\frac{1.63}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:,$$ where $$\mu_{c}(\rho,\lambda)=0.960\sqrt{\frac{\rho}{\lambda}}\frac{\kappa}{R^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left[1-\frac{0.0898}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\:.$$ For Grand Canonical ensemble we get $$\rho-\rho_{c}=-0.318\lambda\mu^{2}\frac{R^{3}}{\kappa^{2}}\left[1-\frac{1.04}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:,$$ where $\rho_{c}(\mu,\lambda)$ can be obtained by inverting the above expression of $\mu_{c}(\rho,\lambda)$.
Now we can rewrite $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle$ in terms of $\mu-\mu_{c}$ and $\rho-\rho_{c}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle & = & 2.98\lambda^{\frac{1}{4}}\rho^{\frac{3}{4}}\frac{R^{\frac{3}{4}}}{\sqrt{\kappa}}\left[1+\frac{0.220}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\sqrt{\mu-\mu_{c}}\theta\left(\mu-\mu_{c}\right)\nonumber \\
& = & 2.15\sqrt{\lambda}\mu\frac{R^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\kappa}\left[1+\frac{0.197}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\sqrt{\rho_{c}-\rho}\theta\left(\rho_{c}-\rho\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$ where the first line is for Canonical ensemble and second line Grand Canonical ensemble. The critical line has $$\mu-\mu_{c}=\frac{\partial\mu_{c}}{\partial\rho}\left(\rho-\rho_{c}\right)=\frac{0.480}{\sqrt{\lambda\rho}}\left[1-\frac{0.0898}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\frac{\kappa}{R^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left(\rho-\rho_{c}\right)\:.\label{CriticalDeriv}$$ It is straightforward to check that if the calculation is consistent, then the ratio of the first line over the second line in the above expression of $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle$ shall be $1$ if we substitute in the absolute value of (\[CriticalDeriv\]). We get $$1.00+\frac{0.067}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\:.$$ We believe the $\lambda R$ term is a numeric error because the variational method is approximate. So within this error our calculation for the two ensembles is consistent.
Near-Critical Behaviors of Characteristic Functions
---------------------------------------------------
Next it is straightforward to solve other second order fields $r^{(2)}(z)$, $F^{(2)}(z)$ and $\Phi^{(2)}(z)$ following the same procedures for first order fields as discussed before, then use (\[FreeEnergyExpression\]) and (\[GrandPotentialExpression\]) to compute characteristic functions for the two ensembles. For Canonical ensemble, we find the free energy density of the unbroken phase (pure AdS-RN background) is $$f_{\textrm{Helmholtz}}^{(0)}=-\frac{32\pi^{3}R^{2}}{27\kappa^{2}}T^{3}+\frac{3\kappa^{2}}{8\pi R^{2}}\frac{\rho^{2}}{T}+O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}\right)$$ and the free energy density difference between the broken phase ($A(z)\neq0$) and unbroken phase near the critical temperature is $$\Delta f_{\textrm{Helmholtz}}=-\frac{6.45}{\lambda R}\rho T_{c}\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)^{2}\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda^{3}}\right)\:,$$ while for Grand Canonical ensemble the grand potential density of the unbroken phase is $$\Omega_{\textrm{Grand}}^{(0)}=-\frac{32\pi^{3}R^{2}}{27\kappa^{2}}T^{3}+O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}\right)$$ and the grand potential density difference between the broken and unbroken phase near the critical temperature is $$\Delta\hat{\Omega}_{\textrm{Grand}}=-1.61\times10^{-3}\lambda R\mu^{3}\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)^{2}\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}\right)\:,$$ where $\hat{\Omega}_{\textrm{Grand}}=\frac{\kappa^{2}}{(2\pi)^{3}R^{2}}\Omega_{\textrm{Grand}}$. Notice that in both cases, below $T_{c}$ the broken phase has lower free energy (grand potential) density than the unbroken phase, so it is the preferred phase and the phase transition can indeed happen; and the fact that the characteristic functions are quadratic in $T_{c}-T$ indicates that this is a second order phase transition.
Tensor Mode Fluctuations and Viscosities
========================================
Mode Classification
-------------------
We now look at metric and gauge field fluctuations in the background (\[BackgroundAnsatz\]). Their EOMs are given by (\[LinearEinstein\]) and (\[LinearYangMills\]). We will work in momentum space where coordinates $(t,x,y)$ are Fourier transformed to momentum $(\omega,k_{x},k_{y})$. All fluctuations in (\[LinearEinstein\]) and (\[LinearYangMills\]) are highly coupled with each others, mainly because the joint $U(1)$ symmetry in $(x,y)$-plane and $(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2})$-vector space is now broken explicitly by any non-zero spatial momentum vector $\vec{k}=(k_{x},k_{y})\neq0$. In this case the usual classification of tensor, vector (shear) and scalar (sound) modes are not very helpful because they do not decouple from each other. However, since we are only interested in viscosities, which are only related to $\omega$ terms in the correlation functions, we can assume the fluctuations to be spatially homogeneous, i.e. $\vec{k}=0$. Now the joint $U(1)$ symmetry is respected and we find there are indeed three decoupled modes, which behave as tensor, vector and scalar under the joint rotation of both $(x,y)$-plane and $(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2})$-vector space by the same angle:
- Tensor mode: {$h_{xy}$, $a_{y}^{\mathbf{1}}+a_{x}^{\mathbf{2}}$}, [\[]{}$h_{xx}-h_{yy}$, $a_{x}^{\mathbf{1}}-a_{y}^{\mathbf{2}}$[\]]{};
- Vector mode: {$h_{tx}+h_{ty}$, $h_{xz}+h_{yz}$, $a_{t}^{\mathbf{1}}+a_{t}^{\mathbf{2}}$, $a_{z}^{\mathbf{1}}+a_{z}^{\mathbf{2}}$, $a_{x}^{\mathbf{3}}+a_{y}^{\mathbf{3}}$}, [\[]{}$h_{tx}-h_{ty}$, $h_{xz}-h_{yz}$, $a_{t}^{\mathbf{1}}-a_{t}^{\mathbf{2}}$, $a_{z}^{\mathbf{1}}-a_{z}^{\mathbf{2}}$, $a_{x}^{\mathbf{3}}-a_{y}^{\mathbf{3}}$[\]]{};
- Scalar mode: $h_{tt}$, $h_{zz}$, $h_{zt}$, $h_{xx}+h_{yy}$, $a_{t}^{\mathbf{3}}$, $a_{z}^{\mathbf{3}}$, $a_{x}^{\mathbf{1}}+a_{y}^{\mathbf{2}}$, $a_{y}^{\mathbf{1}}-a_{x}^{\mathbf{2}}$.
The EOM for each combination of fields listed above is just the same combination of corresponding components of (\[LinearEinstein\]) or (\[LinearYangMills\]). Notice that above in both tensor and vector mode we group the fields into two brackets: the ones in “{ }” are all even under the joint parity operation - the simultaneously exchange of $x\leftrightarrow y$ and $\mathbf{1}\leftrightarrow\mathbf{2}$, while those in “[\[]{} [\]]{}” are all odd. When this joint parity is a symmetry of the system, the fields in each bracket do not mix with those in the other bracket, thus inside each of tensor and vector modes there are two decoupled sub-modes which are eigenstates of the joint parity. However, here the non-Abelian coupling $\lambda$ explicitly breaks the joint parity, so fields in two brackets do mix, and one can expect that the mixing terms must all proportional to $\lambda$.
Tensor Mode EOMs
----------------
We now focus on tensor mode fluctuations, through which we will obtain viscosities. For concreteness, we define shorthand notations $$\begin{aligned}
h_{xy}\equiv r(z)^{2}h_{e}(\omega,z)\:,\quad\quad & \quad\quad\frac{1}{2}\left(a_{y}^{\mathbf{1}}+a_{x}^{\mathbf{2}}\right)\equiv a_{e}(\omega,z)\:,\\
\frac{1}{2}\left(h_{xx}-h_{yy}\right)\equiv r(z)^{2}h_{o}(\omega,z)\:,\quad\quad & \quad\quad\frac{1}{2}\left(a_{x}^{\mathbf{1}}-a_{y}^{\mathbf{2}}\right)\equiv a_{o}(\omega,z)\:,\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $e$ or $o$ means whether that field is even or odd under the joint parity operation. Using background equations (\[EQ1\])-(\[EQ5\]), the equations that the above fields satisfy can be put into the following forms: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dz}\left[r(z)^{2}F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}h_{i}(\omega,z)\right)\right] & = & S_{i}^{h}(\omega,z;\lambda)\:,\label{EOM_h_tensor}\\
\frac{d}{dz}\left[F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}a_{i}(\omega,z)\right)\right]+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi(z)^{2}}{F(z)}a_{i}(\omega,z) & = & S_{i}^{a}(\omega,z;\lambda)\:,\label{EOM_a_tensor}\end{aligned}$$ where $i,\, j=e,\, o$[^6] and the sources are $$\begin{aligned}
S_{i}^{h}(\omega,z;\lambda) & = & -\left[\omega^{2}\frac{r(z)^{2}}{F(z)}+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi(z)^{2}}{F(z)}A(z)^{2}-F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)^{2}\right]h_{i}(\omega,z)\nonumber \\
& & +2\left[-F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}a_{i}(\omega,z)\right)+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi(z)^{2}}{F(z)}A(z)a_{i}(\omega,z)\right]\\
& & +2i\omega\frac{\lambda\Phi(z)}{F(z)}A(z)\epsilon_{ij}a_{j}(\omega,z)\:,\nonumber \\
S_{i}^{a}(\omega,z;\lambda) & = & \left[F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}h_{i}(\omega,z)\right)+\frac{\lambda^{2}}{r(z)^{2}}A(z)^{3}h_{i}(\omega,z)\right]\nonumber \\
& & -\left(\frac{\omega^{2}}{F(z)}+\frac{\lambda^{2}}{r(z)^{2}}A(z)^{2}\right)a_{i}(\omega,z)\\
& & +i\omega\frac{\lambda\Phi(z)}{F(z)}\epsilon_{ij}\left[A(z)h_{j}(\omega,z)-2a_{j}(\omega,z)\right]\:.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The totally antisymmetric “tensor” $\epsilon_{ij}$ is defined as $\epsilon_{eo}=-\epsilon_{oe}=1$, $\epsilon_{ee}=\epsilon_{oo}=0$ and the repeated subscript $j$ is summed over $e$ and $o$. Since we are only interested in the hydrodynamic regime where momentum is small compared to other scales ($\omega\ll2\pi T$), we can treat $\omega$ perturbatively. Furthermore, we focus on near-critical behaviors of the transport coefficients, so we can treat $A(z)$ perturbatively as well. Noticing that every term in $S_{i}^{h}(\omega,z;\lambda)$ and $S_{i}^{a}(\omega,z;\lambda)$ is proportional to either $\omega$ or $A(z)$, all sources can be treated perturbatively. We will expand all fields $h_{i}(\omega,z)$ and $a_{i}(\omega,z)$ as double series of $\omega$ and $A(z)$ and (\[EOM\_h\_tensor\]) and (\[EOM\_a\_tensor\]) can be solved order by order by just integrating the sources. It’s straightforward to integrate (\[EOM\_h\_tensor\]), but for (\[EOM\_a\_tensor\]) it’s not that obvious because the appearance of $a_{i}(\omega,z)$ term on the left hand side spoils the apparent integrability. To integrate (\[EOM\_a\_tensor\]), we need to use its Green’s functions (bulk-to-bulk propagators in the context of holography), which are worked out in Appendix (A).
Boundary-to-Bulk Propagators
----------------------------
First let us solve the indicial equations of (\[EOM\_h\_tensor\]) and (\[EOM\_a\_tensor\]) near the boundary and horizon to get the solution’s asymptotic behaviors. Using (\[NH Conditions\]) in (\[EOM\_h\_tensor\]) and (\[EOM\_a\_tensor\]) we get $$h_{i}(\omega,z),\, a_{i}(\omega,z)\rightarrow(z-z_{H})^{\pm i\frac{\omega}{4\pi T}}\qquad\quad(z\rightarrow z_{H})$$ and using (\[NB Conditions\]) we get $$\begin{cases}
h_{i}(\omega,z)\rightarrow1\;\;\textrm{or}\;\; z^{-3}\\
a_{i}(\omega,z)\rightarrow1\;\;\textrm{or}\;\; z^{-1}
\end{cases}\qquad(z\rightarrow\infty)\:.$$ We turn on only the $h_{i}$ boundary fields $\bar{h}_{i}$ since we are only interested in calculating the energy-stress tensor correlators, so the boundary condition we impose is: $$\begin{cases}
h_{i}(\omega,z)\rightarrow\bar{h}_{i}\\
a_{i}(\omega,z)\rightarrow0
\end{cases}\qquad(z\rightarrow\infty)\:.$$ Following [@Herzog:2002pc; @Barnes:2010jp; @Arnold:2011ja] we choose the incoming wave condition near the horizon: $$h_{i}(\omega,z),\, a_{i}(\omega,z)\rightarrow(z-z_{H})^{-i\frac{\omega}{4\pi T}}\qquad\quad(z\rightarrow z_{H})\:.$$
Following Appendix (A), let us assume that $\Theta_{m}(z)$ ($m=<,>$) are the two independent solutions to the homogeneous equation associated with (\[EOM\_a\_tensor\]): $$\frac{d}{dz}\left[F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Theta_{m}(z)\right)\right]+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi(z)^{2}}{F(z)}\Theta_{m}(z)=0\label{Theta_EOM}$$ with the boundary condition $$\begin{cases}
\Theta_{<}(z)\textrm{ is regular} & \qquad(z\rightarrow z_{H})\\
\Theta_{>}(z)\rightarrow O\left(z^{-1}\right) & \qquad(z\rightarrow\infty)
\end{cases}\:.$$ Notice that given the above boundary condition, usually $\Theta_{<}(z)\rightarrow\textrm{constant}$ when $z\rightarrow\infty$. Assume $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & \Theta_{<}(z)=B_{<}+O\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)\\
& \Theta_{>}(z)=\frac{B_{>}}{z}+O\left(\frac{1}{z^{2}}\right)
\end{aligned}
\qquad(z\rightarrow\infty)\:,\right.\label{Theta_NB}$$ then the normalization constant is $$N_{r}=F(z)\textrm{Wr}\left[\Theta_{<}(z),\Theta_{>}(z)\right]=-\frac{B_{<}B_{>}}{R^{2}}\:.\label{Nr_const}$$
Now we list the solution to (\[EOM\_h\_tensor\]) and (\[EOM\_a\_tensor\]) as a double series expansion of small $\omega$ and $A(z)$ up to orders $O\left(\omega\right)$ and $O\left(A(z)^{4}\right)$: $$\begin{aligned}
h_{i}(\omega,z) & = & \left(\frac{z-z_{H}}{z}\right)^{-i\frac{\omega}{4\pi T}}\left\{ \bar{h}_{i}+\sum_{j=1}^{4}h_{i}^{(0j)}(z)+i\omega\left(\sum_{j=0}^{4}h_{i}^{(1j)}(z)\right)+O\left(\omega^{2},A(z)^{5}\right)\right\} \:,\nonumber \\
\label{h_propagator}\\
a_{i}(\omega,z) & = & \left(\frac{z-z_{H}}{z}\right)^{-i\frac{\omega}{4\pi T}}\left\{ \sum_{j=0}^{4}a_{i}^{(0j)}(z)+i\omega\left(\sum_{j=0}^{4}a_{i}^{(1j)}(z)\right)+O\left(\omega^{2},A(z)^{5}\right)\right\} \:,\label{a_propagator}\end{aligned}$$ where each term carries two superscripts: the first one labels order in $\omega$ and the second one order in $A(z)$. Many of them are vanishing and we list below only the non-vanishing ones: $$\begin{aligned}
h_{i}^{(02)}(z) & = & \bar{h}_{i}\int_{\infty}^{z}d\xi\frac{A(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)\:,\\
a_{i}^{(03)}(z) & = & \bar{h}_{i}\frac{1}{N_{r}}\Bigg\{-\Theta_{<}(z)\int_{\infty}^{z}d\xi\Theta_{>}(\xi)\frac{A(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left[F(\xi)\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)^{2}+\lambda^{2}A(\xi)^{2}\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\quad+\Theta_{>}(z)\int_{z_{H}}^{z}d\xi\Theta_{<}(\xi)\frac{A(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left[F(\xi)\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)^{2}+\lambda^{2}A(\xi)^{2}\right]\Bigg\}\:,\\
h_{i}^{(04)}(z) & = & \bar{h}_{i}h^{(04)}(z)\:,\\
h_{i}^{(10)}(z) & = & \bar{h}_{i}\left\{ \frac{1}{4\pi T}\ln\left(\frac{z-z_{H}}{z}\right)-r(z_{H})^{2}\int_{\infty}^{z}d\xi\frac{1}{r(\xi)^{2}F(\xi)}\right\} \:,\\
a_{i}^{(11)}(z) & = & \bar{h}_{i}\frac{r(z_{H})^{2}}{N_{r}}\Bigg\{\Theta_{<}(z)\int_{\infty}^{z}d\xi\Theta_{>}(\xi)\frac{1}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad\quad-\Theta_{>}(z)\int_{z_{H}}^{z}d\xi\Theta_{<}(\xi)\frac{1}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)\Bigg\}\\
& & +\epsilon_{ij}\bar{h}_{j}\frac{\lambda}{N_{r}}\left\{ \Theta_{>}(z)\int_{z_{H}}^{z}d\xi\Theta_{<}(\xi)\frac{\Phi(\xi)A(\xi)}{F(\xi)}-\Theta_{<}(z)\int_{\infty}^{z}d\xi\Theta_{>}(\xi)\frac{\Phi(\xi)A(\xi)}{F(\xi)}\right\} \:,\nonumber \\
h_{i}^{(12)}(z) & = & \bar{h}_{i}\Bigg\{\left[\frac{1}{4\pi T}\ln\left(\frac{z-z_{H}}{z}\right)-r(z_{H})^{2}\int_{\infty}^{z}d\rho\frac{1}{r(\rho)^{2}F(\rho)}\right]\int_{\infty}^{z}d\xi\frac{A(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\quad+2r(z_{H})^{2}\int_{\infty}^{z}d\rho\frac{1}{r(\rho)^{2}F(\rho)}\int_{z_{H}}^{\rho}d\xi\frac{A(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\quad+2\frac{r(z_{H})^{2}}{N_{r}}\Bigg[\int_{\infty}^{z}d\rho\frac{\Theta_{>}(\rho)}{r(\rho)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\rho}A(\rho)\right)\int_{z_{H}}^{\rho}d\xi\frac{\Theta_{<}(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\quad-\int_{\infty}^{z}d\rho\frac{\Theta_{<}(\rho)}{r(\rho)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\rho}A(\rho)\right)\int_{\infty}^{\rho}d\xi\frac{\Theta_{>}(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)\Bigg]\Bigg\}\\
& & +\epsilon_{ij}\bar{h}_{j}\frac{2\lambda}{N_{r}}\Bigg\{\int_{\infty}^{z}d\rho\frac{\Theta_{<}(\rho)}{r(\rho)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\rho}A(\rho)\right)\int_{\infty}^{\rho}d\xi\frac{\Theta_{>}(\xi)\Phi(\xi)A(\xi)}{F(\xi)}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad\quad-\int_{\infty}^{z}d\rho\frac{\Theta_{>}(\rho)}{r(\rho)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\rho}A(\rho)\right)\int_{z_{H}}^{\rho}d\xi\frac{\Theta_{<}(\xi)\Phi(\xi)A(\xi)}{F(\xi)}\Bigg\}\:,\nonumber \\
a_{i}^{(13)}(z) & = & \bar{h}_{i}a^{(13)}(z)\\
& & +\epsilon_{ij}\bar{h}_{j}\frac{\lambda}{N_{r}}\left\{ \Theta_{>}(z)\int_{z_{H}}^{z}d\xi\Theta_{<}(\xi)S^{(13)}(\xi)-\Theta_{<}(z)\int_{\infty}^{z}d\xi\Theta_{>}(\xi)S^{(13)}(\xi)\right\} \:,\nonumber \\
h_{i}^{(14)}(z) & = & \bar{h}_{i}h^{(14)}(z)+\epsilon_{ij}\bar{h}_{j}\lambda\left\{ \int_{\infty}^{z}d\rho\frac{1}{r(\rho)^{2}F(\rho)}\left[\int_{z_{H}}^{\rho}d\xi S_{\textrm{Hall}}(\xi)+S_{\textrm{null}}(\rho)\right]\right\} \:,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(13)}(\xi) & = & \frac{\Phi(\xi)A(\xi)}{F(\xi)}\int_{\infty}^{\xi}d\rho\frac{A(\rho)}{r(\rho)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\rho}A(\rho)\right)+\frac{1}{N_{r}r(\xi)^{2}}\left[2F(\xi)\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)^{2}+\lambda^{2}A(\xi)^{2}\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\quad\times\left(\Theta_{<}(\xi)\int_{\infty}^{\xi}d\rho\Theta_{>}(\rho)\frac{\Phi(\rho)A(\rho)}{F(\rho)}-\Theta_{>}(\xi)\int_{z_{H}}^{\xi}d\rho\Theta_{<}(\rho)\frac{\Phi(\rho)A(\rho)}{F(\rho)}\right)\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{2\Phi(\xi)}{N_{r}F(\xi)}\Bigg\{\Theta_{<}(\xi)\int_{\infty}^{\xi}d\rho\Theta_{>}(\rho)\frac{A(\rho)}{r(\rho)^{2}}\left[F(\rho)\left(\frac{d}{d\rho}A(\rho)\right)^{2}+\lambda^{2}A(\rho)^{2}\right]\\
& & \qquad\quad-\Theta_{>}(\xi)\int_{z_{H}}^{\xi}d\rho\Theta_{<}(\rho)\frac{A(\rho)}{r(\rho)^{2}}\left[F(\rho)\left(\frac{d}{d\rho}A(\rho)\right)^{2}+\lambda^{2}A(\rho)^{2}\right]\Bigg\}\:,\nonumber \\
S_{\textrm{null}}(\rho) & = & F(\rho)\left(\frac{d}{d\rho}A(\rho)\right)\Bigg\{\frac{2}{N_{r}}\Bigg(\Theta_{<}(\rho)\int_{\infty}^{\rho}d\xi\Theta_{>}(\xi)S^{(13)}(\xi)\nonumber \\
& & \qquad-\Theta_{>}(\rho)\int_{z_{H}}^{\rho}d\xi\Theta_{<}(\xi)S^{(13)}(\xi)\Bigg)+A(\rho)S_{1}^{(14)}(\rho)\Bigg\}+S_{2}^{(14)}(\rho)\:,\\
S_{1}^{(14)}(\rho) & = & \frac{2}{N_{r}}\Bigg\{\int_{\infty}^{\rho}d\xi\frac{\Theta_{<}(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)\int_{\infty}^{\xi}d\sigma\frac{\Theta_{>}(\sigma)\Phi(\sigma)A(\sigma)}{F(\sigma)}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad-\int_{\infty}^{\rho}d\xi\frac{\Theta_{>}(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)\int_{z_{H}}^{\xi}d\sigma\frac{\Theta_{<}(\sigma)\Phi(\sigma)A(\sigma)}{F(\sigma)}\Bigg\}\:,\\
S_{2}^{(14)}(\rho) & = & \frac{2}{N_{r}}\Bigg\{\int_{z_{H}}^{\rho}d\xi\frac{\Theta_{<}(\xi)\Phi(\xi)A(\xi)}{F(\xi)}\int_{\infty}^{\rho}d\sigma\frac{\Theta_{>}(\sigma)A(\sigma)F(\sigma)}{r(\sigma)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\sigma}A(\sigma)\right)^{2}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad-\int_{\infty}^{\rho}d\xi\frac{\Theta_{>}(\xi)\Phi(\xi)A(\xi)}{F(\xi)}\int_{z_{H}}^{\rho}d\sigma\frac{\Theta_{<}(\sigma)A(\sigma)F(\sigma)}{r(\sigma)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\sigma}A(\sigma)\right)^{2}\Bigg\}\:,\end{aligned}$$ and most importantly $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\textrm{Hall}}(\xi) & = & \frac{2}{N_{r}}\frac{\Phi(\xi)A(\xi)}{F(\xi)}\Bigg\{\Theta_{>}(\xi)\int_{z_{H}}^{\xi}d\sigma\Theta_{<}(\sigma)\frac{A(\sigma)}{r(\sigma)^{2}}\left[2F(\sigma)\left(\frac{d}{d\sigma}A(\sigma)\right)^{2}+\lambda^{2}A(\sigma)^{2}\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad-\Theta_{<}(\xi)\int_{\infty}^{\xi}d\sigma\Theta_{>}(\sigma)\frac{A(\sigma)}{r(\sigma)^{2}}\left[2F(\sigma)\left(\frac{d}{d\sigma}A(\sigma)\right)^{2}+\lambda^{2}A(\sigma)^{2}\right]\Bigg\}\:.\label{S_Hall}\end{aligned}$$ Our final results of correlators up to the desired order will not contain $h^{(04)}(z)$, $h^{(14)}(z)$ and $a^{(13)}(z)$, so we will not give their explicit expressions here. Notice that $S_{\textrm{null}}(z)\rightarrow0$ near the boundary $z\rightarrow\infty$. Because of this, we will see later that $S_{\textrm{null}}(z)$ will drop off in the final expression for Hall viscosity.
2-Point Functions and Viscosities
---------------------------------
We follow the prescriptions in [@Herzog:2002pc; @Barnes:2010jp; @Arnold:2011ja] to obtain causal 2-point functions from the above bulk-to-boundary propagators and the second order on-shell action (\[S2\_onshell\]). The total on-shell boundary action for the tensor mode is $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(2)} & = & \frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int_{z=\infty}d^{3}x\sum_{i=e,o}\Bigg\{-\frac{1}{2}r(z)^{2}F(z)\left[h_{i}\left(\frac{d}{dz}h_{i}\right)\right]-F(z)\left[a_{i}\left(\frac{d}{dz}a_{i}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \quad-\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{d}{dz}\left(r(z)^{2}F(z)\right)-\frac{4}{R}r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}\right]h_{i}^{2}+F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)h_{i}a_{i}\Bigg\}\:.\label{S2_tensor}\end{aligned}$$ For a causal 2-point function, one of the two operators has earlier time than the other one. The causal prescription is that in every term in the above action, substitute one of the two fluctuation fields with the advanced boundary-to-bulk propagator, whose boundary fields are identified as the sources to the earlier-time operators, and substitute the other fluctuation field with the retarded boundary-to-bulk propagator, whose boundary fields are identified as sources to the later-time operators.[^7] The solution we obtain in the previous section using the incoming-wave condition near the horizon, (\[h\_propagator\]) and (\[a\_propagator\]), are the advanced boundary-to-bulk propagators. Notice that the equations (\[EOM\_h\_tensor\]) and (\[EOM\_a\_tensor\]) are invariant under the simultaneous reflections of $\omega\rightarrow-\omega$ and $\lambda\rightarrow-\lambda$, the retarded boundary-to-bulk propagators can be obtained from the advanced ones also by these operations. The readers should pay attention to the operation $\lambda\rightarrow-\lambda$, which is very crucial for getting the correct results. By taking functional derivatives of the substituted boundary action (\[S2\_tensor\]) with respect to the boundary fields $\bar{h}_{i}$, we get the causal 2-point functions:[^8] $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\textrm{ra}}^{xx-yy,xy}(\omega) & = & -i\omega\left(\frac{\lambda}{\kappa^{2}}\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}dzS_{\textrm{Hall}}(z)\right)+O\left(\omega^{2},A(z)^{6}\right)\:,\\
G_{\textrm{ra}}^{xy,xy}(\omega) & = & -\frac{\Gamma}{2\kappa^{2}R^{2}}-i\omega\frac{r(z_{H})^{2}}{2\kappa^{2}}\left[1-2\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}dz\frac{A(z)}{r(z)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)\right]+O\left(\omega^{2},A(z)^{4}\right)\:,\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma$ is defined in (\[NB Conditions\]). Compare with Kubo formulae $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\textrm{ra}}^{xx-yy,xy}(\omega) & = & -2i\eta_{H}\omega+O\left(\omega^{2}\right)\:,\\
G_{\textrm{ra}}^{xy,xy}(\omega) & = & p-i\eta\omega+O\left(\omega^{2}\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$ where $p\,(=\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon)$, $\eta$ and $\eta_{H}$ are the pressure, shear viscosity and Hall viscosity of the system, and also notice the entropy density $s$ given by (\[EntropyDensity\]), we have $$\eta_{H}=\frac{\lambda}{2\kappa^{2}}\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}dzS_{\textrm{Hall}}(z)+O\left(A(z)^{6}\right)$$ and $$\frac{\eta}{s}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left\{ 1-2\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}dz\frac{A(z)}{r(z)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)+O\left(A(z)^{4}\right)\right\}$$ where $S_{\textrm{Hall}}(z)$ is given by (\[S\_Hall\]). Notice that close to $T_{c}$, $A(z)$ is monotonic and vanishes at $z=\infty$, which means the second term in the above ratio of $\eta/s$ is always positive, thus the universal lower bound of $1/4\pi$ for $\eta/s$ is not violated up to this order. This is the question [@Natsuume:2010ky] tried to address but failed, and we provide the answer now. For Canonical ensemble, we get $$\frac{\eta}{s}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left\{ 1+\frac{0.821}{(\lambda R)^{2}}\left[1-\frac{0.672}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(\frac{T_{c}-T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\right\} \:.$$ For Grand Canonical ensemble $$\frac{\eta}{s}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left\{ 1+\frac{0.701}{(\lambda R)^{2}}\left[1-\frac{0.486}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(\frac{T_{c}-T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\right\} \:.$$ This ratio for anisotropic holographic $p$-wave superfluid models has been computed in [@Erdmenger:2010xm; @Erdmenger:2011tj; @Erdmenger:2012zu] and the behavior they found is similar to our result.
Bulk-to-Bulk Propagators
------------------------
Now we will solve the two unknown functions $\Theta_{<}(z)$ and $\Theta_{>}(z)$ in the bulk-to-bulk propagators near the critical temperature and obtain a more compact formula for Hall viscosity. Notice that (\[Theta\_EOM\]) is the same as (\[EQ3\]) except for the non-linear $A(z)^{3}$ term. So we will use the same variational method to solve $\Theta(z)$ here, as we did in Section 4 for $A(z)$.
Let us start with $\Theta_{<}(z)$. First, we make a perturbative expansion: $$\Theta_{<}(z)=\Theta_{<}^{(1)}(z)\epsilon+\Theta_{<}^{(2)}(z)\epsilon^{3}+O\left(\epsilon^{5}\right)\:,$$ and its near boundary value in (\[Theta\_NB\]) will get a similar expansion: $$B_{<}=B_{<}^{(1)}\epsilon+B_{<}^{(2)}\epsilon^{3}+O\left(\epsilon^{5}\right)\:.$$ The function $F(z)$ and $\Phi(z)$ in (\[Theta\_EOM\]) have already been expanded in (\[A\_Expansion\]) and computed in Section 4, so we can just cite the results there. For the first order, the EOM that $\Theta_{<}^{(1)}(z)$ satisfies is exactly the same as (\[EQ3\_1\]), and we also impose the same near-horizon regularity condition for them, so we can choose $$\Theta_{<}^{(1)}(z)=A^{(1)}(z)\:,$$ then $$B_{<}^{(1)}=\alpha_{0}^{(1)}=c_{0}^{(1)}\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\:,$$ where $c_{0}^{(1)}$ is given in (\[c0\_1\]) and $\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\propto\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle$. Next we will solve for $\Theta_{<}^{(2)}$, similarly as we did for $A^{(2)}(z)$, but not exactly the same, since their equations differ by the non-linear $A^{(1)}(z)^{3}$ term. From now on we will define $$\Theta_{<}^{(2)}\equiv\tilde{A}^{(2)}(z)\:.$$ The EOM for $\tilde{A}^{(2)}(z)$ is $$\frac{d}{dz}\left[F^{(0)}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\tilde{A}^{(2)}(z)\right)\right]+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi^{(0)}(z)^{2}}{F^{(0)}(z)}\tilde{A}^{(2)}(z)+\tilde{\Upsilon}^{(2)}(z)=0\:,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\Upsilon}^{(2)}(z) & = & \left(\frac{d}{dz}A^{(1)}(z)\right)\left[\left(\frac{d}{dz}F^{(1)}(z)\right)-\frac{F^{(1)}(z)}{F^{(0)}(z)}\left(\frac{d}{dz}F^{(0)}(z)\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & -2\lambda^{2}A^{(1)}(z)\frac{\Phi^{(0)}(z)}{F^{(0)}(z)^{2}}\left(\Phi^{(0)}(z)F^{(1)}(z)-F^{(0)}(z)\Phi^{(1)}(z)\right)\:.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the above expression with $\Upsilon^{(2)}(z)$ in Section 4, the only difference is the $A^{(1)}(z)^{3}$ term. The action associated with the variational problem is $$\tilde{I}^{(2)}=\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}dz\left[-F^{(0)}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\tilde{A}^{(2)}(z)\right)^{2}+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi^{(0)}(z)^{2}}{F^{(0)}(z)}\tilde{A}^{(2)}(z)^{2}+2\tilde{\Upsilon}^{(2)}(z)\tilde{A}^{(2)}(z)\right]+\tilde{I}_{\textrm{boundary}}^{(2)}\:.$$ Following Section 4, we impose the same boundary conditions for $\tilde{A}^{(2)}(z)$: one is the regularity condition near the horizon, and the other is $$\tilde{\alpha}_{1}^{(2)}=0\:,$$ where $\tilde{\alpha}_{1}^{(2)}$ is defined in the $\tilde{\;}$ version of (\[A2\_NB\]). We also have $$\tilde{I}_{\textrm{boundary}}^{(2)}=0\:.$$ The trial ansatz is $$\tilde{A}^{(2)}(z)=\left(1+\frac{z_{H}}{z}+\frac{z_{H}^{2}}{z^{2}}-\frac{q^{2}z_{H}^{3}}{4\lambda^{2}R^{2}z^{3}}\right)\left(\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{(2)}-\frac{z_{H}\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{(2)}}{z}+\sum_{i=2}^{n}\frac{\tilde{c}_{i}^{(2)}}{z^{2}}\right)$$ and we can solve $\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{(2)}$ and $\tilde{c}_{i}^{(2)}$ in a similar fashion as before. We get $\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{(2)}\propto\left(\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\right)^{3}$. Define $\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{(2)}=\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)}\alpha_{1}^{(1)}$, then $\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)}\propto\left(\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\right)^{2}\propto\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle^{2}$. We then have $$B_{<}^{(2)}=\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{(2)}=\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)}\alpha_{1}^{(1)}$$ and $$B_{<}=B_{<}^{(1)}+B_{<}^{(2)}=\alpha_{0}^{(1)}+\tilde{\alpha}_{0}^{(2)}=\left(c_{0}^{(1)}+\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)}\right)\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\:.$$ Notice that near the critical line, both $c_{0}^{(1)}\propto\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)}\propto\left(T_{c}-T\right)$, so $B_{<}^{(1)}$ are in fact of the same order as $B_{<}^{(2)}$! The calculation gives $$\begin{aligned}
c_{0}^{(1)}+\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)} & = & \frac{1}{\kappa R^{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{\rho\lambda}}\left[-0.603+\frac{0.366}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{\mu\lambda R^{3}}\left[-0.495+\frac{0.253}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:,\label{c0_12}\end{aligned}$$ where the first line is for Canonical ensemble and second line Grand Canonical ensemble. Notice that with the cubic term $A(z)^{3}$ in place, we will get $\alpha_{0}^{(1)}+\alpha_{0}^{(2)}=c_{0}^{(1)}+c_{0}^{(2)}=0$, which is exactly how the sourceless condition (\[NoSource\_2\]) is realized. Another comment we would like to make is regarding the gauge freedom associated with $\Phi^{(1)}(z)$ which is discussed in Section 4: only the combination $c_{0}^{(1)}+\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)}$ is gauge-invariant (i.e. independent of the coefficient of that pure gauge solution); both $c_{0}^{(1)}$ and $\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)}$ alone are not gauge-invariant when written in terms of *physical* variables like $T$ near the critical line.
Next we will solve $\Theta_{>}(z)$, but this is much easier. Using (\[Nr\_const\]), we have the Wronskian $W_{r}\left[\Theta_{<}(z),\Theta_{>}(z)\right]\propto B_{<}\propto c_{0}^{(1)}+\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)}\propto T_{c}-T$, which vanishes at $T=T_{c}$. Thus at the critical line, $\Theta_{<}(z)$ and $\Theta_{>}(z)$ are not linearly independent: they are just proportional to each other. Thus at the leading order, we can choose $\Theta_{>}^{(1)}(z)=\Theta_{<}^{(1)}(z)=A^{(1)}(z)$. From now on for simplicity we will omit the superscript “$^{(1)}$” in $A^{(1)}(z)$ when there is no confusion, since throughout this paper we always talk about near critical regime. Thus we have $$\Theta_{>}(z)=\Theta_{<}(z)=A(z)\:.$$ From (\[Theta\_NB\]) we have $$B_{>}=\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\:,$$ then from (\[Nr\_const\]) the normalization constant of the bulk Green’s function is $$N_{r}=-\frac{1}{R^{2}}\left(c_{0}^{(1)}+\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)}\right)\left(\alpha_{1}^{(1)}\right)^{2}\:,\label{Nr_nc}$$ where $c_{0}^{(1)}+\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)}$ is given in (\[c0\_12\]).
Hall Viscosity
--------------
Now the two terms in (\[S\_Hall\]) can be combined and then factored out, which gives a simpler expression for Hall viscosity near the critical temperature: $$\eta_{H}=\left(\frac{\lambda}{\kappa^{2}}\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}d\xi\frac{\Phi(\xi)A(\xi)^{2}}{F(\xi)}\right)\left\{ \frac{1}{N_{r}}\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}d\sigma\frac{A(\sigma)^{2}}{r(\sigma)^{2}}\left[2F(\sigma)\left(\frac{d}{d\sigma}A(\sigma)\right)^{2}+\lambda^{2}A(\sigma)^{2}\right]\right\} \:.\label{HallViscosity}$$ We can see the above expression is factorized into two parts. To compute the above expression, we set $A(z)=A^{(1)}(z)$, $r(z)=r^{(0)}(z)$, $F(z)=F^{(0)}(z)$, $\Phi(z)=\Phi^{(0)}(z)$ and use the analytic solutions obtained via variational method and $N_{r}$ given by (\[Nr\_nc\]). For both ensembles, the second complicated factor inside “$\left\{ \:\right\} $” turns out to be $$1.02-\frac{0.025}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)$$ along the critical line, which is always close to $1$, since the sub-leading orders give negligible corrections, even for small $\lambda R$. Finally, for Canonical ensemble, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\eta_{H}}{\rho} & = & \frac{1.09}{\lambda R}\left[1-\frac{0.68}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:,\\
\frac{\eta_{H}}{s} & = & \frac{0.639}{(\lambda R)^{2}}\left[1-\frac{0.86}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:.\end{aligned}$$ For Grand Canonical ensemble, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\eta_{H}}{\mu^{2}} & = & 1.01\left[1-\frac{0.32}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\frac{R^{2}}{\kappa^{2}}\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:,\\
\frac{\eta_{H}}{s} & = & \frac{0.545}{(\lambda R)^{2}}\left[1-\frac{0.67}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:.\end{aligned}$$
Vector Mode Fluctuations and Angular Momentum
=============================================
Edge Current and Angular Momentum Density
-----------------------------------------
In this section we only study the static case, so there is no $t$-dependence anywhere, and $\omega=0$. For fluids in $(2+1)$-dimensional flat Minkowskian space, the $t$-component of the equation of energy-stress tensor conservation reads $$\partial_{i}T^{ti}(\vec{x})=0$$ and has the solution $$T^{ti}(\vec{x})=\epsilon^{ij}\partial_{j}\vartheta(\vec{x})\:,\label{T_ti_1}$$ where $i,j,k=x,y$, $\vartheta(\vec{x})$ is an arbitrary function and the totally anti-symmetric tensor $\epsilon^{ij}$ in flat $2$-dimensional Euclidean space is normalized to $\epsilon^{xy}=1$. To proceed, we put the fluid in a box of size $b$ (the shape does not really matter, even though we assume it is a square) and at the end we can send $b\rightarrow\infty$. If the fluid is almost homogeneous in the box, then to the leading order in derivative expansion, we have $$\vartheta(\vec{x})=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2}\ell & \qquad(|x|\leqslant\frac{1}{2}b,\,|y|\leqslant\frac{1}{2}b)\\
0 & \qquad(\textrm{otherwise})
\end{cases}\:,\label{T_ti_2}$$ where $\ell$ is a constant. So we can see $T^{ti}(\vec{x})$ is vanishing both inside and outside the fluid (box), and is only non-vanishing at the boundary of the fluid: $$T^{ti}(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{2}\ell\epsilon^{ij}\left[-\delta(x^{j}-\frac{1}{2}b)+\delta(x^{i}+\frac{1}{2}b)\right]\theta(\frac{1}{2}b-|x|)\theta(\frac{1}{2}b-|y|)\:.$$ This is a momentum flow around the edge of the fluid – the edge current, and $\ell$ characterizes its strength. The direction of the edge current is always along the edge, either clockwise or counter-clockwise, depending on the sign of $\ell$. Notice that here for the uniform hydrodynamic limit, $T^{ti}(\vec{x})$ at the leading order is vanishing everywhere inside the bulk of the fluid, and this “boundary” nature must be related to the topological nature of the underlying field theory, as is commonly recognized in the study of Hall effect and other parity-breaking effects. This “boundary” nature, also appearing in its holographic dual theory, requires us to handle the boundary terms with extreme care, as will be shown in the next subsection. There were previous reports about failures of finding angular momenta which were expected to be non-vanishing, and we suspect that the mishandling of boundary terms could be a potential cause of the failures. In this section we will show how to handle the boundary terms correctly to get expected results.
Since $T^{ti}$ is the momentum density, the total angular momentum $L$ of the fluid can be defined in the usual way: $$L=\int d^{2}\vec{x}\epsilon_{ij}x^{i}T^{tj}(\vec{x})\:.$$ Use (\[T\_ti\_1\]), (\[T\_ti\_2\]) and $\epsilon_{ij}\epsilon^{jk}=-\delta_{i}^{k}$, then integrate by parts, we have $$L=\int d^{2}\vec{x}\vartheta(\vec{x})\partial_{i}x^{i}=\ell\int_{|x|,|y|\leqslant\frac{1}{2}b}d^{2}\vec{x}=\ell V_{2}\:,$$ where $V_{2}=b^{2}$ is the volume of the fluid (box). We can see that $\ell$ is the angular momentum density of the fluid.
Linear On-Shell Action
----------------------
On the other hand, the 1st order on-shell action linear to metric fluctuations is the source term to the energy-stress tensor: $$S^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}\int d^{3}x\bar{h}_{\mu\nu}(x)T^{\mu\nu}(x)\:.$$ For the static case when we turn on only $\bar{h}_{ti}(\vec{x})$ sources and use the above results, we have $$S^{(1)}=\int d^{3}x\bar{h}_{ti}(\vec{x})T^{ti}(\vec{x})=\int d^{3}x\bar{h}_{ti}(\vec{x})\epsilon^{ij}\partial_{j}\vartheta(\vec{x})\:.$$ Integrate by parts and let $b\rightarrow\infty$, we have: $$S^{(1)}=\frac{\ell}{2}\int d^{3}x\epsilon^{ij}\partial_{i}\bar{h}_{tj}(\vec{x})\:.\label{S1_fluid}$$ It is well known that in holography $S^{(1)}$ is an integral of total derivatives, as shown above, and thus a boundary term, because background EOMs make the bulk part vanish. The usual treatment is to say that the boundary terms are vanishing at “boundaries” like $x,y=\frac{1}{2}b$ and only non-vanishing at the AdS boundary $z=\infty$. However, here due to the edge current effect, we will not assume the boundary terms vanishing at $x,y=\frac{1}{2}b$. Actually once we have obtained $S^{(1)}$ in the bulk, we will *not* integrate out the total derivatives; instead we will just keep it as a bulk integral over total derivatives, and by comparing it with (\[S1\_fluid\]) we can read off $\ell$ directly from its coefficient. Notice that in (\[S1\_fluid\]) we have ignored higher order derivative terms since we assume $\vartheta(\vec{x})$ is almost homogeneous inside the fluid, so it is essentially a hydrodynamic expansion up to leading order in derivatives.
Now we calculate $S^{(1)}=S_{\textrm{bulk}}^{(1)}+S_{\textrm{GH}}^{(1)}+S_{\textrm{ct}}^{(1)}$ from the bulk action (\[S1\_onshell\]) and its associated boundary terms in the background (\[BackgroundAnsatz\]). There are four different parts in $S^{(1)}$. The first part is the $z$-derivative term in (\[S1\_onshell\]), which is a boundary term at the AdS boundary $z=\infty$, together with the two other boundary terms $S_{\textrm{GH}}^{(1)}$ and $S_{\textrm{ct}}^{(1)}$. Its contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int_{z=\infty}d^{3}x\Bigg\{2r(z)\left[F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}r(z)\right)-\frac{r(z)}{R}\sqrt{F(z)}\right]h_{t}^{t}(\vec{x},z)\nonumber \\
& \qquad\qquad+\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{d}{dz}\left(r(z)^{2}F(z)\right)-\frac{4}{R}r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}\right]\left[h_{x}^{x}(\vec{x},z)+h_{y}^{y}(\vec{x},z)\right]\\
& \qquad\qquad+r(z)^{2}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Phi(z)\right)a_{t}^{\mathbf{3}}(\vec{x},z)-F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)\left[a_{x}^{\mathbf{1}}(\vec{x},z)+a_{y}^{\mathbf{2}}(\vec{x},z)\right]\Bigg\}\:.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Using (\[NB Conditions\]) this is $$\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int_{z=\infty}d^{3}x\Bigg\{\frac{\Gamma}{2R^{2}}\left[2\bar{h}_{t}^{t}(\vec{x})-\bar{h}_{x}^{x}(\vec{x})-\bar{h}_{y}^{y}(\vec{x})\right]-\frac{\Phi_{1}}{R^{2}}\bar{a}_{t}^{\mathbf{3}}(\vec{x})+\frac{\alpha_{1}}{R^{2}}\left[\bar{a}_{x}^{\mathbf{1}}(\vec{x})+\bar{a}_{y}^{\mathbf{2}}(\vec{x})\right]\Bigg\}\:.$$ Since we only turn on $\bar{h}_{tx}(\vec{x})$ and $\bar{h}_{ty}(\vec{x})$ boundary fields for angular momentum, the above term has no contribution to $S^{(1)}$. The second part is the $t$-derivative term in (\[S1\_onshell\]). Since we are considering the static case where all fluctuations are independent of $t$, it is zero. The last two parts are from the $x$- and $y$-derivative terms in (\[S1\_onshell\]): that involving the sound mode and tensor mode fluctuations $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int d^{4}x\Bigg\{-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}+\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial y^{2}}\right)\left[2h_{t}^{t}(\vec{x},z)+h_{x}^{x}(\vec{x},z)+h_{y}^{y}(\vec{x},z)\right]\nonumber \\
& \qquad\qquad+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}-\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial y^{2}}\right)\left[h_{x}^{x}(\vec{x},z)-h_{y}^{y}(\vec{x},z)\right]+2\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x\partial y}h_{y}^{x}(\vec{x},z)\Bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ is quadratic in derivatives, thus is of higher order. So the only relevant part is that involving the vector mode fluctuations $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(1)} & = & \frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}}\int d^{4}x\Bigg\{\frac{\lambda\Phi(z)A(z)}{F(z)}\left[-\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}a_{t}^{\mathbf{2}}(\vec{x},z)\right)+\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}a_{t}^{\mathbf{1}}(\vec{x},z)\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad\qquad+\frac{\lambda A(z)^{2}}{r(z)^{2}}\left[-\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}a_{y}^{\mathbf{3}}(\vec{x},z)\right)+\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}a_{x}^{\mathbf{3}}(\vec{x},z)\right)\right]\Bigg\}\:.\label{S1_bulk}\end{aligned}$$ Since this action is already linear in spatial derivatives (momentum), to solve the bulk fields $a_{t}^{\mathbf{1}}$, $a_{t}^{\mathbf{2}}$, $a_{x}^{\mathbf{3}}$ and $a_{y}^{\mathbf{3}}$ as a response to boundary source $\bar{h}_{tx}$ and $\bar{h}_{ty}$ up to the leading order, we only need to work in the zero momentum limit $\vec{k}=0$ and $\omega=0$, which significantly simplifies the EOMs.
Vector Mode EOMs
----------------
We will work under the bulk gauge condition $$\begin{cases}
h_{\mu z}=0 & \qquad(\mu=t,x,y,z)\\
\: a_{z}^{\mathbf{I}}\:=0 & \qquad(\mathbf{I}=\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2},\mathbf{3})
\end{cases}\:.\label{GaugeCondition}$$ We first make some redefinitions of the coordinates and fields. In the rest of this section, unless otherwise stated, we will let $i,j=e,o$ exclusively.[^9] Define $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\left(h_{tx}+h_{ty}\right)\equiv r(z)^{2}h_{t}^{e}\:,\quad\quad & \quad\quad\frac{1}{2}\left(h_{tx}-h_{ty}\right)\equiv r(z)^{2}h_{t}^{o}\:,\nonumber \\
\frac{1}{2}\left(a_{t}^{\mathbf{1}}+a_{t}^{\mathbf{2}}\right)\equiv a_{t}^{e}\:,\quad\quad & \quad\quad\frac{1}{2}\left(a_{t}^{\mathbf{1}}-a_{t}^{\mathbf{2}}\right)\equiv a_{t}^{o}\:,\\
\frac{1}{2}\left(a_{x}^{\mathbf{3}}+a_{y}^{\mathbf{3}}\right)\equiv a_{e}^{\mathbf{3}}\:,\quad\quad & \quad\quad\frac{1}{2}\left(a_{x}^{\mathbf{3}}-a_{y}^{\mathbf{3}}\right)\equiv a_{o}^{\mathbf{3}}\:.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Fields in the left (right) column in the above definitions are even (odd) under the joint parity operations $x\leftrightarrow y$ and $\mathbf{1}\leftrightarrow\mathbf{2}$. In the limit $\omega=0$ and $\vec{k}=0$ these two groups decouple from each other. The independent equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dz}\left[r(z)^{4}\left(\frac{d}{dz}h_{t}^{i}(z)\right)\right]+r(z)^{2}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Phi(z)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)\right) & = & S_{t}^{(h)i}(z)\:,\\
r(z)^{2}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Phi(z)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}h_{t}^{i}(z)\right)+\frac{d}{dz}\left[F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)\right)\right] & = & S_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)\:,\\
\frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{a_{t}^{i}(z)}{\Phi(z)}\right) & = & S_{t}^{(a)i}(z)\:,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{t}^{(h)i}(z) & = & \left[r(z)^{2}\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)^{2}+\frac{\lambda^{2}}{F(z)}A(z)^{4}\right]h_{t}^{i}(z)-\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi(z)}{F(z)}A(z)^{2}a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)\nonumber \\
& & -\left[r(z)^{2}\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}a_{t}^{i}(z)\right)+\frac{\lambda^{2}}{F(z)}A(z)^{3}a_{t}^{i}(z)\right]\:,\\
S_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z) & = & -\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi(z)}{F(z)}A(z)^{2}h_{t}^{i}(z)+\frac{\lambda^{2}}{r(z)^{2}}A(z)^{2}a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi(z)}{F(z)}A(z)a_{t}^{i}(z)\:,\\
S_{t}^{(a)i}(z) & = & \left[\frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{A(z)}{\Phi(z)}\right)\right]h_{t}^{i}(z)+\frac{F(z)}{r(z)^{2}\Phi(z)^{2}}\left[\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)-A(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)\right)\right]\:,\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ and all other equations involving vector mode fields are linear combinations of the above equations and their $z$-derivatives. Notice that all sources $S_{\ldots}^{\ldots}(z)$ in the above equations contain $A(z)$. So when we treat $A(z)$ perturbatively, all sources can also be treated perturbatively, and at the leading order they all vanish.
Boundary-to-Bulk Propagators
----------------------------
From (\[S1\_bulk\]) we can see that the two terms in the first line are proportional to $A(z)$ and those in the second line to $A(z)^{2}$, thus to obtain the leading order result for $S^{(1)}$, which is of order $A(z)^{2}$, we only need to solve $h_{t}^{i}$ and $a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}$ to zeroth order in (independent of) $A(z)$ and $a_{t}^{i}$ to linear order in $A(z)$. First we solve the zeroth order equations for $h_{t}^{i}$ and $a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dz}\left[r(z)^{4}\left(\frac{d}{dz}h_{t}^{i}(z)\right)\right]+r(z)^{2}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Phi(z)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)\right) & = & 0\:,\\
r(z)^{2}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Phi(z)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}h_{t}^{i}(z)\right)+\frac{d}{dz}\left[F(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)\right)\right] & = & 0\:.\end{aligned}$$ For each $i=e,o$ these are two coupled second order homogeneous ODEs, so they have four independent solutions. Two solutions are trivial to see: $h_{t}^{i}=\textrm{constant}$, $a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}=0$ and $h_{t}^{i}=0$, $a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}=\textrm{constant}$. For the other two solutions, using (\[NH Conditions\]) to solve these equations near the horizon, we find one of them contains $\ln(z-z_{H})$ in $a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}$ so it is dropped by the regularity requirement near the horizon. The last independent solution is $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & h_{t}^{i}(z)=\frac{F(z)}{r(z)^{2}}\times\textrm{constant}\\
& a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(z)=-\Phi(z)\times\textrm{same constant}
\end{aligned}
\right.\:.\label{FourthSolution}$$ This can be checked by using the background equations (\[EQ1\])-(\[EQ4\]). In Appendix (B) we show that this solution is of a pure-gauge form which can be obtained by a residual gauge transformation. We require that $h_{t}^{i}(z)$ vanishes at the horizon. The same condition has been used in [@Liu:2012zm; @Liu:2013cha]. Bearing in mind that we only turn on $\bar{h}_{ti}$ source[^10], we have at the leading order $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & h_{t}^{i}(\vec{x},z)=\left(\frac{F(z)}{r(z)^{2}}+O\left(\vec{\partial},A(z)\right)\right)\bar{h}_{t}^{i}(\vec{x})\\
& a_{i}^{\mathbf{3}}(\vec{x},z)=\left(\Phi_{0}-\Phi(z)+O\left(\vec{\partial},A(z)\right)\right)\bar{h}_{t}^{i}(\vec{x})
\end{aligned}
\right.\:.$$
Next we solve for $a_{t}^{i}(z)$. At the leading order $$\frac{d}{dz}\left(\frac{a_{t}^{i}(z)}{\Phi(z)}\right)=0\:,$$ which has solution $a_{t}^{i}(z)\propto\Phi(z)$. This solution is also dropped because $\bar{a}_{t}^{i}$ source is not turned on. At the next order the source term becomes $$S_{t}^{(a)i}(z)=\frac{\Phi_{0}F(z)}{\Phi(z)^{2}r(z)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)\bar{h}_{t}^{i}+O\left(A(z)^{2}\right)\:,$$ Requiring that $a_{t}^{i}(z)\rightarrow0$ near the boundary, the solution is $$a_{t}^{i}(\vec{x},z)=\left[\Phi_{0}\Phi(z)\int_{\infty}^{z}d\xi\frac{F(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}\Phi(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)+O\left(\vec{\partial},A(z)^{2}\right)\right]\bar{h}_{t}^{i}(\vec{x})\:.$$
Angular Momentum Density and Ratio to Hall Viscosity
----------------------------------------------------
From now on we restore the convention that $i,j=x,y$ used at the beginning of this section. Plug in the above solutions into (\[S1\_bulk\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(1)} & = & -\frac{\lambda}{2\kappa^{2}}\int d^{3}x\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}dz\Bigg\{\Bigg[\Phi_{0}\frac{\Phi(z)^{2}A(z)}{F(z)}\int_{\infty}^{z}d\xi\frac{F(\xi)}{r(\xi)^{2}\Phi(\xi)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{d\xi}A(\xi)\right)\\
& & \qquad+\left(\Phi_{0}-\Phi(z)\right)\frac{A(z)^{2}}{r(z)^{2}}\Bigg]\epsilon^{ij}\partial_{i}\bar{h}_{tj}(\vec{x})+O\left(\vec{\partial}^{2},A(z)^{3}\right)\Bigg\}\:.\end{aligned}$$ Use (\[EQ3\]) to integrate by parts the first term, and then compare with (\[S1\_fluid\]), we find the angular momentum density is $$\ell=-\frac{\lambda}{\kappa^{2}}\int_{z_{H}}^{\infty}dz\left[\frac{\Phi_{0}F(z)^{2}}{\lambda^{2}\Phi(z)^{2}r(z)^{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dz}A(z)\right)^{2}+\left(\Phi_{0}-\Phi(z)\right)\frac{A(z)^{2}}{r(z)^{2}}\right]+O\left(\vec{\partial},A(z)^{3}\right)\:,\label{AngMomDensity}$$ where $\Phi_{0}=\Phi(z=\infty)$.
To compute the above expressions, again we set $A(z)=A^{(1)}(z)$, $r(z)=r^{(0)}(z)$, $F(z)=F^{(0)}(z)$, $\Phi(z)=\Phi^{(0)}(z)$ and use the analytic solutions obtained via variational method in the previous two sections. For canonical ensemble, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\ell}{\rho} & = & -\frac{2.16}{\lambda R}\left[1-\frac{1.00}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:,\\
\frac{\ell}{s} & = & -\frac{1.27}{(\lambda R)^{2}}\left[1-\frac{1.18}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:.\end{aligned}$$ For Grand Canonical ensemble, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\ell}{\mu^{2}} & = & -2.00\left[1-\frac{0.63}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\frac{R^{2}}{\kappa^{2}}\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:,\\
\frac{\ell}{s} & = & -\frac{1.08}{(\lambda R)^{2}}\left[1-\frac{0.99}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)\:.\end{aligned}$$ In (\[eq:Condensate\_Canon\]) and (\[eq:Condensate\_GrandCanon\]) we have shown that the condensate $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle\sim\sqrt{T_{c}-T}$, which implies the superfluid density $n_{s}\sim\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle^{2}\sim T_{c}-T$. This is the standard behavior one would expect from Ginzburg-Landau theory. Here we also have $\ell\sim T_{c}-T$, which gives $$\frac{\ell}{n_{s}}\sim\textrm{constant}\:.$$ This can be understood as a statement that each Cooper pair possesses a fixed amount of angular momentum. For a $p_{x}+ip_{y}$-wave Cooper pair, this number shall be just $\hbar=1$. For us, the precise value depends on the normalization constant in the relation $n_{s}\sim\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle^{2}$, which we will not determine explicitly here.
At the end, we find the ratio between Hall viscosity and angular momentum density to be $$\frac{\eta_{H}}{\ell}=-0.504\left[1+\frac{0.32}{(\lambda R)^{2}}+O\left(\frac{1}{(\lambda R)^{4}}\right)\right]$$ from both ensembles. The minus sign is also in agreement with [@Read:2008rn], but it can differ if the angular momentum or Hall viscosity is defined up to a sign. At large $\lambda R$, which corresponds to the probe limit regime where back-reactions to the metric can be neglected, the magnitude of this ratio is numerically $1/2$. As $\lambda R$ drops, the magnitude of the ratio increases. In the next section, we will see that at low temperature near the critical $\lambda_{c}R\approx1$, it diverges logarithmically as $\ln T$ following the same behavior of Hall viscosity.
Low Temperature Limit
=====================
About the Complete Phase Diagram
--------------------------------
In this section, we investigate the low temperature limit of the holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model. This is also the small $\lambda$ limit along the critical regime, since $T_{c}$ is a monotonic increasing function of $\lambda$ as can be seen from the phase diagrams in Figure \[Fig:PhaseDiagrams\]. The corresponding gravity dual is the near-extremal limit of the AdS-RN black hole (\[AdSRN Solution\]) and its hairy brother, and at the leading order, the extremal limit (\[Extremal Limit\]) represents $T\rightarrow0$ limit. This *is* the low temperature limit of the holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ phase, but may not be the dual of the low temperature limit of the actual field theory/condensed matter systems, due to various instabilities. So before we start the computation at the near-extremal limit, we would like to briefly comment on what we do not consider here.
The phase diagrams of Figure \[Fig:PhaseDiagrams\] may not be the complete phase diagrams, because they are obtained by assuming that the AdS-RN black hole and its hairy version discussed in Section 4 are the only two possible competing ground states of the system. At low temperature this is usually not the case, but even so, there are still complications. In Section 4, we have obtained that the characteristic function differences between the two phases are quadratic in $T_{c}-T$, and concluded that the phase transition along the critical line is second order. But there is an assumption made implicitly to reach such a conclusion, that is, the coefficient $a^{(2)}$ in (\[a\_2\]) is always positive. However, as can be seen from (\[a\_2\]), at some small $\lambda R\sim2$, $a^{(2)}$ can become zero and then negative as $\lambda$ decreases. The consequence is that $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle$ as a function of $T$ becomes multivalued near $T_{c}$, thus the phase transition becomes first order.[^11] This phenomena has been observed in holographic $s$-wave models [@Herzog:2008he; @Basu:2008st] and $p$-wave models [@Ammon:2009xh; @Gubser:2010dm]. Here we see this can happen in $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model as well.
Another class of complications arises concerning the Hawking-Page transition between pure AdS and AdS-black hole backgrounds and their instabilities [@Witten:1998zw; @Cvetic:1999ne; @Chamblin:1999tk; @Chamblin:1999hg; @Mitra:1999ge; @Gubser:2000mm]: at low temperature, AdS-type backgrounds can be thermodynamically favored over black hole backgrounds. This is also important for zero temperature limit, because an extremal black hole has non-vanishing horizon area thus non-zero entropy, which implies the ground state is degenerate. But the real ground state shall be non-degenerate, thus it can not be described by an extremal black hole, but an AdS-type background with vanishing horizon area. In field theory language, the phase transition between AdS and black hole is a confinement/deconfinement transition, and in condensed matter language, insulator/conductor transition. The low/zero temperature limit of holographic $s$-wave models have been studied based on AdS domain wall geometries in [@Gubser:2008wz; @Gubser:2008pf; @Gubser:2009cg; @Horowitz:2009ij; @Konoplya:2009hv] and on AdS solitons in [@Nishioka:2009zj; @Horowitz:2010jq; @Brihaye:2011vk], and that of the anisotropic $p$-wave model based on AdS domain walls in [@Basu:2009vv; @Basu:2011np] and on AdS solitons in [@Akhavan:2010bf; @Cai:2011ky]. So far we have not seen any study on the isotropic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model, possibly because of the instability discussed in [@Gubser:2008wv].
In the following, we will ignore all these complications. If the actual low temperature state of the model can be a $p$-wave model which breaks isotropy, then the hydrodynamic analysis presented at the beginning of this paper, and the formula (\[eq:Kubo\_HallVisc\]), will be invalid. The notion of Hall viscosity itself may not be even useful or well-defined if isotropy is lost. The main purpose of studying the near extremal limit of $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model is to see how the results we have presented in the previous sections, mostly as series expansions for large $\lambda R$, can be extrapolated down to small $\lambda R$ regime to give an overall qualitative picture for all values of $\lambda R$. For this purpose, it is reasonable to ignore all the complications mentioned above.
Near-Extremal AdS-RN Black Hole with Condensate
-----------------------------------------------
For the low temperature limit, if we directly work with the extremal limit of AdS-RN black hole, we will encounter near-horizon divergence for the angular momentum density. To understand its origin and how to handle it properly, let us first have a look at the near-extremal limit. The near-extremal limit of (\[AdSRN Solution\]) corresponds to take the following limit of the parameters: $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & q=2\sqrt{3-6\tau}\lambda R\\
& T=\frac{3z_{H}}{2\pi R^{2}}\tau
\end{aligned}
\right.\qquad\textrm{with}\qquad\tau\ll1\:.\label{Near Extremal Limit}$$ Then the inner horizon is $$z_{h}=z_{H}\left(1-\tau\right)\:.$$ The metric component $F^{(0)}(z)$ becomes $$F^{(0)}(z)=\frac{(z-z_{H})(z-z_{h})(z^{2}+2z_{H}z+3z_{H}^{2})}{z^{2}R^{2}}\:.$$ Now if we look at (\[AngMomDensity\]), near the horizon $z=z_{H}$ we encounter integrals like $$\int\frac{dz}{z-z_{h}}=\ln(z-z_{h})\:.$$ When we evaluate the integral at the lower bound $z=z_{H}$, we get $\ln(z_{H}-z_{h})\sim\ln(\tau)$. So if we work directly with the extremal black hole with $\tau=0$ from the very beginning, we will encounter divergence.[^12] So we see $\tau$ serves as a near-horizon regulator. If we choose to start with the extremal black hole, the solution will be that when we encounter such a divergence near the horizon, instead of setting the lower bound of the integral to be at $z=z_{H}$, we set it at $z=z_{H}(1+\tau)$. At the leading order this strategy will give us the same results as we work in near-extremal limit. This is what we will do in the following.
Extremal AdS-RN Black Hole with Condensate
------------------------------------------
Now we can safely start with the extremal AdS-Reissner-Nordström Black Hole $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} & r^{(0)}(z)=\frac{z}{R}\\
& F^{(0)}(z)=\frac{(z-z_{H})^{2}(z^{2}+2z_{H}z+3z_{H}^{2})}{z^{2}R^{2}}\\
& \Phi^{(0)}(z)=\frac{2\sqrt{3}z_{H}}{R}\left(1-\frac{z_{H}}{z}\right)
\end{aligned}
\right.\:,\label{AdSRN Extremal}$$ then we will follow closely the same analytic procedure we have used in the previous sections. To avoid redundancy and repetition, we will only outline the differences here. The trial functions we use for $A^{(i)}(z)$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(1)}(z) & = & \alpha_{1}^{(1)}\left(1+2\frac{z_{H}}{z}+3\frac{z_{H}^{2}}{z^{2}}\right)\left(c_{0}^{(1)}+\frac{1-2z_{H}c_{0}^{(1)}}{z}+\sum_{i=2}^{n}\frac{c_{i}^{(1)}}{z^{2}}\right)\:,\\
A^{(2)}(z) & = & \left(1+2\frac{z_{H}}{z}+3\frac{z_{H}^{2}}{z^{2}}\right)\left(\alpha_{0}^{(2)}-\frac{2z_{H}\alpha_{0}^{(2)}}{z}+\sum_{i=2}^{n}\frac{c_{i}^{(2)}}{z^{2}}\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$ and $\tilde{A}^{(2)}(z)$ is just the $\tilde{\;}$ version of the second line. From (\[Tc Condition\]) we get the minimal coupling that can trigger a phase transition, i.e. the critical coupling, is $$\lambda_{c}R=0.745\:.$$ Since the temperature is already very low, we will not parametrize the deviation from the critical line as $T_{c}-T$, but instead as $\lambda-\lambda_{c}$.
For Canonical ensemble, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle}{\rho} & = & 0.939\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\\
c_{0}^{(1)}+\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)} & = & -\frac{2.91}{\sqrt{\rho}R\kappa}\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\eta_{H}}{\rho} & = & -2.14\ln(\tau)\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\\
\frac{\eta_{H}}{s} & = & -1.18\ln(\tau)\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\ell}{\rho} & = & -3.73\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\\
\frac{\ell}{s} & = & -2.06\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\tau=\frac{T}{\sqrt{\hat{\rho}}}\:,$$ and $\hat{\rho}=\frac{\kappa^{2}}{(2\pi)^{3}R^{2}}\rho$.
For Grand Canonical ensemble, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\langle\mathcal{\hat{O}}\rangle}{\mu^{2}} & = & 4.37\times10^{-3}\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\\
c_{0}^{(1)}+\tilde{c}_{0}^{(2)} & = & -\frac{2.71}{\mu R^{2}}\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\eta_{H}}{\mu^{2}} & = & -2.47\ln(\tau)\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\\
\frac{\eta_{H}}{s} & = & -1.18\ln(\tau)\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\ell}{\mu^{2}} & = & -4.30\frac{R^{2}}{\kappa^{2}}\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\\
\frac{\ell}{s} & = & -2.06\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\tau=\frac{T}{\mu}\:,$$ and $\hat{\mathcal{O}}=\frac{\kappa^{2}}{(2\pi)^{3}R^{2}}\mathcal{O}$.
For both ensembles, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\eta_{H}}{l} & = & 0.573\ln(\tau)\:,\\
\frac{\eta}{s} & = & \frac{1}{4\pi}\left\{ 1+11.7\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{c}}-1\right)\theta\left(\lambda-\lambda_{c}\right)\right\} \:.\end{aligned}$$
Conclusions and Comments
========================
In this paper we have studied the spontaneous parity breaking effect of the holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model of [@Gubser:2008zu]. We have proposed an analytic approach to solve such holographic models by taking into full consideration of back-reactions. The method we have shown here for computing the angular momentum density of the model is general and can be used for other holographic models as well. We obtain analytic expressions for Hall viscosity and angular momentum density near the critical regime and find that the relation (\[HL\_Relation\]) between them holds in the probe limit regime where back-reations to metric can be ignored. The effect of angular momentum density is to accumulate momentum on the edge of the fluid system. Thus an edge current of momentum is generated, and its intensity is proportional to the angular momentum density.
At the end we would like to make several comments on the results and the holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model we use in this paper:
1. The near-critical behavior of Hall viscosity we have found in $p$-wave model $\eta_{H}\propto\left(T_{c}-T\right)$, which is different from that found in gravitational Chern-Simons model [@Saremi:2011ab; @Chen:2011fs] where $\eta_{H}\propto\sqrt{T_{c}-T}$. The reason is that in the former case the condensate $A(z)$ enters the EOMs and thus the final results quadratically, while in the latter the condensate – the axion scalar – enters linearly.
2. We have only studied the near-critical regime of the model, because only this regime can be computed by analytic approaches. It is natural to ask how Hall viscosity and angular momentum density behave deep inside the superconducting phase. The complication is that a finite non-vanishing $A(z)$ spoils the integrability of EOMs for the tensor mode fluctuations (\[EOM\_h\_tensor\]) and (\[EOM\_a\_tensor\]), thus it is hard to find a closed form for Hall viscosity written in term of $A(z)$ and others. Going deep inside the symmetry-breaking phase requires numeric techniques, so we will leave this to future exploration.
3. As can be seen from (\[HallViscosity\]) and (\[AngMomDensity\]), results for Hall viscosity and angular momentum density do not have the feature of membrane paradigm, with which such quantities can be written solely in terms of near-horizon fields, as found in [@Saremi:2011ab]. Our results are written as integrals of the condensate over the whole region outside the black hole horizon, up to the boundary. This means the IR degrees of freedom interact non-trivially with UV degrees of freedom.
4. It is well known that the physics of Hall conductivity can be described at the low energy effective theory level by a gauge Chern-Simons term and is related to the topological nature of the states. This is also the spirit of many holographic constructions. So is true for Hall viscosity, which can be describe by a Wen-Zee term [@Hoyos:2011ez; @Son:2013rqa] in the presence of external magnetic field or a Gravitational Chern-Simons term [@Saremi:2011ab] for pure thermal cases. However, in the holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model, there is no Chern-Simons term in the action and we do not see the topological structure at this level. It will be interesting to see how the Chern-Simons term can be induced at the parity-breaking ground state and what the topological structure looks like (if there is any). This may possibly shed some light on the second comments above, and on understanding the relation of holographic $p_{x}+ip_{y}$ model to topological quantum states.
It is also interesting to see whether other holographic models with (either explicitly or spontaneously) broken parity respect (\[HL\_Relation\]), once the angular momentum density is correctly computed. The gravitational Chern-Simons model studied in [@Saremi:2011ab; @Chen:2011fs] has recently been shown in [@Wu:2013vya] to possess an angular momentum density. There, Hall viscosity, angular momentum density and their ratio all have complicated behaviors (numerically, even though the analytic expressions look simple) below and near the critical temperature and far away from the relation (\[HL\_Relation\]). A comprehensive understanding of the generation of Hall viscosity and angular momentum in generic holographic models, particularly for the gapped phases, still requires future works.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Wan-Zhe Feng, Yan He, Kathryn Levin, Hong Liu, Dung Xuan Nguyen, Hirosi Ooguri, Matthew Roberts, Gordon Semenoff, Misha Stephanov, Bogdan Stoica and Paul Wiegmann for useful discussions and comments. This work is supported, in part, by DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER-40560, NSF DMS-1206648 and a Simons Investigator grant from the Simons Foundation.
Green’s Function
=================
We start with the general form of a linear second order inhomogeneous ODE $$\frac{d}{dz}\left[P(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\phi(z)\right)\right]+Q(z)\phi(z)=S(z)\:,$$ where $z\in[a,b]$ and $P(z)$, $Q(z)$ and $S(z)$ are known functions of $z$. We assume $\Theta_{m}(z)$ ($m=<,>$) are two independent solutions to the homogeneous equation $$\frac{d}{dz}\left[P(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Theta_{m}(z)\right)\right]+Q(z)\Theta_{m}(z)=0\label{HomoEq}$$ and satisfy appropriate boundary conditions at the two boundaries: $$\Theta_{<}(z){\Big|_{z\rightarrow a}}=A\left(z-a\right)^{\alpha}\:,\qquad\Theta_{>}(z){\Big|_{z\rightarrow b}}=B\left(z-b\right)^{\beta}\:.$$ The Green’s function $G(z,z')$ satisfies similar boundary conditions and $$\frac{d}{dz}\left[P(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}G(z,z')\right)\right]+Q(z)G(z,z')=\delta(z-z')\:,\label{GreenEq}$$ where $\delta(z-z')$ is the Dirac delta function. Then we have $$\phi(z)=\int_{a}^{b}dz'G(z,z')S(z')\:.$$ The Green’s function can be written in terms of the above two independent solutions: $$G(z,z')=\frac{1}{N_{r}}\left\{ \Theta_{<}(z)\Theta_{>}(z')\theta(z'-z)+\Theta_{<}(z')\Theta_{>}(z)\theta(z-z')\right\} \:,$$ and the normalization constant $N_{r}$ can be calculated by integrating (\[GreenEq\]) from $z=z'_{-}$ to $z=z'_{+}$, which gives $$N_{r}=P(z)\textrm{Wr}(z)\:,$$ where the Wronskian is $$\textrm{Wr}(z)\equiv\Theta_{<}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Theta_{>}(z)\right)-\Theta_{>}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Theta_{<}(z)\right)\:.$$ One can easily show from (\[HomoEq\]) that $P(z)\textrm{Wr}(z)$, even though it’s a product of two functions of $z$, is indeed a constant independent of $z$, thus $N_{r}=\textrm{constant}$. Assume near the boundary $z=b$: $$\begin{cases}
P(z)\rightarrow P_{0}(z-b)^{\gamma}\\
\Theta_{<}(z)\rightarrow B_{<}(z-b)^{\beta_{<}}\\
\Theta_{>}(z)\rightarrow B_{>}(z-b)^{\beta_{>}}
\end{cases}\:,$$ and $Q(z)$ are sub-leading to $P(z)$. The indicial equation of (\[HomoEq\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{<},\;\beta_{>} & = & 0\quad\textrm{or}\quad1-\gamma\:,\\
\beta_{<}+\beta_{>} & = & 1-\gamma\:,\end{aligned}$$ thus $$N_{r}=\left(\beta_{>}-\beta_{<}\right)P_{0}B_{<}B_{>}\:.$$ The solution to the inhomogeneous equation is $$\phi(z)=\frac{1}{N_{r}}\left\{ \Theta_{<}(z)\int_{z}^{b}dz'\Theta_{>}(z')S(z')+\Theta_{>}(z)\int_{a}^{z}dz'\Theta_{<}(z')S(z')\right\} \:.\label{SolutionbyGreen}$$ This is the formula we will use in the text to solve (\[EOM\_a\_tensor\]). Furthermore, one can integrate by parts the above expression to get an alternative version $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(z) & = & \frac{1}{N_{r}}\Bigg\{\Theta_{<}(z)\int_{b}^{z}dz'\left(\frac{d}{dz'}\Theta_{>}(z')\right)\int_{a}^{z'}dz''S(z'')\\
& & -\Theta_{>}(z)\int_{a}^{z}dz'\left(\frac{d}{dz'}\Theta_{<}(z')\right)\int_{a}^{z'}dz''S(z'')+\Theta_{>}(b)\Theta_{<}(z)\int_{a}^{b}dz'S(z')\Bigg\}\:.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ We can see that when one $\Theta_{m}(z)$ is constant (when $Q(z)=0$, such as in (\[EOM\_h\_tensor\])) this expression gives immediately the result as one obtains by directly integrating the equation.
Residual Gauge Transformations
===============================
The gauge condition (\[GaugeCondition\]) does not completely fix the gauge. There are still residual gauge freedoms in the other non-vanishing components of $h_{\mu\nu}$ and $a_{\mu}^{\mathbf{I}}$. These remaining gauge freedoms are not strong enough to set any of these fields to zero, but they can be used to gauge away certain parts of them – the pure gauge solutions. The gauge transformations for Einstein-$SU(2)$ system are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta g_{\mu\nu} & = & -\nabla_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}-\nabla_{\nu}\xi_{\mu}\:,\\
\delta A_{\mu}^{\mathbf{I}} & = & -\xi^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu}A_{\mu}^{\mathbf{I}}+A^{\mathbf{I}\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\xi_{\nu}-\nabla_{\mu}\Lambda^{\mathbf{I}}+\epsilon^{\mathbf{IJK}}A_{\mu}^{\mathbf{J}}\Lambda^{\mathbf{K}}\:,\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi^{\mu}$ and $\Lambda^{\mathbf{I}}$ are the gauge parameters. Here we only consider the static case, where $\xi^{\mu}=\xi^{\mu}(x,y,z)$ and $\Lambda^{\mathbf{I}}=\Lambda^{\mathbf{I}}(x,y,z)$. The residual gauge transformations need to preserve the gauge condition (\[GaugeCondition\]), which means $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \delta g_{tz}=F(z)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\xi^{t}\right)\:,\\
0 & = & \delta g_{xz}=-r(z)^{2}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\xi^{x}\right)-\frac{1}{F(z)}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\xi^{z}\right)\:,\\
0 & = & \delta g_{yz}=-r(z)^{2}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\xi^{y}\right)-\frac{1}{F(z)}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\xi^{z}\right)\:,\\
0 & = & \delta g_{zz}=\frac{1}{F(z)^{2}}\left[\left(\frac{d}{dz}F(z)\right)\xi^{z}-2F(z)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\xi^{z}\right)\right]\:,\\
0 & = & \delta A_{z}^{\mathbf{1}}=-A(z)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\xi^{x}\right)-\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\Lambda^{\mathbf{1}}\right)\:,\\
0 & = & \delta A_{z}^{\mathbf{2}}=-A(z)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\xi^{y}\right)-\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\Lambda^{\mathbf{2}}\right)\:,\\
0 & = & \delta A_{z}^{\mathbf{3}}=-\Phi(z)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\xi^{t}\right)-\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\Lambda^{\mathbf{3}}\right)\:.\end{aligned}$$ The solutions are $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^{t} & = & \tilde{\xi}^{t}(x,y)\:,\\
\xi^{x} & = & -\int dz\frac{1}{r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\tilde{\xi}^{z}(x,y)\right)+\tilde{\xi}^{x}(x,y)\:,\\
\xi^{y} & = & -\int dz\frac{1}{r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\tilde{\xi}^{z}(x,y)\right)+\tilde{\xi}^{y}(x,y)\:,\\
\xi^{z} & = & \sqrt{F(z)}\tilde{\xi}^{z}(x,y)\:,\\
\Lambda^{\mathbf{1}} & = & \int dz\frac{A(z)}{r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\tilde{\xi}^{z}(x,y)\right)+\tilde{\Lambda}^{\mathbf{1}}(x,y)\:,\\
\Lambda^{\mathbf{2}} & = & \int dz\frac{A(z)}{r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\tilde{\xi}^{z}(x,y)\right)+\tilde{\Lambda}^{\mathbf{2}}(x,y)\:,\\
\Lambda^{\mathbf{3}} & = & \tilde{\Lambda}^{\mathbf{3}}(x,y)\:,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\xi}^{\mu}(x,y)$ is an arbitrary vector function of $(x,y)$. Then the residual gauge transformations for the vector mode fluctuations are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta g_{tx} & = & F(z)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\tilde{\xi}^{t}(x,y)\right)\:,\\
\delta A_{x}^{\mathbf{3}} & = & -\Phi(z)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\tilde{\xi}^{t}(x,y)\right)+\lambda A(z)\int dz\frac{A(z)}{r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\tilde{\xi}^{z}(x,y)\right)\nonumber \\
& & +\lambda A(z)\tilde{\Lambda}^{\mathbf{2}}(x,y)-\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\tilde{\Lambda}^{\mathbf{3}}(x,y)\right)\:,\\
\delta A_{t}^{\mathbf{1}} & = & -\lambda\Phi(z)\left[\int dz\frac{A(z)}{r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\tilde{\xi}^{z}(x,y)\right)+\tilde{\Lambda}^{\mathbf{2}}(x,y)\right]\:,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\delta g_{ty} & = & F(z)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\tilde{\xi}^{t}(x,y)\right)\:,\\
\delta A_{y}^{\mathbf{3}} & = & -\Phi(z)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\tilde{\xi}^{t}(x,y)\right)-\lambda A(z)\int dz\frac{A(z)}{r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\tilde{\xi}^{z}(x,y)\right)\nonumber \\
& & -\lambda A(z)\tilde{\Lambda}^{\mathbf{1}}(x,y)-\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\tilde{\Lambda}^{\mathbf{3}}(x,y)\right)\:,\\
\delta A_{t}^{\mathbf{1}} & = & \lambda\Phi(z)\left[\int dz\frac{A(z)}{r(z)^{2}\sqrt{F(z)}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\tilde{\xi}^{z}(x,y)\right)+\tilde{\Lambda}^{\mathbf{1}}(x,y)\right]\:.\end{aligned}$$ In the above equations, the part that contains $\tilde{\xi}^{t}(x,y)$ is the residual gauge transformation that can be used to obtain the fourth solution (\[FourthSolution\]) in the vector mode boundary-to-bulk propagators.
Near-Critical First Order Fields
=================================
Here we give the solutions for $r^{(1)}(z)$, $F^{(1)}(z)$ and $\Phi^{(1)}(z)$. They are written as indefinite integrals over sources quadratic in $A^{(1)}(z)$, plus two general solutions to the homogeneous equations with arbitrary coefficients $C_{1}$ - $C_{6}$, as to be used in Section 4.7. $$\begin{aligned}
r^{(1)}(z) & = & -\frac{1}{2}\int dz\int dz\left[\frac{1}{r^{(0)}(z)}\left(\frac{d}{dz}A^{(1)}(z)\right)^{2}+\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi^{(0)}(z)^{2}}{r^{(0)}(z)F^{(0)}(z)^{2}}A^{(1)}(z)^{2}\right]\\
& & \qquad+C_{1}z+C_{2}\:,\nonumber \\
\Phi^{(1)}(z) & = & -2\int\frac{dz}{r^{(0)}(z)^{2}}\int dz\Bigg\{\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Phi^{(0)}(z)\right)\left[r^{(0)}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}r^{(1)}(z)\right)-\left(\frac{d}{dz}r^{(0)}(z)\right)r^{(1)}(z)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad-\frac{\lambda^{2}\Phi^{(0)}(z)}{F^{(0)}(z)}A^{(1)}(z)^{2}\Bigg\}+C_{3}\int\frac{dz}{r^{(0)}(z)^{2}}+C_{4}\:,\\
F^{(1)}(z) & = & \int\frac{dz}{r^{(0)}(z)^{2}}\int dz\Bigg\{-2r^{(0)}(z)\frac{d}{dz}\left[F^{(0)}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}r^{(1)}(z)\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & \qquad+2\left(\frac{d}{dz}r^{(0)}(z)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}F^{(0)}(z)\right)r^{(1)}(z)+r^{(0)}(z)^{2}\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Phi^{(0)}(z)\right)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\Phi^{(1)}(z)\right)\Bigg\}\nonumber \\
& & \qquad+C_{5}\int\frac{dz}{r^{(0)}(z)^{2}}+C_{6}\:.\end{aligned}$$ The trace equation (\[EQ5\]) at $O\left(\epsilon^{2}\right)$ order is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r^{(0)}(z)}\frac{d}{dz}\left[r^{(0)}(z)^{4}\left(\frac{d}{dz}F^{(1)}(z)\right)\right]+4r^{(0)}(z)\frac{d}{dz}\left[r^{(0)}(z)F^{(0)}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}r^{(1)}(z)\right)\right]\qquad\\
+2r^{(0)}(z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}r^{(0)}(z)\right)^{2}F^{(1)}(z)-4\left(\frac{d}{dz}r^{(0)}(z)\right)\left[\frac{d}{dz}\left(r^{(0)}(z)F^{(0)}(z)\right)\right]r^{(1)}(z) & = & 0\:.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
[100]{} T. L. Hughes, R. G. Leigh and O. Parrikar, “Torsional Anomalies, Hall Viscosity, and Bulk-boundary Correspondence in Topological States,” Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 025040 (2013) \[arXiv:1211.6442 \[hep-th\]\].
E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii, *Physical Kinetics*, vol. 10 of *Course of Theoretical Physics* (Pergamon, Oxford, 1981), Eq. (59.38).
J. E. Avron, R. Seiler and P. G. Zograf, “Viscosity of quantum Hall fluids,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 697 (1995).
J. E. Avron, “Odd Viscosity,” J. Stat. Phys. [**92**]{}, 543 (1998) \[arXiv:physics/9712050\].
I. V. Tokatly and G. Vignale, “Lorentz shear modulus of a two-dimensional electron gas at high magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 161305 (2007) \[arXiv:0706.2454 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\].
I. V. Tokatly and G. Vignale, “Lorentz shear modulus of fractional quantum Hall states,” \[arXiv:0812.4331 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\].
N. Read, “Non-Abelian adiabatic statistics and Hall viscosity in quantum Hall states and paired superfluids,” Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 045308 (2009) \[arXiv:0805.2507 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\].
F. D. M. Haldane, “Hall viscosity’ and intrinsic metric of incompressible fractional Hall fluids,” arXiv:0906.1854 \[cond-mat.str-el\].
N. Read and E. H. Rezayi, “Hall viscosity, orbital spin, and geometry: paired superfluids and quantum Hall systems,” Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 085316 (2011) \[arXiv:1008.0210 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\].
T. L. Hughes, R. G. Leigh and E. Fradkin, “Torsional Response and Dissipationless Viscosity in Topological Insulators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 075502 (2011) \[arXiv:1101.3541 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\].
B. Bradlyn, M. Goldstein and N. Read, “Kubo formulas for viscosity: Hall viscosity, Ward identities, and the relation with conductivity,” Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 245309 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.7021 \[cond-mat.stat-mech\]\].
C. Hoyos and D. T. Son, “Hall Viscosity and Electromagnetic Response,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 066805 (2012) \[arXiv:1109.2651 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\].
A. Nicolis and D. T. Son, “Hall viscosity from effective field theory,” arXiv:1103.2137 \[hep-th\].
C. Hoyos, S. Moroz and D. T. Son, “Effective theory of chiral two-dimensional superfluids,” arXiv:1305.3925 \[cond-mat.quant-gas\].
D. T. Son, “Newton-Cartan Geometry and the Quantum Hall Effect,” arXiv:1306.0638 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\].
Y. Hidaka, Y. Hirono, T. Kimura and Y. Minami, “Viscoelastic-electromagnetism and Hall viscosity,” PTEP [**2013**]{}, 013A02 (2013) \[arXiv:1206.0734 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\]\].
P. B. Wiegmann, “Quantum Hydrodynamics of Fractional Hall Effect: Quantum Kirchhoff Equations,” arXiv:1211.5132 \[cond-mat.str-el\].
P. B. Wiegmann, “Anomalous Hydrodynamics of Fractional Quantum Hall States,” JETP [**144**]{} (9), 617 (2013) \[arXiv:1305.6893 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\].
P. B. Wiegmann, “Hydrodynamics of Euler incompressible fluid and the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect,” arXiv:1309.5992 \[cond-mat.str-el\].
X. G. Wen and A. Zee, “Shift and spin vector: New topological quantum numbers for the Hall fluids,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 953 (1992)
J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 231 (1998) \[hep-th/9711200\].
S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B [**428**]{}, 105 (1998) \[hep-th/9802109\].
E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 253 (1998) \[hep-th/9802150\].
G. Policastro, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, “From AdS / CFT correspondence to hydrodynamics,” JHEP [**0209**]{}, 043 (2002) \[hep-th/0205052\].
G. Policastro, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, “From AdS / CFT correspondence to hydrodynamics. 2. Sound waves,” JHEP [**0212**]{}, 054 (2002) \[hep-th/0210220\].
P. Kovtun, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, “Holography and hydrodynamics: Diffusion on stretched horizons,” JHEP [**0310**]{}, 064 (2003) \[hep-th/0309213\].
S. Cremonini, “The Shear Viscosity to Entropy Ratio: A Status Report,” Mod. Phys. Lett. B [**25**]{}, 1867 (2011) \[arXiv:1108.0677 \[hep-th\]\].
S. S. Gubser, “Phase transitions near black hole horizons,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**22**]{}, 5121 (2005) \[hep-th/0505189\].
S. S. Gubser, “Breaking an Abelian gauge symmetry near a black hole horizon,” Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 065034 (2008) \[arXiv:0801.2977 \[hep-th\]\].
S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, “Building a Holographic Superconductor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 031601 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.3295 \[hep-th\]\].
S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, “Holographic Superconductors,” JHEP [**0812**]{}, 015 (2008) \[arXiv:0810.1563 \[hep-th\]\].
G. T. Horowitz and M. M. Roberts, “Holographic Superconductors with Various Condensates,” Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 126008 (2008) \[arXiv:0810.1077 \[hep-th\]\].
C. P. Herzog, P. K. Kovtun and D. T. Son, “Holographic model of superfluidity,” Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 066002 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.4870 \[hep-th\]\].
S. S. Gubser, “Colorful horizons with charge in anti-de Sitter space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 191601 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.3483 \[hep-th\]\].
S. S. Gubser and S. S. Pufu, “The Gravity dual of a p-wave superconductor,” JHEP [**0811**]{}, 033 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.2960 \[hep-th\]\].
M. M. Roberts and S. A. Hartnoll, “Pseudogap and time reversal breaking in a holographic superconductor,” JHEP [**0808**]{}, 035 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.3898 \[hep-th\]\].
J. -W. Chen, Y. -J. Kao, D. Maity, W. -Y. Wen and C. -P. Yeh, “Towards A Holographic Model of D-Wave Superconductors,” Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 106008 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.2991 \[hep-th\]\].
F. Benini, C. P. Herzog, R. Rahman and A. Yarom, “Gauge gravity duality for d-wave superconductors: prospects and challenges,” JHEP [**1011**]{}, 137 (2010) \[arXiv:1007.1981 \[hep-th\]\].
C. P. Herzog, “Lectures on Holographic Superfluidity and Superconductivity,” J. Phys. A [**42**]{}, 343001 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.1975 \[hep-th\]\].
G. T. Horowitz, “Theory of Superconductivity,” Lect. Notes Phys. [**828**]{}, 313 (2011) \[arXiv:1002.1722 \[hep-th\]\].
Richard E. Prange and Steven M. Girvin, eds., *The Quantum Hall Effect* (2nd ed.) (Springer-Verlag, 1990).
Sankar Das Sarma and Aron Pinczuk, eds., *Perspectives in Quantum Hall Effects* (John Wiley and Sons, 1997).
Steven M. Girvin, The Quantum Hall Effect: Novel Excitations and Broken SymmetriesarXiv:cond-mat/9907002[\]]{}.
G. Murthy and R. Shankar, “Hamiltonian theories of the fractional quantum Hall effect”, Rev. Mod. Phys, 75, 1101 (2003).
A. Karlhede, S.A. Kivelson, S.L. Sondhi, The Quantum Hall effect: The Article in *Correlated Electron Systems (Jerusalem Winter School in Theoretical Physics, vol. 9)*, V.J. Emery ed (World Scientific, 1992).
S. A. Hartnoll and P. Kovtun, “Hall conductivity from dyonic black holes,” Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 066001 (2007) \[arXiv:0704.1160 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Keski-Vakkuri and P. Kraus, “Quantum Hall Effect in AdS/CFT,” JHEP [**0809**]{}, 130 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.4643 \[hep-th\]\].
J. L. Davis, P. Kraus and A. Shah, “Gravity Dual of a Quantum Hall Plateau Transition,” JHEP [**0811**]{}, 020 (2008) \[arXiv:0809.1876 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Fujita, W. Li, S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Fractional Quantum Hall Effect via Holography: Chern-Simons, Edge States, and Hierarchy,” JHEP [**0906**]{}, 066 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.0924 \[hep-th\]\].
O. Bergman, N. Jokela, G. Lifschytz and M. Lippert, “Quantum Hall Effect in a Holographic Model,” JHEP [**1010**]{}, 063 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.4965 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Gubankova, J. Brill, M. Cubrovic, K. Schalm, P. Schijven and J. Zaanen, “Holographic fermions in external magnetic fields,” Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 106003 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.4051 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Kristjansen and G. W. Semenoff, “Giant D5 Brane Holographic Hall State,” arXiv:1212.5609 \[hep-th\].
J. Erdmenger, M. Haack, M. Kaminski and A. Yarom, “Fluid dynamics of R-charged black holes,” JHEP [**0901**]{}, 055 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.2488 \[hep-th\]\].
N. Banerjee, J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharyya, S. Dutta, R. Loganayagam and P. Surowka, “Hydrodynamics from charged black branes,” JHEP [**1101**]{}, 094 (2011) \[arXiv:0809.2596 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Gynther, K. Landsteiner, F. Pena-Benitez and A. Rebhan, “Holographic Anomalous Conductivities and the Chiral Magnetic Effect,” JHEP [**1102**]{}, 110 (2011) \[arXiv:1005.2587 \[hep-th\]\].
T. Kalaydzhyan and I. Kirsch, “Fluid/gravity model for the chiral magnetic effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 211601 (2011) \[arXiv:1102.4334 \[hep-th\]\].
I. Amado, K. Landsteiner and F. Pena-Benitez, “Anomalous transport coefficients from Kubo formulas in Holography,” JHEP [**1105**]{}, 081 (2011) \[arXiv:1102.4577 \[hep-th\]\].
K. Landsteiner, E. Megias and F. Pena-Benitez, “Gravitational Anomaly and Transport,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 021601 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.5006 \[hep-ph\]\].
K. Landsteiner, E. Megias, L. Melgar and F. Pena-Benitez, “Holographic Gravitational Anomaly and Chiral Vortical Effect,” JHEP [**1109**]{}, 121 (2011) \[arXiv:1107.0368 \[hep-th\]\].
K. Landsteiner and L. Melgar, “Holographic Flow of Anomalous Transport Coefficients,” JHEP [**1210**]{}, 131 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.4440 \[hep-th\]\].
K. Landsteiner, E. Megias and F. Pena-Benitez, “Anomalous Transport from Kubo Formulae,” arXiv:1207.5808 \[hep-th\].
O. Saremi and D. T. Son, “Hall viscosity from gauge/gravity duality,” JHEP [**1204**]{}, 091 (2012) \[arXiv:1103.4851 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Alexander and N. Yunes, “Chern-Simons Modified General Relativity,” Phys. Rept. [**480**]{}, 1 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.2562 \[hep-th\]\].
J. -W. Chen, N. -E. Lee, D. Maity and W. -Y. Wen, “A Holographic Model For Hall Viscosity,” Phys. Lett. B [**713**]{}, 47 (2012) \[arXiv:1110.0793 \[hep-th\]\].
J. -W. Chen, S. -H. Dai, N. -E. Lee and D. Maity, “Novel Parity Violating Transport Coefficients in 2+1 Dimensions from Holography,” JHEP [**1209**]{}, 096 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.0850 \[hep-th\]\].
R. -G. Cai, T. -J. Li, Y. -H. Qi and Y. -L. Zhang, “Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations from Einstein Gravity with Chern-Simons Term,” Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 086008 (2012)
D. -C. Zou and B. Wang, “Holographic parity violating charged fluid dual to Chern-Simons modified gravity,” arXiv:1306.5486 \[hep-th\].
H. Liu, H. Ooguri, B. Stoica and N. Yunes, “Spontaneous Generation of Angular Momentum in Holographic Theories,” \[arXiv:1212.3666 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Liu, H. Ooguri and B. Stoica, “Angular Momentum Generation by Parity Violation,” arXiv:1311.5879 \[hep-th\].
K. Jensen, M. Kaminski, P. Kovtun, R. Meyer, A. Ritz and A. Yarom, “Parity-Violating Hydrodynamics in 2+1 Dimensions,” JHEP [**1205**]{}, 102 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.4498 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Sonner, “A Rotating Holographic Superconductor,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 084031 (2009) \[arXiv:0903.0627 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Stone and R. Roy, “Edge modes, edge currents, and gauge invariance in superfluids and superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 184511 (2004) \[arXiv:cond-mat/0308034\].
J. A. Sauls, “Surface States, Edge Currents and the Angular Momentum of Chiral -wave Superfluids,” Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 214509 (2011) \[arXiv:1209.5501 \[cond-mat.supr-con\]\].
Y. Tsutsumi and K. Machida, “Edge mass current and the role of Majorana fermions in a-phase superfluid He-3,” Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 100506 (2012).
T. M. Rice, M. Sigrist, “Sr~2~RuO~4~: an electronic analogue of ^3^He?” J. Phys, Condens. Matter **7**, l643 (1995).
G. Baskaran, “Why is Sr~2~RuO~4~ not a high T~c~ superconductor? Electron correlation, Hund’s coupling and p-wave instability,” Physica B **223-224**, 490 (1996).
A. Stern, “Anyons and the quantum Hall effect – A pedagogical review,” Annals of Physics **323**, 1 (2008), 204-249 [\[]{}arXiv:0711.4697 [\[]{}cond-mat.mes-hall[\]]{}[\]]{}.
C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman and S. Das Sarma, “Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 1083 (2008).
R. L. Willett, “The quantum Hall effect at 5/2 filling factor,” Rep. Prog. Phys. **76** 076501 (2013).
E. Radu and D. H. Tchrakian, “Stable black hole solutions with non-Abelian fields,” Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 084022 (2012) \[arXiv:1111.0418 \[gr-qc\]\].
M. Kaminski and S. Moroz, “Non-Relativistic Parity-Violating Hydrodynamics in Two Spatial Dimensions,” arXiv:1310.8305 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\].
J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharyya and S. Minwalla, “Dissipative Superfluid dynamics from gravity,” JHEP [**1104**]{}, 125 (2011) \[arXiv:1101.3332 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharyya, S. Minwalla and A. Yarom, “A Theory of first order dissipative superfluid dynamics,” JHEP [**1405**]{}, 147 (2014) \[arXiv:1105.3733 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. Neiman and Y. Oz, “Anomalies in Superfluids and a Chiral Electric Effect,” JHEP [**1109**]{}, 011 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.3576 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Chapman, C. Hoyos and Y. Oz, “Lifshitz Superfluid Hydrodynamics,” arXiv:1402.2981 \[hep-th\].
C. Hoyos, B. S. Kim and Y. Oz, “Odd Parity Transport In Non-Abelian Superfluids From Symmetry Locking,” arXiv:1404.7507 \[hep-th\].
C. P. Herzog and D. T. Son, “Schwinger-Keldysh propagators from AdS/CFT correspondence,” JHEP [**0303**]{}, 046 (2003) \[hep-th/0212072\].
E. Barnes, D. Vaman, C. Wu and P. Arnold, “Real-time finite-temperature correlators from AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 025019 (2010) \[arXiv:1004.1179 \[hep-th\]\].
P. Arnold, D. Vaman, C. Wu and W. Xiao, “Second order hydrodynamic coefficients from 3-point stress tensor correlators via AdS/CFT,” JHEP [**1110**]{}, 033 (2011) \[arXiv:1105.4645 \[hep-th\]\].
R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, “Surface terms as counterterms in the AdS / CFT correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 104001 (1999) \[hep-th/9903238\].
P. Kraus, F. Larsen and R. Siebelink, “The gravitational action in asymptotically AdS and flat space-times,” Nucl. Phys. B [**563**]{}, 259 (1999) \[hep-th/9906127\].
S. de Haro, S. N. Solodukhin and K. Skenderis, “Holographic reconstruction of space-time and renormalization in the AdS / CFT correspondence,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**217**]{}, 595 (2001) \[hep-th/0002230\].
R. Manvelyan, E. Radu and D. H. Tchrakian, “New AdS non-Abelian black holes with superconducting horizons,” Phys. Lett. B [**677**]{}, 79 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.3531 \[hep-th\]\].
G. Siopsis and J. Therrien, “Analytic Calculation of Properties of Holographic Superconductors,” JHEP [**1005**]{}, 013 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.4275 \[hep-th\]\].
H. -B. Zeng, X. Gao, Y. Jiang and H. -S. Zong, “Analytical Computation of Critical Exponents in Several Holographic Superconductors,” JHEP [**1105**]{}, 002 (2011) \[arXiv:1012.5564 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Natsuume and M. Ohta, “The Shear viscosity of holographic superfluids,” Prog. Theor. Phys. [**124**]{}, 931 (2010) \[arXiv:1008.4142 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Erdmenger, P. Kerner and H. Zeller, “Non-universal shear viscosity from Einstein gravity,” Phys. Lett. B [**699**]{}, 301 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.5912 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Erdmenger, P. Kerner and H. Zeller, “Transport in Anisotropic Superfluids: A Holographic Description,” JHEP [**1201**]{}, 059 (2012) \[arXiv:1110.0007 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Erdmenger, D. Fernandez and H. Zeller, “New Transport Properties of Anisotropic Holographic Superfluids,” JHEP [**1304**]{}, 049 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.4838 \[hep-th\]\].
P. Basu, A. Mukherjee and H. -H. Shieh, “Supercurrent: Vector Hair for an AdS Black Hole,” Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 045010 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.4494 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Ammon, J. Erdmenger, V. Grass, P. Kerner and A. O’Bannon, “On Holographic p-wave Superfluids with Back-reaction,” Phys. Lett. B [**686**]{}, 192 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.3515 \[hep-th\]\].
S. S. Gubser, F. D. Rocha and A. Yarom, “Fermion correlators in non-abelian holographic superconductors,” JHEP [**1011**]{}, 085 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.4416 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 505 (1998) \[hep-th/9803131\].
M. Cvetic and S. S. Gubser, “Phases of R charged black holes, spinning branes and strongly coupled gauge theories,” JHEP [**9904**]{}, 024 (1999) \[hep-th/9902195\].
A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, “Charged AdS black holes and catastrophic holography,” Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 064018 (1999) \[hep-th/9902170\].
A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, “Holography, thermodynamics and fluctuations of charged AdS black holes,” Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 104026 (1999) \[hep-th/9904197\].
P. Mitra, “Thermodynamics of charged anti-de Sitter black holes in canonical ensemble,” Phys. Lett. B [**459**]{}, 119 (1999) \[gr-qc/9903078\].
S. S. Gubser and I. Mitra, “The Evolution of unstable black holes in anti-de Sitter space,” JHEP [**0108**]{}, 018 (2001) \[hep-th/0011127\].
S. S. Gubser and F. D. Rocha, “The gravity dual to a quantum critical point with spontaneous symmetry breaking,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 061601 (2009) \[arXiv:0807.1737 \[hep-th\]\].
S. S. Gubser and A. Nellore, “Low-temperature behavior of the Abelian Higgs model in anti-de Sitter space,” JHEP [**0904**]{}, 008 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.4554 \[hep-th\]\].
S. S. Gubser and A. Nellore, “Ground states of holographic superconductors,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 105007 (2009) \[arXiv:0908.1972 \[hep-th\]\].
G. T. Horowitz and M. M. Roberts, “Zero Temperature Limit of Holographic Superconductors,” JHEP [**0911**]{}, 015 (2009) \[arXiv:0908.3677 \[hep-th\]\].
R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, “Holographic conductivity of zero temperature superconductors,” Phys. Lett. B [**686**]{}, 199 (2010) \[arXiv:0909.2138 \[hep-th\]\].
T. Nishioka, S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic Superconductor/Insulator Transition at Zero Temperature,” JHEP [**1003**]{}, 131 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.0962 \[hep-th\]\].
G. T. Horowitz and B. Way, “Complete Phase Diagrams for a Holographic Superconductor/Insulator System,” JHEP [**1011**]{}, 011 (2010) \[arXiv:1007.3714 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. Brihaye and B. Hartmann, “Holographic superfluid/fluid/insulator phase transitions in 2+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 126008 (2011) \[arXiv:1101.5708 \[hep-th\]\].
P. Basu, J. He, A. Mukherjee and H. -H. Shieh, “Hard-gapped Holographic Superconductors,” Phys. Lett. B [**689**]{}, 45 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.4999 \[hep-th\]\].
P. Basu, “Low temperature properties of holographic condensates,” JHEP [**1103**]{}, 142 (2011) \[arXiv:1101.0215 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Akhavan and M. Alishahiha, “P-Wave Holographic Insulator/Superconductor Phase Transition,” Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 086003 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.6158 \[hep-th\]\].
R. -G. Cai, H. -F. Li and H. -Q. Zhang, “Analytical Studies on Holographic Insulator/Superconductor Phase Transitions,” Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 126007 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.5568 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Wu, “Angular Momentum Generation from Holographic Chern-Simons Models,” arXiv:1311.6368 \[hep-th\].
[^1]: In this paper we define the symmetrization $A_{(\mu}B_{\nu)}\equiv A_{\mu}B_{\nu}+A_{\nu}B_{\mu}$ and the anti-symmetrization $A_{[\mu}B_{\nu]}\equiv A_{\mu}B_{\nu}-A_{\nu}B_{\mu}$ without the factor of $\frac{1}{2}$.
[^2]: Notice that $\alpha_{1}$ is related to the order parameter $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle$.
[^3]: The function in the first $\left(\,\right)$ is to cancel the same factor in the blackening function $F^{(0)}(z)$ in the denominator of the action such that the integral is easy to do. One can of course choose other ansatz and will get similar results. $n$ is the rank of the trial polynomial. In practice one can only include the first few terms (like to set $n=4\;\textrm{or}\;6$) and will get very accurate results. We find that choosing $n$ to be an even number usually gives better results. In this paper, all calculations are done by setting $n=4$.
[^4]: This assertion for $a^{(2)}$ need to be made carefully, and we will have more discussion on this later for low temperature limit.
[^5]: Compare to the numerical result in [@Roberts:2008ns]: converting their equation (16) to our conventions,and noticing their definition for $\langle J\rangle$ involves a factor of $\sqrt{2}$, they have $$\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle}{\rho}=1.16\left(1-\frac{T}{T_{c}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\theta\left(T_{c}-T\right)$$ at the leading order. So the agreement is good.
[^6]: In this section we will reserve the letters $i$ and $j$ exclusively for $e$ and $o$.
[^7]: Since every term is quadratic in fluctuations, there are two permutations of substitution for each term.
[^8]: The other two 2-point functions one can compute are not independent from the above ones: $$G_{\textrm{ra}}^{xy,xx-yy}(\omega)=G_{\textrm{ra}}^{xx-yy,xy}(-\omega)\:,\qquad G_{\textrm{ra}}^{xx-yy,xx-yy}(\omega)=4G_{\textrm{ra}}^{xy,xy}(\omega)\:.$$
[^9]: The indices $i,j=e,o$ are just short-hand notations introduced to make the equations look more compact. It is not necessary to think them as some co-variant indices that are raised and lowered by some metric. In other words, equations containing $i,j=e,o$ are just components of some covariant equations and themselves not covariant in some $(e,o)$-space. By definition, repeated indices of $i,j$ are summed over $e,o$.
[^10]: We view the boundary fields $\bar{h}_{tx}$ and $\bar{h}_{t}^{x}$ etc are living in the 3-dimensional flat Minkowskian space where the fluid (field theory) system lives. That means the indices of these boundary fields are raised and lowered by 3-dimensional flat Minkowskian metric, not by the 4-dimensional bulk metric (\[BackgroundAnsatz\]).
[^11]: However, in the calculation for the near-extremal limit to be given later in this section, we find $a^{(2)}$ is still positive, so the phase transition is still second order there.
[^12]: Actually, $\ln(z-z_{h})$ has already appear earlier. If we go through the same procedures as outlined in Section 4 to solve the model analytically, we will get $\ln(z-z_{h})$ when we solve $r^{(1)}(z)$, $F^{(1)}(z)$ and $\Phi^{(1)}(z)$ using the integrals listed in Appendix (C), as well as in $A^{(2)}(z)$. But except for $r^{(1)}(z)$, $\ln(z-z_{h})$ in the other functions is always multiplied by some factors of $z-z_{H}$ or $z-z_{h}$. So when evaluated at $z=z_{H}$, $\ln(\tau)$ will always drop off or appear in higher order, thus if we start directly with extremal black hole, we will not encounter divergence at these intermediate steps, until we reach $\ell$ in (\[AngMomDensity\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The Maslov correction to the wave function is the jump of $-\pi/2$ in the phase when the system passes through a caustic point. This phenomenon is related to the second variation and to the geometry of paths, as conveniently explained in Feynman’s path integral framework. The results can be extended to any system using the semiclassical approximation. The $1$-dimensional harmonic oscillator is used to illustrate the different derivations reviewed here.'
author:
- |
P. A. Horváthy[^1]\
Laboratoire de Mathématiques et de Physique Théorique\
Université de Tours\
Parc de Grandmont\
F-37 200 TOURS (France)
title: The Maslov correction in the semiclassical Feynman integral
---
arXiv : `quant-ph/0702236`
Introduction
============
A fascinating fact, first observed at the end of the 19th century [@Gouy], is that, after passing through a focal point, the phase of light jumps by $-\pi/2$. If a light beam is split into two parts one of them passes through a focal point while the other does not, then, when the two partial waves are recombined, a destructive interference is observed.
This curious phenomenon has later been extended to the quantum mechanics of massive particles, where it is referred to as the “Maslov correction” [@Keller; @Maslov; @Arnold]. A simple illustration is provided by the harmonic oscillator [@JMS]. Feynman’s path integral framework [@FeynmanHibbs] is ideally suited to understand how this comes about [@HPA].
The aim of this Review is to derive the Maslov correction and study some if its aspects in the path integral framework.
The Feynman propagator of the oscillator {#Feynmanprop}
========================================
Let us first consider, for simplicity, a problem in $1$ space dimension. Let $x_1$ and $x_2$ two points and let $T>0$ a time interval [^2]. Let us indeed consider the set, denoted by ${\cal P}$ of all curves $\gamma(t)$ between $x_1$ and $x_2$, i. e. such that $\gamma(0)=x_1$ and $\gamma(T)=x_2$. The classical action is a real valued function defined on ${\cal P}$, $$S(\gamma)=\int_0^T\!\! L\big(\gamma(t),\dot{\gamma}(t)\big)dt,
\label{hatas}$$ where $L(x,\dot{x})$ is the Lagrange function of the system. Then the Principle of Least Action (Hamilton’s Principle) tells us that the actual motion which starts in $x_1$ and arrives to $x_{2}$ in $T$ is the $\bar{\gamma}(t)$ that makes $S$ stationary.
Apart of exceptional cases, (see below) the two given points $x_1$ to $x_2$ are joined, in time $T$, by a unique classical motion curve $\bar\gamma(t)$. But in Quantum Mechanics the situation is different. Intuitively, a quantum particle moves not along a unique path, but along [*all paths*]{} which join these points in the given time ! Feynman, in his Thesis, argued indeed that to any path $\gamma$ in $\cP$ is associated a complex number, namely $$\exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}S(\gamma)\right],
\label{Feynmanfactor}$$ where $S$ denotes the classical action (\[hatas\]) calculated along $\gamma$. Next, if the “amplitude” (whose square $|\psi|^2$ is the probability) of finding our particle in the instant $t=0$ at the point $x_{1}$ is $\psi(x_{1})$, then the amplitude, $\psi_{T}(x_{2})$, of finding it at $x_{2}$ at time $T$ will be $$U_T\psi(x_2)\equiv\psi_T(x_2)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
K(x_2,T|x_1,0)\psi(x_{1})dx_{1}.
\label{idofej}$$ Here the propagator, $K(x_2,T|x_1,0)$, which describes the transition from $x_{1}$-ből $x_{2}$ in time $T$, is, says Feynman, a “sum” of the contributions (\[Feynmanfactor\]) of all paths, $$K(x_2,T|x_1,0)=\int_\cP\exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}S(\gamma)\right]
\cD\gamma.
\label{propag}$$
But all this intuitive, unless we say what “$\cD\gamma$” means here. The definition of the integration measure is indeed the main stumbling block of the whole theory, and, despite many efforts, no fully satisfactory answer is available as yet. The miracle is that the integral can, in some cases, nevertheless evaluated [@FeynmanHibbs]. Below we present one possible method we illustrate on the example of a [*one dimensional harmonic oscillator*]{}.
Let us indeed consider an arbitrary path $\gamma(t)$ in $\cP$ that satisfies the given boundary conditions. Let us assume that $\cP$ contains a unique classical path, $\bar{\gamma}(t)$, and let us decompose $\gamma$ into the sum of $\bar{\gamma}(t)$ and a $$\gamma(t)=\bar{\gamma}(t)+\eta(t),
\qquad\hbox{ahol}\qquad
\eta(0)=\eta(T)=0,
\label{eta}$$ since the end points are kept fixed. The Lagrange function of the oscillator is $
L=\frac{m}{2}\big({\dot{x}}^2-\omega^2x^2\big).
$ The action along $\gamma(t)$ is therefore $$S(\gamma)=\int_0^T\!{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}m\big(\dot{\bar{\gamma}}^2
-\omega^2{\bar{\gamma}}^2\big)dt
+
m\int_0^T\!\big(\dot{\bar{\gamma}}\,\dot{\eta}
-\omega^2\bar{\gamma}\,\eta\big) dt
+
{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}m\int_0^T\!(\dot{\eta}^2
-\omega^2{\eta}^2)dt.
\label{hatkifejtes}$$ For the oscillator, $
\ddot{x}+\omega^2x=0
$, so that $
x(t)=A\sin\omega t +B\cos\omega t,
$ where the constants $A$ and $B$ are determined by the initial conditions, $$B=x_1\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad
A=\frac{x_2-x_1\cos\omega T}{\sin\omega T},$$ provided $\sin\omega T\neq 0$,i.e., if $\omega T\neq N\pi$. Hence [*If $T$ is not integer multiple of the half-period, $$T\neq N\times\frac{\tau}{2},
\qquad\tau=\frac{2\pi}{\omega},
\label{nemkauszt}$$ there exists a unique classical path that starts in $x_1$ and arrives, after time $T$, to $x_2$-be*]{}. The action calculated along this path is $$S(\bar{\gamma})=\frac{m\omega}{2\sin\omega T}\left(
(x_1^2+x_2^2)\cos\omega T-2x_1x_2\right).
\label{oszchat}$$
Returning to (\[hatkifejtes\]), the first term is $S(\bar{\gamma})$. Next, integration by parts of the middle term yields $$\int_0^T\!\big(\dot{\bar{\gamma}}\,\dot{\eta}
-\omega^2\bar{\gamma}\,\eta\big) dt=-\int_0^T\!\big(\ddot{\bar{\gamma}}
+\omega^2\bar{\gamma}\big)\,\eta\, dt=0,$$ since $\bar{\gamma}$ satisfies the classical equation of motion $\ddot{x}=-\omega^2x$. This term vanishes therefore, providing us with the propagator $$K(x_2,T|x_1,0)=
\exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}S(\bar{\gamma})\right]\times F(T),
\label{oscpropag}$$ where the “reduced propagator”, $F(T)$, is a path integral taken over all variations, $$F(T)=\int \exp\left\{\frac{im}{2\hbar}\int_0^T\!\left[\big(
\dot{\eta}^2-\omega^2\eta^2\right]dt\right\}\cD\eta.
\label{F(T)}$$
But all this is still intuitive, as we still not say what “$\cD\eta$” actually means. To answer this question, Feynman expands the (periodic) variation into a Fourier series, $$\eta(t)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k\sin [k\frac{\pi}{T}t]
\quad\Rightarrow\quad
\int_0^T\!{\eta}^2dt=\frac{T}{2}\sum_ka_k^2,
\qquad
\int_0^T\!\dot{\eta}^2dt
=\frac{T}{2}\sum_k\big(\frac{k\pi}{T}\big)^2a_k^2.
\label{four}$$ Then he argues as follows. Any path is determined by its Fourier coefficients $a_{k}$; instead of “integrating over all paths” let us integrate over all Fourier coefficients, $$\begin{aligned}
F(T)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\,{\cal J}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!
\dots \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \!
\exp\left\{\sum_{k=1}^ni\,\frac{\lambda_k}{2\hbar}a_k^2
\right\}\times da_1\dots da_n
\label{sokintegral}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_k=m\left(
\big(\frac{\pi k}{T})^2-\omega^2\right)
\label{eigenvalue}\end{aligned}$$ and where ${\cal J}$ denotes the Jacobian of the (linear) transformation $\cP\to \Big\{\hbox{Fourier coefficients}\Big\}$. Let us observe that ${\cal J}$ is independent of the data ($\omega, m$, etc) of the oscillator and even of $\hbar$.
The classical Fresnel integrals can be evaluated, $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\exp\left[i\frac{\lambda}{2}x^2\right]dx=
\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}}\,e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}.
\label{efresnel}$$ Then the sum in the exponent in (\[sokintegral\]) becomes a product, $$F(T)=\lim_{n\to\infty} C_{n}
\left(\prod_{k=1}^n\lambda_k\right)^{-1/2},
\label{faktorok}$$ where $C_{n}$ is the product of various (divergent) factors.
The product of eigenvectors can be split into two parts. $$\prod_{k=1}^n\lambda_k=
\prod_{k=1}^nm\frac{k^2\pi^2}{T^2}\times
\prod_{k=1}^n\Big(1-\frac{\omega^2T^2}{k^2\pi^2}\Big).
\label{tenyezok}$$ The Euler formula says now that $$\prod_{k=1}^\infty\left(1-\frac{x^2}{k^2\pi^2}\right)=
\frac{\sin x}{x},
\label{Euler}$$ so that $$F(T)=C\sqrt{\frac{\omega T}{\sin\omega T}},$$ where $C$ denotes the product of all $\omega$-independent factors.
Let us now remember that for $\omega\to 0$ we get a free particle, and therefore $$F^{free}(T)=\sqrt{\frac{m}{2\pi i\hbar T}}.
\label{szabadredprop}$$ This yields $C$, and inserting the action (\[oszchat\]) the propagator becomes, at last, $$K(x_2,T|x_1,0)=\left(\frac{m\omega}{2\pi i\hbar\sin\omega T}\right)^{1/2}\!
\times\exp\left\{\frac{im\omega}{2\hbar\sin\omega T}
\big[(x_1^2+x_2^2)\cos\omega T-2x_1x_2\big]\right\}.
\label{Fprop}$$
The phase correction
====================
Let us observe that if the “$\sin$” in the denominator vanishes, the whole expression becomes meaningless. How should we then continue after such a singular point. The answer comes from the evaluation of the Fresnel integrals : Euler’s formula, (\[efresnel\]), is only valid for $\lambda>0$. But $$\lambda_k>0\qquad \Longleftrightarrow\qquad
0<T<k\frac{\tau}{2},
\qquad$$ where $\tau=2\pi/\omega$ is the period. Before reaching the first half period, $0<T<\tau/2$, all factors under the square root are positive and Feynman’s calculation is correct. After the first half period (but before a full periode), however, i. e. for $\tau/2<T<\tau$, the first factor under the root is negative, while all the other factors remain positive. $$\lambda_1<0,\qquad \lambda_k>0, \quad k\geq2.$$ As a result, the propagator gets multiplied by $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{-1}}=-i=e^{-i\frac{\pi}{2}}.$$ Thus, the [*phase of the propagator (and therefore also of the wave function) jumps by $(-\pi/2)$.*]{}
Similarly, after $N$ but before $(N+1)$, half-periods, i.e. for $$N\times\frac{\tau}{2}<T<(N+1)\times\frac{\tau}{2},
\label{N}$$ the first $N$ factors in (\[faktorok\]) become negative. The phase jumps, therefore, by $N\times(-\pi/2)$. The correct result is hence $$\begin{array}{ll}
K(x_2,T|x_1,0)=
&\left(\displaystyle{\frac{m\omega}{2\pi\hbar|\sin\omega T|}}\right)^{1/2}
\!e^{-\frac{i\pi}{4}}
\\[16pt]
&\times\exp\left\{\displaystyle{\frac{im\omega}{2\hbar|\sin\omega T|}}
\times[(x_1^2+x_2^2)\cos\omega T-2x_1x_2]
\right\}\times e^{-\frac{i\pi}{2}N}.
\end{array}
\label{Masprop}$$
We must admit that our argument has been somewhat sloopy: each factor $\sqrt{-1}$ could be $i$ or $-i$, and choosing the second one would change every phase jump from $-\pi/2$ to $\pi/2$. Worse: every jump can be chosen independently ! Which square root of $(-1)$ has to be chosen ? During the first half-period, the question is irrelevant, since it is merely a global phase. But repeating it $N$ times it [*is*]{} relevant !
The formula that generalizes (\[efresnel\]) can be derived through analytic extension. For any real $\lambda\neq0$, $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\exp\left[i\frac{\lambda}{2}x^2\right]dx
=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\displaystyle(\frac{2\pi}{\lambda})^{1/2}e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}
&\lambda >0
\\[14pt]
\displaystyle(\frac{2\pi}{-\lambda})^{1/2}e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}
&\lambda <0
\end{array}\right..
\label{Fresnel}$$ Euler’s formula, (\[Euler\]), only holds for $x<\pi$, and otherwise it should be replaced by $$\prod_{k=1}^\infty\left|1-\frac{x^2}{k^2\pi^2}\right|=
\frac{|\sin x|}{x}.
\qquad x>0,
\label{Eulerbis}$$
This confirms the validity of our previous argument : passing through every half-peridod contributes a new negative $\lambda$, and this changes the phase by $\pi/2$.
What happens for $T=N\times\tau/2$ ? The propagator plainly diverges, since $\sin\omega T\to \sin N\pi=0$ in the denominator. To derive the correct result, let us use the (semi-)group property of the time evolution, $$U_{t+t'}=U_t\smallcirc U_{t'}
\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad
U_{N\frac{\tau}{2}}=(U_{\frac{\tau}{4}})^{2N}.$$ According to (\[Fprop\]) $$U_{\frac{\tau}{4}}\psi(x_2)=(\frac{m\omega}{2\pi\hbar})^{1/2}
e^{-i\pi/4}\times
\int e^{-i\frac{m\omega}{\hbar}x_1x_2}\psi(x_1)dx_1,$$ which is, essentially, a Fourier-transformation. But the square of such a Fourier-transformation carries any function into itself up to a change of its argument. Hence $$\psi_{N\frac{\tau}{2}}(x_2)=e^{-i\frac{\pi}{2} N}\psi((-1)^Nx_2),$$ i.e. $$K(x_{2},T|x_{1},0)=\exp\left[-i\frac{\pi}{2}N\right]\times
\delta\big(x_{1}-(-1)^Nx_{2}\big).
\label{kausztprop}$$
Going to $D$ dimensions, the phase will jump by $D\times\pi/2$. What happens if the oscillator is not perfectly harmonic ? One has to study higher-order terms [@Schulman].
The result can be extended to several similar situations.
$\bullet$ For a [*forced oscillator*]{} driven by a constant external force [@FeynmanHibbs; @Cheng; @LiangMorandi], the previous calculation can be repeated word-by-word. The Lagrange function is $$L=\frac{m}{2}\big({\dot{x}}^2-\omega^2x^2\big)+fx,
\label{forcedoszc}$$ where $f=\const$. For $T\neq k\tau/2$ the Hamiltonian action is $$\begin{array}{ll}
S_f(\bar{\gamma})=&\displaystyle\frac{m\omega}{2\sin\omega T}\left(
(x_1^2+x_2^2)\cos\omega T-2x_1x_2\right)
\\[14pt]
&+2f\displaystyle\frac{(1-\cos\omega T)}{m\omega^2}(x_1+x_2)
-f^2\displaystyle\frac{2(1-\cos\omega T)-\omega T\sin\omega T}{m^2\omega^4}
\end{array}
\label{focedoszchat}$$ cf. (\[oszchat\]). The propagator is again (\[Masprop\]) with the only change that the extra terms in (\[focedoszchat\]) should be accounted for. In fact [@LiangMorandi], $$K_f(x_2,T|x_1,0)=\exp\left[i\displaystyle\frac{f^2T}{2m\omega^2\hbar }\right]K_{osc}(x_2-x^*,T|x_1-x^*,0)$$ where $x^*=f/m\omega^2$. This latter formula also holds for $T=N\times\tau/2$.
Derivation from the wave function
=================================
Before further investigating the various aspects and derivations of the Maslov correction from the Feynman integral viewpoint, we would like to show how it can be understood using our knowledge of the solution of the Schrödinger equation. The clue [@LiangMorandi] is to write the propagator as $$K(x_1,x_2;T)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\exp[-i(n+{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}})\omega T]\psi_n(x_1)\psi_nx_2,
\label{propwf}$$ where the $\psi_n$ s are the normalized harmonic oscillator wavefunctions : $$\psi_n(x)=\left(\frac{1}{2^nn!}\sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\pi\hbar}}\right)^{1/2}
\,\exp(-{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\zeta^2)H_n(\zeta),
\label{owf}$$ where $\zeta=\sqrt{m\omega/\hbar}x$ and the $H_n$ denote the Hermite polynomials. Their property important for us is their behavior under space reflection, $
\psi_n(-x)=(-1)^n\psi_n(x),
$ implied by that of the Hermite polynomials.
(\[propwf\]) can now be evaluated. Let us assume that we are not in caustic, $t\neq N\pi/\omega$, where $N$ is some integer. Then write $
\omega t=N\pi+\omega\tau,
$ $0<\tau<\pi/\omega$. $N$ is hence the integer part of $\omega t/\pi$. Now from (\[propwf\]), we infer that $$K=\exp(-{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}iN\pi)\,\sum_{n=0}^\infty\exp[-inN\pi-(i(n+{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}})\omega\tau]\psi_n(x_1)\psi_n(x_2).$$
$$K(x_1,x_2;T)=\exp(-{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}i\pi{N})\sum_{n=0}^\infty
\exp[-i(n+{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}})\omega t]\psi_n(x_1)\psi_n((-1)^Nx_2).
\label{propwfallt}$$
The Hermite polynomials admit a generating function, namely $${\cal G}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2;z)=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-z^2}}\exp\left(\frac{2z\zeta_1\zeta_2-z^2(\zeta_1^2+\zeta_2^2)}{1-z^2}\right).
\label{Hgenfunc}$$ ${\cal G}$ is analytic over the $z$ plane with cuts going from $-\infty$ to $-1$ and from $+1$ to $+\infty$. For $|z|<1$ the generating function admits the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2;z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{z^n}{n!2^n}\,H_n(\zeta_1)H_n(\zeta_2).
\label{Hgenfuncexp}\end{aligned}$$ The product of the Hermite polynomials is expressed therefore, as $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\zeta_1)H_N(\zeta_2)=2^n\frac{\ d^n}{dz^n}{\cal G}(\zeta_1,\zeta_2;z)\bigg|_{z=0}.\end{aligned}$$ Then putting $z=\exp(-\alpha i),\, 0<\alpha<\pi$, a lengthy calculation [@LiangMorandi] yields $${\cal G}=\exp[{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}(i\alpha+\zeta_1^2+(\zeta_2)^2)]\frac{e^{-i\pi/4}}{2\sin\alpha}
\exp\left(\frac{i}{2\sin\alpha}[\zeta_1^2+(\zeta_2)^2\cos\alpha-2\zeta_1\zeta_2]\right).$$ Collecting our formulae, $$K(x_1,x_2,T)=\sqrt{m\omega/\pi\hbar}\exp(-{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\pi{N}[\frac{\omega t}{\pi}]
\exp[-{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}(i\omega\tau+\zeta_1^2+\zeta_2^2)]{\cal G}(\zeta,(-1)^k\zeta_2;e^{-i\omega\tau}).$$ Noting finally that $
\sin(\omega\tau)=|\sin(\omega\tau)|=(-1)^k\sin(\omega t)
$ and $
\cos(\omega\tau)=(-1)^k\cos(\omega t)
$ we get precisely the propagator (\[Fprop\]), valid for times which are not integer multiples of half-periods.
In a caustic i.e. if $t=(\pi/\omega)N$, then, letting $\omega t\to N\pi$ in (\[propwfallt\]) yields [@LiangMorandi], using the completeness of the wave functions, the formula valid in the caustic point, i.e., $$\lim_{\omega t\to N\pi}K(x_1,x_2;t)=
\exp(-{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}iN\pi)\delta(x_1-(-1)^Nx_2)$$ cf. (\[kausztprop\]).
Let us mention that the Maslov correction can also be derived from a semiclassical analysis of the wave function [@Keller].
How minimal is the “minimal action” ?
=====================================
Let us now return to classical mechanics. The classical hamiltonian action is, as explained in Section \[Feynmanprop\], a real function, $S(\gamma)$, defined on the “infinite dimensional manifold”, $\cP$, of all paths which join $x_{1}$ to $x_{2}$ in times $T$. A variation $\eta$ can be viewed in turn as a “tangent vector” to $\cP$ in $\gamma$ [@HPAU], cf. Fig. 1.
 \[varcurves.pdf\]
$\delta S$, the first variation of the action, is the directional derivative of $S$ in the “point” $\gamma$, $$\delta S_{\gamma}(\eta)=\lim_{s\to0}
\frac{S(\gamma+s\eta)-S(\gamma)}{s}.
\label{1vari}$$ $\delta S_{\gamma}$ is, hence a one-form on $\cP$. Just like in finite dimensional calculus, if $\bar{\gamma}$ is an extremal point of $S$, then the directional derivative must vanish in any direction, $$\delta S_{\bar{\gamma}}\equiv\delta S_{\bar{\gamma}}(\eta)=
\int\left\{\frac{\ d}{dt}
\Big(\frac{\p L}{\p \dot{x}}\Big)-\frac{\p L}{\p x}\right\}\eta dt=0.
\label{variegy}$$ This yields the classical (Euler-Lagrange) equations, $
\frac{\ d}{dt}
\Big(\frac{\p L}{\p \dot{x}}\Big)-\frac{\p L}{\p x}=0,
$ whose solution satisfying the boundary conditions, $\bar{\gamma}$ is, by Hamilton’s Principle, is the actual motion.
But does such a solution always exist, and if it does, is it unique ? The answer is, generically, affirmative. Not always, however. This point can again illustrated by the oscillator. Let us indeed assume that the elapsed time is an integer multiple of the half-period, $$T= N\times\frac{\tau}{2}.
\label{kauszt}$$ Then, independently of the initial velocity, [*all*]{} motions which start in $x_1$ arrive, at time $T$, to $x_2=(-1)^Nx_1$. (cf. Fig. 2.).
\[kausztika\]
For this particular time, (i) either i.e. when $x_2\neq(-1)^Nx_1$, there is no classical path at all with the required boundary condition, (ii) or i.e. for $x_2=(-1)^Nx_1$, there are infinitely many of them.
The solutions of the classical equation of motion behave, hence, as light rays that start from one focus of an elliptic mirror: after reflection, they are all collected into the same point, namely the other focus. (By analogy, such point are also called focal points also in variational mechanics).
Apart of this particular situation, there is a unique classical path, $\bar{\gamma}$, in $\cP$. Let us assume that we are in this, generic, situation. Is the action minimal ? Let us emphasized that, just like in finite dimension, (\[variegy\]) is merely a [*necessary*]{} condition for having a minimum. It is not sufficient, though. In other words, $\bar{\gamma}$ is a critical point of $S$, but not necessarily a minimal one.
Let us mention, at this point, that the variational calculus is in fact local, i.e., it is a differential calculus in the neighborhood of a path $\bar\gamma$. When calculating the first variation, we compare in fact the value of $S$ calculated along paths which can be smoothly deformed to $\bar\gamma$. All such paths belong to a single path component of $\cP$. If the latter has more then one path components, as it happens in the, one has to perform the variational calculus in each path-connected sector separately.
In technical terms, a “point” (i.e. a path in a manifold $M$) $\gamma$ belongs to the path-component of $\bar\gamma$ if $\gamma$ can joined to the “point” $\bar\gamma$ in $\cP$ if there exists a continuous “path” of “points” $\gamma_s$ such that $
\gamma_1=\gamma,
\,
\gamma_0=\bar\gamma.
$ But this means precisely that $\bar\gamma$ can be deformed into $\bar\gamma$ by a homotopy. The path components of $\cP$ are therefore labeled with the homotopy classes of the underlying space, $
\pi_0(\cP)=\pi_1(M).
$
An illustration is provided by the Aharonov-Bohm experiment [@AB], where $M$ is the punctured plane $\IR^2\setminus\{0\}$, whose $\pi_1$ is $\IZ$. The (free) action has, hence, a minimum in two homotopy classes, namely in those which pass near the solenoid (assumed infinitely thin) on either side. In all other path components, i. e. for paths which turn around the origin, the action has no critical point.
Returning to the critical points of the action, they behave just like those of a function defined over a finite ($D$) dimensional space : $\vx_0$ is a critical point of a function $V(\vx)$ if $$\delta V(\vx_0)=0
\qquad\hbox{i.e.}\qquad
\p_iV(\vx_0)=0\qquad\forall \ i.$$ Whether a given critical point $\vx_0$ is a minimum, a maximum or a saddle point, can be determined by looking at the matrix formed from second-order partial derivatives, $$\delta^2 V\equiv \delta^2 V(\vx_0)=
\frac{\p^2V}{\p x^i\p x^j}(\vx_0).$$ Is the matrix of $\delta^2 V$ definite ? Being symmetric, $\delta^2 V$ will have $D$ (real) eigenvalues, $$\delta^2 V\,e_a=\lambda_a\,e_a,
\qquad
a=1,\dots, D.$$ Then $\vx_0$ is $$\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
\hbox{a minimum if}\;&\lambda_a>0\,&\forall a
\\[8pt]
\hbox{a maximum if}\;&\lambda_a<0\,&\forall a
\\[8pt]
\hbox{saddle point if}\qquad &\lambda_a>0\quad\lambda_b<0\;&\hbox{for some}\; a, b.
\end{array}\right.$$
In an analogous way, to see if a given classical path $\bar\gamma$ makes the action minimal one or not, we have to calculate the second variation, $\delta^2S_{\bar{\gamma}}$. This is a quadratic form on the “tangent space” of the “variations”. To be a minimum, the second variation has to be positive definite, $$\delta^2S_{\bar{\gamma}}(\eta,\eta)>0
\qquad\forall \eta.
\label{minfelt}$$ If, however, $$\delta^2S_{\bar{\gamma}}(\eta,\eta)<0
\qquad\hbox{but}\qquad
\delta^2S_{\bar{\gamma}}(\eta',\eta')>0
\label{nyeregfelt}$$ for suitable variations $\eta$ and $\eta'$, then $\bar{\gamma}$ is a saddle point.
A variation $\eta$ such that $$\delta^2S_{\gamma}(\eta,\eta)<0$$ is a negative mode, and if $${{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\delta^2S(\eta,\eta')=0
\qquad\forall\eta',
\label{nullter}$$ it is a zero-mode. In the direction of a zero mode the function is, in the first approximation, invariant. In this case, the nature of the critical point depends on the higher variations.
Let us examine the second variation in some detail. $${{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\delta^2S\equiv{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\delta^2S_{\bar{\gamma}}(\eta,\eta)
={{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\int_{0}^T\!\left\{
\frac{\p^2L}{\p x^2}\eta^2+
2\frac{\p^2L}{\p x\p \dot{x}}\eta\dot{\eta}+
\frac{\p^2L}{\p x^2}\eta^2+
\frac{\p^2L}{\p \dot{x}^2}{\dot{\eta}^2}
\right\}dt,$$ where the integration is along the (assumed unique) classical path $\bar\gamma$. After partial integration, $$\begin{aligned}
&{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\delta^2S=\int_{0}^T\!\big(\eta,\Lambda\eta\big)dt,\nonumber
\\[10pt]
&\Lambda=
-\displaystyle\frac{\ d}{dt}\left(
\displaystyle\frac{\p^2L}{\p \dot{x}^2}\displaystyle\frac{\ d}{dt}+
\displaystyle\frac{\p^2L}{\p x\p \dot{x}}\right)
+
\left(\displaystyle\frac{\p^2L}{\p x\p \dot{x}}
\displaystyle\frac{\ d}{dt}+\displaystyle\frac{\p^2L}{\p x^2}
\right).
\label{Lambda}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda$ is the operator of the second variation. ${{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\delta^2S$ is hence positive definite if all eigenvalues of the quadratic form $\Lambda$ are positive, $\lambda>0$, for all $$\Lambda\,\eta=\lambda\eta,
\qquad
\eta(0)=\eta(T)=0.
\label{sajert}$$
$\bullet$ In the simplest possible case of a one-dimensional massive particle in a potential, $$L=\frac{m{\dot{x}}^2}{2}-V(x)
\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad
\Lambda=-m\left(\frac{\ d^2}{dt^2}+\frac{d^2V}{dx^2}\right).
\label{Lambdabis}$$ For the $1D$ oscillator, e.g., $$\Lambda_{osc}=-m\left(\frac{\ d^2}{dt^2}+\omega^2\right).
\label{oscLambda}$$ Hence, taking into account the boundary conditions, $$\begin{aligned}
m(\ddot{\eta}+\omega^2\eta\big)=-\lambda\eta
\quad\Rightarrow\quad
\eta(t)=\sin[\big(\omega^2+\frac{\lambda}{m}\big)^{1/2}\,t].\end{aligned}$$ But $T\sqrt{\omega^2+\frac{\lambda}{m}}=k\pi,\; k=0,\pm1,\dots$ due to periodicity, so that $$\lambda_{k}=m\left(\big(\frac{k\pi}{T}\big)^2-\omega^2\right)
\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad
\eta_{k}(t)=\sin(\frac{k\pi}{T}t),
\label{oscsajert}$$ cf. (\[four\]) and (\[eigenvalue\]). The integer $N>0$ in (\[N\]) $
N\tau/2<T<(N+1)\tau/2,
$ counts hence the negative eigenvalues. Thus, the oscillator trajectory is a minimum of the action during the first half period. For time beyond $N\tau/2$, it becomes a saddle point with $N$ negative modes !
What happens in the focal points ? For $T=N\times \tau/2$, as seen above, either we have no classical path at all or we have infinitely many between our fixed endpoints. Let $x_2=(-1)^Nx_1$ and let us consider some $\bar{\gamma}$. Then all the other classical paths can be viewed as a variation of $\bar{\gamma}$, labeled by a parameter $s$, $\gamma=\gamma_s$. The action calculated for any such classical path $\gamma=\gamma_s$ is the same. Varying $s$ we get, hence, a “curve” in $\cP$ inscribed onto the “level surface” $S=\const$. The derivative w.r.t. $s$ of $S(\gamma_s)$ is therefore zero, so that $$\eta(t)=\frac{\ d}{ds}\gamma_s(t)\bigg|_{s=0}$$ is a null mode at $\bar\gamma$.
Minimum or not : what are the physical consequences ? At the purely classical level, nothing at all : (\[variegy\]) yields the correct equations of motion in all cases. In Quantum Mechanics, however, the consequence is precisely the Maslov phase jump, as we explain it below.
Let us first consider another example.
$\bullet$ A phase jump similar to the one found for the oscillator is observed for a charged particle moving perpendicularly to the induction lines of a constant magnetic field [@FeynmanHibbs]. Classically, the particle rotates uniformly with Larmor frequency ${eB}/{m}$ i.e. with period $\tau=2\pi m/eB$. The Lagrange function is $$L_B=
\frac{m}{2}\left(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2+
2\omega\big(x\dot{y}-y\dot{x}\big)\right),
\qquad
\omega=\frac{eB}{2m}.$$
If $T$ is not an integer multiple of a (full) period, $
T\neq N\times\tau=\frac{2N\pi m}{eB},
$ then there is a unique classical trajectory that links any two points $(x_1,y_1)$ and $(x_2,y_2)$ in time $T$. The action calculated for it is $$S_B=\frac{m\omega}{2}
\Big[\big[(x_{2}-x_{1})^2+(y_{2}-y_{1})^2\big]
\cot(\omega T)
+2(x_{1}y_{2}-x_{2}y_{1})\Big].
\label{Bhatas}$$ The matrix of the second variation is now $$\Lambda_{B}=m
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\displaystyle\frac{\ \ d^2}{dt^2}&-2\omega\displaystyle\frac{\ d}{dt}
\\[8pt]
2\omega\displaystyle\frac{\ d}{dt}
&\displaystyle\frac{\ \ d^2}{dt^2}
\end{array}
\right).
\label{BLambda}$$ Our task is to solve the eigenvalue problem $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
m\ddot{\eta}_x-2m\omega\dot{\eta}_y=-\lambda\eta_x
\\[8pt]
m\ddot{\eta}_y+2m\omega\dot{\eta}_x=-\lambda\eta_y
\end{array}\right.,
\qquad
\eta_x(0)=\eta_y(0)=0=\eta_x(T)=\eta_y(T),
\label{Beigen}$$
The solutions are readily derived by separating the equations (\[Beigen\]) by applying a time-dependent rotation, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\eta_x=\ \ \cos\omega t\,\xi+\sin\omega t\,\zeta
\\[8pt]
\eta_y=-\sin\omega t\,\xi+\cos\omega t\,\zeta
\end{array}\right.
\quad\Rightarrow\quad
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
m\ddot{\xi}+(m\omega^2+\lambda)\xi=0
\\[8pt]
m\ddot{\zeta}+(m\omega^2+\lambda)\zeta=0
\end{array}\right..\end{aligned}$$ By periodicity, $
\xi,\zeta\propto\sin\big(\sqrt{\omega^2+\lambda}\,t\big)
=\sin\frac{k\pi}{T}t,
$ where $k$ is some integer. The eigenvalues are, therefore, doubly degenerate, and are identical to those in the oscillator problem : $$\lambda_{k}=m\left(\big(\frac{k\pi}{T}\big)^2-\omega^2\right),
\qquad
k=0,1,\dots.
\label{Bsajert}$$ The [*reduced propagator is hence identical to that of a planar oscillator whose frequency is half of the Larmor value,* ]{} $\omega=eB/2m$.
If $N\tau<T<(N+1)\tau$, then $$\begin{array}{ll}
K(x_2,y_2,T|x_1,y_1 0)=\displaystyle
\frac{m\omega}{2\pi i\hbar|\sin\omega T|}\times
\\[18pt]
\exp
\left\{\displaystyle\frac{im\omega}{2\hbar}
\Big[\big[(x_{2}-x_{1})^2+(y_{2}-y_{1})^2\big]\cot(\omega T)
+2(x_{1}y_{2}-x_{2}y_{1})\Big]\right\}(-1)^N,
\quad\omega=\displaystyle\frac{eB}{2m}.
\end{array}
\label{Bprop}$$ cf. [@Cheng2; @LiangMorandi]. After $N$ full periods i.e. at $
T=\frac{2N\pi m}{eB}
$ \[which corresponds to $N$ half-oscillator-periods\], all classical motions meet again in the point they started from. According to our previous results, taking into account the dimension of the problem, the propagator is again a Dirac-delta with a sign change : $$K(x_2,y_2,\tau|x_1,y_1, 0)=(-1)^N\delta\big(x_1-x_2,y_1-y_2\big).$$
It is worth mentioning that this calculation should turn out to be useful to explain the Sagnac effect [@Sagnac]. This experiment, originally proposed and performed with light and later been repeated with massive particles, amounts to perform a two-slit type interference experiment, when the whole apparatus is fixed on a turntable. The clue is that the inertial force due to rotation behaves exactly as a fictious magnetic field, with twice the mass, $2m$, replacing the electric charge.
The Semiclassical approximation {#szemi}
===============================
Returning to the general case, let us assume that $\cP$ has a unique classical path, $\bar{\gamma}$, and let us develop the action to second order [@LeSmi] : $$S(\gamma)=S(\bar{\gamma})+\delta_{\bar{\gamma}}(\eta)+
{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\delta^2S_{\bar{\gamma}}(\eta,\eta)+\dots
\label{hatkif}$$ where the “dots, $\dots$”, denote all higher-order variations.
Taking the semiclassical approximation amounts of dropping all these terms. According to Hamilton’s Principle $\delta S_{\bar{\gamma}}=0$. The semiclassical propagator is, hence, $$K(\vec{x}_2,T|\vec{x}_1,0)=
\exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}S(\bar{\gamma})\right]\times
F(T),
\qquad
F(T)=\int\!\exp\left\{\frac{i}{2\hbar}
\delta^2_{\bar{\gamma}}S(\eta,\eta)\right\}\cD\eta.
\label{SCpropag}$$ cf. (\[oscpropag\])-(\[F(T)\]).
The reduced propagator can be determined diagonalizing the second variation. Let us assume, for simplicity, that the system is $1$-dimensional. The quadratic form $\Lambda$ in the eigenvalue equation (\[sajert\]) is a self-adjoint Sturm-Liouville operator on the space of all “tangent vectors” $\eta$. The eigenvalues, $\lambda_n$, are therefore all real and form a complete orthonormal system w.r.t. the usual scalar product, $
(\eta_{n},\eta_{m})=
T^{-1}\displaystyle\int\eta_{n}\eta_{m}dt=\delta_{nm}.
$ Expanding the variation $\eta$ as $
\eta=\sum_{n}a_{n}\eta_{n}$ yields $
\Big(\eta,\Lambda\eta\Big)=\sum_{k} a_{k}^2\lambda_{k}.
$ The reduced propagator is, therefore, once again (\[sokintegral\]), with the $\lambda_{k}$ denoting the eigenvectors of $\Lambda$ in (\[sajert\]). Hence $$F(T)=C\sqrt{\prod_k\frac{2i\pi\hbar}{\lambda_k}}\ .
\label{Jredprop}$$ As explained before, the Jacobian is independent of the dynamics, so that (\[Jredprop\]) holds also for the free factor, $$F(T)^{free}=C\sqrt{\prod_k\frac{2i\pi\hbar}{\lambda_k^{free}}}\, ,
\label{szabJredprop}$$ where $F(T)^{free}$ and $\lambda_k^{free}$ are the free propagator and the eigenvalues, respectively. Dividing (\[Jredprop\]) by (\[szabJredprop\]) $C$ drops out, $$F(T)=F(T)^{free}\times\sqrt{
{\displaystyle\prod_k\lambda_k^{free}}/{\displaystyle\prod_k\lambda_k\ \ \ \ }}\ \ .
$$ The semiclassical propagator is, therefore, $$K=e^{iS(\bar{\gamma})}\left(\frac{m}{2\pi i\hbar T}\right)^{1/2}\times\sqrt{
\frac{\prod_k\lambda_k^{free}}{\,\prod_k\lambda_k\ \ \ \ }}\ ,
\label{szemiklprop}$$ since, in $D$ dimensions, $
F(T)^{free}=\left(\frac{m}{2\pi i\hbar T}\right)^{D/2},
$ cf. (\[szabadredprop\]).
$\bullet$ For a $1D$ oscillator, we recover the previous result : by (\[tenyezok\]), the quotient of the products of the eignevalues under the root is exactly the infinite product we determined using in the Euler formula, since $\lambda_k^{free}=m\pi^2 k^2/T^2$.
. Our result can also be presented using the [*Van Vleck matrix*]{} [@LeSmi]. Let us indeed remember that, still assuming the uniqueness of the classical path, $\bar{\gamma}$, between the to given points $\vec{x}_{1}$-et $\vec{x}_{2}$ in time $T$, the action can be viewed as function of the end points. $$S(\vec{x}_{1},\vec{x}_{2})=S(\bar{\gamma})$$ is in fact Hamilton’s Principal Function. The determinant of the ${D}\!\times\!{D}$ matrix $$\left[\frac{\p^2 S}{\p \vec{x}_1\p \vec{x}_2}\right]=
\left[\frac{\p^2 S}{\p x_{1}^i\p x_{2}^j}\right]$$ is called the [*Van Vleck determinant*]{}. Then
([@LeSmi]) : In $D$ [*dimensions, the semiclassical propagator is $$K(\vec{x}_{2},T|\vec{x}_{1},0)
=
\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i\hbar}\right)^{1/2}
\left|{\rm det}
\frac{\p^2 S}{\p \vec{x}_1\p \vec{x}_2}\right|^{D/2}\!
\exp\left[-iDN\frac{\pi}{2}\right]\times
\exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}S(\bar{\gamma})\right].
\label{semiclassprop}$$ where $\vec{x}_1=(x_1^i)$ and $\vec{x}_2=(x_2^j)$ are the initial and final point, respectively.*]{}
$\bullet$ For the $1D$ oscillator $$\frac{\p^2 S}{\p x_{1}\p x_{2}}=-\frac{m\omega}{\sin\omega t},
\label{oscivV}$$ so that (\[semiclassprop\]) yields, once again, the previous oscillator propagator formula.
$\bullet$ Let us consider a charged particle in a [*constant magnetic field*]{}, and let us assume that $T\neq\tau$. Hamilton’s Principal function is now (\[Bhatas\]), and the absolute value of the Van Vleck determinant reads $$\big|{\rm det}\,\frac{\p^2 S}{\p \vec{x}_{1}\p \vec{x}_{2}}\big|=
m^2\omega^2\times{\rm det}\,\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\cot\omega T&1
\\[6pt]
-1&-\cot\omega T
\end{array}\right)=
\frac{m^2\omega^2}{\sin^2\omega T}.
\label{BvVdet}$$ From (\[semiclassprop\]) we get (\[Bprop\]) once again.
Morse theory [@Morse]
=====================
The methods of variational calculus allow us to further deepen our understanding. Let us chose a classical motion $\bar{\gamma}$ \[in $D$-dimensions\], and let us focus our attention to the second variation. As seen in (\[Lambda\]) $${{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\delta^2S(\eta,\eta)=\int_{0}^T\!\big(\eta,\Lambda\eta\big)dt,$$ where $\Lambda$ is the matrix of the second variation. A [*Jacobi field*]{} along $\bar{\gamma}$ is a $D$-dimensional vector $\vec{\xi}(t)=(\xi_i(t))$ such that $$\Lambda\,\vec{\xi}=0\qquad\hbox{i.e.}\qquad
\Lambda_{ij}\,\xi_j=0
\quad\forall\, i.
\label{Jacobifield}$$
This second-order differential equation in $2D$ dimensions has $2D$ independent solutions. Generally, none of them belongs to the tangent space of $\cP$ at $\bar{\gamma}$, since $\vec{\xi}(0)$ and/or $\vec{\xi}(T)$ may not vanish. Two points $p=\bar{\gamma}(t_1)$ and $q=\bar{\gamma}(t_1)$ of a curve $\bar{\gamma}$, $0\leq t_1<t_2\leq T$ are called conjugate point, if there exists a Jacobi field such that $$\vec{\xi}(t_1)=\vec{\xi}(t_2)=0,$$ i.e., if it belongs to the tangent space. The number of such independent fields is called the multiplicity of the conjugate points $p$ and $q$.
The null space of the second variation is the set of all tangent vectors $\eta$ for which $
{{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}\delta^2S(\eta,\eta')=0
$ for all $\eta'$. The dimension, $\nu$, of the null space is thus the number of independent Jacobi fields that also belong to the tangent space. The null-space is, hence, non-trivial, if the starting and the ending points of $\bar{\gamma}$, $p=x_1=\bar{\gamma}(0)$ and $q=x_2=\bar{\gamma}(T)$, are conjugate. $\nu$ is finite and it is readily seen that $\nu<D$ [@Morse].
It is easy to see that $2D$ independent Jacobi fields can be constructed using classical paths. Let us indeed consider a one-paramater family of classical paths \[i.e. solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations\] $\beta(u),\ 0\leq u\leq 1$, such that $
\beta(0)=\bar{\gamma}.
$ These paths are not required to have the same end points as $\bar{\gamma}$. Then it is easy to see that $$\vec{\xi}=\frac{\p\beta}{\p u}\bigg|_{u=0}$$ is a Jacobi field along $\bar{\gamma}$. The general solution of the Euler-Lagrange equations depends on $2D$ parameters. Deriving w.r.t. these parameters yields $2D$ independent Jacobi fields.
Let us now define the [*Morse index*]{} of $\bar{\gamma}$ as the maximal dimension, $\mu$, of those subspaces of the tangent space upon which the restriction of the second variation is negative definite. $$\delta^2S_{\gamma}(\eta,\eta)<0.$$ Then we have :
(Morse) [@Morse] : [ *Morse index is the number of those points of $\bar{\gamma}$, each counted with its multiplicity, which are conjugate to $x_1=\bar{\gamma}(0)$.*]{}
The essence of the proof is to show that the number of negative eigenvalues is precisely the Morse index $\mu=\mu(T)$. This is proved by showing that the Morse index, $\mu(t)$, calculated on the segment from $t=0$ to $t$ of the curve is a monotonic function of $t$ which, for sufficiently small $t$, is continuous from the left, $
\mu(t-\epsilon)=\mu(t)
$ for $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small. From the right, instead, $$\mu(t+\epsilon)=\mu(t)+\nu,\label{mujump}$$ where $\nu$ is, as before, the dimension of the null space of the second variation. The $\mu(t)$ as a function of time is hence, at first, constant, and then, upon crossing a conjugate point, it jumps by $\nu$.
The Morse index is finite, so that our curve contains a finite number of points conjugate to the starting point.
Let us again illustrate the general theory on example.
$\bullet$ For the $1D$ oscillator and for $\Lambda$ in (\[oscLambda\]), the solutions of the Jacobi equation (\[Jacobifield\]) are $
a\sin\omega t+b\cos\omega t,
$ which vanish at $t=0$ and at $t=T$ if $b=0$ and $T\omega=N\pi$. A point $q$ of the classical trajectory is conjugate to $x_1=\bar{\gamma}(0)$ if $$q=q_k=\bar{\gamma}(k\frac{\tau}{2}),
\qquad
k=1,\dots$$ Consistently with our general theorem, the null space of $\delta^2S$ can be also obtained by considering the classical motion which starts from $x_1$ with velocity $v$, $$\frac{v}{\omega}\sin\omega t+ x_1\cos\omega t\quad\Rightarrow\quad
\xi(t)=\frac{\p x(t)}{\p v}=\frac{1}{\omega}\sin\omega t.$$ For $t=N\tau/2$, we get manifestly a null-mode of the second variation.
For a $D$-dimensional oscillator, each conjugate point contributes $D$ null-modes. When $T$ crosses $2N/\tau$ the dimension of the null space, i.e., the Morse index jumps by $D$.
Let us mention that, on compact manifolds, the Morse index is related to the topology of the infinite dimensional manifold of paths [@Morse].
Conclusion
==========
Is the phase observable ? The naive answer to this question is negative: when the wave function is multiplied by any phase factor, the absolute value of the amplitude, and hence its square, the probability, are unchanged. This is only true for one wave function, though. If the system is decomposed into parts and the partial waves are multiplied by different phase factors, recombination will yield an interference.
Similar phase jumps are found in molecular [@molek], nuclear [@nukl], and heavy ion [@heavyion] collisions.
After the original ideas reviewed here have been put forward, several developments took place. See, e.g. [@Tsutsui; @noncons]. Related questions are also discussed in some textbooks [@books].
It is worth calling the attention to that all path integrals studied in this paper can be calculated [@Inomata] by transforming the system into the free form using a “non-relativistic conformal transformation” [@Niederer; @DHconf]. For the harmonic oscillator, for example, every half-period can be conformally related to a full free motion. Then the Maslov correction can be recovered by fitting together the wave function at half-periods [@DHconf]. This latter paper also provides a complete catalog of all possibilities.
[99]{} M. Gouy: [*Sur une propriété nouvelle des ondes lumineuses*]{}. C.R.A.S. [**110**]{}, 1251 (1890).
J. B. Keller : [*Corrected Bohr-Sommerfeld quantum conditions for non-separable systems*]{}. [*Annals of Physics*]{} [**4**]{}, 180-188 (1958).
V. P. Maslov : [*Asymptotic methods in the calculus of perturbations*]{}. \[in Russian\]. Moscow: MGU (1965).
V. I. Arnold: [*Characteristic class entering in quantization conditions*]{}. \[in Russian\]. [*Funktional’nyi Analiz i Ego Prilozheniya*]{} [**1**]{}, 1 (1967).
J.-M. Souriau, [*Construction explicite de l’indice de Maslov*]{}. Proc. Group Theoretical Methods in Physics. Nijmegen ’75. Springer Lecture Notes in Physics [**50**]{}, (1976); V. Marino, L. Gualandari: [*Indice di Maslov. Lezioni del Prof. Souriau*]{}. Pubblicazioni del’Istituto di Matematica Applicata N. 191. Università di Roma (1977).
R. P. Feynman and Hibbs, [*Quantum Mechanics and path integrals*]{}. Mc-Graw-Hill, N. Y. (1965)
P. A. Horváthy : [*Extended Feynman Formula for harmonic oscillator*]{}. [*Int. Journ. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**18**]{}, 245 (1979).
L. S. Schulman, in [*Functional integration and its applications*]{}. A. M. Arthurs, Ed. Clarendon Pross, Osford (1975).
B. K. Cheng: [*Extended Feynman Formula for forced harmonic oscillator*]{}. [*Int. Journ. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**23**]{}, 1099 (1984).
J. Q. Liang and G. Morandi, [*On the extended Feynman formula for the harmonic oscillator*]{}. [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A 160**]{} 9 (1991).
P. A. Horváthy, L. Úry : [*Analogy between statics and dynamics, related to variational mechanics.*]{} [*Acta Phys. Hung.*]{} [**42**]{}, 251 (1977).
P. A. Horváthy, [*Quantization in multiply connected spaces*]{}. [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**76A**]{}, 11 (1980); P. A. Horváthy, [*Classical action, the Wu-Yang phase factor and prequantization.*]{} Springer Lecture Notes in Math. [**836**]{}, 67 (1980). B. K. Cheng, [*Exact evaluation of the propagator for a charged particle in a constant magnetic field*]{}. [*Phys. Scripta*]{} [**29**]{}, 351 (1984); B. K. Cheng, [*Exact evaluation of the propagator beyond and at caustics for a charged particle in a constant magnetic field*]{}. [*Phys. Rev.* ]{} [**A**]{}, 1491 (1984).
G. Sagnac, C.R.A.S [**157**]{}, 708 (1913). F. Hasselbach and M. Niklas, [*Sagnac experiment with electrons : observation …*]{} [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**A 48**]{}, 143 (1993); For a review, see, e.g., R. Anderson, H. R. Bilger, G. E. Stedman, [*Sagnac effect : a century of earth rotated interferometers*]{}. [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**62**]{}, 975 (1994).
C. DeWitt-Morette: [*The semiclassical expansion*]{}. [*Annals of Physics*]{} (N.Y.) [**97**]{}, 367 (1976); S. Levit and U. Smilansky : [*A new approach to Gaussian path integrals and the evaluation of the semiclassical propagator*]{}. [*Ann. Phys*]{}. [**103**]{}, 198 (1977).
M. Morse, [*Calculus of variations in the large*]{}. Transactions of the AMS, Providence (1934); J. Milnor, [*Morse theory*]{}. Annals of Math. Studies No. [**51**]{} Princeton U.P. (1963).
W. H. Miller : [*Semiclassical theory of atom-diatom collisions: path integrals and classical $S$ matrix*]{}. [*J. Chem. Phys*]{}. [**53**]{}, 1949 (1970); [*Classical-limit quantum mechanics and the theory of molecular collisions*]{}. [*Advances in Chemical Physics*]{} [**25**]{}, 69-177 (1974). R. A. Marcus, [*J. Chem. Phys*]{}. [**54**]{}, 3965 (1971).
S. Levit, U. Smilansky, D. Pelte: [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**53B**]{}, 39 (1974); H. Massman, J. O. Rasmussen: [*Nuclear Physics*]{} [**A243**]{}, 155 (1975).
T. Koeling and R. A. Malfliet: [*Semi-classical approximation to heavy ion scattering based on the Feynman path integral method*]{}. [*Physics Reports*]{} [**C 22**]{}, 181-213 (1975).
K. Horie, H. Miyazaki, I. Tsutsui, [*Quantum caustics for systems with quadratic Lagrangians*]{}. [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**273**]{}, 267 (1999); K. Horie, H. Miyazaki, I. Tsutsui, [*Quantum caustics for systems with quadratic Lagrangians in multi-dimensions*]{}. [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**279**]{}, 104 (2000).
C-I Um, K-H Yeon, [*Quantum theory of the harmonic oscillator in nonconservative sytems.*]{} [*J. Koorean Phys. Soc*]{} [**41**]{}, 594 (2002); C-I Um, K-H Yeon, T. F. George, [*The Quantum damped harmonic oscillator.*]{} [*Phys.Rept.*]{} [**362**]{} 63, (2002).
L. S. Schulman, [*Techniques and Applications of Path Integration*]{}. Wiley, N. Y. (1981) H. Kleinert, [*Path integrals in Quantum Mechanics …*]{} 4th Edition. Singapore: World Scientific (2004); C. Grosche and F. Steiner, [*Handbook on Feynman path integrals*]{}. Springer Tracts in Mod. Phys. [**145**]{} 1-449, (1998).
G. Junker and A. Inomata, [*Transformation of the free propagator to the quadratic propagator.*]{} [*Phys. Lett*]{}. [**110A**]{}, 195 (1985) J. M. Cai, P. Y. Cai, and A. Inomata, [*Time-dependent conformal transformation in Quantum Mechanics*]{}. Proc. ISATQP-Shanxi’92 conf. Ed. J. Q. Liang, M. L. Wang, S. N. Qiao, D. C. Su. Science Press, Beijing (1993).
U. Niederer, Helv.Phys.Acta 46, 192 (1973).
C. Duval, G. Gibbons and A. Horváthy [*Celestial mechanics, conformal structures and gravitational waves.*]{} [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D43**]{}, 3907 (1991) \[`hep-th/0512188`\] C. Duval, P. A. Horváthy and L. Palla [*Conformal properties of Chern-Simons vortices in external fields.*]{} [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D50**]{}, 6658 (1994) \[`hep-ph/9405229`\].
[^1]: e-mail: horvathy@lmpt.univ-tours.fr
[^2]: It is tacitly assumed that the system is conservative. Were this not the case, one should consider two instants $t_1$ and $t_2>t_1$ instead of $T=t_2-t_1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate the electrical injection and detection of spin-polarized electrons in the Co$_2$FeSi/GaAs hybrid system using lateral transport structures. Spin valve signatures and characteristic Hanle curves are observed both in the non-local and the local configuration. The comparatively large magnitude of the local spin valve signal and the high signal-to-noise ratio are attributed to the large spin polarization at the Fermi energy of Co$_2$FeSi in the well-ordered *L*2$_1$ phase.'
author:
- 'P. Bruski'
- 'Y. Manzke'
- 'R. Farshchi'
- 'O. Brandt'
- 'J. Herfort'
- 'M. Ramsteiner'
bibliography:
- 'Localnonlocal.bib'
title: 'All-electrical spin injection and detection in the Co$_2$FeSi/GaAs hybrid system in the local and non-local configuration'
---
Most spin-based semiconductor devices proposed to date rely on the ability to inject, transport, manipulate and detect spin-polarized carriers by purely electrical means.[@DattaDas1989; @Sugahara2004]As a fundamental proof of the all-electrical injection and detection of spins in a lateral device structure, non-local (NL) spin valve measurements with separated charge and spin currents are most appropriate.[@Johnson1985; @Jedema2001] A spin accumulation generated in the transport channel is probed by a detector contact placed outside the current path. The detector measures an electrical signal that is purely spin related.
However, NL spin detection is not sufficient for operational spintronic devices that require an electrical signal in the local (L) configuration, i.e., an electrical spin signal resulting from a spin-polarized charge current flowing between a source and a drain contact. As a matter of fact, this kind of local spin valve operation is experimentally much more difficult to achieve than the NL one. The difficulty of the corresponding 2-point-arrangement is caused by the large electrical background signal and a strong contribution of the (not spin-related) contact resistances as well as parasitic effects.[@Tang2002] In order to minimize their influence, high spin injection and detection efficiencies are essential. Therefore a proper choice of the injector material can be crucial. From this point of view, half-metals are the ultimate solution regarding spin injection and detection, given that they are 100% spin polarized at the Fermi energy. The ferromagnetic Heusler alloy Co$_2$FeSi is predicted to be a half-metal in its ordered *L*2$_1$ phase[@Wurmehl2005; @Bruski2011] and is, in addition, closely lattice matched to GaAs.[@Hashimoto2005] A promising spin injection efficiency of more than 50% has been demonstrated for Co$_2$FeSi/(Al,Ga)As hybrid structures.[@Ramsteiner2008] In this Letter, we study the all-electrical injection and detection of spins in the non-local and local configuration in the Co$_2$FeSi/GaAs hybrid system using a lateral device structure.
![(a) Scanning electron micrograph of the lateral spin device for the NL voltage measurement in the top view. (b) I–V characteristics of the lateral spin device measured between contacts 1 and 2 at different temperatures. (c) Cross-sectional diagram of the lateral device geometry.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1a "fig:"){width="23.00000%" height="0.13\textheight"} ![(a) Scanning electron micrograph of the lateral spin device for the NL voltage measurement in the top view. (b) I–V characteristics of the lateral spin device measured between contacts 1 and 2 at different temperatures. (c) Cross-sectional diagram of the lateral device geometry.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1b "fig:"){width="25.00000%"}\
![(a) Scanning electron micrograph of the lateral spin device for the NL voltage measurement in the top view. (b) I–V characteristics of the lateral spin device measured between contacts 1 and 2 at different temperatures. (c) Cross-sectional diagram of the lateral device geometry.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1c "fig:"){width="8cm"}
The investigated samples were grown by molecular beam epitaxy on semi-insulating (SI) GaAs(001) substrates, processed by wet chemical etching and photolithography, and finalized by the evaporation of Au bondpads. The samples consist of a 1500 nm thick, lightly $n$-doped GaAs spin-transport layer ($2\times10^{16}$ cm$^{-3}$) followed by a 15 nm thick transition layer $n\rightarrow n^+$ and a 15 nm thick $n^+$-layer ($5\times10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$). A 16 nm thick Co$_2$FeSi layer was deposited onto this semiconductor structure at a substrate temperature of 280[$^{\circ}$C]{}. The highly $n$-doped GaAs layer directly beneath the Co$_2$FeSi forms a narrow Schottky barrier. Detailed information on the growth of the Heusler alloy Co$_2$FeSi is provided elsewhere.[@Hashimoto2005; @Hashimoto2005a; @Hashimoto2007]
A scanning electron micrograph of the lateral device structure is shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a). The conductive mesa region is 400$\times 50~\mu$m$^2$ large with stripe widths $W_2$, $W_3$, and $W_4$ of 9, 10, and 11$~\mu$m, respectively. The edge-to-edge spacing between stripes 2 to 4 is 3$~\mu$m leading to center-to-center separations of $d_{23}=12.5$, $d_{34}=13.5$, and $d_{24}=26~\mu$m. The distances $d_{12}=d_{45}=145~\mu$m are much larger than the spin diffusion length. The measurements in the L and NL configuration were carried out on the same samples by a conventional dc method with a current of 400 $\mu$A as indicated in Fig. \[fig1\](b).
To evaluate the electrical properties of the Co$_2$FeSi/GaAs Schottky contacts, we measured the two-terminal current (I)–voltage (V) characteristics for different contact pairs at different temperatures. The representative I–V characteristics measured between contacts 1 and 2 are shown in Fig. \[fig1\](c). The curves are nonlinear at all temperatures and show a very weak temperature dependence, indicating that tunneling through the interface is dominant.[@Kasahara2012] An insulator-like temperature behavior of the zero bias resistance (not shown here) supports this assumption.[@Joensson2000]
Evidence for electrical spin injection and detection has been obtained by spin valve measurements. For these experiments, an external magnetic field ($B_{||}$) is applied parallel to the long side of the Co$_2$FeSi stripes, i.e., along the easy axis of magnetization. The measured voltage depends on the relative magnetization orientation of the injector and detector stripes. During a sweep of the external field $B_{||}$, this relative magnetization orientation changes twice from the parallel to the antiparallel condition due to slightly different coercive fields of the injector and detector caused by small variations in their stripe widths.
![Non-local spin signal in the spin valve geometry as a function of an in-plane magnetic field $B_{||}$ applied along the stripes with a linear background subtracted. The peak around 0 T is induced by dynamic nuclear polarization.[@Salis2009b] Inset: Dependence of the difference between the NL voltage in the antiparallel and the parallel configuration $\Delta V_{\textrm{NLSV}}=V_{\uparrow \downarrow}-V_{\uparrow \uparrow}$ on the injector-detector separation $d_\textrm{ij}$ measured at a current of $I=400~\mu$A at 40 K.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2final){width="8cm"}
In the case of the NL measurements, spin-polarized electrons are injected into the GaAs channel at stripe 2 and drift towards stripe 1. The injected spins, however, diffuse in either direction from stripe 2. While there is no charge flow between stripes 3 and 5, the diffusion-induced imbalance in the population of the two spin channels leads to a chemical potential difference. Consequently, a NL voltage can be detected between stripes 3 and 5 as a measure of the spin-injection efficiency at stripe 2 \[cf. Fig. \[fig1\](b)\].
Fig. \[fig2\] shows the NL voltage measured in this way. The observed jumps in the voltage correspond to the switching between parallel and antiparallel magnetization of stripes 2 and 3. These characteristic spin valve signatures provide clear evidence for successful electrical injection and detection of spin polarized electrons.
At a distance $x$ from the injector, the voltage can be expressed by:[@Johnson1993; @Jedema2003; @Fabian2007] $$V_{\textrm{NLSV}}=\pm \frac{P_{\textrm{inj}}P_{\textrm{det}}I\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}\rho_\textrm{N}}{2S}\exp(-x/\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}),
\label{sv}$$ where $I$ is the bias current. $\rho_\textrm{N}$, $\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}$ and $S$ are the resistivity, spin diffusion length, and the cross-sectional area of the nonmagnetic channel, respectively. $P_\textrm{{inj(det)}}$ is the efficiency of the spin injection (detection) at the respective contact. The $+$ ($-$) sign corresponds to the parallel (antiparallel) configuration of the injector and detector electrodes. From the dependence of the difference between the parallel and antiparallel signal $\Delta V_{\textrm{NLSV}}$ on the injector-detector separation $d_{\textrm{ij}}$ (cf. inset of Fig. \[fig2\]) we estimate the spin diffusion length in the GaAs-channel as $\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}=6.2~\mu$m. This value is in good agreement with values obtained by other groups for a similar doping of the GaAs channel.[@Lou2007; @Ciorga2009; @Salis2010]
The most robust proof for all-electrical spin injection and detection utilizes the Hanle effect, which reveals spin precession in an external magnetic field. For the corresponding experiments, the voltage is measured in the same way as described above. The in-plane magnetization orientations of the injector and detector stripes are kept fixed in the parallel or antiparallel configuration and the external magnetic field $B_\perp$ is now applied perpendicular to the sample plane. $B_\perp$ does not influence the in-plane Co$_2$FeSi magnetization but causes a precession of the spins, which are injected into the GaAs channel. For parallel injector and detector magnetizations, the minimum voltage occurs at $B_\perp=0$ as confirmed by the measured data shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. For finite fields $B_\perp$, the spin precession leads to a misorientation of the spin polarization beneath the detector stripe diminishing the measured signal. The voltage in the Hanle geometry for the parallel configuration can be expressed by a one-dimensional spin drift-diffusion equation, which takes into account spin relaxation and precession, and whose solution reads:[@Jedema2002; @Johnson1985] $$V_\textrm{{NLH}}=V_0\int_{0}^\infty \, \mathrm{dt}\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi Dt}}e^{-d_\textrm{ij}^2/4Dt} e^{-t/\tau_\mathrm{s}}\cos(\Omega_\mathrm{L} t),
\label{hanle}$$ with $V_0=(\pm P_{\textrm{inj}}P_{\textrm{det}}I\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}\rho_\textrm{N} /2S) (2\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}/\tau_\textrm{s})$. $D$ is the spin diffusion coefficient, $\tau_\textrm{s}$ the spin relaxation time and\
$\Omega_\textrm{L}=g\mu_B B_\perp/\hbar$ the Larmor frequency, where the electron g factor for GaAs is $g=-0.44$, $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton and $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant.
![Temperature dependence of the NL voltage $V_{\textrm{NLH}}$ (symbols) as a function of the out-of-plane magnetic field $B_\perp$. The solid lines are fits according to Eq. (\[hanle\]). The curves have been offset for clarity.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3final){width="8cm"}
The NL Hanle signal $V_{\textrm{NLH}}$ vs. $B_\perp$ is displayed in Fig. \[fig3\] for different sample temperatures. The good agreement between the measured data and the fit (cf. Fig. \[fig3\]) obtained by Eq. (\[hanle\]) using $D$, $\tau_\textrm{s}$, and $V_0$ as fit parameters provides further evidence for successful all-electrical injection and detection of spin polarized electrons. An increase in the temperature leads to an increase in the linewidth and therefore, as expected, to a decrease in the spin lifetime from 64 ns at 22 K to 11 ns at 60 K. Both of these values are comparatively large.[@Lou2007; @Ciorga2009] Furthermore, using $\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}=6.2~\mu$m, $I=400~\mu$A, $\rho_\textrm{N}=8.9\times 10^{-4}~\Omega$m (measured separately on the same sample using a Hall structure) and $S=75\times 10^{-12}$ m$^2$, a spin injection efficiency of $P_{\textrm{inj}}=16\%$ has been extracted by the fitting procedure. Regarding our crude assumption $P_{\textrm{inj}}=P_{\textrm{det}}$, the obtained value of $P_{\textrm{inj}}$ is in reasonable agreement with previous results obtained from Co$_2$FeSi/(Al,Ga)As spin light-emitting diodes.[@Ramsteiner2008]
In the case of the local measurements, the spin and charge currents are no longer separated. The measure of the spin signal in the local configuration is the magnetoresistance (MR) ratio $\Delta R/R_\textrm{P}=(R_{\textrm{AP}}-R_\textrm{P})/R_\textrm{P}$, where $R_\textrm{P}$ $(R_{\textrm{AP}})$ represents the resistance $R=V_{\textrm{L}}/I_{\textrm{L}}$ between stripes 2 and 3 \[cf. Fig. \[fig1\](b)\] for the parallel (antiparallel) source and drain contact magnetizations. The requirements for a sizable spin signal in the local configuration have been theoretically discussed.[@Fert2001; @Dery2006; @Fert2007] The most crucial parameter is the ratio of $r^*_\textrm{b}$ and $r_N$. $r^*_\textrm{b}$ is the contact tunnel resistance at the interface between the ferromagnet and the semiconductor and the spin resistance $r_N$ is the product of the resistivity $\rho_\textrm{N}$ and the spin diffusion length $\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}$ within the semiconductor. A high ratio $r^*_\textrm{b}/r_\textrm{N}$ is needed to overcome the so-called conductivity mismatch[@Schmidt2000], but a too high value causes the spins to relax such that it prevents their detection. As a result, a window exists for the ratio $r^*_b/r_N$ for which the obtained signal is optimal.[@Fert2001; @Fert2007] This window is given by: $$\left(\frac{W}{w}\right)\left(\frac{d_\textrm{ij}}{\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}}\right)^2\ll\frac{r^*_\textrm{b}}{r_\textrm{N}}\ll\left(\frac{W}{w}\right),
\label{window}$$ where $W$ is the width of the contacts and $d_\textrm{ij}$ and $w$ are the length and width of the channel, respectively. Due to the difficulty to fullfil these requirements, spin detection in the local configuration has been demonstrated in rare cases only.[@Ando2010; @Ciorga2011; @Nakane2010; @Sasaki2011a; @Althammer2012; @Kasahara2012]
![Local spin signal in the spin valve geometry as a function of an in-plane magnetic field $B_{||}$ applied along the stripes. The peak around 0 T is induced by dynamic nuclear polarization.[@Salis2009b] The dashed line indicates the base line at 372.7 mV.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4final){width="8cm"}
Local spin valve (LSV) measurements have been performed in the same manner as described above for the non-local case except for the change in the contact configuration. Here, a charge current ($I_\textrm{L}$) flows between contacts 2 and 3 and the spin valve signal is measured as a voltage ($V_\textrm{L}$) between the same contacts \[see Fig. \[fig1\](b)\]. As shown in Fig. \[fig4\], the expected voltage jumps are clearly resolved and coincide with those observed in the non-local configuration (cf. Fig. \[fig2\]). This observation provides clear evidence for local spin valve operation obtained in the Co$_2$FeSi/GaAs hybrid system. The observed Hanle curve for the local configuration, shown in Fig. \[fig5\], supports our conclusion. Note that the slightly smaller linewidth as compared to the NL Hanle measurement at the same temperature (cf. Fig. \[fig3\]) indicates a somewhat larger spin lifetime.
The MR ratio for the samples under investigation is estimated to be $\Delta R/R_\textrm{P}\approx 0.03\%$ (cf. Fig. \[fig4\]), where the contact resistances were subtracted from the LSV curves by using data obtained by 3-terminal measurements.[@Ciorga2011] According to a theoretical estimate for the lateral geometry,[@Fert2001] which takes into account a spin dependent interface resistance at the ferromagnet/semiconductor interface, a MR ratio of 0.05% is expected for our device, in reasonable agreement with our measured value. The relatively small MR ratio reflects the fact that the actual device parameters do not satisfy the condition expressed by Eq. (\[window\]). The ratio $r^*_\textrm{b}/r_\textrm{N}\approx 32$ for the investigated devices is outside the optimal window, which for these samples is $1.6\ll r^*_b/r_N\ll 6.6$. Lowering the temperature below 40 K did not improve the MR ratio significantly.
![Local voltage $V_\textrm{LH}$ as a function of the external out-of-plane magnetic field $B_\perp$ in the Hanle geometry measured at 40 K at a bias of $400~\mu$A. The dashed line indicates the base line at 548.38 mV.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5final){width="8cm"}
The spin signal in the local configuration ($\Delta V_{\textrm{LSV}}=140~\mu$V) is larger than that in the non-local one ($\Delta V_{\textrm{NLSV}}=8~\mu$V) by a factor of about 18. This observation is in contrast to a one-dimensional spin diffusion model, where an expected ratio of $\Delta V_{\textrm{LSV}}/\Delta V_{\textrm{NLSV}}=2$ has been experimentally verified.[@Jedema2003] A deviation from this factor $2$ has been observed previously in FM/semiconductor hybrid systems and explained by an increase of the spin diffusion length $\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}$ in the local case due to the electric field in the semiconductor,[@Sasaki2011a] possibly due to an increase of $\tau_\textrm{s}$ as shown above. Similar to the NL case (cf. inset of Fig. \[fig2\]), we measured the dependence of $\Delta V_{\textrm{LSV}}$ on the separation $d_{\textrm{ij}}$ and obtained indeed an increased spin diffusion length of $\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}\approx11~\mu$m. Taking into account the different spin diffusion lengths, the ratio $\Delta V_{\textrm{LSV}}/\Delta V_{\textrm{NLSV}}$ has to be corrected by a factor of $4$ due to the different values of $\lambda_{\textrm{sf}}\times \exp(-d_\textrm{ij}/\lambda_{\textrm{sf}})$ in Eq. (\[sv\]). As a result, the corrected ratio $\Delta V_{\textrm{LSV}}/\Delta V_{\textrm{NLSV}}=18/4=4.5$ is still about a factor of $2$ larger than expected according to the theory for a one-dimensional spin diffusion model.[@Fert1996; @Jedema2003] This remaining enhancement of the local spin valve signal might be related to the predicted half-metallic nature of Co$_2$FeSi in its *L*2$_1$ phase. More precisely, the large spin polarization at the Fermi energy in Co$_2$FeSi may lead to a comparatively large spin detection efficiency in the local spin valve configuration.
We have presented unambiguous evidence for all-electrical spin injection and detection in the local and non-local configuration in the Co$_2$FeSi/GaAs hybrid system. The obtained magnetoresistance for the local spin valve configuration is found to be in accordance with the calculated estimate for (non-optimized) device parameters. The enhanced LSV signal with respect to the NL one suggests that the large spin polarization of Co$_2$FeSi in the well-ordered *L*2$_1$ phase is advantageous for actual spintronic devices.
We gratefully acknowledge the technical support by Walid Anders and Angela Riedel and the critical reading of the manuscript by Alberto Hernández-Mínguez.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Let $S$ be a finite set of positive integers. A graph $G=(V(G),E(G))$ is said to be $S$-magic if there exists a bijection $f: V(G) \rightarrow S$ such that for any vertex $u$ of $G$, $\sum_{v\in N_G(u)} f(v)$ is a constant, where $N_G(u)$ is the set of all vertices adjacent to $u$. Let $\alpha(S)$ = $\displaystyle \max_{x\in S} x$. Define $i(G)$ = $\displaystyle \min_S \alpha(S) $, where the minimum runs over all $S$ for which the graph $G$ is $S$-magic. Then $i(G)-|V(G)|$ is called the distance magic index of a graph $G$. In this paper, we compute the distance magic index of graphs $G[\bar{K_{n}}]$, where $G$ is any arbitrary regular graph, disjoint union of $m$ copies of complete multi-partite graph and disjoint union of $m$ copies of graph $C_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}]$, with $m\geq 1$. In addition to that, we also prove some necessary conditions for an regular graph to be of distance magic index one.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
National Institute of Technology Calicut\
Kozhikode [673601]{.nodecor}, India.
author:
- A V Prajeesh
- Krishnan Paramasivam
bibliography:
- 'bibiliography\_list.bib'
title: Distance Magic Index One Graphs
---
Distance magic,$S$-magic graph ,distance magic index ,complete multi-partite graphs ,lexicographic product. 05C78 ,05C76.
Introduction
============
In this paper, we consider only simple and finite graphs. We use $V(G)$ for the vertex set and $E(G)$ for the edge set of a graph $G$. The neighborhood, $N_G(v)$ or shortly $N(v)$ of a vertex $v$ of $G$ is the set of all vertices adjacent to $v$ in $G$. For further graph theoretic terminology and notation, we refer Bondy and Murty [@bondy2008graph] and Hammack $et$ $al.$[@hammack2011handbook].
A distance magic labeling of a graph $G$ is a bijection $f : V(G) \rightarrow \{1,...,|V(G)|\}$, such that for any $u$ of $G$, the weight of $u$, $w_G(u) = \sum\limits_{v\in N_{G}(u)} f(v) $ is a constant, say $c$. A graph $G$ that admits such a labeling is called a distance magic graph.
The motivation for distance magic labeling came from the concept of magic squares and tournament scheduling. An equalized incomplete tournament, denoted by $EIT(n, r)$, is a tournament, with $n$ teams and $r$ rounds, which satisfies the following conditions:
- every team plays against exactly $r$ opponents.
- the total strength of the opponents, against which each team plays is a constant.
Therefore, finding a solution for an equalized incomplete tournament $EIT(n,r)$ is equivalent to establish a distance magic labeling of an $r$-regular graph of order $n$. For more details, one can refer [@froncek2007fair; @froncek2006fair].
The following results provide some necessary condition for distance magicness of regular graphs.
\[oddregular\] [[@jinnah; @miller2003distance; @rao; @vilfred]]{.nodecor} No $r$-regular graph with $r$-odd can be a distance magic graph.
\[2mode4\] [[@froncek2006fair]]{.nodecor} Let $EIT(n, r)$ be an equalized tournament with an even number $n$ of teams and $r\equiv 2 \mod 4$. Then $n\equiv 0 \mod 4$.
In [@miller2003distance], Miller $et$ $al.$ discussed the distance magic labeling of the graph $H_{n,p}$, the complete multi-partite graph with $p$ partitions in which each partition has exactly $n$ vertices, $n \geq 1$ and $p \geq 1$. It is clear that $H_{n,1}$ is a distance magic graph. From [@miller2003distance] it is observed that $K_{n}$ is distance magic if and only if $n = 1$ and hence, $H_{1,p}\cong K_{p} $ is not distance magic for all $p\ne 1$. The next result gives a characterization for the distance magicness of $H_{n,p}$.
\[millerHnp\] [[@miller2003distance]]{.nodecor} Let $n > 1$ and $p > 1$. $H_{n,p}$ has a labeling if and only if either $n$ is even or both $n$ and $p$ are odd.
Recall a standard graph product (see [@hammack2011handbook]). Let $G$ and $H$ be two graphs. Then, the lexicographic product $G \circ H$ or $G[H]$ is a graph with the vertex set $V(G)\times V(H)$. Two vertices $(g,h)$ and $(g',h')$ are adjacent in $G[H]$ if and only if $g$ is adjacent to $g'$ in $G$, or $g=g'$ and $h$ is adjacent to $h'$ in $H$.
Miller $et$ $al.$ [@miller2003distance] proved the following.
\[millerregularcomp\] [[@miller2003distance]]{.nodecor} Let $G$ be an arbitrary regular graph. Then $G[\bar{K_n}]$ is distance magic for any even $n$.
Later, Froncek $et$ $al.$ [@froncek2006fair; @froncek2011constructing] proved the following results.
\[froncek3\] [[@froncek2006fair]]{.nodecor} For $n$ even an $EIT(n, r)$ exists if and only if $2 \leq r \leq n-
2; r \equiv 0 \mod 2$ and either $n \equiv 0 \mod 4$ or $n \equiv r + 2 \equiv 2 \mod 4$.
\[froncek1\] [[@froncek2011constructing]]{.nodecor} Let $n$ be odd, $p \equiv r \equiv 2 \mod 4$, and $G$ be an $r$-regular graph with $p$ vertices. Then $G[\bar{K_n}]$ is not distance magic.
\[froncek2\] [[@froncek2011constructing]]{.nodecor} Let $G$ be an arbitrary $r$-regular graph with an odd number of vertices and $n$ be an odd positive integer. Then $r$ is even and the graph $G[\bar{K_n}]$ is distance magic.
The following results by Shafiq $et$ $al$. [@shafiq2009distance], discusses the distance magic labeling of disjoint union of $m$ copies of complete multi-partite graphs, $H_{n,p}$, and disjoint union of $m$ copies of product graphs, $C_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}]$.
\[multi\] [[@shafiq2009distance]]{.nodecor}
1. If $n$ is even or $mnp$ is odd, $m \geq 1; n > 1$ and $p > 1$; then $mH_{n,p}$ has a distance magic labeling.
2. If $np$ is odd, $p \equiv 3 \mod 4$, and $m$ is even, then $mH_{n,p}$ does not have a distance magic labeling.
\[multi1\] [[@shafiq2009distance]]{.nodecor} Let $m\geq 1, n>1$ and $p\geq 3.$ $mC_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}]$ has a distance magic labeling if and only if either $n$ is even or $mnp$ is odd or $n$ is odd and $p \equiv 0 \mod 4.$
In [@shafiq2009distance], Shafiq $et$ $al$. posted a problem on the graph $mH_{n,p}$.
For the graph $mH_{n,p}$, where $m$ is even, $n$ is odd, $p\equiv 1
\mod 4,$ and $p > 1$, determine if there is a distance magic labeling.
Later, Froncek $et$ $al$.[@froncek2011constructing] proved the following necessary condition for $mH_{n,p}$.
\[froncek\] The graph $mH_{n,p}$, where $m$ is even, $n$ is odd, $p\equiv 1
\mod 4,$ and $p > 1$, is not distance magic.
For more details and results, one can refer Arumugam $et$ $al$. [@arumugamsurvey2012distance].
From Theorem \[oddregular\], one can observe that any odd-regular graph $G$ of order $n$ is not distance magic. But if we label the graph with respect to a different set $S$ of positive integers with $|S|=n$, then $G$ may admit a magic labeling with a magic constant $c'$. See Figure 1.
![A graph $G$ with $c'=13$ and $S=\{1,3,4,5,6,7\}.$[]{data-label="fig1"}](index1){width="40mm"}
Motivated by this fact Godinho $et$ $al.$ [@godinho2015s] defined the concept of $S$-magic labeling of a graph.
[[@godinho2018distance]]{.nodecor} Let $G=(V(G),E(G))$ be a graph and let $S$ be a set of positive integers with $|V(G)|=|S|$. Then $G$ is said to be $S$-magic if there exists a bijection $f:V(G)\rightarrow S$ satisfying $\sum_{v\in N(u)} f(v) = c$ $($a constant$)$ for every $u\in V(G)$. The constant $c$ is called the $S$-magic constant.
[[@godinho2018distance]]{.nodecor} Let $\alpha(S)$ = max $\{s : s \in S\}$. Let $i(G)$ = min $\alpha(S)$, where the minimum is taken over all sets $S$ for which the graph $G$ admits an $S$-magic labeling. Then $i(G)-|V(G)|$ is called the distance magic index of a graph $G$ and is denoted by $\theta(G)$.
From above definitions, one can observe that a graph $G$ is distance magic if and only if $\theta(G) = 0$ and if $G$ is not $S$-magic for any $S$ with $|V(G)|=|S|$, then $\theta(G)=\infty$.
Let $G$ be a graph for which $\theta(G)$ is finite (however so small) and non-zero. Now, a natural question arises that for all such graphs $G$, does there exist an $S$-magic labeling with $\theta(G)=1$?
In the following section, we prove some necessary conditions for an $r$-regular $S$-magic graph $G$ to have $\theta(G)=1$. Further, we compute the distance magic index of disjoint union of $m$ copies of $H_{n,p}$ and disjoint union of $m$ copies of $C_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}]$, where $m\geq 1$. Also, for any arbitrary regular graph $G$, we compute the distance magic index of the graph $G[\bar{K_{n}}]$. In addition to that, we construct twin sets $S$ and $S'$ for the same graph $H_{n,p}$ with $\theta(G)=1$, for which $H_{n,p}$ is both $S$-magic and $S'$-magic with distinct magic constants. We also discuss the maximum and minimum bounds attained by the magic constant for the graph $H_{n,p}$.
Main results
============
If $G$ is a graph with $\theta(G) = 1$, then it is clear that $G$ is $S$-magic for $S = \{1,...,n+1\}\setminus \{a\}$, for at least one $a\in \{1,...,n\}$. We call $a$, the deleted label of $S$.
The following results are similar to that of Theorem \[oddregular\] and \[2mode4\].
\[oddreg2\] If $G$ is an odd $r$-regular $S$-magic graph with $\theta(G) = 1$, then $a\neq 1$.
Assume that $G$ is an $r$-regular graph with $\theta(G) = 1$, where $r$ is odd. If $S = \{1,...,n+1\}\setminus \{a\}$ with the $S$-magic constant $c$, then, $$\begin{aligned}
nc&=& r(1+...+n+1)-ra \\
%nc&=& \frac{r(n+1)(n+2)-2ra}{2} \\
c&=& \frac{rn+3r}{2}+\frac{r-ra}{n}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, if $a = 1$, then $c$ is not an integer, a contradiction.
\[2mod42\] If $G$ is an $r$-regular $S$-magic graph with $\theta(G) = 1$ and $r,n \equiv 2 \mod 4$, then $a$ is an even integer, $a\neq 2,n$.
Assume that $G$ is an $r$-regular graph with $\theta(G) = 1$ and $r,n \equiv 2 \mod 4$. Let $c$ be the $S$-magic constant of $G$, where $S = \{1,2,...,n+1\}\setminus \{a\}$ and $a$ is an odd integer belonging to $\{1,2,..,n\}$. Let $r = 4k+2$ and $n = 4k'+2$, with $0<k<k'$.\
**Case 1:** when $a=1$, from eq.(2), we have, $$\begin{aligned}
c = (2k+1)(4k'+5).
\end{aligned}$$ Here $c$ is an odd integer and every vertex is adjacent to odd number of vertices which are labeled with odd integers. Note that, here there are $2k'+1$ such vertices. Then the graph induced by the vertices having odd label has every vertex of odd degree, a contradiction.\
**Case 2:** When $a= 2q+1$, with $q>0$. Then $rn+3r\equiv 2 \mod 4$ and $r-ra\equiv 0 \mod 4$ and hence $c$ fails to be an integer.\
**Case 3:** When $a = 2$ or $a=n$, $c$ is not an integer and hence the result follows.
The following theorem discusses the distance magic index of the graph, $H_{n,p}, n>1$ and $p>1$. We define the integer-valued function $\alpha$ given by\
$$\alpha(j)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & $ for $ j $ even $ \\
1 & $ for $ j $ odd, $ \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ and the sets $\Omega_k=\{i: 5\leq i\leq n-1 \textnormal{~and~} i\equiv k\mod 4\}$, where $k\in\{0,1,2,3\}$. Both $\alpha$ and $\Omega_i$’s are used in the next theorem.
\[index1hnp\] If $G$ is a complete multi-partite graph $H_{n,p}$ with $p$ partitions having $n$ vertices in each partition, then $$\theta(G) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & $ for $n$ even or $n$ and $p$ both odd$ \\
1 & $ for $n$ odd and $p$ even.$ \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $G\cong H_{n,p}$ with $n>1, p>1$. From Theorem \[millerHnp\], it is clear that if $n$ is even or when $n$ and $p$ both are odd, then $\theta(G)=0$.
Now, to construct an $(n\times p)$- rectangular matrix $A=(a_{i,j})$ with distinct entries from a set $S$ having column sum $b$ (a constant) is equivalent to find an $S$-magic labeling of $G$ with magic constant $(p-1)b$.
Note that $j^{th}$ column of $A$ can be used to label the vertices of $j^{th}$ partition of $G$ and hence $G$ admits a magic labeling with magic constant $(p-1)b$. In addition, if the entries of $A$ are all distinct and are from $S = \{1,...,np+1\}\setminus\{a\}$, where $a\in\{1,...,np\}$, then $G$ is $S$-magic with $\theta(G)= 1.$
Let $n$ be an odd and $p$ be an even integer.\
\
Case 1: If $n = 3$ and $p = 2m, m>0$, then construct $A$ as,
$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & ... & 2m-3 & 2m-2 & 2m-1 & 2m\\
3m & 4m & 3m-1 & 4m-1 & ... & 2m+2 & 3m +2 & 2m+1 & 3m+1\\
6m +1 & 5m & 6m & 5m-1 & ... & 5m+3 & 4m+2 & 5m+2 & 4m+1
\end{pmatrix}$
Note that, the deleted label is $5m+1$ here. One can observe that each column adds up to a constant $9m+2$ and thus, $\theta(H_{3,2m})=1$.\
\
Case 2: If $n = 5$ and $p = 2m, m>0$, then construct $A$ as,
$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & ... & 2m-3 & 2m-2 & 2m-1 & 2m\\
3m & 4m & 3m-1 & 4m-1 & ... & 2m+2 & 3m +2 & 2m+1 & 3m+1\\
6m & 5m & 6m-1 & 5m-1 & ... & 5m+2 & 4m+2 & 5m+1 & 4m+1\\
7m & 8m & 7m-1 & 8m-1 & ... & 6m+2 & 7m+2 & 6m+1 & 7m+1\\
9m+2 & 8m+1 & 9m+3 & 8m+2 & ... & 10m & 9m-1 & 10m+1 & 9m
\end{pmatrix}$
Here, the deleted label is $9m+1$ and each column adds up to a constant $25m+3$. Therefore, $\theta(H_{5,2m})=1$.\
\
Case 3: If $n>5$ is odd and $p = 2m, m>0$, then for each $j\in\{1,...,p\}$, construct $A$ as follows. [ $$a_{i,j} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
j & $ for $ i=1 \\
(2i-1)m-(\frac{j-1}{2})+\alpha(j+1)(m+\frac{1}{2}) & $ for $ i=2,4 \\
2mi-(\frac{j-1}{2})+\alpha(j+1)(-m+\frac{1}{2}) & $ for $ i=3 \\
2mi-m+\frac{j}{2}+\alpha(j)(-m+\frac{1}{2}) & $ for $ i\equiv 1 \mod 4, i\in\{5,6,...,n-1\}\\
2mi-m+\frac{j}{2}+\alpha(j)\frac{1}{2}- \alpha(j+1)m & $ for $ i\equiv 2 \mod 4, i\in\{5,6,...,n-1\}\\
2mi-(\frac{j-1}{2})+\alpha(j+1)(-m+\frac{1}{2}) & $ for $ i\equiv 3 \mod 4, i\in\{5,6,...,n-1\}\\
2mi-(\frac{j-1}{2})+\alpha(j)(-m)+\alpha(j+1)\frac{1}{2} & $ for $ i\equiv 0 \mod 4, i\in\{5,6,...,n-1\}\\
2mi-m+\frac{j}{2}+\alpha(j)(\frac{3}{2})-\alpha(j+1)m & $ for $ i = n \equiv 1 \mod 4\\
2mi-\frac{j}{2}+\frac{1}{2}-\alpha(j+1)(m+\frac{1}{2}) & $ for $ i = n \equiv 3 \mod 4\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ ]{} Therefore, $m(2n-1)+1$ is the deleted label in this case.\
\
Subcase 1: If $n\equiv 1\mod 4$, then $n-5\equiv 0\mod 4$. Let $n= 4q+5$, where $q\geq 1$.\
Now for any fixed odd $j$, the $j^{th}$ column sum in $A$ is, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i,j} = \sum_{i=1}^{4}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_1}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_2}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_3}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_0} a_{i,j}+ \biggl(2mn-m+\frac{j}{2}+\frac{3}{2}\biggr)
\end{aligned}$$ =$j+3m-(\frac{j-1}{2})+6m-(\frac{j-1}{2})+7m-(\frac{j-1}{2})+ \sum_{k=1}^q \biggl(2m(4k+1)-2m+\frac{j+1}{2}\biggr)+\\\sum_{k=1}^q \biggl(2m(4k+2)-m+\frac{j+1}{2}\biggr)+ \sum_{k=1}^q \biggl(2m(4k+3)-(\frac{j-1}{2})\biggr)+\\ \sum_{k=1}^q \biggl(2m(4k+4)-m-(\frac{j-1}{2})\biggr)+2mn-m+1+\frac{j+1}{2}\\
= 15m+32mq+16mq^2+2mn+2q+3
= \frac{n^2p+n+1}{2}$.\
\
Similarly, for any fixed even $j$, the $j^{th}$ column sum in $A$ is, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i,j} = \sum_{i=1}^{4}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_1}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_2}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_3}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_0}a_{i,j}+ \biggl(2mn-2m+\frac{j}{2}\biggr)
\end{aligned}$$ $=j+4m-(\frac{j-2}{2})+5m-(\frac{j-2}{2})+8m-(\frac{j-2}{2})+ \sum_{k=1}^q \biggl(2m(4k+1)-m+\frac{j}{2}\biggr)+\\\sum_{k=1}^q \biggl(2m(4k+2)-2m+\frac{j}{2}\biggr)+\sum_{k=1}^q\biggl(2m(4k+3)-m-(\frac{j-2}{2})\biggr)+\\ \sum_{k=1}^q\biggl(2m(4k+4)-(\frac{j-2}{2})\biggr)+2mn-2m+\frac{j}{2}\\ = 15m+32mq+16mq^2+2mn+2q+3 = \frac{n^2p+n+1}{2}$.\
\
Subcase 2: if $n \equiv 3 \mod 4$, then $n-5 \equiv 2 \mod 4$. Let $n = 4q+3 $ where $q\geq0$.\
Now, for any fixed odd $j$, the $j^{th}$ column sum in $A$ is, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i,j} = \sum_{i=1}^{4}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_1}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_2}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_3}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_0}a_{i,j}+\biggl(2mn-\frac{j}{2}+\frac{3}{2}\biggr)
\end{aligned}$$ $=j+3m-(\frac{j-1}{2})+6m-(\frac{j-1}{2})+7m-(\frac{j-1}{2})+ \sum_{k=1}^{q+1} \biggl(2m(4k+1)-2m+\frac{j+1}{2}\biggr)+\\ \sum_{k=1}^{q+1} \biggl(2m(4k+2)-m+\frac{j+1}{2}\biggr)+\sum_{k=1}^q \biggl(2m(4k+3)-(\frac{j-1}{2})\biggr)+\\ \sum_{k=1}^q \biggl(2m(4k+4)-m-(\frac{j-1}{2})\biggr)+2mn+1-(\frac{j-1}{2}) \\ = 35m+48mq+16mq^2+2mn+2q+4 = \frac{n^2p+n+1}{2}$.\
\
Similarly, for any fixed even $j$, the $j^{th}$ column sum in $A$ is, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i,j} = \sum_{i=1}^{4}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_1}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_2}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_3}a_{i,j}+\sum_{i\in\Omega_0}+\biggl(2mn-m-\frac{j}{2}+1\biggr)
\end{aligned}$$ $=j+4m-(\frac{j-2}{2})+5m-(\frac{j-2}{2})+8m-(\frac{j-2}{2})+ \sum_{k=1}^{q+1} \biggl(2m(4k+1)-m+\frac{j}{2}\biggr)+\\ \sum_{k=1}^{q+1} \biggl(2m(4k+2)-2m+\frac{j}{2}\biggr)+ \sum_{k=1}^q \biggl(2m(4k+3)-m-(\frac{j-2}{2})\biggr)+\\ \sum_{k=1}^q \biggl(2m(4k+4)-(\frac{j-2}{2})\biggr)+2mn-m-(\frac{j-2}{2})\\ = 35m+48mq+16mq^2+2mn+2q+4 = \frac{n^2p+n+1}{2}$.\
\
Since the sum of the entries in each column of $A$ is $\frac{n^2p+n+1}{2}$ for odd $n>5$, $H_{n,2m}$ is $S$-magic with magic constant $\frac{n^2p+n+1}{2}(p-1)$ and $\theta(H_{n,2m})=1$.
0.5 cm
If $G\cong H_{n,p}$ is an $S$-magic graph with $\theta(G) = 1$ and $S$-magic constant $\frac{n^2p+n+1}{2}(p-1)$, then there exists a set $S'$ such that $G$ is an $S'$-magic graph with $\theta(G) = 1$ and $S'$-magic constant $\frac{n^2p+3n-1}{2}(p-1).$
For every $S$-magic graph $G\cong H_{n,p}$ with $\theta(G) = 1$, one can obtain the corresponding rectangular matrix $A=(a_{i,j})$ associated with $G$ by Theorem \[index1hnp\].
Define a new $(n\times p)$- rectangular matrix $A'=(a'_{i,j})$ with entries, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1}
a'_{i,j} = (np+2) - a_{i,j} \textnormal{~for all}~i~ \textnormal{and}~j.
\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[index1hnp\], it is clear that the entries in $A$ belong to the set $\{1,...,np+1\}\setminus\{np+1-\frac{p}{2}\}$, which sum up to $\frac{n^2p^2+p(n+1)}{2}$ and is divisible by $p$. Hence the magic constant is $\frac{n^2p+n+1}{2}(p-1)$.
Now using (\[eq1\]), define the new set $S'= S\cup\{np+1-\frac{p}{2}\}\setminus \{\frac{p}{2}+1\}$ and the sum of all the entries in $A' = np(np+2)-(\frac{n^2p^2+p(n+1)}{2}) = \frac{n^2p^2+3np-p}{2},$ which is divisible by $p$. Therefore, we obtain the magic constant as $\frac{n^2p+3n-1}{2}(p-1)$.
0.5 cm The rectangular matrices $A$ and $A'$ associated with $H_{5,6}$ are given below,\
\
$A$ = $\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\
9 & 12 & 8 & 11 & 7 & 10 \\
18 & 15 & 17 & 14 & 16 & 13 \\
21 & 24 & 20 & 23 & 19 & 22 \\
29 & 25 & 30 & 26 & 31 & 27 \\
\end{pmatrix}$
$A'$ = $\begin{pmatrix}
31 & 30 & 29 & 28 & 27 & 26 \\
23 & 20 & 24 & 21 & 25 & 22 \\
14 & 17 & 15 & 18 & 16 & 19 \\
11 & 8 & 12 & 9 & 13 & 10 \\
3 & 7 & 2 & 6 & 1 & 5 \\
\end{pmatrix}$
0.5 cm
Here, the sum of the entries in each column of $A$ and $A'$ are 78 and 82 respectively. Then, $H_{5,6}$ is $S$-magic with magic constant 390 and $S'$-magic with magic constant 410.
![$H_{5,6}$ with $S$-magic constant $390$ and $S'$ magic constant 410.[]{data-label="fig3"}](H5612){width="140mm"}
Now the following result is immediate.
\[2magicconst\] If $G$ is an $r$-regular graph with $\theta(G)=1$ and with $S$-magic constant $c$, then $$\frac{nr+r}{2}+\frac{r}{n} \leq c \leq \frac{nr+3r}{2}.$$
The proof is obtained from Lemma \[oddreg2\] by substituting $a = 1$ and $a = n$ for $c$.
\[hnp\] If $G\cong H_{n,p}$ is a graph with $\theta(G)=1$ and $S$-magic constant $c$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{n^2p+n+1}{2}(p-1)\leq c \leq \frac{n^2p+3n-1}{2}(p-1)
\end{aligned}$$
The lower and upper bounds in Observation \[hnp\] are tight when one compares with Lemma \[2magicconst\]. It is noticed that if $S=\{1,...,np+1\}\setminus \{a\}$, which confirms that $H_{n,p}$ is $S$-magic, then the sum of all the entries in $S$ is divisible by $p$. Therefore, the highest $a$ that can be removed to get a multiple of $p$ is $np+1-\frac{p}{2}$ and the lowest $a$ that can be removed to get a multiple of $p$ is $\frac{p}{2}+1.$ Hence the result follows.
\[rectangleconstruct\] Let $B$ be an $(n\times p)$-rectangular matrix with distinct entries from the set $\{1,2,..,np+1\}\setminus \{a\},$ where $a\in\{1,2,...,np\}$ having column sum $s$. If there exists an integer $m\geq 1$, $m|p$, then there exixts $m$, $(n\times t)$-rectangular matrices, $B_{m}, (1\leq m \leq t)$, having column sum $s$.
Consider the $(n\times mt)$-rectangular matrix $B$ with distinct entries from the set $\{1,2,..,np+1\}\setminus \{a\},$ where $a\in\{1,2,...,np\}$ and having column sum $s$.
Construct an $(n\times t)$-rectangular matrix, $B_{1}$ by choosing any $t$ distinct columns of $B$ and update the $B$ matrix by replacing all the entries in the newly chosen $t$ columns with $0's$. Now the updated $B$ matrix will have exactly $(m-1)t$ nonzero columns and $t$ columns having all zero entries.
Now, repeat the process to obtain the next matrix $B_{2}$ by choosing any $t$ non-zero columns from the remaining $(m-1)t$ columns and update the $B$ matrix in the same manner as in first step. Now repeatedly apply the above technique to obtain the remaining $m-2$ matrices, $B_{i},(3\leq i \leq m)$, until the matrix $B$ becomes an zero matrix.
From Theorem \[multi\], it is observed that in both the cases when $n$ is odd, $p$ is even and when $np$ is odd, $p\equiv 3 \mod 4$ and $m$ is even, $\theta(mH_{n,p})\neq0$. The following theorem computes the distance magic index of $mH_{n,p}$ for above cases.
\[multi6\] If $n>1,p>1,m\geq 1$, then\
$$\theta(mH_{n,p}) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & $ for $n$ even or $mnp$ is odd,$\\
1 & $ otherwise.$
\end{array}
\right.$$
Using Theorem \[multi\], it is clear that $\theta(mH_{n,p})=0$, when either $n$ is even or $mnp$ is odd and $\theta(mH_{n,p})\neq 0$, when either $np$ is odd, $p \equiv 3 \mod 4$, and $m$ is even. On the other hand, by Theorem \[froncek\], one can conclude that $\theta(mH_{n,p})\neq 0$, when $m$ is even, $n$ is odd, $p\equiv 1
\mod 4,$ and $p > 1$.\
For all the remaining cases, use Theorem \[index1hnp\] to construct the rectangular matrix $A$ associated with the graph $H_{n,mp}$. Now using Lemma \[rectangleconstruct\], construct the $(n\times p)$-matrices $B_{k},$ for $k\in\{1,...,m\}$ Here, each $B_{k}$ forms the matrix associated with the $k^{th}$ copy of $H_{n,p}$ and hence we obtain an $S$-magic labeling of $mH_{n,p}$ with $c = \frac{n^2mp+n+1}{2}(p-1)$. Therefore, $\theta(mH_{n,p})=1.$
Theorem \[multi1\] confirms that if $n$ is even or $mnp$ is odd or $n$ is odd and $p \equiv 0 \mod 4$, then $\theta(mC_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}])=0.$ Now the remaining cases are given below.\
**Case 1:** $n$ is odd, $m$ is even, $p\equiv 2 \mod 4.$\
**Case 2:** $n$ is odd, $m$ is odd, $p\equiv 2 \mod 4.$\
**Case 3:** $n$ is odd, $m$ is even, $p$ is odd.
The following theorem determines the distance magic index of the graph $mC_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}]$ for all the above mentioned three cases.
Let $m\geq 1, n>1$ and $p\geq3$, then\
$$\theta(mC_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}]) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & $ if $n$ is~even or $mnp$ is odd or $n$ is odd, $p\equiv 0 \textnormal{~mod~} 4,\\
1 & $ otherwise.$
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $G\cong mC_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}]$. From Theorem \[multi1\], it is clear that $\theta(G)=0$, when $n$ even or $mnp$ is odd or $n$ is odd and $p\equiv 0 \mod 4.$
Now, for all the remaining cases, using Theorem \[index1hnp\] construct the matrix $A$ associated with the graph $H_{n,mp}$ and use $A$ in Lemma \[rectangleconstruct\] to construct the $m$ rectangular matrices associated with $m$ copies of graph $C_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}]$. Hence, we obtain a $S$-magic labeling of $G$ with $c = n^2mp+n+1$ and hence $\theta(G)=1.$
Let $G$ be an $r$-regular graph on $p$ vertices. From Theorem \[froncek3\], for the graph $G[\bar{K_{n}}]$, if $n$ is odd, $r$ is even and $p$ is even except when $p\equiv r \equiv 2\mod 4$, then $\theta(G[\bar{K_{n}}] = 0.$ The following theorem computes the distance magic index of the graph $G[\bar{K_{n}}]$.
Let $G$ be an $r$-regular graph on $p$ vertices. Then, $$\theta(G[\bar{K_{n}}]) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & $ if $n$ is even$~or~$n,p$~are~odd$, $r$ is even$,\\
1 & $ if $n,r$ are odd~or~$n$~is~odd, $r~\equiv p\equiv2~mod~4\\
0 & $ otherwise$.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $G$ be a graph on $p$ vertices $v_{1},...,v_{p}$ and let $V_{i} = \{v_{i}^{1},...,v_{i}^n\}$ be set the vertices of $G[\bar{K_{n}}]$ that replace the vertex $v_{i}$ of $G$ for all $i = 1,...,p$. Note that here $V(G[\bar{K_{n}}])=\bigcup_{i=1}^{p}V_{i}.$
When $n$ is even, by Theorem \[millerregularcomp\], $\theta(G[\bar{K_{n}}])=0$ and when $n$ is odd, $p$ is odd and $r$ is even, by Theorem \[froncek2\], $\theta(G[\bar{K_{n}}])=0$. Further, when $n$ is odd and $p\equiv r \equiv 2\mod 4$, then by Theorem \[froncek1\], $\theta(G[\bar{K_{n}}])\neq0$. Also when $n$ is odd and $r$ is odd, by Theorem \[oddregular\], $\theta(G[\bar{K_{n}}])\neq0$. Further for all the other cases $\theta(G[\bar{K_{n}}]=0$ by Theorem \[froncek3\]. Now for both the cases when $\theta(G[\bar{K_{n}}])\neq0$, use Theorem \[index1hnp\], to construct the rectangular matrix $A$ associated with the graph $H_{n,p}$ and use the $i^{th}$ column of $A$ to label the set of vertices, $V_{i}$, for all $i=1,2,..,p$. Hence, we obtain a S-magic labeling of $G[\bar{K_{n}}]$, with $c = r\bigl(\frac{n^2p+n+1}{2}\bigr)$. Therefore we obtain that $\theta(C_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}])=1.$
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, the distance magic index of disjoint union of $m$ copies of $H_{n,p}$ and disjoint union of $m$ copies of $C_{p}[\bar{K_{n}}]$ are computed and few necessary conditions are derived for a regular graph $G$ for which $\theta(G)$ is $1$. The paper establishes a technique to construct a new set of labels from an existing one in such a way that both magic constants are distinct. Further, the lower and upper bounds of magic constant of a regular graph $G$ with $\theta(G)=1$, are also determined.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'OODIDA (On-board/Off-board Distributed Data Analytics) is a platform for distributing and executing concurrent data analytics tasks. It targets fleets of reference vehicles in the automotive industry and has a particular focus on rapid prototyping. Its underlying message-passing infrastructure has been implemented in Erlang/OTP. External Python applications perform data analytics tasks. Most work is performed by clients (on-board). A central cloud server performs supplementary tasks (off-board). OODIDA can be automatically packaged and deployed, which necessitates restarting parts of the system, or all of it. This is potentially disruptive. To address this issue, we added the ability to execute user-defined Python modules on clients as well as the server. These modules can be replaced without restarting any part of the system and they can even be replaced between iterations of an ongoing assignment. This facilitates use cases such as iterative A/B testing of machine learning algorithms or modifying experimental algorithms on-the-fly.'
author:
- Gregor Ulm
- Emil Gustavsson
- Mats Jirstrand
title: |
Active-Code Replacement in the\
OODIDA Data Analytics Platform
---
Introduction
============
OODIDA is a modular system for concurrent distributed data analytics for the automotive domain, targeting fleets of reference vehicles [@ulm2019oodida]. Its main purpose is to process telemetry data at its source as opposed to transferring all data over the network and processing it on a central cloud server (cf. Fig. \[fig:whole\_fleet\]). A data analyst interacting with this system uses a Python library that assists in creating and validating assignment specifications. Updating this system with new computational methods necessitates terminating and redeploying software. However, we would like to perform updates without terminating ongoing tasks. We have therefore extended our system with the ability to execute user-defined code both on client devices (on-board) and the cloud server (off-board), without having to redeploy any part of it. As a consequence, OODIDA is now highly suited for rapid prototyping. The key aspect of our work is that active-code replacement of Python modules piggybacks on the existing Erlang/OTP infrastructure of OODIDA for sending assignments to clients, leading to a clean design. This paper is a condensed version of a work-in-progress paper [@ulm2019active], giving an overview of our problem (Sect. \[problem\]) and its solution (Sect. \[solution\]), followed by an evaluation (Sect. \[eval\]) and related work (Sect. \[related\]).
Problem
=======
OODIDA has been designed for rapid prototyping, which implies that it frequently needs to be extended with new computational methods, both for on-board and off-board data processing. To achieve this goal, Python applications on the cloud and clients have to be updated. Assuming that we update both, the following steps are required: The user front-end $f$ needs to be modified to recognize the new off-board and on-board keywords for the added methods, including checks of assignment parameter values. In addition, the cloud and client applications have to be extended with the new methods. All ongoing assignments need to be terminated and the cloud and clients shut down. Afterwards, we can redeploy and restart the system. This is disruptive, even without taking into account potentially long-winded software development processes in large organizations. On the other hand, the turn-around time for adding custom methods would be much shorter if we could do so at runtime. Active-code replacement targets this particular problem, with the goal of further improving the suitability of OODIDA for rapid prototyping.
Solution
========
With active-code replacement, the user can define a custom Python module for the cloud and for client devices. It is implemented as a special case of an assignment. The front-end $f$ performs static and dynamic checks, attempting to verify correctness of syntax and data types. If these checks succeed, the provided code is turned into a JSON object and ingested by user node $u$ for further processing. Within this JSON object, the user-defined code is stored as an encoded text string. It is forwarded to cloud node $b$, which spawns an assignment handler $b'$ for this particular assignment. Custom code can be used on the cloud and/or clients. Assuming clients have been targeted with active-code replacement, node $b'$ turns the assignment specification into tasks for all clients $\boldsymbol{c}$ specified in the assignment. Afterwards, task specifications are sent to the specified client devices. There, the client process spawns a task handler for the current task, which monitors task completion. The task handler sends the task specification in JSON to an external Python application, which turns the given code into a file, thus recreating the Python module the data analyst initially provided. The resulting files are tied to the ID of the user who provided it. After the task handler is done, it notifies the assignment handler $b'$ and terminates. Similarly, once the assignment handler has received responses from all task handlers, it sends a status message to the cloud node and terminates. The cloud node sends a status message to inform the user that their custom code has been successfully deployed. Deploying custom code to the cloud is similar, the main difference being that $b'$ communicates with the external Python application on the cloud.
If a custom on-board or off-board computation is triggered by a special keyword in an assignment specification, Python loads the user-provided module. The user-specified module is located at a predefined path, which is known to the Python application. The custom function is applied to the available data after the user-specified number of values has been collected. When an assignment uses custom code, external applications reload the custom module with each iteration of an assignment. This leads to greater flexibility: Consider an assignment that runs for an indefinite number of iterations. As external applications can process tasks concurrently, and code replacement is just another task, the data analyst can react to intermediate results of an ongoing assignment by deploying custom code with modified algorithmic parameters while this assignment is ongoing. As custom code is tied to a user ID, there is furthermore no interference due to custom code that was deployed by other users. The description of active-code replacement so far indicates that the user can execute custom code on the cloud server and clients, as long as the correct inputs and outputs are consumed and produced. What may not be immediately obvious, however, is that we can now create *ad hoc* implementations of even the most complex OODIDA use cases in custom code, such as federated learning [@mcmahan2016communication].
Inconsistent updates are a problem in practice, i.e. results sent from clients may have been produced with different custom code modules in the same iteration of an assignment. This happens if not all clients receive the updated custom code before the end of the current iteration. To solve this problem, each provided module with custom code is tagged with its md5 hash signature, which is reported together with the results from the clients. The cloud only uses the results tagged with the signature that achieves a majority. Consequently, results are never tainted by using different versions of custom code in the same iteration.
Evaluation {#eval}
==========
The main benefit of active-code replacement is that code for new computational methods can be deployed right away and executed almost instantly, without affecting other ongoing tasks. In contrast, a standard update of the cloud or client installation necessitates redeploying and restarting the respective components of the system. In an idealized test setup, where the various workstations that run the user, cloud and client components of OODIDA are connected via Ethernet, it takes a fraction of a second for a custom on-board or off-board method to be available for the user to call when deployed with active-code replacement, as shown in Table \[tab:comparison\]. On the other hand, automated redeployment of the cloud and client installation takes roughly 20 and 40 seconds, respectively. The runtime difference between a standard update and active-code replacement amounts to three orders of magnitude. Of course, real-world deployment via a wireless or 4G connection would be slower as well as error-prone. Yet, the idealized evaluation environment reveals the relative performance difference of both approaches, eliminating potentially unreliable data transmission as a source of error.
This comparison neglects that, compared to a standard update, active-code replacement is less bureaucratic and less intrusive as it does not require interrupting any currently ongoing assignments. Also, in a realistic industry scenario, an update could take days or even weeks due to software development and organizational processes. However, it is not the case that active-code replacement fully sidesteps the need to update the library of computational methods on the cloud or on clients as OODIDA enforces restrictions on custom code. For instance, some parts of the Python standard library are off-limits. Also, the user cannot install external libraries. Yet, for typical algorithmic explorations, which users of our system regularly conduct, active-code replacement is a vital feature that increases user productivity far more than the previous comparison may imply. That being said, due to the limitations of active-code replacement, it is complementary to the standard update procedure rather than a competitive approach.
Related Work {#related}
============
The feature described in this paper is an extension of the OODIDA platform [@ulm2019oodida], which originated from `ffl-erl`, a framework for federated learning in Erlang/OTP [@ulm2019b]. In terms of descriptions of systems that perform active-code replacement, Polus by Chen et al. [@chen2007polus] deserves mention. A significant difference is that it replaces larger units of code instead of isolated modules. It also operates in a multi-threading environment instead of the highly concurrent message-passing environment of OODIDA. We also noticed a similarity between our approach and Javelus by Gu et al. [@gu2012javelus]. Even though they focus on updating a stand-alone Java application as opposed to a distributed system, their described “lazy update mechanism” likewise only has an effect if a module is indeed used. This mirrors our approach of only loading a custom module when it is needed.
### Acknowledgements. {#acknowledgements. .unnumbered}
[1]{} \[1\][`#1`]{} \[1\][https://doi.org/\#1]{}
Chen, H., Yu, J., Chen, R., Zang, B., Yew, P.C.: Polus: A powerful live updating system. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07). pp. 271–281. IEEE (2007)
Gu, T., Cao, C., Xu, C., Ma, X., Zhang, L., Lu, J.: Javelus: A low disruptive approach to dynamic software updates. In: 2012 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. vol. 1, pp. 527–536. IEEE (2012)
McMahan, H.B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., et al.: Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05629 (2016)
Ulm, G., Gustavsson, E., Jirstrand, M.: Facilitating Rapid Prototyping in the [OODIDA]{} Data Analytics Platform via Active-Code Replacement. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.09477 (2019)
Ulm, G., Gustavsson, E., Jirstrand, M.: Functional federated learning in [Erlang]{} (ffl-erl). In: Silva, J. (ed.) Functional and Constraint Logic Programming. pp. 162–178. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)
Ulm, G., Gustavsson, E., Jirstrand, M.: [OODIDA]{}: On-board/off-board distributed data analytics for connected vehicles. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.00319 (2019)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Ultrafast spin dynamics in ferromagnetic half-metallic compound [S]{}${\rm %
r_{2}FeMoO_{6}}$ is investigated by pump-probe measurements of magneto-optical Kerr effect. Half-metallic nature of this material gives rise to anomalous thermal insulation between spins and electrons, and allows us to pursue the spin dynamics from a few to several hundred picoseconds after the optical excitation. The optically detected magnetization dynamics clearly shows the crossover from microscopic photo-induced demagnetization to macroscopic critical behavior with universal power law divergence of relaxation time for wide dynamical critical region.
address:
- |
$^{1}$Department of Applied Physics, the University of Tokyo,Tokyo\
113-8656,\
Japan
- |
$^{2}$Cooperative excitation Project, ERATO, Japan Science and\
Technology Corporation (JST), Kanagawa 213-0012, Japan
- |
$^{3}$Joint Research Center for Atom Technology (JRCAT), Tsukuba\
305-0046,Japan
author:
- 'T. Kise$^{1}$, T. Ogasawara$^{1}$, M. Ashida$^{2}$, Y. Tomioka$^{3}$, Y. Tokura$^{1,3}$, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami$^{1,2}$ [@auth]'
title: '[**Ultrafast spin dynamics and critical behavior in half-metallic ferromagnet : ${\rm Sr_{2}FeMoO_{6}}$**]{}'
---
Control and manipulation of spins by ultrafast optical excitation, which gives rise to photo-induced magnetization change and magnetic phase transitions in dilute magnetic semiconductor quantum structures [@Flytzanis1; @Awschalom1; @Awschalom2], doped semiconductors[@Awschalom3] and ferromagnetic metals [@Bigot; @Hohlfeld; @Scholl; @Gudde; @Beaurepaire1], have attracted considerable attention. Recent study on the magnetization dynamics in the photo-excited Ni films with nonlinear optical techniques has revealed ultrafast spin process within 50 fs [@Gudde]. Strongly correlated electron systems with half-metallic nature, which have perfectly spin polarized conducting electrons at the ground state[@halfmetal], are promising candidates for the study of the photo-induced spin dynamics. These materials have been found to possess exotic physical properties such as colossal magnetoresistance, which have strong application potential [@colossal]. The strong coupling between spin, charge and lattice degrees of freedom in strongly correlated systems makes it possible to manipulate the magnetic properties via cooperative effects induced by optical excitation. In particular, the evidence of photo-induced phase transition accompanied with magnetization changes have been recently reported [@Miyano; @Zhao]. In order to understand the nature of these phenomena, it is crucial to investigate the temporal evolution of the spin system in the picosecond time scale. Although some attempts have been made by employing pump-probe spectroscopy [@Matsuda], to the best of our knowledge direct investigation of the ultrafast spin dynamics in half-metallic materials has not been reported so far. Such an investigation can be carried out by exploiting the time resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect (MOKE), which has been shown to be a powerful tool to study the ultrafast dynamics of magnetization [@Bigot; @Nurmikko].
In the present paper we report on the ultrafast pump-probe MOKE and reflectivity study of dynamics of spin and electron systems in the ordered double perovskite ${\rm Sr}_{2}{\rm FeMoO}_{6}$. Since Fe$%
^{3+}(3d^{5};t_{2g}^{3}e_{g}^{2},S=5/2)$ and Mo$^{5+}%
(4d^{1};t_{2g}^{1},S=1/2) $ couple antiferromagentically via interatomic exchange interaction and the down-spin electron of Mo$^{5+}$ is considered itinerant (upper panel of Fig. 1), a conducting ferrimagnetic ground state with half-metallic nature is expected for this material. The density functional calculation[@Kobayashi] also shows that the occupied up-spin band mainly consists of Fe $3d$ electrons, while the Fermi level exists within the down-spin band composed of Fe $t_{2g}$ and Mo $t_{2g}$ electrons. The temperature dependence of magnetization and resistivity measurements under the magnetic field have shown the ferromagnetic phase transition with the Curie temperature $T_{C}$ $\sim $ 410-450 K[@Tomioka] Also, this material in the form of polycrystalline ceramics shows inter-grain tunneling type giant magnetoresistance at room temperature because of its spin polarization[@Kobayashi]. Another important property of ${\rm Sr}%
_{2}{\rm FeMoO}_{6}$[ ]{}is the enhancement of MOKE due to spin-orbit coupling of $t_{2g}$ electrons in the heavy Mo-atom[@Shono]. The strong MOKE signal enables us to investigate the spin dynamics over a wide temporal range from sub-picosecond to nanosecond and to obtain the critical exponent of the relaxation time at the magnetic phase transition.
The MOKE measurements are carried out on single crystal ${\rm Sr_{2}FeMoO_{6}%
}$, grown by floating-zone method[@Tomioka], in polar Kerr configuration under the magnetic field of 2000 Oe, where the magnetization is nearly saturated at room temperature \[15,16\], utilizing polarization modulation by a piezo-elastic modulator (CaF$_{2}$). Figure 1 (a) shows the spectral profiles of ellipticity $\eta $ and rotation angle $\theta $ at room temperature. A very large MOKE signal, one order of magnitude larger than that of the doped manganites[@Yamaguchi] is observed. The MOKE signal is proportional to $f\cdot M$, where $M$ is the magnetization and $f$ is determined by the complex refractive index at the probe frequency. Correspondingly, the magneto-optical spectra show resonance, known as the plasma enhancement effect [@Haas], around 1eV, which is close to the plasma edge[@Tomioka]. The temperature dependence of the $\eta $, probed at a photon energy of 0.95 eV, clearly shows the magnetic phase transition at ${\rm 450\ K}$, which is the $T_{C}$ of the present sample[@comment]. Since the reflectivity is almost temperature independent in this temperature range, the sample magnetization can be monitored with the $\eta $.
For the pump-probe measurements, a Ti:Sapphire regenerative amplifier system (1 kHz repetition rate) with an Optical Parametric Amplifier (OPA) is used as light source. The second harmonic of the amplified pulses with a pulse duration of 200 [fs]{}, photon energy of 3.1 [eV]{} and a maximum fluence of 90 ${\rm \mu J/}$[cm]{}$^{{\rm 2}}$ is used as pump pulse, and its energy is close to the charge transfer excitation from [O]{} $2p$ to [Fe/Mo ]{}$t_{2g}$ band with down-spin (see the upper panel of Fig.1). The probe pulses from the OPA are tuned to 0.95 [eV]{}, at which the ellipticity dominates the MOKE signal rather than the rotation effect (Fig.1 (b)). The pump-probe MOKE measurements are also carried out in polar Kerr configuration and the polarization change of the reflected light from the sample is measured by a balanced detection scheme shown in Fig. 2 (a). By synchronizing the chopper for the pump beam with the regenerative amplifier, the balanced signal is detected and analyzed shot by shot using boxcar integrator and A/D converter. The photo-induced Kerr ellipticity change is measured as the difference between magnetization reversal signals, i.e., $\Delta \eta _{Kerr}=\frac{1}{2}[\Delta \eta
(M)-\Delta \eta (-M)]$ by changing the sign of the magnetic field in order to eliminate the contribution from the pump induced optical anisotropy. A sensitivity of 10$^{-3}$ deg is achieved in our measurement system. The signal is observed to be proportional to the pump beam intensity in all pump-probe measurements.
The inset in Fig. 2 (a) shows the transient reflection change $\Delta R/R$, measured at 300 [K]{}. It shows a sharp reduction in the reflectivity during the pump pulse duration, followed by a fast relaxation within ${\rm %
2\sim 3 ps}$ (region (1)) and a fairly long time plateau up to few tens of nanosecond (region (2)). The reflectivity returns to the initial state in [1 ms]{} by heat diffusion (region (3)). Figures 2 (b) and (c) show the $%
\Delta R/R$ and ellipticity change $\Delta \eta _{Kerr}$ for different temperatures, indicating that the temperature dependence is negligible in $%
\Delta R/R$, while that is significant in $\Delta \eta _{Kerr}$. The temporal evolution of $\Delta \eta _{Kerr}$ up to 500 ps is shown in Fig.3 (a) for different temperatures. One can observe from Fig. 3(a), that below the Curie point, it can be fitted by $\Delta \eta _{Kerr}\left( t\right) =\Delta \eta
_{step}+(\Delta \eta _{max}-\Delta \eta _{step})(1-\exp \left[ -t/\tau
_{spin}\right] )$, where $\Delta \eta _{step}$ describes the instantaneous decrease in the $\Delta \eta _{Kerr}$, while $\Delta \eta _{max}$ is the asymptotic value at the quasi-equilibrium state. The signal, $-\Delta \eta
_{max}$, increases drastically close to $T_{C}$ as shown in Fig.3 (b). Our measurements reveal nearly linear increase of $-\Delta \eta _{max}$ with the pump intensity.
The most striking feature is the very slow spin thermalization observed in $%
\Delta \eta _{Kerr}$ signal in comparison with the electron thermalization observed in transient $\Delta R/R$ data. In ${\rm Sr}_{2}{\rm FeMoO}_{6}$, the behavior of electrons is similar to that of ferromagnetic nickel [@Bigot]. Specifically, the electron temperature rises rapidly by the optical excitation and it relaxes within 2 to 3 picoseconds to reach quasi-equilibrium temperature, which is 8-10 K, obtained from $\Delta R/R$, higher than the initial temperature. The fast decay of transient reflectivity indicates that the local heat transfer from electron to the lattice system is completed within a few picoseconds, accompanied by the lattice heat-up to reach quasi-equilibrium temperature. On the other hand, the behavior of the spin system in ${\rm Sr}_{2}{\rm FeMoO}_{6}$ looks very different from the behavior of the electronic system. Specifically, the very slow spin thermalization (see Fig. 2(c)), which is pronounced at higher temperature, indicates the anomalously small heat exchange between electrons and spins in ${\rm Sr}_{2}{\rm FeMoO}_{6}$. Such an electron-spin thermal insulation can be attributed to the nature of the half-metallic electronic structure where conducting electrons are perfectly spin polarized in the down-spin band and isolated from the insulating up-spin band as shown schematically in the upper panel of Fig. 1. Thermal motion of electrons around the Fermi level in the spin polarized conduction band does not increase the spin temperature.
From the observed results, we have the following scenario for the temporal evolution of electron, lattice and spin system in ${\rm Sr}_{2}{\rm FeMoO}_{{%
6}}$. Initially, during the photo-excitation (${\rm \leq 1\ ps}$), the electron system is heated-up and rapidly thermalized due to electron-electron interaction. In this first stage the ellipticity shows a sharp decrease ($\Delta \eta _{step}$). In the next stage, the electron system relaxes by its energy transfer to the lattice system. The electron and lattice systems reach quasi-equilibrium state (${\rm \sim 5 ps}$) by the electron-phonon interaction, leaving the spin system at its initial temperature. After that, the spin slowly relaxes toward this quasi-equilibrium state through weak heat exchange with the reservoir at quasi-equilibrium temperature. Finally, the system returns to the initial state by heat diffusion.
The sharp decrease in the ellipticity is the major feature of the initial stage of the optical relaxation in ${\rm Sr}_{2}{\rm FeMoO}_{6}$ (see inset of Fig. 2). The ratio $\Delta \eta _{step}/\eta $ shows a weak temperature dependence (see Fig. 3(c)). Since MOKE signal is proportional to $f\cdot M$, both photo-induced change in the refractive index ($\Delta f/f\sim \Delta R/R)$ as well as the photo-induced magnetization change $\left( \Delta M/M\right) $ contribute to $\Delta \eta _{step}/\eta $. Though the relative instantaneous changes in the ellipticity and reflectivity are of the same order, $\Delta \eta _{step}/\eta \sim \Delta R/R\sim 0.01$, the subsequent temporal evolution of $\Delta \eta _{Kerr}$ in the picosecond time scale is very different from that of $\Delta R$. This indicates the direct demagnetization by resonant optical excitation. However, as it has been discussed in recent papers on Ni [@Bigot; @Hohlfeld; @Scholl; @Gudde], it is premature to directly connect the MOKE signal with demagnetization in such ultrafast time scale.
We now discuss the temporal evolution of the MOKE signal in the second stage, when the electron and lattice system have reached the quasi-equilibrium (plateau region (2) in the inset of Fig. 2). The dramatic increase in $\Delta \eta _{max}$(see Fig. 3(b)) and the relaxation time $%
\tau _{spin}$ as the temperature approaches $T_{C}$ indicate that the time resolved signal directly reflects the critical behavior of magnetization at the ferromagnetic phase transition. The spin temperature at the quasi-equilibrium, which can be estimated from Fig. 3(b) and the temperature dependence of the $\eta $ (Fig. 1(a)), is in good agreement with the electron temperature estimated from $\Delta R/R$.
It is necessary to emphasize that the time-resolved MOKE measurements give us an unique opportunity to study the critical dynamics of spin system independently from other degrees of freedom and obtain the critical characteristics of the ferromagnetic phase transition. The dynamics of the second order phase transition can be described by the dynamical scaling theory [@Fisher; @Suzuki; @Miyashita], which allows us to relate the critical behavior of the kinetic parameters (e.g. the relaxation time) to the critical exponents of the static parameters (e.g. correlation length) on the both sides of the critical point. The theory predicts that in the vicinity of $T_{C}$, the relaxation time of the order parameter can be described as $\tau \propto |T-T_{C}|^{-z\nu }$, where $\nu $$\ $and $z$ denote the critical exponent of the correlation length and the dynamical critical exponent respectively. Figure 4 shows the temperature dependence of $\tau _{spin}$ as a function of $|T^{\prime }-T_{C}|$, where $T^{\prime }$denotes the quasi-equilibrium temperature at the plateau region (temperature region (2) in the inset of Fig.2(a)). One can clearly observe the power law divergence with $z\nu =1.22\pm 0.06$ for the spin relaxation time in the vicinity of $T_{C}$[@critical]. It should be emphasized that the power law behavior is established in the time scale of few tens of picosecond, while the width of the dynamical critical region is much higher than for conventional metals [@Huang]. The theoretical calculation for the three dimensional Ising and Heisenberg models give $z\nu \approx 1.30$[@Ito] and $1.37$[@Pesczak], respectively, while the two-dimensional Ising model gives $z\nu \approx 2.165$[@twodising]. Therefore, our measurements clearly indicate three dimensionality of the spin system in $%
{\rm Sr_{2}FeMoO_{6}}$.
We have presented ultrafast spin dynamics in the ordered double perovskite $%
{\rm Sr_{2}FeMoO_{6}}$ by using the time-resolved MOKE technique. We have observed, for the first time, extremely slow relaxation of spins, thermally insulated from electron and lattice systems due to the half-metal nature of this material. The thermal insulation of spin system provides us a unique opportunity to examine the non-equilibrium spin dynamics near the critical point in a time scale from picosecond to nanosecond range. Crossover from ultrafast microscopic spin relaxation to macroscopic critical behavior has been clearly demonstrated. In the vicinity of the critical point, the spin relaxation time increases as $|T-T_{C}|^{-(1.22\pm 0.06)}$ , which is consistent with the theoretical prediction for the 3D ferromagnetic system. We also observe very fast decrease in the MOKE signal $\Delta \eta
_{Kerr}$ caused by charge transfer optical excitation. Although the underlying physical mechanism of such an ultrafast phenomenon is not established yet, the distinct difference in the temporal profiles of the photo-induced reflectivity and ellipticity suggests the contribution from ultrafast spin dynamics to nonlinear MOKE signal.
The authors are grateful to S. Miyashita, N. Ito, N. Nagaosa, M. Ueda, Yu. P. Svirko and C. Ramkumar for illuminating discussions. This work is supported in part by a grant-in-aid for COE Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan and the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic address: gonokami@ap.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
C. Buss [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4123 (1997); M. Haddad [*et al.,*]{} Appl. Phys. Lett. [**73**]{}, 1940 (1998).
S. A. Crooker [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 7574 (1997).
J. J. Baumberg [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 7689 (1994).
J. M. Kikkawa and D. D. Awschalom, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 4313 (1998); Nature [**397**]{}, 139 (1999); Science [**287**]{}, 473 (2000).
A. Vaterlaus, T. Beutler, and F. Meier, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 3314 (1991).
E. Beaurepaire, J. -C. Merle, A. Daunois, and J. -Y. Bigot, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4250 (1996).
J. Hohlfeld, E. Matthias, R. Knorren, and K. H. Bennemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4861 (1997).
A. Scholl, L. Baumgarten, R. Jacquemin, and W.Eberhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 5146 (1997) .
J. Gudde, U. Conrad, V. Jahnke, J. Hohlfeld and E. Matthias. Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 6608 (1999).
E. Beaurepaire, M. Maret, V. Halte, J. -C. Merle, A. Daunois, and J. -Y. Bigot, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 12134 (1998).
J. -H. Park [*et al.,*]{} Nature [**392**]{}, 794 (1998).
For a review, Colossal Magnetoresistive Oxides, Ed. by Y. Tokura, (Gordon &Breach Publishers, 2000).
K. Miyano, T. Tanaka, Y. Tomioka, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4257 (1997).
Y. G. Zhao [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1310 (1998).
K. Matsuda, A. Machida, Y. Moritomo, and A. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, R4203 (1998).
Ganping Ju [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 3705 (1999).
K. -I. Kobayashi [*et al.,*]{} Nature [**395**]{}, 677 (1998).
Y. Tomioka [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 422 (2000).
K. Shono, M. Abe, M. Gomi and S. Nomura, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**20**]{}, L426 (1981).
S. Yamaguchi, Y. Okimoto, K. Ishibashi, and Y. Tokura, Phys.Rev. B [**58**]{}, 6862 (1998).
H. Feil and C. Haas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{}, 65 (1987).
The slight deviation of $T_{C}$ from the results of ref. [@Tomioka] may be due to the improved site order of Fe and Mo, which is sensitive to the sample preparation and annealing temperature of ref. [@Tomioka].
M. E. Fisher and M. N. Barber, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**28**]{},1516 (1972); M. N. Barber, in [*Phase Transition and Critical Phenomena*]{}, vol. 8 ed. C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz, (Academic Press, London 1983).
M. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. A [**58**]{}, 435 (1976); Prog. Theor. Phys. [**58,** ]{}1142 (1977)[**.**]{}
S. Miyashita and H. Takano, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**73**]{}, 1122 (1985).
In the close vicinity of the critical point the system is very sensitive to external fields and the possible thermal drift effects would be prononced. Correspondingly, in order to minimize the possible uncertainty in the estimation of the ctitical exponent, we intentionally avoid the experimental point closest to $T_{C}$ in Fig. 4 for fitting.
K. Huang, in [*Statistical Mechanics,*]{} 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York 1987) p.437.
N. Ito, Physica A [**192**]{}, 604 (1993).
P. Peszak and D. P. Landau. J. Appl. Phys. [**67**]{}, 5427 (1990).
N. Ito, Physica A [**194**]{}, 591 (1993).
Figure captions.
Fig. 1. Magneto-optical Kerr measurements on ${\rm Sr_{2}FeMoO_{6}}$ under the magnetic field of 2000 Oe.(a) Kerr rotation (solid line) and ellipticity (dashed line) spectra at 300K. (b) Temperature profile of linear Kerr ellipticity probed at 0.95eV. The upper panel shows the spin configuration of Fe and Mo ions and a schematic of the electronic band structure of ${\rm %
Sr_{2}FeMoO_{6}}$ based on the density-functional calculations by Sawada and Terakura (Ref.[@Kobayashi]).
Fig. 2. (a) Schematic of the experimental setup for the pump-probe magneto-optical Kerr measurements. Inset shows the temporal evolution of transient reflection change $\Delta R/R$ from subpicoseconds up to millisecond. Temporal evolution of the transient reflection $\Delta R/R$ (b) and Kerr ellipticity change $\Delta \eta _{Kerr}$ (c) up to 50ps, measured at 200K, 300K and 400K.
Fig. 3. (a) Temporal evolution of photo-induced Kerr ellipticity $\Delta
\eta _{Kerr}$ up to 500 ps, measured at various temperatures. Solid lines are the exponential fit. Temperature profiles of $\Delta \eta _{max}$ (b) and rapid component $\Delta \eta _{step}$ normalized to linear Kerr ellipticity $\eta $ (c).
Fig. 4. Temperature dependence of spin relaxation time $\tau _{spin}$ as a function of $|T^{\prime }-T_{C}|$. The solid line is a power law fit $%
|T^{\prime }/T_{C}-1|^{-z\nu }$ for the points near $T_{C}.$ The fit returns $z\nu =1.22\pm 0.06$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The effects of random distribution of magnetic impurities with concentration $x$ in a semiconductor alloy multilayer at a paramagnetic temperature are investigated by means of coherent potential approximation and tight-binding model. The change in the electronic states and the optical absorption spectrum with $x$ is calculated for weak and strong exchange interactions between carrier spins and localized spin moments on magnetic ions. We find that the density of states and optical absorption are strongly layer-dependent due to the quantum size effects. The electronic and optical spectra are broadened due to the spin fluctuations of magnetic ions and in the case of strong exchange interaction, an energy gap appears in both spectra. Furthermore, the interior layers show higher contribution in the optical absorption of the system. The results can be helpful for magneto-optical devices at a paramagnetic temperature.'
author:
- Leili Gharaee
- Alireza Saffarzadeh
title: Electronic and optical spectra in a diluted magnetic semiconductor multilayer
---
Introduction
============
Semiconductor multilayers are materials with attractive electronic and optical properties and possible application in nanodevices [@Ridley]. Such unique properties which are caused by their dependence on the number of atoms in a confined direction, have led to a rapid growth on research activities in this field in recent years. For instance, it has been shown that for semiconducting multilayer armchair graphene nanoribbon with more than two layers, semiconductor-to-metallic transition is obtained with increasing electric field, which can be utilized to enhance the efficiency of graphene based transistor devices [@Kumar]. In addition, for the thicker systems (i,e. more layers), this transition occurs at a smaller electric field which makes them to enhance the on/off ratio of a field-effect transistor device [@Kumar].
Furthermore, magnetic and nonmagnetic impurities in layered structures have received considerable attention [@Schiller; @Moodera1; @Moodera2; @Pekareka1; @Sankowski; @Pekareka2; @Lashkarev; @Chung; @Luo]. Spin-dependent scattering of charge carriers in magnetic multilayers is the origin of magnetotransport effects and has been the subject of intensive interest in recent semiconductor electronics research [@Pekareka1; @Sankowski; @Pekareka2; @Lashkarev; @Chung; @Luo]. Doping of magnetic ions in nonmagnetic semiconductors (NMSs) introduces not only magnetic moment but also free carries in the system. In diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMSs), the host material is an alloy semiconductor of the type II-VI or III-V semiconductor with characteristic of $AB$, in which the atom $A$ is substituted by a magnetic atom with concentration of $x$ [@Furdyna1; @Jungwirth]. For example, Mn ions as magnetic impurities into GaAs and InAs act as acceptors in the III-V compound semiconductors [@Furdyna1; @Ohno]. These semiconducting alloys are a novel class of ferromagnetic materials and one of the promising materials for spintronics [@Dietl]. The exchange interaction between a carrier spin and localized spin of magnetic ions, plays an important role in magneto-optical effects in DMSs [@Ohno; @Ando]. Because this interaction strongly affects on band splitting that is observed in magneto-optical measurements such as magneto-reflectivity and magneto-absorption spectra. Thus, the most powerful tool for studying the exchange interaction between a carrier and localized spins in DMS-based structures is optical measurement. Furthermore, because of the ternary nature of DMSs, one can tune the lattice constants and band parameters by varying the composition of the material. Therefore, most of the magnetic semiconducting alloys are excellent candidates for preparation of quantum wells, superlattices, and other heterostructures that involve band gap engineering [@Furdyna2; @Slobodskyy; @Kepa; @Kirby].
In previous studies [@Saffar2; @Shinozuka1; @Shinozuka2], by applying the single-site coherent potential approximation (CPA)[@Gonis] to semiconductor alloy multilayers, the effects of chemical (nonmagnetic) disorder on optical absorption spectrum were investigated. The results showed that, the photon absorption by the system is layer dependent and strongly changes by variation of the scattering-strength of the chemical impurities [@Saffar2]. In the present study, we extend our previous approach [@Saffar2] for the magnetic impurities at a paramagnetic temperature, and investigate the electronic and optical properties of DMS multilayers. To study the optical absorption spectrum in the presence of the magnetic impurities, we use the Onodera-Toyozawa theory [@Onodera], which is related to a binary mixed crystal or an alloy consisting of atoms (or molecules) $A$ and $B$, in which the transition dipole moments of $A$ and $B$ atoms are equal. We should point out that, the application of the Onodera-Toyozawa theory together with the CPA for DMSs was first employed by Takahashi [@Takahashi] in which the optical band edge was studied for bulk materials. The calculations, however, were performed only for a simple semicircular model density of states.
In this study, owing to the substitutional disorder of the magnetic ions in a DMS multilayer, the effect of carrier scattering due to the presence of both magnetic and nonmagnetic atoms will be studied within the single-site CPA. Due to the quantum size effect in the multilayer systems the electronic states at each layer strongly depend on the location of that layer relative to the surface layer. Hence, each layer has a different response to the carrier scattering process in the layer and should be taken into account in the CPA equations. Since in a low-dimensional system many important physical properties and characteristics such as optical properties, are governed strongly by the electronic structure of the system, then the local density of states (LDOS) will be analyzed precisely. Therefore, the dependence of electronic and optical spectra on the carrier energy, magnetic impurity concentration, and the strength of exchange interaction between the carrier spin and the spin of magnetic ions will be studied with more details. This paper is organized as follows: we start with introducing the model and formalism in Sec. II. In Sec. III, the results of the numerical calculations for DMS multilayer are given. The conclusion is presented in Sec.IV.
The Model
=========
In this study, we consider a semiconductor multilayer described by the single-band tight-binding model with the nearest-neighbor hopping and the on-site delta-function-like potential on a simple cubic lattice in which one of the dimensions (the $z$ direction) is confined. The number of layers along the confined direction is $N_z$ and the label of each layer is denoted by $n$, hence $1\leq
n\leq N_z$. The multilayer is a semiconducting alloy of the form $A_{1-x}M_xB$, where the sites of $A$ atoms such as Ga can be occupied by $M$ atoms such as Mn with concentration $x$ and $B$ atoms such as As remain unchanged. Due to the low carrier density in the system, the interaction between carriers is ignored in the calculations. Accordingly, the one-electron or a Frenkel exciton Hamiltonian in this system is given by: $$\label{1}
H=\sum_{{\bf r},n}u_{{\bf r},n}^{A,M}-\sum_{{\bf r},n}\sum_{{\bf
r'},n'}\sum_{\mu}t_{{\bf r}n,{\bf r'}n'}|{\bf
r},n,\mu\rangle\langle {\bf r'},n',\mu|$$ where, $|{\bf r},n,\mu\rangle$ is an atomic orbital with spin $\mu(=\uparrow$ or $\downarrow)$ at site $({\bf r},n)$. Here, ${\bf r}$ denotes the positional vector in the $x-y$ plane of the layer $n$. The hopping integral $t_{{\bf r}n,{\bf r'}n'}$ is equal to $t$ for the nearest neighbor sites and zero otherwise. We assume that the hopping integral only depends on the relative position of the lattice sites. Therefore, the type of disorder in our model is considered to be diagonal and accordingly, the off-diagonal disorder is outside of the scope of the present study. The random site energy $u^{A,M}_{{\bf r},n}$ is assumed to be $u^{A}_{{\bf r},n}$ and $u^{M}_{{\bf r},n}$ with probabilities $1-x$ and $x$ when the lattice site (${\bf r},n$) is occupied by the $A$ and $M$ atoms, respectively [@Takahashi; @Saffar2; @Saffar1]. For $A$ and $M$ sites we have: $$\label{2}
u_{{\bf r},n}^{A}=\varepsilon_A\sum_{\mu}|{\bf
r},n,\mu\rangle\langle{\bf r},n,\mu|$$ $$\label{3}
u_{{\bf r},n}^{M}=\sum_{\mu,\nu}|{\bf
r},n,\mu\rangle[\varepsilon_M\delta_{\mu\nu}-I\mathbf{S}_{{\bf
r}n}\cdot{\mathbf\sigma}_{\mu\nu}]\langle {\bf r},n,\nu|$$ where $I\mathbf{S}_{{\bf r}n}\cdot{\mathbf\sigma}_{\mu\nu}$ is the $k$-independent exchange interaction in which $|\mathbf{S}_{{\bf
r}n}|=S$ is the local spin operator of the $M$ atom and $\sigma$ is the Pauli matrix for carrier spin. In this study, instead of taking the quantum fluctuation of the localized spin of the magnetic ions into account, the classical spin approximation (i.e. $S\rightarrow\infty$) is used, while $IS$ is a constant parameter [@Takahashi; @Saffar1].
According to the CPA, a disordered alloy can be replaced by an effective periodic medium in which the potential of all sites is replaced by an energy-dependent coherent potential, except one site which is denoted by impurity [@Gonis]. Therefore, the multilayer Hamiltonian $H$ is replaced by the following effective medium Hamiltonian: $$\label{4}
H_\textrm{eff}=\sum_{{\bf r}n}\sum_{{\bf
r'}n'}\sum_{\mu}[\Sigma_{n}(\omega)\delta_{{\bf r},{\bf
r'}}\delta_{n,n'}-t]|{\bf r},n,\mu\rangle\langle {\bf r'},n',\mu|$$ where $\Sigma_{n}(\omega)$ is an energy-dependent self-energy and called the coherent potential. Because of the absence of translational symmetry of the system along the $z$-direction, this self-energy depends on the layer number $n$. Furthermore, the self-energy is spin independent, because the system is at a paramagnetic temperature ($T\gg T_c$).
The physical properties of the real system can be obtained from the configurationally averaged Green’s function, $\langle
G\rangle_{\mathrm{av}}=\langle(\omega-H)^{-1}\rangle_{\mathrm{av}}$ which is replaced in the CPA with an effective medium Green’s function $\bar{G}=(\omega-H_{\mathrm{eff}})^{-1}$. A direct consequence of this replacement is the fact that the effective scattering of a carrier at the impurity site is zero, on average [@Gonis]. The matrix elements of the effective Green’s function are calculated by the following Dyson equation [@Saffar1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5}
\bar{G}_{n,n'}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')&=&G^0_{n,n'}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')
+\sum_{n''=1}^{N_z}\sum_{\mathbf{r}''}G^0_{n,n''}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}'')\nonumber\\
&&\times\Sigma_{n''} \bar{G}_{n'',n'}(\mathbf{r}'',\mathbf{r}')\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the variable $\omega$ has been suppressed for simplicity. Here, $G^0(\omega)$ is the clean system Green’s function and its matrix element is given by [@Saffar1]: $$\label{6}
G^0_{n,n'}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')=\frac{a^2}{{4\pi^2}}\sum_{\ell=1}^{N_z}
\int_{\mathrm{1BZ}}d\mathbf{k}_\parallel\,
G^0_{n,n'}(\ell,\mathbf{k}_\parallel)
\,e^{i\mathbf{k}_\parallel\cdot(\bf{r}-\bf{r}')} \ .$$ In this equation, $\ell$ denotes the subband number (mode), ${\bf
k}_{||}$ is a wave vector parallel to the layer, and the integral is taken over all the wave vectors in the first Brillouin zone (1BZ) of the two-dimensional lattice [@Saffar2]. $G^0_{n,n'}(\ell,\mathbf{k}_\parallel)$ is the mixed Bloch-Wannier representation of $G^0$ which can be expressed as $$\label{GLK}
G^0_{n,n'}(\ell,\mathbf{k}_\parallel;\omega)=\frac{h_{n,n'}(\ell)}{\omega+i\eta-\varepsilon_{\ell}(\mathbf{k}_\parallel)}\
,$$ where $h_{n,n'}(\ell)=\frac{2}{(N_z+1)}\sin(\frac{\ell\pi}{N_z+1}n)
\sin(\frac{\ell\pi}{N_z+1}n')$, $\eta$ is a positive infinitesimal and $\varepsilon_{\ell}(\mathbf{k}_\parallel)$ is the electronic band structure for mode $\ell$ [@Saffar2].
To obtain the CPA condition, we define a perturbation potential energy as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v}
V&=&H-H_{\mathrm{eff}} \nonumber \\
&=&\sum_{{\bf r},n}v_{{\bf r},n} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{{\bf r},n}=v^A_{{\bf r},n}$ for the $A$ site and $v_{{\bf r},n}=v^M_{{\bf r},n}$ for the $M$ site are given by the following equations [@Saffar1]: $$\label{7}
v_{{\bf r},n}^A=\sum_{\mu}\mid {{\bf
r},n},\mu\rangle[\varepsilon_A-\Sigma_n]\langle {{\bf
r},n},\mu\mid\ ,$$ $$\label{8}
v_{{\bf r},n}^M=\sum_{\mu\nu}\mid {{\bf
r},n},\mu\rangle[(\varepsilon_M-\Sigma_n)\delta_{\mu,\nu}-I{\mathbf
S}_{{\bf r},n}{\bf\cdot{\mathbf \sigma}}_{\mu\nu}]\langle {{\bf
r},n},\nu\mid\ .$$ Substitution of a fraction $x$ of the element $A$ by magnetic impurity atom $M$ will include both substitutional disorder and spin scattering, hence we can expect a semiconductor with magnetic properties. In such a case, the CPA equation for the system is expressed as: $$\label{cpa}
\langle t_{{\bf r},n}\rangle_{av}=(1-x)t^A_{{\bf r},n}+x\langle
t^M_{{\bf r},n}\rangle_{spin}=0\ ,$$ where $t^A_{{\bf r},n}$ ($t^M_{{\bf r},n}$) represents the complete scattering associated with the isolated potential $v^A_{{\bf r},n}$ ($v^M_{{\bf r},n}$) due to the $A(M)$ atom in the effective medium and $\langle\cdots\rangle_{spin}$ denotes average over the spin scattering at the $M$ site [@Saffar1]. At the paramagnetic temperature the orientation of localized spin is completely random; hence the probability of each state is $1/2$. Therefore, the associated $t$-matrices for an arbitrary site ${\bf r}$ in the $n$th atomic layer are given by: $$\label{ta}
t^A_{{\bf r},n}=\frac{\varepsilon_A-\Sigma_n(\omega)}
{1-(\varepsilon_A-\Sigma_n(\omega))F_n(\omega)}\ ,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tm}
t^M_{{\bf
r},n}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\varepsilon_M-IS-\Sigma_n(\omega)}
{1-(\varepsilon_M-IS-\Sigma_n(\omega))F_n(\omega)}\right]\\
\nonumber
&+&\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\varepsilon_M+IS-\Sigma_n(\omega)}
{1-(\varepsilon_M+IS-\Sigma_n(\omega))F_n(\omega)}\right]\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $F_n(\omega)=\bar{G}_{n,n}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r};\omega)$ is the diagonal element of the effective Green’s function matrix [@Gonis; @Saffar1]. From the CPA condition, Eq. (\[cpa\]), one can derive an equation for the self-energy of $n$th layer. Then, using such an equation and also Eq. (\[5\]) which gives a system of linear equations, one can obtain self-consistently the self-energy $\Sigma_n(\omega)$ and the Green’s function $F_n(\omega)$ in each layer. Then, the LDOS per site in the $n$th layer, $g_n(\omega)$, is calculated by $$\label{ldos}
g_n(\omega)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\,\mathrm{Im}\,F_n(\omega).$$ On the other hand, to calculate the optical absorption spectrum, we assume that both the magnetic and nonmagnetic atoms have equal transition dipole moments. Therefore, when the $\ell$th subband is optically excited, the layer-dependent optical absorption is given by the contribution of ${\bf k_{\|}}=0$ component of the electronic states that is related to the $\Gamma$ point in the 1BZ [@Saffar1]. Accordingly, the optical absorption of the $n$th layer, due to the creation of an exciton in the system, can be defined as $$\label{optic}
A_n(\omega)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\,\mathrm{Im}\sum_{\ell=1}^{N_z}\bar{G}_{n,n}(\ell,\mathbf{k}_\parallel=0;\omega)\
.$$ Note that, the calculation of $A_n(\omega)$ is not restricted to the lowest $\ell=1$ subband, because the numerical results showed that the contribution of $\mathbf{k}_\parallel=0$ component in the other subbands, i.e. $\ell$=2,3,4 and 5, is finite and hence, all the subband contributions must be included. In the next section we present the numerical results of LDOS and optical absorption spectrum for the system under consideration.
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
Results and discussion
======================
Based on the above formalism we study the electronic states and the optical absorption spectrum in a DMS alloy multilayer consisting of five atomic layers, i.e. $N_z=5$. All the energies are measured in units of $t$ and we set $\varepsilon_A$=0 as an origin of the energy. We perform the calculations for two sets of weak ($\varepsilon_M=-0.75\,t$, $IS=-1.5\,t$) and strong ($\varepsilon_M=-4.0\,t$, $IS=-3.5\,t$) interactions. It has been shown that, the band gap opening in DMSs depends on the value of magnetic ion chemical (or spin independent) potential and the strength of exchange interaction [@Takahashi2]. Therefore, by choosing the above values for $\varepsilon_M$ and $IS$ we can model the system to show gap opening in the electronic states due to the doping of $M$ atoms into the $AB$ structure. Since the system consists of five atomic layers, one can expect five energy subbands in the band structure of the system [@Saffar1]. Each subband is attributed to one of the atomic layers. In addition, due to the geometrical symmetry of the system in the $z$- direction, the electronic states and hence the optical properties in the layers $n=1$ and 5 and also in the layers $n=2$ and 4 are the same. Therefore, we only present the LDOS and the optical absorption spectrum for the layers $n=1$, 2 and 3.
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
Fig. 1 shows the dependence of electronic states on the carrier energy $\omega$ and the alloy concentration $x$ in the case of weak interaction, i.e., $\varepsilon_M=-0.75\,t$, $IS=-1.5\,t$. Because of the 2D nature of the atomic layers of the system, one can see the van Hove singularities and steplike features in the LDOS which strongly depend on the magnetic ion concentration. The energy position of these features is different in various layers due to the quantum size effects which cause different electronic states in different layers. In the case of $x=0$ the system is in completely nonmagnetic case, i.e., the original $AB$ system, while in the case of $x=1$, the $AB$ system changes to the $MB$ system that is a clean magnetic system. When the alloy concentration is increased, the bottom of the bands shifts towards lower energies while the top of the bands remains approximately at a fixed energy. The shift of the bands is due to the enhancement in the spin fluctuation of $M$ ions with increasing $x$. In the limit of $x\longrightarrow 1$, a dip appears close to the center of the band that for $x=1$, its energy position is at $\varepsilon=-0.75\,t$, i.e. at the on-site energy of the $M$ ions. The optical absorption spectrum, associated with the above electronic states, is shown in Fig. 2. The results show sharp features in the optical spectra corresponding to some of the features seen in the LDOS at low energies. These features are remarkable in the case of the clean system, i.e. in the $AB$ system. When the magnetic ions are introduced, that is in the case of alloy system, the absorption peaks are broadened and the height of sharp features decreases. Because of the dependence of $A_n(\omega)$ to the electronic states through the imaginary part of Green’s function, one can see a shift in the optical spectra toward lower energies, similar to that of the electronic states. An important feature in Fig. 2 is the dependence of optical absorption spectrum on the layer number. This means that the photon absorption in low dimensional systems is different in various layers. In addition, one can find that in the case of weak interaction no energy gap appears in the optical spectrum. Accordingly, the density of states and the absorption spectrum in the weak interaction indicate that the $A$ and $M$ atomic states are amalgamated into a single band when the exchange coupling is small.
To study the effect of strong exchange interaction on the electronic and optical properties of the system, we have shown in Fig. 3 and 4 the layer-dependent of LDOS and optical absorption for $\varepsilon=-4.0\,t$ and $IS=-3.5\,t$. The influence of magnetic impurity causes an impurity band at the bottom of the host band, whose bandwidth depends on the $M$ concentration $x$. With increasing $x$, the contribution of spin scattering by the localized spins in the scattering process of the carriers increases and the impurity band and hence, the whole electronic spectrum is broadened. This broadening which does not appear in LDOS of the NMS alloys [@Saffar2] is a consequence of the localized spin fluctuation of magnetic impurities. It is evident that the strong exchange interaction splits the host band into two subbands. We see that, the behavior of the electronic states of each impurity band completely depends on the magnetic ion concentration. For $x$=1, the two bands are symmetric and correspond to the parallel coupling and antiparallel coupling between the carrier spin and the localized spin, in agreement with the results of the CPA for ordinary magnetic semiconductors at a paramagnetic temperature [@Takahashi2; @Rangette]. The energy position of the electronic band center is located at the energy $\varepsilon=-4.0\,t$, i.e. at the on-site energy of the $M$ ions, which is a consequence of the classical spin treatment of the localized spins at a paramagnetic temperature. Note that, the quantum effect of the localized spins introduces some further complications in the results and the band symmetry is broken.
One of the main differences between the electronic states in the magnetic and nonmagnetic semiconductor alloys is the variation of $g_n(\omega)$ with increasing $x$. In the CPA method and in the absence of magnetic impurities [@Saffar2], a NMS alloy for $x=1$ is converted to the same original NMS but with an energy shift in the electronic states. This means that, the behavior of LDOS with energy variation at $x=1$ is the same behavior of the LDOS at $x=0$. By doping a NMS with magnetic impurities, however, the behavior of LDOS might be completely different with the electronic states of the original undoped system, specially at $x=1$. This difference appears because of the multiple scattering effect due to the exchange interaction between the carrier spin and the localized spin of magnetic ion, which is most remarkable in both cases of $x=0$ and $x=1$. Because of the dependence of optical spectrum on the electronic states, this remarkable difference for the cases of $x=0$ and $x=1$ can be clearly seen in this study. It is important to note that, if we set $IS$=0.0, the present formalism will give the same results for a NMS multilayer in which there is no band broadening in the electronic spectra [@Saffar2].
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
The electronic band splitting in the strong exchange interaction regime creates the two subbands in the optical absorption spectrum. For $0<x<1$, the lower energy band corresponds to the case that the carrier spin is parallel with the localized spin, while the higher band belongs to the $A$ atom *and* the case in which the carrier spin is antiparallel with the localized spin. Therefore, such an optical absorption spectrum might correspond to the persistence type [@Takahashi]. For $x=1$, the spectrum completely belongs to the $M$ atoms, i.e. the clean magnetic system. Optical band broadening in the all layers can be clearly seen in the spectrum due to the chemical and magnetic disorder. Furthermore, the bands show a sharp feature at the optical band edge, depending on the value of $x$. The strength of this feature increases for the interior layers and indicates that most of the photon energy can be absorbed by the interior layers of the system. Roughly, for $x\leq 0.5$, the sharp features appears at the bottom of the higher band, while for $x>0.5$ the respective features appear at the bottom of the lower band. Note that, the band broadening, which is accompanied by energy shift of the bottom of the optical bands, demonstrates the operation of a magnetic semiconductor multilayer as an optical device which can be tuned at desired wavelength.
Another set of the results that we present here is the bulk (total) optical absorption for the weak and strong exchange interactions. Due to the fact that the optical absorption of each layer is not experimentally measurable yet, we have calculated the total magnitude of this quantity here as well (see Fig. 5). For this purpose, we make a summation over all five layers to obtain the total optical absorption of the system, i.e. $A(\omega)=\sum_{n=1}^{N_z}A_n(\omega)$. All features that we see in Figs. 5(a) and (b) are compatible with those of the individual layers. It is clear that the sharp features of the amalgamation type (Fig. 5(a)) at the bottom of the optical band are much stronger than those of the persistence type (Fig. 5(b)). The results also show that the optical absorption of a DMS multilayer has an obvious broadening in comparison with the NMS multilayers [@Saffar2], and in the case of larger $IS$ the amount of broadening is higher and a gap opening occurs. Therefore, the transition from the amalgamation type to the persistence type in the DMS multilayers depends on the strength of the exchange coupling $IS$, and the magnetic ion concentration $x$.
Conclusion
==========
We have studied the effects of magnetic impurity on the electronic and optical properties of a semiconductor multilayer under the assumption that the transition dipole moments of the magnetic and nonmagnetic ions are the same. Using the single-site CPA for a random distribution of the impurity atoms, we investigated the influence of exchange interaction strength and the impurity concentration on the LDOS and the optical absorption spectra of the system. In such multilayers, the magnetic impurities shift the spectra towards lower energy-side, broaden the bands, and strongly affect on the sharp features of the spectra, even in the case of weak exchange coupling. In the case of strong exchange coupling, an energy gap opens in the electronic and optical bands. The interior layers show a higher contribution in the optical absorption process of the system relative to the surface layer, together with the fact that the amalgamation type alloys in comparison with the persistence type alloys need a higher amount of photons energy to make an excitation. These results might be helpful for the development of DMS multilayers in magneto-optical devices at a paramagnetic temperature.
[99]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This paper describes LIUM submissions to WMT17 News Translation Task for English$\leftrightarrow$German, English$\leftrightarrow$Turkish, English$\rightarrow$Czech and English$\rightarrow$Latvian language pairs. We train BPE-based attentive Neural Machine Translation systems with and without factored outputs using the open source [*nmtpy*]{} framework. Competitive scores were obtained by ensembling various systems and exploiting the availability of target monolingual corpora for back-translation. The impact of back-translation quantity and quality is also analyzed for English[$\rightarrow$]{}Turkish where our post-deadline submission surpassed the best entry by +1.6 BLEU.'
author:
- |
Mercedes García-Martínez, Ozan Caglayan$^\dagger$, Walid Aransa\
**Adrien Bardet, Fethi Bougares, Loïc Barrault\
LIUM, University of Le Mans\
$^\dagger$[`ozancag@gmail.com`]{}\
[`FirstName.LastName@univ-lemans.fr`]{}**
bibliography:
- 'wmt17.bib'
title: LIUM Machine Translation Systems for WMT17 News Translation Task
---
=1
Introduction
============
This paper describes LIUM Neural Machine Translation (NMT) submissions to WMT17 News Translation Task for English$\leftrightarrow$German, English$\leftrightarrow$Turkish, English$\rightarrow$Czech and English$\rightarrow$Latvian language pairs. We experimented with and without back-translation data for English$\leftrightarrow$German and English$\leftrightarrow$Turkish which are respectively described in Sections \[sec:en\_tr\] and \[sec:ende\]. For the latter pair, we also present an analysis about the impact of back-translation quality and quantity as well as two architectural ablations regarding the initialization and the output of recurrent decoder (Section \[sec:en\_tr\]).
Experiments for English$\rightarrow$Czech and English$\rightarrow$Latvian are performed using Factored NMT (FNMT) [@Garcia16iwslt] systems. FNMT is an extension of NMT which aims at simultaneously predicting the canonical form of a word and its morphological information needed to generate the final surface form. The details and results are presented in section \[fnmt\]. All submitted systems[^1] are trained using the open source [`nmtpy`]{}[^2] framework [@nmtpy].
Baseline NMT {#sec:nmt}
============
Our baseline NMT is an attentive encoder-decoder [@Bahdanau2014] implementation. A bi-directional Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) [@Chung2014] encoder is used to compute source sentence annotation vectors. We equipped the encoder with layer normalization [@ba2016layer], a technique which adaptively normalizes the incoming activations of each hidden unit with a learnable gain and bias, after empirically observing that it improves both convergence speed and translation performance.
A conditional GRU (CGRU) [@cgru; @nematus] decoder with attention mechanism is used to generate a probability distribution over target tokens for each decoding step $t$. The hidden state of the CGRU is initialized using a non-linear transformation of the average encoder state produced by the encoder. Following , the feedback embeddings (input to the decoder) and the output embeddings are [**tied**]{} to enforce learning a single target representation and decrease the number of total parameters by target vocabulary size $\times$ embedding size.
We used Adam [@kingma2014adam] as the optimizer with a learning rate of $4e\mathrm{-}4$. Weights are initialized with Xavier scheme [@glorotxavier] and the total gradient norm is clipped to 5 [@pascanu2013difficulty]. When stated, three dropouts [@srivastava2014dropout] are applied after source embeddings, encoder hidden states and pre-softmax activations respectively. The training is early stopped if validation set BLEU [@bleu2002] does not improve for a given number of consecutive validations. A beam size of [**12**]{} is used for beam-search decoding. Other hyper-parameters including layer dimensions and dropout probabilities are detailed for each language pair in relevant sections.
English$\leftrightarrow$Turkish {#sec:en_tr}
===============================
English$\leftrightarrow$German {#sec:ende}
==============================
English$\rightarrow${Czech,Latvian} {#fnmt}
===================================
Conclusion and Discussion
=========================
In this paper, we presented LIUM machine translation systems for WMT17 news translation task which are among the top submissions according the official evaluation matrix. All systems are trained using additional synthetic data which significantly improved final translation quality.
For English[$\rightarrow$]{}Turkish, we obtained (post-deadline) state-of-the-art results with a small model ($\sim$11M params) by tying all the embeddings in the network and simplifying the output of the recurrent decoder. One other interesting observation is that the model trained using [*only*]{} synthetic data surpassed the one trained on genuine translation corpus. This may indicate that for low-resource pairs, the amount of training data is much more important than the correctness of source-side sentences.
For English[$\rightarrow$]{}Czech and English[$\rightarrow$]{}Latvian pairs, the best factored NMT systems performed equally well compared to NMT systems. However, it is important to note that automatic metrics may not be suited to assess better lexical and grammatical choices made by the factored systems.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) through the CHIST-ERA M2CR project, under the contract number ANR-15-CHR2-0006-01[^3] and also partially supported by the MAGMAT project.
[^1]: Backtranslations and other data can be found at <http://github.com/lium-lst/wmt17-newstask>
[^2]: <http://github.com/lium-lst/nmtpy>
[^3]: <http://m2cr.univ-lemans.fr>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'A. Spagna, D. Carollo, M.G. Lattanzi, B. Bucciarelli'
date: 'Received 13 April 2004; accepted 21 July 2004'
subtitle: Kinematic analysis of high proper motion surveys
title: 'Disk or Halo white dwarfs?'
---
Introduction
============
One of the most recent challenges in observational astronomy is to explain the nature of the objects that produced the microlensing events towards the Magellanic Clouds (Alcock et al. 2000). The most obvious candidates for these events are ancient white dwarfs, so that several projects have been carried out in recent years to reveal the existence of such hidden population of dim sources (see Hansen & Liebert 2003 for a review). The most extensive survey to date is that of Oppenheimer et al. (2001, OHDHS). They discovered 38 suspected halo white dwarfs and derived a local density of $\sim 1.1 \cdot 10^{-4}$ M$_\odot$ pc$^{-3}$, which corresponds to a fraction of 1-2% of the halo dark matter in the vicinity of the Sun. Different authors challenged these results on the basis of the age estimates of the candidates (Hansen 2001, Bergeron 2003), or after a reanalysis of the kinematic data (e.g. Reid, Sahu & Hawley 2001; Reylé et al. 2001, Flynn et al. 2003, Torres et al. 2002).
In any event, all those studies evidence a significant contamination of thick disk objects affecting the halo WD sample, and point out the basic problem of defining an accurate procedure to deconvolve the halo and thick disk populations on the basis of their kinematic and photometric properties.
In this paper we describe a general statistical method designed to reject objects with disk kinematics and isolate probable halo members from the screening of kinematically selected samples. Finally, we discuss the results obtained with this method when applied to the OHDHS survey, and compare them to the preliminary results derived from the GSC II-based new high proper motion survey in the Northern hemisphere by Carollo et al. (2004).
SSS Halo WD survey
==================
The OHDHS survey was based on digitized, photographic Schmidt plates (R59F and B$_J$ passbands) from the SuperCOSMOS Sky Survey (SSS, Hambly et al. 2001). They analyzed 196 three epoch plates (IIIaJ, IIIaF and IV-N) covering an area of 4165 square degrees near the South Galactic Pole (SGP). The magnitude limit of the survey is of R59F = 19.8, while the proper motion limits are 0.33$\arcsec $yr$^{-1} < \mu < 10\arcsec $yr$^{-1}$. They found 98 WDs, whose tangential velocities were derived from the measured proper motions and photometric distances estimated via a linear color magnitude (CM) relation, $M_{B_J}$ vs.$B_J-R59F$, calibrated by means of the WD sample with available trigonometric parallaxes published by Bergeron, Ruiz & Legget (1997). The kinematic analysis of this sample was made in the two dimensional (U,V) plane, after assuming that the third galactic velocity component was zero ($W=0$). Thick disk contaminants were rejected with a 2$\sigma$ threshold, $\sqrt{U^2+(V+35)^2}>95$ km $s^{-1}$, which would correspond to a 86% confidence level in the case of a non-kinematically selected sample. In this way, 38 WDs were considered as halo members, from which a space density of $\rho_{\rm WD}\simeq 1.1\, 10^{-4}$ M$_\odot$ pc$^{-3}$ was computed, assuming 0.6 M$_\odot$ for the average WD mass.
As mentioned in the previous section, these results were critically revised by several authors. In particular, an independent kinematic analysis of the OHDHS sample was performed by Reid et al. (2001), who noted that the resulting distribution of the WDs in the (U,V) diagram seems more compatible with the high velocity tails of the thick disk. They computed $(U,V)$ components assuming that the unknown radial velocity is null ($V_{r} = 0$) and selected halo WDs with the crude but robust criterion of accepting objects with retrograde motion only (4 objects). This leads to a more conservative value of the density, $\rho_{\rm WD}\simeq 1.8\, 10^{-5}$ M$_\odot$ pc$^{-3}$.
Recently, Salim et al. (2004) reanalyzed the WD sample of OHDHS on the basis of new spectroscopic and photometric measurements. Radial velocities of 13 WDs with H$_{\alpha}$ line, and standard Johnson-Cousins photometry for half of the sample were obtained. In addition, distances were redetermined with the CCD photometry by means of the theoretical color magnitude relation for hydrogen and helium atmospheres published by Bergeron, Leggett & Ruiz (2001). Salim et al. (2003) confirmed the results of OHDHS with the same 95 km s$^{-1}$ (2$\sigma$) threshold, but showed that a minimum density, $n_{\rm WD}\simeq 3.1\, 10^{-5}$ pc$^{-3}$ is attained with a higher, more conservative, threshold of 190 km s$^{-1}$.
Kinematic analysis {#Sect:kinematics}
==================
The kinematic analysis of the WD sample drawn from a proper motion limited survey, including the choice of a criterium for rejecting the contaminant disk WDs and select the true halo WDs, is one of the critical steps of this kind of studies.
As the velocity distribution of the disk(s) and halo population do partially overlap (Fig. 1), it is not possible to infer univocally, on the basis of kinematic data alone, the parent population of every object. Nevertheless, it is always possible to test if an object is, or is not, consistent with the velocity distribution of a certain population once a value for the confidence level is chosen.
Here, we retain as halo WDs those objects whose kinematics is [*not*]{} consistent with the velocity distribution of the thick disk population[^1] given a certain confidence level; this allows the identification of halo WDs while limiting the contamination of high velocity thick disk objects. Unless corrected for the incompleteness due to the fraction of rejected halo WDs whose kinematics is compatible with that of the thick disk population, it is clear that this procedure can only provide a lower limit to the actual density.
An alternative, and potentially more rigorous procedure, is a Maximum-likelihood analysis that fits simultaneously the superposition of two or more populations (see e.g. Nelson et al.2002, Koopmans & Blandford 2002). In this case however, because of the small size of the samples, further assumptions on the kinematics and the formation process (IMF, age, etc.) of [*all*]{} the populations involved are usually necessary.
Schwarzschild distribution
--------------------------
We assume that the probability that the galactic velocity components (U,V,W) of an object in the solar neighborhood belonging to a certain stellar population lies in the element of velocity space $d^{3}\bar{v}=dU dV dW$ is well described by a Schwarzschild distribution: $$p(\bar{v})=\frac {1} {(2\pi)^{3/2}\sigma_{U}\sigma_{V}\sigma_{W}}
\exp \left[ -\frac{U^2}{2\sigma_U^2} - \frac{(V-V_{0})^2}
{2\sigma_V^2} -
\frac{W^2}{2\sigma_W^2} \right]
\label{eq:UVWdistribution}$$
which represents a trivariate gaussian ellipsoid, where $V_0$ indicates the rotation lag with respect to the LSR and $\sigma_U$, $\sigma_V$, and $\sigma_W$ the velocity dispersions.
In practice, the galactic components need to be derived from the observed tangential and radial velocity components $(V_\alpha,
V_\delta, V_r)$: $$\left[
\begin{array}{c}
U \\ V \\ W \\
\end{array}
\right]
= {\bf G}_{2000}
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
V_\alpha\\
V_\delta \\
V_r \\
\end{array}
\right]
+ \left[
\begin{array}{l}
U_\odot\\
V_\odot \\
W_\odot \\
\end{array}
\right]
\label{UVW}$$ where [**G**]{}$_{2000}={\bf G}(\alpha,\delta)$ is the transformation matrix from the equatorial coordinates system (J2000) to the galactic system, which depends explicitly on the stellar position ($\alpha$, $\delta$). Here, $(U_\odot,V_\odot,W_\odot)$ is the Sun velocity with respect to the Local Standard of Rest (LSR), for which Dehnen & Binney (1998) estimated $(+10.00\pm 0.36,+5.25\pm 0.62, +7.17\pm 0.38)$ km s$^{-1}$ from the analysis of the Hipparcos catalogue. The tangential velocities $V_\alpha$ and $V_\delta$ (km s$^{-1})$, are computed from the observed proper motions (arcsec yr$^{-1}$) and distances (pc) derived from trigonometric or photometric parallaxes, $\pi=1/d$, as usual: $$\begin{aligned}
V_\alpha &=& 4.74047\,d\,\mu_{\alpha}\cos\delta \nonumber \\
V_\delta &=& 4.74047\,d\,\mu_\delta \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Tangential velocity distribution
--------------------------------
If the full 3D space velocity cannot be recovered, as in the case of proper motion surveys, we can adopt a similar procedure in the 2D tangential velocity plane, ($V_{\alpha}$, $V_{\delta}$). The bivariate marginal distribution, $\psi(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$, can be obtained by properly integrating the distribution in Eq.\[eq:UVWdistribution\] along the $V_r$ component:
$$\begin{aligned}
\psi(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}) &=& \frac{1}{2\pi\sigma_\alpha\sigma_\delta\sqrt{1-\rho^2}} \\ \nonumber
&& \exp\left[\frac{-1}{2(1-\rho^{2})} \left(\frac{(V_{\alpha}-V_{\alpha0})^{2}}{\sigma_{V\alpha}^2}
- \right.\right. \\ \nonumber
&& \left.\left. 2\rho\frac{(V_{\alpha}-V_{\alpha0})}{\sigma_{V\alpha}} \frac{(V_{\delta}-V_{\delta0})}{\sigma_{V\delta}} +\frac{(V_{\delta}-V_{\delta0})^2}{\sigma_{V\delta}^2}\right)\right] \nonumber
\label{eq:Valphadelta}
%}\end{aligned}$$
This is a general bivariate gaussian distribution which is defined by five parameters: $V_{\alpha0}$, $V_{\delta0}$, $\sigma_{V\alpha}$, $\sigma_{V\delta}$ and $\rho$. These parameters are linear functions of the first and second order moments of Eq. \[eq:UVWdistribution\], as described for instance in Trumpler & Weaver (1953).
Our analysis will be based on Eq. 3 that represents the appropriate density distribution when radial velocities are missing.\
Notice that this approach, even in the case of surveys involving widely different line-of-sights, allows the derivation of the exact tangential velocity distribution for every star, without any assumption on the unknown third velocity component $V_{r}$.
Thick disk model {#Sect:TDmodel}
----------------
The following properties for the population of thick disk WDs in the solar neighborhood were assumed:
- a uniform local space density; for, the typical distance reachable by ground based surveys ($\sim$ 100 pc) is much smaller than the exponential vertical scale-height of the thick disk ($h_z\simeq 1000$ pc);
- a velocity distribution (Eq. \[eq:UVWdistribution\]) with ($\sigma_U, \sigma_V, \sigma_W, V_0) \simeq $ $(63,39,39,-45)$ km s$^{-1}$, as derived in Soubiran, Bienaymè & Siebert (2003).
We notice that the velocity ellipsoid of the thick disk population is not currently well established so that this choice will somehow affect the final result. For instance, the presence of a non-gaussian high velocity tail (cfr. Gilmore et al. 2002) would increase the contamination affecting the halo WD sample.
Kinematically selected samples
------------------------------
In the case of a magnitude- [*and*]{} $\mu$-limited survey with a total extension of $\Omega$ steradians, the following observational constraints need to be taken into account:
1. an apparent magnitude limit $m < m_{\rm lim}$ which implies a distance limit as a function of the absolute magnitude, $M$, of the target: $$%\begin{equation}
r < r_{\rm max}(M) = 10^{[0.2(m_{\rm lim} - M) + 1]}$$ which, in turn, defines the maximum volume[^2], $V_{\rm Max}(M)=\frac{1}{3}\Omega\, r_{\rm max}^3$ covered by the survey;
2. a proper motion limit $\mu > \mu_{\rm lim}$ which translates into a tangential velocity threshold varying with stellar distance: $$%\begin{equation}
V_{\rm tan} = \sqrt{V_\alpha^2+ V_\delta^2} > V_{\rm min}(r) = 4.74\mu_{\rm lim} r.$$
Note that, although the distance distribution ($\propto r^2$) and the kinematic distribution (Eq. 3 ) of the complete population are independent, now they result correlated for the observed sample because of the existence of the velocity threshold, $V_{\rm min}(r)$.
The probability to select a star with absolute magnitude $M$ in the range $(r,r+dr)$, ($V_{\alpha},V_{\alpha}+dV_{\alpha}$), ($V_{\delta},V_{\delta}+dV_{\delta}$) is then $dP =
f(r,V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})dr dV_{\alpha} dV_{\delta}$, where the joint probability density is: $$\label{Eq:f}
f(r, V_\alpha, V_\delta) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
K r^2 \psi (V_\alpha, V_\delta) & \mbox{ if } V_{\rm tan} > V_{\rm min}(r) \\
& \mbox{ and } r < r_{\rm max}(M)\\
0 & \mbox{ if } V_{\rm tan} \le V_{\rm min}(r) \\
& \mbox{ or } r \ge r_{\rm max}(M)\\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Here, $K$ is a normalization constant such that $\int\int\int f\,
dr\,dV_\alpha\, dV_\delta=1$.
If we integrate over $r$ the joint probability density function given in Eq. \[Eq:f\], we obtain the marginal density distribution $$\begin{aligned}
h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}) &=& \int_{0}^{r_{\rm max}}
f(r,V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})\,dr \label{eq:h}\end{aligned}$$ which quantifies the probability that an object with tangential velocities $(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ could be randomly found somewhere [*within*]{} the whole volume $ \frac{1}{3}\Omega\,
r_{\rm max}^3$, where an object with absolute magnitude $M$ could in principle be observed.
At the same time, we can introduce the (conditional) probability that an object with tangential velocities $(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ is found [*at*]{} the measured distance, $r$: $$t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r) = \frac{f(r, V_\alpha, V_\delta) }{g(r) }
\label{eq:t}$$ where $$g(r) = \int\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f(r,V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})\,dV_{\alpha}\,dV_{\delta}$$ is the marginal density distribution which defines the probability that an object with whatever velocity can be observed at a distance $r$. Because the velocity threshold increases linearly with distance, $V_{\rm min}\propto r$, the space distribution of the proper-motion selected sample (Eq. 7) is also biased towards smaller distances.
Both the marginal distribution $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ and the conditional probability $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$ can be used to test the consistency of each object with a parent population. In principle, the conditional probability $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$ seems more appropriate than $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ since it fully utilizes the individual stellar distances. However, the differences become insignificant when the confidence level is set to sufficiently high values (see next section).
Note that, formally, Eq. \[eq:t\] is equivalent to the original distribution, $\psi(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$, except that the probability is null for $\sqrt{V_\alpha^2+ V_\delta^2} \le
V_{\rm min}(r)$, and it has been re-normalized.
Confidence intervals and contamination
--------------------------------------
Basically, because a proper motion limited survey undersamples the low velocity objects, the main difference between the kinematically selected distributions (Eqs. \[eq:h\]-\[eq:t\]) and the complete one (Eq. 3) is that the probability density is redistributed from the low velocity regions towards the high velocity tails. This means that the observed sample is biased towards high velocity objects, as shown for instance by the simulations of Reylé et al. (2001) and Torres et al. (2002). This effect needs to be taken into account when we define a confidence interval over the $(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ plane in order to test the consistency with the parent population and to estimate the contamination due to objects in the tails beyond the critical limit. In fact, the adoption of the original $\psi(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ to reject the disk stars with respect to a certain confidence level, e.g. $1-\alpha=99\%$, would exclude 99% of [*all*]{} the existing thick disk stars which, however, corresponds to a smaller fraction of the thick disk objects that are really present in the kinematically selected sub-sample. In this case, only the confidence interval defined for $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$, or $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$, assures that the fraction of false negatives contaminating the sample of [*bona fide*]{} halo stars does not exceed – on average – 1% of the [*observed*]{} thick disk objects.
In the left panels of Figures \[fig:h\]-\[fig:t\] the concentric ellipses show the iso-probability contours (1$\sigma$, 2$\sigma$, 3$\sigma$) of the velocity distribution expected for thick disk stars, $\psi(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$, evaluated in the direction of one of the stars in the Oppenheimer’s sample (LHS 1447), whose tangential velocity is marked with a filled circle. The points represent a Montecarlo realization of 2000 simulated WD’s drawn from the kinematically selected distributions $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ and $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$. The excess of “simulated” thick disk stars with high velocity is evidenced by the fact that there are many more than $\sim$20 objects (1% of the simulated sample) outside the $3\sigma$ confidence interval.
LHS 1447 is also located outside the 3$\sigma$ contour so that, according to the complete distribution, it should be rejected as a thick disk star with a confidence level higher than $1-\alpha=$99%. Actually, that conclusion would be incorrect if we tested the hypothesis that LHS 1447 is a member of the kinematically selected sample as shown in the right panels of Figures \[fig:h\]-\[fig:t\], where the marginal and conditional distributions, $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ and $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$, are drawn. In fact, in these cases the star is located [*within*]{} the iso-probability contour delimiting the 99% confidence level so that it must be accepted as a thick disk star.
Results and discussion
======================
Both distributions, $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ and $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$, were used to analyze the WD sample in the OHDHS survey. The kinematic tests were carried out in the tangential plane of each individual star so that no assumption on radial velocity is necessary. The values of 95% and 99% for the confidence level ($1-\alpha$) were chosen in order to minimize the presence of false negatives. With a total sample of 98 WDs, presumably a mixture of (thin and thick) disk and halo WDs, we expect that $<1$ (99%) and $<5$ (95%) of the high velocity thick disk stars would contaminate the selected Pop. II WD sample.
--------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ------------------------------------
Confid.
level WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$) WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$) WDs $\rho_{WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$)
99% 14 $(2.0\pm 0.9)\cdot10^{-5}$ 10 $(1.6\pm 0.8)\cdot10^{-5}$ 10 $(1.5\pm0.8)\cdot10^{-5}$
95% 20 $(3.1\pm 1.0)\cdot10^{-5}$ 12 $(1.9\pm 0.9)\cdot10^{-5}$ 13 $(2.0 \pm0.9)\cdot10^{-5}$
--------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ------------------------------------
\[tab:density\]
--------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ----------------------------------------
Confid.
level WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$) WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$) WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$)
99% 19 $(1.8\pm 0.6)\cdot10^{-5}$ 17 $(1.6\pm 0.6)\cdot10^{-5}$ 16 $(1.5\pm0.6)\cdot10^{-5}$
95% 28 $(3.3\pm 0.8)\cdot10^{-5}$ 18 $(1.8\pm 0.6)\cdot10^{-5}$ 18 $(1.9 \pm0.6)\cdot10^{-5}$
--------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ----------------------------------------
\[tab:density1\]
Halo WD density
---------------
In Table \[tab:density\] we report the results based on this procedure for the WD sample published by OHDHS. We only found 10 objects which do not appear consistent with the kinematically selected density distributions, $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ and $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$, at the 99% confidence level, while 12-13 probable halo WDs are selected when $1-\alpha=95$%. As expected, the number of candidates increases up to 14 (99%) or 20 (95%) in the case of a test based on the complete distribution, $\psi(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$, mainly because of a higher contamination.
Finally, the halo WD density was estimated by means of the classical 1/V$_{\rm Max}$ method (Schmidt 1975), and assuming a value of 0.6 M$_\odot$ for the typical WD mass. The results, with their (poissonian only) errors, are reported in Tab.\[tab:density\], where the different values refer to the two confidence levels and the three probability distributions used for the calculations.
Although affected by large uncertainties, the values in Tab.\[tab:density\] suggest a density of $\rho_{\rm WD}\approx$ $10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$, i.e. 0.1-0.2% of the local dark matter, which is an order of magnitude smaller than what reported in OHDHS.
Our results are consistent with the local mass density of halo WDs estimated by Gould et al. (1998), and with various reanalyses of the OHDHS sample (e.g. Reid et al. 2001, Reylé et al. 2001, Torres et al. 2002, Salim et al. 2004). Furthermore, Carollo et al. (2004), applying the statistical methodology described in this paper on a new high proper motion survey based on GSC-II material, derived a similar value of $\sim 10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$.
Lacking individual trigonometric parallaxes, a critical point of this (and any) analysis is the choice of the method for the estimation of the distances, which directly affects the evaluation of the WD tangential velocities and, of course, of their stellar density. As remarked by several authors (see e.g. Torres et al. 2002, Bergeron 2003), empirical and theoretical CM relations can both give rise to systematic errors.
To this regard, if for the distances of the OHDHS sample we adopt the values recently redetermined[^3] by Salim et al. (2004), the number of selected halo WDs increases but the resulting densities, shown in Table \[tab:density1\], are not significantly different from those reported in Table \[tab:density\].
Distance and velocity errors
----------------------------
The large error, $\sim$ 20-30%, affecting WD photometric parallaxes, cannot be neglected in a rigorous statistical analysis. Basically, besides the contribution of the photometric errors, the large uncertainty in the distance modulus, $m-M$, derives from the large [*intrinsic*]{} dispersion ($\sigma_{\rm
Mv}\simeq 0.4$ - 0.5 mag) of the CM relation, a consequence of the superposition of cooling sequences of WDs of different masses and atmospheres.
--------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ----------------------------------------
Confid.
level WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$) WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$) WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$)
99% 6 $(1.3\pm 0.8)\cdot10^{-5}$ 3 $(1.2\pm 0.8)\cdot10^{-5}$ 3 $(1.2\pm0.8)\cdot10^{-5}$
95% 14 $(2.0\pm 0.9)\cdot10^{-5}$ 5 $(1.3\pm 0.8)\cdot10^{-5}$ 6 $(1.3 \pm0.8)\cdot10^{-5}$
--------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ----------------------------------------
\[tab:convdensity\]
--------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ----------------------------------------
Confid.
level WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$) WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$) WDs $\rho_{\rm WD}$ (M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$)
99% 14 $(1.2\pm 0.5)\cdot10^{-5}$ 8 $(0.7\pm 0.4)\cdot10^{-5}$ 5 $(0.6\pm0.4)\cdot10^{-5}$
95% 18 $(1.7\pm 0.6)\cdot10^{-5}$ 14 $(1.2\pm 0.5)\cdot10^{-5}$ 9 $(1.0 \pm0.5)\cdot10^{-5}$
--------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----- ----------------------------------------
\[tab:convdensity1\]
In practice, the main effect of the tangential velocity errors, $\epsilon_V/V = \sqrt{(\sigma_\mu/\mu)^2+(\sigma_d/d)^2}$, is to increase the dispersion and the overlap of the “observed” kinematic distributions belonging to the various stellar populations. Clearly this also increases the contamination of the disk WDs and makes the identification of the halo WDs more difficult.
Although a more rigorous statistical analysis should be necessary to consider properly the presence of these errors, a conservative estimation can be given by selecting only those objects which are not consistent with the “observed” kinematic distribution that results from convolving the projected kinematic distribution of the thick disk (Eq. 3) with a bivariate gaussian error distribution with null mean and dispersions, ($\epsilon_{V\alpha},
\epsilon_{V\delta})_{(i)}$, corresponding to the velocity errors of the $i$-th object. The velocity errors have been derived by assuming the proper motion errors, $\sigma_\mu$, listed in Tab. 1 of OHDHS, and a more realistic photometric parallax error, $\sigma_d/d$, of 25% (instead of 20%).
The different halo WD densities estimated from the objects which are not consistent (at the 95% and 99% confidence level) with the new distributions are reported in Tables 3 and 4. Because of the larger velocity thresholds, the number of selected halo WDs is smaller than those reported in Tables 1 and 2. The estimated WD densities, uncorrected for the loss of halo WDs with disk kinematics, decrease proportionally, but are still consistent with $\rho_{\rm WD} \sim 10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$. Note that the minimum values, which are reported in Tab. 4, have been derived from the data of Salim et al. (2004) who provided distances (and thus volumes) systematically larger than OHDHS.\
On the thick disk model
-----------------------
As mentioned in Sect. \[Sect:TDmodel\], our selection criterion depends implicitly also on the choice of the kinematic parameters adopted for the thick disk, whose spatial and kinematical properties are still matter of debate and investigation. Here, we have used the velocity ellipsoid recently derived by Soubiran et al. (2003) from a sample of $\sim$ 400 giants with 3D kinematics at a distance of 200-800 pc towards the North Galactic Cap. Their results are very close to the kinematic parameters estimated[^4] by Casertano, Ratnatunga & Bahcall (1990) and are consistent with various other determinations of the thick disk kinematics, which support velocity dispersions of 40-60 km s$^{-1}$ and an asymmetric drift in the range 30-50 km s$^{-1}$.
Although controversial, some authors claim the presence of a vertical velocity gradient, that supports a thick disk which rotates faster close to the galactic plane (i.e. where the WD sample is localized), than at higher Z’s, where the studies of the thick disk kinematics have been usually carried out. In particular, Chiba & Beers (2000), who analyzed 1203 metal poor stars non-kinematically selected, found a rapidly rotating thick disk close to the galactic plane with a small asymmetric drift $V_0\simeq -20$ km s$^{-1}$ and with velocity dispersions ($\sigma_U, \sigma_V, \sigma_W) \simeq $ $(46\pm 4,50\pm 4, 35\pm 3)$ km s$^{-1}$. Moreover, they determined a velocity gradient $\partial V_0/\partial |Z| \simeq
-30\pm 3$ km s$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-1}$, that, however, other studies (e.g. Soubiran et al. 2003) do not detect. Nevertheless, a fast rotating thick disk at $Z\approx 0$ was determined[^5] also by Upgren et al. (1997) from a sample of K-M dwarfs in the solar neighborhood ($d \la 50$ pc) with trigonometric parallaxes and proper motions from the Hipparcos catalogue and radial velocity measurements.
Thus, in order to test the sensitivity of our method with respect to the adopted thick disk model, we repeated the WD selection of the Salim et al. (2003) sample through the distributions $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ and $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$ derived using the velocity ellipsoid from Chiba & Beers (2000). The new results are consistent (within 1$\sigma$) with the values obtained with the kinematics from Soubiran et al. (2003), although the resulting densities appear typically larger than the previous ones.
For instance, with a 99% confidence level we find $\rho_{\rm WD} \simeq (1.7\pm 0.6) 10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$ for both $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ and $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$ when the velocity errors are not taken into account (cfr. Tab. \[tab:density1\]), while the distributions convolved with the velocity errors provide $\rho_{\rm WD} \simeq (0.9\pm 0.5) 10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$ (cfr. Tab. \[tab:convdensity1\]). The 95% confidence level also provides similar but systematically higher new densities up to $(1.8\pm 0.7) 10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$ and $(3.0\pm 0.9) 10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$ respectively when the velocity errors are, or are not, convolved with the tangential velocity distributions.
Anyhow, it appears that, with the adopted confidence levels, significantly higher density (e.g. close to $\sim 10^{-4}$ M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$ may be attained only with disk ellipsoids kinematically much “cooler” than those expected for a typical thick disk population. For instance, a total density $(8.8\pm 0.2) 10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$ is only obtained counting all the 41 WDs which are not consistent with the [*thin*]{} disk[^6] kinematics (using $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$ with a 95% confidence level), i.e. summing both halo [*and*]{} thick disk WDs.
UVW distribution
----------------
Salim et al. (2003) provide radial velocities for 15 DA WDs, 13 of which derived from new measurements of the OHDHS sample and two from Pauli et al. (2003), so that, in principle, a more accurate kinematic membership for these objects may be inferred using the information from the full 3D velocities. This requires 3D velocity distributions for kinematically selected samples which are beyond the scope of the current study. However, the availability of both tangential and radial velocities for this subsample offers the possibility to check [*a posteriori*]{} the efficiency of the 2D kinematic analysis adopted in this work and described in Sect. \[Sect:kinematics\].
To this regard, Figure \[UVW\] shows the (U,V,W) velocities derived from Eq. \[UVW\] for the 15 stars with available radial velocity. Those which have been selected with a 95% confidence level by means of the distributions $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ and $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$ convolved with the velocity errors (Tab. \[tab:convdensity1\]) are marked with square and diamond symbols. In addition, the $3\sigma$ iso-probability ellipses of the thick disk and halo velocity distributions, based on the kinematic parameters respectively from Soubiran et al. (2003) and Casertano, Ratnatunga & Bahcall (1990), are also plotted. The three panels of Fig. \[UVW\] indicate that, basically, all the likely halo WDs have been properly identified by our kinematic analysis based on the 2D $(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ distributions, thus supporting the reliability of our selection procedure.
Conclusions
===========
A kinematically selected sample made of 98 WDs with $\mu>$ 0.33$\arcsec yr^{-1}$ was published by OHDHS who performed a high proper motion survey over 4165 deg$^2$ toward the SGP down to $R59F \simeq 19.8$. These data stimulated a number of studies addressing the issue that a significant part of the dark halo of the Milky Way could be composed of matter in the form of ancient cool WDs. The basic problem – as addressed by several authors – is the criterion to disentangle the mixture of (thick) disk and halo objects on the basis of their kinematic properties and ages.
To this regard, we have implemented a general method for the kinematic analysis of high proper motion surveys and applied it to the identification of reliable halo stars. The kinematically-selected tangential velocity distributions are derived for every star, so that no assumption on the unknown third velocity component, $V_{r}$, nor any approximation on the galactic components (U,V,W), is necessary.
We selected as [*bona fide*]{} halo WDs only those stars whose tangential velocity is inconsistent, at the 95% and 99% confidence levels, with the appropriate projected distribution, $h(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta})$ or $t(V_{\alpha},V_{\delta}|r)$, of the observed thick disk population, thus assuring limited contamination of thick disk objects. Finally, the effect of large velocity errors, which derive from the intrinsic uncertainty of the WD photometric parallaxes, was also discussed and taken into account.
We applied this methodology to the OHDHS sample and selected 10 probable halo WDs (that became 3 after the inclusion of the velocity errors) at the a 99% confidence level. Through the 1/V$_{\rm Max}$ method, we estimated a local WD density of $\rho_{\rm WD}\simeq 1 \div 2 \cdot 10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$pc$^{-3}$ (i.e. 0.1-0.2% of the local dark matter) which is consistent with the values found by Gould et al. (1998), as well as by other authors who reanalyzed the OHDHS sample (e.g. Reid et al. 2001, Reylé et al. 2001, Torres et al. 2002, Flynn et al. 2003). The same methodology applied to the OHDHS sample revised by Salim et al. (2004) yields a similar value. These results agree with those found by Carollo et al. (2004) from a first analysis of new data of an independent high proper motion survey in the Northern hemisphere based on material and procedures used for the construction of the GSC-II.
Although affected by a large uncertainty due to the small statistics and low accuracy of the photometric parallaxes, our results clearly indicate that ancient cool WDs do [*not*]{} contribute significantly to the baryonic fraction of the galactic dark halo, as possibly suggested by the microlensing experiments which claimed that $\sim$ 20% of the dark matter is formed by compact objects of $\sim$ 0.5 M$_{\odot}$ (Alcock et al. 2000).
We wish to acknowledge the useful discussions with R. Drimmel, S.T. Hodgkin, B. McLean, R. Smart, and L. Terranegra. We would also like to thank the anonymous referee for valuable comments on the submitted manuscript.
Partial financial support to this research came from the Italian Ministry of Research (MIUR) through the COFIN-2001 program.
Alcock C. et al. 2000, ApJ, 542, 281
Bergeron, P. 2003, ApJ, 586, 201
Bergeron, P., Ruiz, M.T., & Leggett, S.K. 1997, ApJS, 108, 339
Bergeron, P., Leggett, S. K., & Ruiz, M.T. 2001, ApJS, 133, 413
Binney, J. & Merrifield, M. 1998, [*Galactic Astronomy*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press
Carollo, D. et al. 2004, XXVth IAU General Assembly, JD 5, Sidney (Australia), Jul 16-17, Shipman H. & Sion E.M. eds., in press
Casertano, S. et al. 1990, ApJ, 357, 435
Chiba, M. & Beers T.C. 2000, ApJ, 119, 2843
Dehnen, W. & Binney, J.J. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 387
Flynn C. et al., 2003, MNRAS, 339, 817
Gilmore, G. et al., 2002, ApJ, 574L, 39
Gould, A. et al. 1998, ApJ, 503, 798
Hambly, N. C. et al., 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1279
Hansen, B.M.S. 2001, ApJ, 558L, 39
Hansen, B.M.S. & Liebert, J. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 465
Koopmans, L.V.E., & Blandford, R.D. 2002, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/0107358)
Nelson, C.A., Cook, K.H., Axelrod, T.S., Mould, J.R. & Alcock, C. 2002, ApJ, 573, 644
Oppenheimer, B.R., Hambly, N.C., Digby, A.P., Hodgkin, S.T. & Saumon, D. 2001, [*Science*]{}, 292, 698 (OHDHS)
Pauli, E.M., Napiwotzki, R., Altmann, M., Heber, U., Odenkirchen, M., & Kerber, F. 2003, A&A, 400, 877
Reid, I.N., Sahu K.C., & Hawley S.L. 2001, ApJ, 559, 942
Reylé, C., Robin, A.C., & Creze, M. 2001, A&A, L53
Salim, S., Rich, R.Mi., Hansen, B.M., Koopmans, L.V.E., Oppenheimer, B.R. & Blandford, R.D. 2004, ApJ, 601, 1075
Schmidt, M. 1975, ApJ, 202, 22
Soubiran, C. et al. 2003, A&A, 398, 141
Torres, S., García-Berro, E., Burkert, A., & Isern, J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 971
Trumpler R.J. & Weaver H.F., 1953, [*Statistical Astronomy*]{}, Univ. of California press
Upgren, A.R., Ratnatunga, K.U., Casertano, S. & Weis, E. 1997, Proc. of the ESA Symposium [*Hipparcos - Venice 97*]{}, 13-16 May, 1997, Venice (I), ESA SP-402, 583
[^1]: Implicitly, we assume that besides the thick disk WDs, this criterion rejects the “slowest” thin disk objects as well.
[^2]: Note that this is a purely photometric definition which does not correspond exactly to the analogue quantity adopted for the evaluation of the WD density via the 1/$V_{\rm max}$ method (Schmidt 1975).
[^3]: They adopted CM relations based on theoretical cooling tracks of 0.6 M$_{\odot}$ WDs with H or He atmospheres. This resulted in distances 16% systematically larger (on average) than those in OHDHS.
[^4]: Casertano, Ratnatunga & Bahcall (1990) derived ($\sigma_U, \sigma_V, \sigma_W, V_0) \simeq $ $(66,37,38,-40)\pm
10$ km s$^{-1}$ from a maximum likelihood analysis of high proper motion stars within 500 pc of the Sun.
[^5]: They estimated a rotation lag of $V_0\simeq -28.3\pm 3.8$ km s$^{-1}$ for the “old” disk component with dispersions ($\sigma_U, \sigma_V, \sigma_W) \simeq $ $(56.1\pm 3.9,34.2\pm
2.5,31.2\pm 2.5)$ km s$^{-1}$.
[^6]: We adopted ($\sigma_U, \sigma_V, \sigma_W, V_0) \simeq $ $(34, 21,
18; -6)$ km s$^{-1}$ from Tab. 10.4 of Binney & Merrifield (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We perform a Gabor analysis for a large class of evolution equations with constant coefficients. We show that the corresponding propagators have a very sparse Gabor matrix, displaying off-diagonal exponential decay. The results apply to hyperbolic, weakly hyperbolic and parabolic equations. Some numerical experiments are provided.'
address:
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Torino, via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, Italy'
- 'Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche, Politecnico di Torino, corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy'
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Torino, via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, Italy'
author:
- 'Elena Cordero, Fabio Nicola and Luigi Rodino'
title: Gabor wave packets and evolution operators
---
Introduction
============
The harmonic analysis represents a fundamental tool for the study of partial differential equations. Beside providing explicit expression for the solutions, it appears often as a second step of the investigation, once theorems of existence and uniqueness are established by other methods. The aim is then to provide a more precise insight to the properties of the solutions, by taking care simultaneously of the values of the function in the space domain, as well as of the frequency components. This proceeding is sometimes named micro-local analysis, synonym of time-frequency analysis or phase-space analysis.
Ideally, one would like to know exactly the frequencies occurring at a certain point for the solution. This is however out of reach, in view of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. So instead, we fix a partition of the phase-space into sufficiently large subsets, split consequently the function into wave packets, and establish which wave packets are present, or dominant, in the expression.
Such micro-local decomposition can be done in different ways, the choice depending on the equation and on the problem under consideration. The aim is to obtain a sparse representation of the resolvent, or propagator. Namely, fixing attention on the Cauchy problem we want that the wave packets of the initial datum are moved, at any fixed time $t\not=0$, in a well determined way, so that only a controlled number of overlappings is allowed. Sparsity is extremely important in the numerical applications, by suggesting a natural proceeding of approximation.
In the present paper we choose as micro-local decomposition the Gabor decomposition, corresponding geometrically to a uniform partition of the phase-space into boxes, each wave packet occupying a box, essentially. Following [@CNRgabor], we shall apply the Gabor decomposition to a class of evolution equations. We shall fix here attention on parabolic equations, performing some numerical experiments.
We begin by recalling the definition of Gabor frame, addressing to the next Section 2 for details and notation.
Fix a function $g\in L^2(\rd)$ and consider the time-frequency shifts $$\label{intro1}
\pi(\lambda)g=e^{2\pi i n x}g(x-m),\quad \lambda=(m,n)\in\Lambda,$$ for some lattice $\Lambda\subset\rdd$. The set of function $\{\pi(\lambda)g\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ is called Gabor system. If moreover there exist $A,B>0$ such that $$\label{intro2}
A\|f\|^2_{L^2}\leq \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda}|\langle f,\pi(\lambda)g\rangle|^2\leq B\|f\|^2_{L^2}$$ for every $f\in L^2(\rd)$, we say that $\{\pi(\lambda)g\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ is a [*Gabor frame*]{}; see e.g. [@ibero13; @ibero30; @ibero45; @grochenig].
Gabor frames have found important applications in signal processing and, more generally, to several problems in Numerical Analysis, see e.g. [@cordero-feichtinger-luef; @str06], and the references therein. More recently, the decomposition by means Gabor frames was applied to the analysis of certain partial differential equations, in particular the constant coefficient Schrödinger, wave and Klein-Gordon equations [@bertinoro2; @bertinoro3; @bertinoro12; @bertinoro17; @kki1; @kki2; @kki3; @MNRTT; @baoxiang0; @bertinoro57; @bertinoro58; @bertinoro58bis]. We also refer to the survey [@ruz] and the monograph [@baoxiang]. The analysis of variable coefficients Schrödinger-type operators was carried out in [@CNG; @cgnr; @fio3; @fio1; @tataru] for smooth symbols and in [@CNRanalitico1; @CNRanalitico2] in the analytic category; see also [@nicola].
The fact of the matter is that, together with the decomposition of functions, say by a Gabor frame, there is a corresponding decomposition of operators; namely a linear operator $T$ can be regarded as the infinite matrix $$\label{intro3}
\langle T \pi(\mu)g,\pi(\lambda)g\rangle,\quad \lambda,\mu\in\Lambda.$$ The more this matrix is sparse, the more this representation is useful, both for theoretical and numerical purposes.
In the applications of evolution equations, $T$ will be the propagator of some well-posed Cauchy problem, and will belong to some class of pseudodifferential operators (PSDO), or Fourier integral operators (FIO).
In [@CNRgabor] we have shown that Gabor frames may work as appropriate tool for theoretical and numerical analysis of the Cauchy problem for a large class of partial differential equations, including hyperbolic, weakly hyperbolic and parabolic equations with constant coefficients.
By fixing for a moment attention on the hyperbolic case, Gabor’s approach may certainly look striking, since for the corresponding solutions the analysis is limited, in the most part of the literature, to the precise location of singularities in the space variables, the treatment of the frequency components being somewhat rough. Namely, in [@candes; @cddy; @hormander] and many others, the wave packets (the Hörmander’s wave-front set) are concentrated in a neighborhood, as small as we want, of each point $x_0$ in the space variables, geometrically multiplied by a conic neighborhood of $\xi_0$ in the frequency space, providing as a whole an infinite large domain.
So, the Gabor’s approach and Hörmander’s approach are both compatible with the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. The information given on the solutions of the hyperbolic equations are however quite different. By the Gabor analysis, in fact, we cannot identify any more where singularities exactly are, on the other hand the information on the frequency components is much more precise.
As disadvantage of the Gabor analysis, we also observe that Gabor frames do not work as soon as the hyperbolic operator is allowed to have non-constant coefficients. A simple example is given by the transport equation $$\partial_t u-\sum_{j=1}^d a_j(x)\partial_{x_j} u=0,\quad u(0,x)=u_0(x),$$ whose solution at a fixed time $t\not=0$ is expressed by a change of variables in $u_0(x)$. A nonlinear change of variable is well-behaved with respect to Hörmander’s wave front set [@hormander Theorem 8.2.4, Vol. I], whereas its representation with respect to Gabor frames is not sparse, cf. [@cnr-flp; @cnr-global].
As advantage of the Gabor decomposition, apart from detecting the frequency components, we emphasize that the same procedure works also for weakly hyperbolic equations and parabolic equations, whose numerical analysis is usually performed in a different way. Besides, for all these equations, we have exponentially sparse representation of the propagator $T$: $$|\langle T \pi(\mu)g,\pi(\lambda)g\rangle|\lesssim \exp\big(-\epsilon|\lambda-\mu|^{1/s}\big),$$ for every $\lambda,\mu$ in the lattice $\Lambda$, and for some positive constants $s,\epsilon$.
The contents of the next sections is the following. In Section 2 we recall some results on Gelfand-Shilov spaces, cf. [@GS; @NR], and time-frequency representations, cf. [@elena07; @medit; @grochenig; @GZ; @str06; @ToftGS]. Section 3 is devoted to the almost-diagonalization (sparsity) of pseudodifferential operators. Basic references here are [@CNRgabor; @GR], see also [@charly06; @GL09; @rochberg]. Section 4 concerns applications to evolution equations. The numerical experiments, which are new with respect to [@CNRgabor], are given in 4.2, 4.3.
Preliminaries
=============
Notations
---------
We denote the Schwartz class by $\sch(\Ren)$ and the space of tempered distributions by $\sch'(\Ren)$. We use the brackets $\la f,g\ra$ to denote the extension to $\sch '
(\Ren)\times\sch (\Ren)$ of the inner product $\la f,g\ra=\int f(t){\overline
{g(t)}}dt$ on $L^2(\Ren)$.
We denote the Euclidean norm of $ x \in {{{\mathbb{R}}}}^d $ by $ |x| = \left( x_1 ^2 + \dots +x_d
^2 \right) ^{1/2}, $ and $ \langle x \rangle = ( 1 + |x|^2 )^{1/2}.$ We set $xy=x\cdot y$ for the scalar product on $\Ren$, for $x,y \in\Ren$.
The Fourier transform is normalized to be ${\hat
{f}}(\o)=\Fur f(\o)=\int
f(t)e^{-2\pi i t\o}dt$. We define the translation and modulation operators, $T$ and $M$, by $$T_x f(\cdot) = f(\cdot - x) \;\;\; \mbox{ and } \;\;\;
M_x f(\cdot) = e^{2\pi i x \cdot} f(\cdot), \;\;\; x \in {{{\mathbb{R}}}}^d.$$ For $z=(x,\xi)$ we shall also write $$\pi(z)f=M_{\xi} T_x f.$$
We shall use the notation $A\lesssim B$ to express the inequality $A\leq c B$ for a suitable constant $c>0$, and $A
\asymp B$ for the equivalence $c^{-1}B\leq
A\leq c B$.
Gelfand-Shilov Spaces
---------------------
Gelfand-Shilov spaces can be considered a refinement of the Schwartz class, and they turn out to be useful when a more quantitative information about regularity and decay is required. Let us recall their definition and main properties; see [@GS; @NR] for more details and proofs.
Let there be given $ s, r>0$. The Gelfand-Shilov type space $ S^{s} _{r} (\rd) $ is defined as all functions $f\in\cS(\rd)$ such that $$|x^\a\partial^\beta f(x)| \lesssim A^{|\a|}B^{|\beta|}(\a!)^r(\beta!)^s,\quad \a,\beta\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^d.$$ for some $A,B>0$.
We observe that the space $S^{s} _{r}(\rd) $ is nontrivial if and only if $ r + s \geq 1$. So the smallest nontrivial space with $r=s$ is provided by $S^{1/2}_{1/2}(\rd)$. Every function of the type $P(x)e^{-a|x|^2}$, with $a>0$ and $P(x)$ polynomial on $\rd$, is in the class $S^{1/2}_{1/2}(\rd)$. We observe the trivial inclusions $S^{s_1} _{r_1}(\rd)\subset S^{s_2} _{r_2}(\rd)$ for $s_1\leq s_2$ and $r_1\leq r_2$.
The Fourier transform maps $S^{s} _{r}(\rd)\to S^{r} _{s}(\rd)$. Therefore for $s=r$ the spaces $S^{s} _{s}(\rd)$ are invariant under the action of the Fourier transform.
\[simetria\] Assume $ s>0, r>0, s+r\geq1$. For $f\in \cS(\rd)$, the following conditions are equivalent:
- $f \in S^{s} _{r}(\rd)$ .
- There exist constants $A, B>0,$ such that $$\| x^{\a} f \|_{L^\infty} \lesssim A^{|\a|} (\a !) ^{r} \quad\mbox{and}\quad \| \o^{\b} \hat{f} \|_{L^\infty} \lesssim B^{|\b|} ( \b!) ^{s},\quad \a,\b\in {{\mathbb{N}}}^d.$$
- There exist constants $A, B>0,$ such that $$\| x^{\a} f \|_{L^\infty} \lesssim A^{|\a|} (\a !) ^{r} \quad\mbox{and}\quad \| \partial^{\b} f \|_{L^\infty} \lesssim B^{|\b|} ( \b!) ^{s},\quad \a,\b\in {{\mathbb{N}}}^d.$$
- There exist constants $h, k>0,$ such that $$\|f e^{h |x|^{1/r}}\|_{L^\infty} < \infty \quad\mbox{and}\quad \| \hat f e^{k |\o|^{1/s}}\|_{L^\infty} < \infty.$$
The dual spaces of $S^s_r(\rd)$ are called spaces of tempered ultra-distributions and denoted by $(S^s_r)'(\rd)$. Notice that they contain the space of tempered distribution $\cS'(\rd)$.
Finally a kernel theorem holds as usual ([@nuova; @mitjagin; @treves]).
\[kernelT\] There exists an isomorphism between the space of linear continuous maps $T$ from $S^s_r(\rd)$ to $(S^s_r)'(\rd)$ and $(S^s_r)'(\rdd)$, which associates to every $T$ a kernel $K_T\in (S^s_r)'(\rdd)$ such that $$\la Tu,v\ra=\la K_T, v\otimes \bar{u}\ra,\quad \forall u,v \in S^s_r(\rd).$$ $K_T$ is called the kernel of $T$.
Time-frequency representations.
-------------------------------
We recall the basic definition and tools from [time-frequency analysis]{} and refer the reader to [@grochenig] for a complete presentation.
Consider a distribution $f\in\cS '(\rd)$ and a Schwartz function $g\in\cS(\rd)\setminus\{0\}$, which will be called [*window*]{}. The short-time Fourier transform (STFT) of $f$ with respect to $g$ is $V_gf (z) = \langle f, \pi (z)g\rangle
$, $z=(x,\xi)\in\rd\times\rd$. The [short-time Fourier transform]{} is well-defined whenever the bracket $\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle$ makes sense for dual pairs of function or (ultra-)distribution spaces, in particular for $f\in
\cS ' (\rd )$ and $g\in \cS (\rd )$, $f,g\in\lrd$, or $f\in
(S^s_r) ' (\rd )$ and $g\in S^s_r (\rd )$.
The discrete counterpart of the above time-frequency representation is given by the so-called [*Gabor frames*]{}. Namely, let $\Lambda=A\zdd$ with $A\in GL(2d,\R)$ (the group of real $2d\times 2d$ invertible matrices) be a lattice of the time-frequency plane. As anticipated in the Introduction, the set of time-frequency shifts $\G(g,\Lambda)=\{\pi(\lambda)g:\
\lambda\in\Lambda\}$ for a non-zero $g\in L^2(\rd)$ is called a Gabor system, whereas it is called [*Gabor frame*]{} if holds. In that case, then there exists a dual window $\gamma\in L^2(\rd)$, such that $\cG(\gamma,\Lambda)$ is a frame, and every $f\in L^2(\rd)$ possesses the frame expansions $$f=\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda}\langle f,\pi(\lambda)g\rangle\pi(\lambda)\gamma=\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda}\langle f,\pi(\lambda)\gamma\rangle \pi(\lambda)g$$ with unconditional convergence in $L^2(\rd)$.
We finally pass to the characterization of some function spaces in terms of STFT decay. We have first of all the following basic result (cf. [@elena07; @medit; @GZ; @T2]): if $g\in S^s_s(\rd$), $s\geq1/2$, then $$\label{zimmermann2}
f\in S^s_s(\rd)\Longleftrightarrow |V_g(f)(z)|\lesssim \exp\big({-\epsilon |z|^{1/s}}\big)\ \mbox{for some} \,\,\epsilon>0.$$ When no decay is required on $f$ we still have a characterization in the following form ([@CNRgabor Theorem 3.1]).
\[teo1\] Consider $s>0$, $r>0$, $g\in S^s_r(\rd)\setminus\{0\}$. The following properties are equivalent:\
(i) There exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\label{smoothf}
|\partial^\a f(x)|\lesssim C^{|\a|}(\a!)^s,\quad x\in\rd,\,\a\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^d.$$ (ii) There exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\label{STFTf}
|\o^\a V_gf\phas|\lesssim C^{|\a|}(\a!)^s,\quad \phas\in\rdd,\,\a\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^d.$$ (iii) There exists a constant $\eps>0$ such that $$\label{STFTeps}
|V_gf\phas|\lesssim\exp\big({-\eps|\o|^{1/s}}\big),\quad \phas\in\rdd.$$
If the equivalent conditions , , are satisfied, we will say that $f$ is a Gevrey function when $s>1$, analytic if $s=1$ and ultra-analytic when $s<1$.
Almost diagonalization of pseudodifferential operators {#section4}
======================================================
Now we report on some results about the almost diagonalization of pseudodifferential operators having Gevrey, analytic ([@GR]) and ultra-analytic ([@CNRgabor]) symbols $\sigma(x,\xi)$. We adopt the so-called Weyl quantization, i.e. $$\sigma^w f=\sigma^w(x,D) f=\int_{\rdd} e^{2\pi i(x-y)\xi} \sigma\Big(\frac{x+y}{2},\xi\Big) f(y) \, dy\, d\xi.$$ We want to prove off-diagonal decay estimates for the Gabor matrix $\la\sigma^w \pi(z)g,\pi(w) g\ra$, $z,w\in\rdd$. The decay rate will be related to the regularity of the symbol $\sigma$. The key point is the following explicit formula linking the Gabor matrix with the short-time Fourier transform of its symbol (cf. [@charly06 Lemma 3.1] and [@CNRgabor]).
\[lemma41\] Consider $s\geq1/2$, $g\in S^s_s(\rd)$. Then, for $\sigma\in (S^s_s)'(\rdd)$, $$\label{311}
|\la\sigma^w \pi(z)g,\pi(w) g\ra|=|V_\Phi\sigma(u,v)|,\quad z,w\in\rdd,$$ where $u=\frac{z+w}2$ and $v=j(w-z)$, and $$\label{312}
|V_\Phi \sigma(u,v)|=\left|\la\sigma^w \pi\left(u-\frac12 j^{-1}(v)\right)g,\pi\left(u+\frac12 j^{-1}(v)\right) g\ra\right|,$$ where $j(z_1,z_2)=(z_2,-z_1)$, $z_1,z_2\in\rdd$, for some $\Phi\in S^s_s(\rdd)$.
It follows from this result and the equivalence $\Leftrightarrow$ above, that the following decay estimates for the Gabor matrix of $\sigma^w$ hold ([@CNRgabor]). Notice that we have in fact a characterization.
\[CGelfandPseudo\] Let $s\geq1/2$, and $g\in S^s_s(\rd)\setminus\{0\}$. Then the following properties are equivalent for $\sigma\in\cC^\infty(\rdd)$:
[ (i)]{} The symbol $\sigma$ satisfies $$\label{simbsmooth} |\partial^\a \sigma(z)|\lesssim C^{|\a|}(\a!)^{s}, \quad \forall\, z\in\rdd,\,\forall \a\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^{2d}.$$ [(ii)]{} There exists $\eps>0$ such that $$\label{unobis2s} |\langle \sigma^w \pi(z)
g,\pi(w)g\rangle|\lesssim \exp\big({-\eps|w-z|^{1/s}}\big),\qquad \forall\,
z,w\in\rdd.$$
A similar characterization in the descrete setting, i.e. for Gabor frames, is slightly subtler. Indeed, we use a recent result due to Gr[ö]{}chenig and Lyubarskii in [@GL09]. There sufficient conditions on the lattice $\Lambda=A {{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$, $A\in GL(2,\R)$, are given in order for $g=\sum_{k=0}^n c_k H_k$, with $H_k$ Hermite functions, to form a so-called Gabor (super)frame $\G(g,\Lambda)$, i.e. a frame where a dual window $\gamma$ exists, belonging to the space $S^{1/2} _{1/2} (\R)$ (cf. [@GL09 Lemma 4.4]). This theory transfers to the $d$-dimensional case by taking a tensor product $g=g_1\otimes\cdots\otimes g_d\in S^{1/2} _{1/2} (\rd)$ of windows as above, which defines a Gabor frame on the lattice $\Lambda_1\times\cdots\times\Lambda_d$ and possesses a dual window $\gamma=\gamma_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \gamma_d$ which still belongs to $S^{1/2} _{1/2} (\rd)$.
\[equivdiscr-cont\] Let $\G(g,\Lambda)$ be a Gabor super-frame for $\lrd$. Consider a function $\sigma\in\cC^\infty(\rdd)$. Then the following properties are equivalent:
[(i)]{} There exists $\eps>0$ such that the estimate holds.
[(ii)]{} There exists $\eps>0$ such that $$\label{unobis2discr} |\langle \sigma^w \pi(\mu)
g,\pi(\lambda)g\rangle|\lesssim \exp\big({-\eps|\lambda-\mu|^{1/s}}\big),\qquad \forall\,
\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda.$$
The above characterizations have several applications ([@CNRgabor]). Here we just consider the so-called sparsity property and the continuity of pseudodifferential operators on Gelfand-Shilov spaces.
Under the assumptions of Theorem \[equivdiscr-cont\], let the Gabor matrix $\langle \sigma^w \pi(\mu)
g,\pi(\lambda)g\rangle$ satisfy . Then it is sparse in the following sense. Let $a$ be any column or row of the matrix, and let $|a|_n$ be the $n$-largest entry of the sequence $a$. Then, $|a|_n$ satisfies $$|a|_n\leq C \displaystyle \exp\big({-\epsilon n^{1/(2ds)}}\big),\quad n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$$ for some constants $C>0,\epsilon>0$.
The main novelty with respect to the existing literature (cf. [@candes; @guo-labate]) is the exponential as opposed to super-polynomial decay.
\[gsooo\] Let $s\geq 1/2$ and consider a symbol $\sigma\in \cC^\infty(\rdd)$ that satisfies . Then the Weyl operator $\sigma^w$ is bounded on $S^s_s(\rd)$.
Similarly one obtains boundedness on modulation spaces ([@F1; @grochenig]) with weights having exponential growth; see [@CNRgabor].
Applications to evolution equations
===================================
Consider an operator of the form $$\label{operin}
P(\partial_t,D_x)=\partial_t^m +\sum_{k=1}^{m}a_k(D_x)\partial_t^{m-k},\quad t\in\R,\ x\in\R^d,$$ where $a_{k}(\xi)$, $1\leq k\leq m$, are polynomials. They may be non-homogeneous, and their degree may be arbitrary (as usual, $D_{x_j}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\partial_{x_j}$, $j=1,\ldots,d$).
We deal with the forward Cauchy problem $$\begin{cases}
P(\partial_t,D_x)u=0,\quad (t,x)\in\R_+\times\rd\\
\partial_t^k u(0,x)=u_k(x),\quad 0\leq k\leq m-1,
\end{cases}$$ where $u_k\in\cS(\rd)$, $0\leq k\leq m-1$. A sufficient and necessary condition for the above Cauchy problem with Schwartz data to be well posed is given by the [*forward Hadamard-Petrowsky condition*]{} ([@rauch Section 3.10]):
[*There exists a constant $C>0$ such that*]{} $$\label{hp}
(\tau,\xi)\in\mathbb{C}\times\rd,\quad P(i\tau,\xi)=0 \Longrightarrow {\rm Im}\, \tau\geq -C.$$ In fact one can see ([@schwartz pp. 126-127]) that the solution is then given by $$u(t,x)=\sum_{k=0}^{m-1} \partial_t^k E(t,\cdot)\ast \Big(u_{m-1-k}+\sum_{j=1}^{m-k-1} a_j(D_x) u_{m-k-1-j}\Big).$$ with $E(t,x)=\Fur^{-1}_{\xi\to x} \sigma(t,\xi)$, where $\sigma(t,\xi)$ is the unique solution to $$\Big(\partial^m_t+\sum_{k=1}^m a_k(\xi) \partial_t^{m-k}\Big)\sigma(t,\xi)=\delta(t)$$ supported in $[0,+\infty)\times\rd$. The distribution $E(t,x)$ is called the [*fundamental solution*]{} of $P$ supported in $[0,+\infty)\times\rd$.
We are therefore reduced to study the corresponding Fourier multiplier $$\label{hpm0}
\sigma^w(t,D_x)=\sigma(t,D_x) f =\Fur^{-1} \sigma(t,\cdot)\Fur f=E(t,\cdot)\ast f.$$ (For Fourier multipliers the Weyl and Kohn-Nirenberg quantizations give the same operator).
For example, for $t\geq0$, we have $\sigma(t,\xi)=\frac{\sin(2\pi|\xi|t)}{2\pi|\xi|}$ for the wave operator $\partial^2_t-\Delta$; $\sigma(t,\xi)=\frac{\sin(t\sqrt{4\pi^2|\xi|^2+m^2})}{\sqrt{4\pi^2|\xi|^2+m^2}}$ for the Klein-Gordon operator $\partial^2_t-\Delta+m^2$ ($m>0$); $\sigma(t,\xi)=e^{-4\pi^2|\xi|^2 t}$ for the heat operator $\partial_t-\Delta$. In all cases, $\sigma(t,\xi)=0$ for $t<0$.
We want to apply Theorem \[CGelfandPseudo\] to the symbol $\sigma(t,x,\xi)=\sigma(t,\xi)$ of the multiplier $\sigma(t,D_x)$. To this end we present a suitable refinement of the Hadamard-Petrowsky condition.
$$\label{hpm}
(\tau,\zeta)\in\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}^d,\quad P(i\tau,\zeta)=0 \Longrightarrow {\rm Im}\, \tau\geq -C(1+|{\rm Im}\,\zeta|)^\nu.$$ We then have the following result ([@CNRgabor]).
\[E4\] Assume $P$ satisfies for some $C>0$, $\nu\geq1$. Then the symbol $\sigma(t,\xi)$ of the corresponding propagator $\sigma(t,D_x)$ in satisfies the following estimates: $$\label{E3}
|\partial^\alpha_{\xi} \sigma(t,\xi)|\leq C^{(t+1)|\alpha|+t} (\alpha!)^s,\quad \xi\in\rd,\ t\geq0,\quad \alpha\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^d,$$ with $s=1-1/\nu$, for a new constant $C>0$.
Observe that the hypothesis $\nu\geq 1$ in the above theorem implies $0\leq s<1$.
As a consequence of Theorem \[E4\] and Theorem \[CGelfandPseudo\] we therefore obtain our main result.
\[teo5.2\] Assume $P$ satisfies for some $C>0$, $\nu\geq1$, and set $r=\min\{2,\nu/(\nu-1)\}$. If $g\in S^{1/r}_{1/r}(\rd)$ then $\sigma(t,D_x)$ in satisfies $$\label{hpm3} |\langle \sigma(t,D_x) \pi(z)
g,\pi(w)g\rangle|\leq C \exp\big({-\eps |w-z|^{r}}\big),\qquad \forall\,
z,w\in\rdd,$$ for some $\epsilon>0$ and for a new constant $C>0$. The inequality holds for $t$ belonging to an arbitrary bounded subset of $[0, +\infty
)$ with $\epsilon$ and $C$ fixed.
Again we observe that $r>1$ in , so that we always obtain [*super-exponential decay*]{}.
We now detail some special cases of great interest, providing some numerical experiments.
Hyperbolic operators
--------------------
We recall that the operator $P(\partial_t,D_x)$ is called hyperbolic with respect to $t$ if the higher order homogeneous part in the symbol does not vanish at $(1,0,\ldots,0)\in\R\times\rd$, and $P$ satisfies the forward Hadamard-Petrowsky condition . This implies that the operators $a_k(D_x)$ in must have degree $\leq k$ and $P$ has order $m$. For example, the wave and Klein-Gordon operators are hyperbolic operators. However, $P$ is [*not*]{} required to be strictly hyperbolic, namely the roots of the principal symbol are allowed to coincide.
Now, if $P(\partial_t,D_x)$ is any hyperbolic operator, we always obtain Gaussian decay in the above theorem ($r=2$ in ), at least for windows $g\in S^{1/2}_{1/2}(\rd)$. In fact, we have the following result ([@CNRgabor]).
\[pro5.4\] Assume $P(\partial_t,D_x)$ is hyperbolic with respect to $t$. Then the condition is satisfied with $\nu=1$ for some $C>0$, and hence $$|\langle \sigma(t,D_x) \pi(z)
g,\pi(w)g\rangle|\leq C \exp\big({-\eps |w-z|^{2}}\big),\qquad \forall\,
z,w\in\rdd,$$ if $g\in S^{1/2}_{1/2}(\rd)$, for some $\epsilon>0$ and for a new constant $C>0$.
Wave equation
-------------
Consider the wave operator $P=\partial^2_t-\Delta$ in $\R\times\R^d$, therefore $\sigma(t,\xi)=\frac{\sin(2\pi|\xi|t)}{2\pi|\xi|}$. The above Proposition \[pro5.4\] applies, but we can also estimate the matrix decay directly, with the involved constants made explicit, by using the explicit expression of the fundamental solution. We state the result, for simplicity, in dimension $d\leq 3$. We take $g(x)=2^{d/4}e^{-\pi|x|^2}$ as window function, which belongs to $S^{1/2}_{1/2}(\rd)$, and moreover $\|g\|_{L^2}=1$ (Gaussian functions minimize the Heisenberg uncertainty so that they are, generally speaking, a natural choice for wave-packet decompositions). An explicit computation ([@CNRgabor]) gives the estimate $$|\langle \sigma(t,D_x) M_{\xi} T_{x} g, M_{\xi'} T_{x'} g\rangle|\leq t e^{-\frac{\pi}{2}[|\xi'-\xi|^2+(|x'-x|-t)_+^2]},\quad x,x',\xi,\xi'\in\rd,\quad d\leq3,$$ where $(\cdot)_+$ denote positive part.
Consider now the Gabor frame $\mathcal{G}(g,\Lambda)$, with $g(x)=2^{d/4}e^{-\pi|x|^2}$, $\Lambda={{\mathbb{Z}}}^d\times (1/2)\mathbb{Z}^d$ ([@grochenig Theorem 7.5.3]), and the corresponding Gabor matrix $$T_{m',n',m,n}=\langle \sigma(t,D_x) M_{n} T_m g, M_{n'} T_{m'} g \rangle,\quad (m,n),\ (m',n')\in\Lambda.$$ We therefore have $$|T_{m',n',m,n}|\leq \tilde{T}_{m',n',m,n}:= t e^{-\frac{\pi}{2}[|n'-n|^2+(|m'-m|-t)_+^2]},\quad (m,n),\ (m',n')\in\Lambda,\quad d\leq3.$$ Figure \[figura15\] shows the magnitude of the entries, rearranged in decreasing order, of a generic column, e.g. $\tilde{T}_{m',n',0,0}$ (obtained for $m=n=0$), at time $t=0.75$, in dimension $d=2$. In fact, the same figure applies to all columns, for $\tilde{T}_{m',n',m,n}=\tilde{T}_{m'-m,n'-n,0,0}$. This figure should be compared with [@cddy Figure 15], where a similar investigation was carried out for the curvelet matrix of the wave propagator on the unit square ($d=2$) with periodic boundary conditions. It turns out that the Gabor decay is even better, in spite of the fact that we consider here the wave operator in the whole $\R^2$.
![Decay of a generic column of the Gabor matrix for $\frac{\sin(2\pi|D| t)}{2\pi|D|}$ in dimension $d=2$ and at time $t=0.75$, with window $g(x)=\sqrt{2}e^{-\pi|x|^2}$ and lattice ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^2\times(1/2){{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$.[]{data-label="figura15"}](figura15bis.pdf){width="8cm"}
Parabolic type equations
------------------------
Consider the operator $$\label{exa14}
P(\partial_t,D_x)=\partial_t+(-\Delta)^k,$$ with $k\geq 1$ integer. In particular we get the heat operator for $k=1$. Its symbol is the polynomial $$P(i\tau,\zeta)=i\tau+(4\pi^2 \zeta^2)^k.$$ An explicit computation shows that it satisfies with $\nu=2k$. As a consequence, Theorem \[teo5.2\] applies to $P$ with $\nu=2k$ and $r=2k/(2k-1)$.
In particular, the heat propagator $\sigma(t,D_x)= e^{-4\pi^2t|D|^2}$ satisfies the estimate $$|\langle e^{-4\pi^2t|D|^2} \pi(z)
g,\pi(w)g\rangle|\leq C e^{-\eps |w-z|^{2}},\qquad \forall\,
z,w\in\rdd,$$ for some $\epsilon>0$, $C>0$, if $g\in S^{1/2}_{1/2}(\rd)$. Namely, the same decay as in the case of hyperbolic equations occurs.
In the following figures we summarize some numerical information about its Gabor discretization. Namely, Figure \[coeff-heat\] shows the decay of a column of the Gabor matrix for the heat propagator, i.e. $$T_{m',n',0,0}=\langle e^{-4\pi^2t|D|^2} g,M_{n'}T_{m'}g \rangle$$ for a Gaussian window, at different time instants $t$ and in dimension $d=2$. For $t=0$ we get the identity operator, and therefore its matrix decay is the optimal one, compatibly with the uncertainty principle. As one see from the other figures the decay remains extremely good as time evolves. Also, for $t=0.75$ the decay matches that of the wave equation displayed in Figure \[figura15\], in spite of the fact that we no longer have here finite speed of propagation.
![Decay of the column corresponding to $m=n=0$, of the Gabor matrix for the heat propagator $e^{-4\pi^2 t |D|^2}$ in dimension $d=2$ at different time instants, with window $g(x)=\sqrt{2}e^{-\pi|x|^2}$ and lattice ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^2\times(1/2){{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$.[]{data-label="coeff-heat"}](coeff-heat){width="15cm"}
[10]{}
A. Bényi and K.A. Okoudjou. Local well-posedness of nonlinear dispersive equations on modulation spaces. [*Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.*]{}, 41(3): 549–558, 2009. A. Bényi, K. Gröchenig. K.A. Okoudjou and L.G. Rogers. Unimodular Fourier multipliers for modulation spaces. [*J. Funct. Anal.,*]{} 246(2):366–384, 2007. E. J. Candès and L. Demanet. The curvelet representation of wave propagators is optimally sparse. [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{}, 58:1472–1528, 2004.
E. J. Candès, L. Demanet, D. L. Donoho and L. Ying. Fast discrete curvelet transforms. [*Multiscale Model. Simul.*]{}, 5:861–899, 2005.
E. Cordero. Gelfand-Shilov Window Classes for Weighted Modulation Spaces. *Int. Tran. Spec. Funct.*, 18(11):809–817, 2007.
E. Cordero, H. Feichtinger and F. Luef. Banach Gelfand Triples for Gabor Analysis, in [*Pseudo-differential operators*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math., Springer Berlin, 1949:1–33, 2008. E. Cordero and K. Gr[ö]{}chenig and F. Nicola. Approximation of Fourier integral operators by Gabor multipliers. [*J. Fourier Anal. Appl.*]{},18(4):661–684, 2012.
E. Cordero, K. Gröchenig, F. Nicola and L. Rodino. Wiener algebras of Fourier integral operators. [*J. Math. Pures Appl.*]{}, 99(9):219–233, 2013.
E. Cordero and F. Nicola. Remarks on Fourier multipliers and applications to the wave equation. [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.,*]{} 353(2):583–591, 2009.
E. Cordero and F. Nicola. Boundedness of Schrödinger type propagators on modulation spaces. [*J. Fourier Anal. Appl.*]{}, 16(3):311–339, 2010.
E. Cordero, F. Nicola and L. Rodino. Sparsity of Gabor representation of Schrödinger propagators. , 26(3):357–370, 2009.
E. Cordero, F. Nicola and L. Rodino. Boundedness of Fourier integral operators in $\mathcal{F}L^p$ spaces. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, 361(11):6049–6071, 2009.
E. Cordero, F. Nicola and L. Rodino. Time-frequency analysis of Fourier integral operators. [*Commun. Pure Appl. Anal*]{}., 9(1):1–21, 2010.
E. Cordero, F. Nicola and L. Rodino. On the global boundedness of Fourier integral operators, [*Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry*]{}, 38(4):373-398, 2010.
E. Cordero, F. Nicola and L. Rodino. Gabor representations of evolution operators. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc*]{}., to appear. ArXiv:1209.0945.
E. Cordero, F. Nicola and L. Rodino. Exponentially sparse representations of Fourier integral operators. [*Rev. Math. Iberoamer*]{}., to appear. ArXiv:1301.1599.
E. Cordero, F. Nicola and L. Rodino. Wave packet analysis of Schrödinger equations in analytic function spaces. ArXiv:1310.5904.
E. Cordero, S. Pilipović, L. Rodino and N. Teofanov. Localization operators and exponential weights for [modulation space]{}s. , 2(4):381–394, 2005.
E. Cordero and D. Zucco. The Cauchy Problem for the Vibrating Plate Equation in Modulation Spaces. [*J. Pseudo-Differ. Op. and Appl.,*]{} 2:343–354, 2011.
I. Daubechies. The wavelet transform, time-frequency localization and signal analysis. [*IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory,*]{} 36(5):961–1005, 1990.
H. G. Feichtinger, Modulation spaces on locally compact abelian groups, and also in , M. Krishna, R. Radha, S. Thangavelu, editors, Allied Publishers, 99–140, 2003.
I. M. Gelfand, G. E. Shilov. *Generalized Functions II, III*. Academic Press, 1967.
K. Gr[ö]{}chenig. [*Foundations of time-frequency analysis*]{}. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2001.
K. Gr[ö]{}chenig. Time-Frequency Analysis of Sj[ö]{}strand’s Class. [*Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana*]{}, 22(2):703–724, 2006.
K. Gr[ö]{}chenig and Y. Lyubarskii. Gabor (super)frames with Hermite functions. [*Math. Ann.*]{}, 345:267–286, 2009.
K. Gr[ö]{}chenig and Z. Rzeszotnik. Banach algebras of pseudodifferential operators and their almost diagonalization. [*Ann. Inst. Fourier*]{}, 58(7):2279-2314, 2008. K. Gröchenig and G. Zimmermann. Spaces of test functions via the STFT. [*Journal of Function Spaces and Applications*]{}, 2(1): 25–53, 2004.
K. Guo and D. Labate. . , 14:7–19, 2007. L. Hörmander. [*The analysis of linear partial differential operators*]{}, Vol 1,Vol. 2, Vol. 4, Springer, 1983, 1985. A. J. E. M. Janssen. Duality and biorthogonality for Weyl-Heisenberg frames. [*J. Fourier Anal. Appl.,*]{} 1(4):403–436, 1995.
. [Representation of Schrödinger operator of a free particle via short time Fourier transform and its applications.]{} [*Tohoku Math. J.*]{}, 64:223–231, 2012.
. [Remark on wave front sets of solutions to Schrödinger equation of a free particle and a harmonic oscillator.]{} [*SUT J.Math.*]{}, 47:175-183, 2011.
. [Remarks on Wiener Amalgam space type estimates for Schrödinger equation]{}. 41–48, RIMS Kôkyûroku Bessatsu, B33, Res. Inst. Math. Sci. (RIMS), Kyoto, 2012.
. [Kernel theorems for the spaces of tempered ultradistributions]{}. [*Integral Transforms Spec. Funct.*]{}, 18:699–713, 2007.
B. S. Mitjagin. Nuclearity and other properties of spaces of type $S$. , 93(2):45–59, 1970.
. [ Estimates for unimodular Fourier multipliers on modulation spaces]{}, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, 137:3869–3883, 2009.
F. Nicola. Phase space analysis of semilinear parabolic equations. [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{}, 267:727–743, 2014.
F. Nicola and L. Rodino. [*Global Pseudo-Differential Calculus on Euclidean Spaces*]{}. Pseudo-Differential Operators. Theory and Applications, 4, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2010.
J. Qian and L. Ying. Fast Multiscale Gaussian Wavepacket Transforms and Multiscale Gaussian Beams for the Wave Equation. [*Multiscale Model. Simul.*]{}, 8(5): 1803-–1837, 2010.
J. Qian and L. Ying. Fast Gaussian wavepacket transforms and Gaussian beams for the Schrödinger equation. [*J. Computational Physics*]{}, 229:7848–7873, 2010.
J. Rauch, [*Partial differential equations*]{}, Springer, 1991. R. Rochberg and K. Tachizawa. Pseudodifferential operators, Gabor frames, and local trigonometric bases. In [*Gabor analysis and algorithms*]{}, pages 171–192. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1998. M. Ruzhansky, M. Sugimoto, B. Wang. Modulation spaces and nonlinear evolution equations. In [ *Evolution Equations of Hyperbolic and Schrödinger Type*]{}, 267-283, Progress in Mathematics, Vol. 301, Birkhäuser, 2012. L. Schwartz, [*Mathematics for the physical sciences*]{}, Dover, 2008.
H. F. Smith. A parametrix construction for wave equations with $C^{1,1}$ coefficients. , 48(3):797–835, 1998.
T. Strohmer. Pseudodifferential operators and [B]{}anach algebras in mobile communications. , 20(2):237–249, 2006.
D. Tataru. Phase space transforms and microlocal analysis. in “[*Phase space analysis of partial differential equations*]{}. Vol. II, 505–524, Pubbl. Cent. Ric. Mat. Ennio Giorgi, Scuola Norm. Sup., Pisa, 2004.
N. Teofanov, Ultradistributions and time-frequency analysis, in , P. Boggiatto, L. Rodino, J. Toft, M.W. Wong, editors, Birkhäuser, 164:173–191, 2006.
J. Toft. The Bargmann transform on modulation and Gelfand-Shilov spaces with applications to Toeplitz and pseudo-differential operators. , 3:145–227, 2012.
F. Treves. [*Topological Vector Spaces, Distributions and Kernels.*]{} Academic Press, New York, 1967.
D. F. Walnut. Lattice size estimates for Gabor decompositions. [*Monatsh. Math.,*]{} 115(3):245– 256, 1993.
B. Wang. Sharp global well-posedness for non-elliptic derivative Schrödinger equations with small rough data. arXiv:1012.0370.
B. Wang, Z. Lifeng and G. Boling. Isometric decomposition operators, function spaces $E^\lambda_{
p,q}$ and applications to nonlinear evolution equations. [*J. Funct. Anal.,*]{} 233(1):1–39, 2006. B. Wang and C. Huang. Frequency-uniform decomposition method for the generalized BO, KdV and NLS equations. [*J. Differential Equations,*]{} 239(1):213–250, 2007.
B. Wang and H. Hudzik. The global Cauchy problem for the NLS and NLKG with small rough data. [*J. Differential Equations,*]{} 231:36–73, 2007.
B. Wang, Z. Huo, C. Hao and Z. Guo. [*Harmonic analysis method for nonlinear evolution equations*]{}. I. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2011.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We determine the contribution of nontrivial vacuum (topological) excitations, more specifically vortex–strings of the Abelian Higgs model in $3+1$ dimensions, to the functional partition function. By expressing the original action in terms of dual transformed fields we make explicit in the equivalent action the contribution of the vortex–strings excitations of the model. The effective potential of an appropriately defined local vacuum expectation value of the vortex–string field in the dual transformed action is then evaluated both at zero and finite temperatures and its properties discussed in the context of the finite temperature phase transition.'
author:
- 'Rudnei O. Ramos'
- 'J. F. Medeiros Neto'
- 'Daniel G. Barci'
- 'Cesar A. Linhares'
title: Abelian Higgs Model Effective Potential in the Presence of Vortices
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The study of phase transitions in quantum field theory has a long history, since the first works on the subject [@KL; @dolan; @weinb] (see also the Refs. [@kapusta; @bellac]) and it is still a highly active area of research motivated by several open problems in QCD phase transitions, grand-unified theory phase transitions and many other subject areas including also condensed matter physics problems [@lubensky]. One basic mechanism we are usually interested in these studies is how the variation of an external quantity like temperature, density or external fields may act and change different physical quantities in a given system or the study, for instance, of how symmetries may change under the variation of temperature, like in symmetry breaking phase transitions. One very common and extremely useful tool in the latter problem is the use of effective potentials for appropriate order parameters characterizing the possible phases of the system (at equilibrium), like the vacuum expectation value of a Higgs field in gauge field theories, determined as some constant (in space and time) solution of the effective field equations.
Around the same time of these studies on symmetry breaking/restoring phase transitions on gauge field theories, it was also realized that symmetry breaking in gauge field theories could give rise to nontrivial and nonperturbative stable solutions of the field equations of motion. This is the case, for example, of the magnetic vortex solutions in a $U(1)$ symmetry broken Abelian gauge field theory [@nielsen-olesen] or magnetic monopoles in $O(3)$ or $SU(2)$ symmetry broken non-Abelian gauge field theories [@hooft; @polyakov], which are only a few examples among several other topological-like nontrivial vacuum field solutions that have been exhaustively studied to date (for reviews, see for instance Refs. [@coleman; @rajaraman]). Extra interest on these field solutions is also due to the fact that, since these nonlocal vacuum structures are expected to emerge in most of the grand unified phase transitions in the early universe, they may have important cosmological consequences (for a detailed account see e.g. Ref. [@review]).
In the present paper we consider the case of phase transition in the Abelian Higgs model from the viewpoint in which the phase transition at finite temperatures is driven by a condensation of magnetic vortices. This is not an entirely novelty in the sense that there are a lot of examples in which phase transitions are driven by topological defects in quantum field theory as well as in condensed-matter physics [@kleinertI-II]. In fact, it has long been believed that, close to the critical point, the condensation of inhomogeneous configurations, solutions of the field equations, is able to provide a much better description of the phase transition as compared to mean field methods, e.g., using the sole contribution of constant, homogeneous field configurations in the partition function, as it is the case of the standard derivations of the finite-temperature effective potential in field theories. For instance, topological configurations, like strings in the Abelian Higgs model, have previously been studied in this context of phase transitions by computing the free energy associated to these configurations, e.g., by semiclassically expanding the quantum fields around the vortex-string [*classical*]{} solution [@freeenergy; @copeland]. The problem with this approach of considering the contribution of topological configurations to the effective action in a semiclassical way is the intrinsic difficulty of computing the effective action, which becomes highly nonlocal, so only the first order loop terms can be computed analytically and to go beyond numerical methods have to be employed. An alternative approach to the semiclassical one that also has been used is directly quantizing the topological excitations and representing them as (nonlocal) quantum fields (see for instance the approach of Refs. [@marino] and references therein). But this is also problematic since we are only able to compute lowest-order correlation functions of the quantal topological field and even so, the still nonlocal character of these functions besets a simple derivation. To circumvent these problems, in this paper we adopt an alternative intermediate derivation between the latter two, which make use of the concept of duality [@fisher]. Using this technique it is possible to conveniently rewrite the original action for the Goldstone modes of the broken symmetry, in terms of a dual action describing the topological defect currents and its interactions mediated by a dual [*antisymmetric*]{} tensor field.
We here consider the finite-temperature version of the Abelian Higgs model, which is then treated along a formalism developed long ago by the authors of Refs. [@suga1; @seo-suga; @kawai]. In this formalism, a dual transformation is applied to the Higgs model partition function in order to show the contributions from topological excitations in a more explicit manner. An antisymmetric tensor auxiliary field is introduced and, after functional integration of the original electromagnetic vector field, the action of this dual model assumes the form of a relativistic hydrodynamics in the sense of Kalb–Ramond [@kalbramond] and Nambu [@nambu0; @nambu]. The formalism may be generalized to non-Abelian gauge fields [@okawa]. In more recent years this formalism has been generalized to extended objects in higher dimensions (D-branes) in string theory [@suga2]. Also, in another kind of application, this duality approach has been used in the study of vortices in superfluidity models [@superfluid].
The next step in this mechanism, is to rewrite the sum over all possible distributions of the topological number density which appears in the partition function as a functional integration over some functional fields. This procedure was introduced previously in $U(1)$ lattice gauge theory [@stone] and later used in the Abelian Higgs model by several authors [@bardacki; @kawai]. In this paper we use these techniques to calculate the contribution of the topological defects in the Abelian Higgs model to the one-loop effective potential, which can now be expressed directly in terms of the expectation value of a quantum vortex field. From this effective potential we have calculated the vortex condensation temperature obtaining a result compatible with previous estimations based on the statistical distribution of classical strings [@copeland]. We have also checked that this temperature is different than the usual mean field critical temperature of the model when the inhomogeneous topological field configurations are neglected. This then makes possible to access in an analytical way the importance of these topological configurations during a phase transition.
The remaining of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[model\] we introduce the model. In Sec. \[dual\] we calculate the dual action showing how the topological defects explicitly show up in this formalism. We discuss the issue of gauge invariance and the equivalence between the original and the dual model at the effective potential level. In Sec. \[effpot\] we calculate the contribution of the topological defects to the effective potential and evaluate the condensation temperature. Our final considerations and conclusions are given in Sec. \[conclusions\]. An appendix is included to review and show some of the technical details of the formalism we have used here.
The model {#model}
=========
The model we consider is the Abelian Higgs model with Lagrangian density for a complex scalar field $\phi$ and gauge field $A_\mu$,
$${\cal L} = - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu } F^{\mu \nu }+|D_\mu \phi|^2
-V(\phi)\;,
\label{lagr}$$
where, in the usual notation, ${}F_{\mu \nu } =\partial _\mu A_\nu -\partial _\nu A_\mu$, $D_\mu = \partial _\mu -ieA_\mu$ and $V(\phi)$ is a symmetry breaking potential given by
$$V(\phi) = - m_{\phi }^2\left| \phi \right| ^2+\frac \lambda
{3!}\left( \left| \phi \right| ^2\right) ^2 \;.
\label{pot}$$
The symmetry breaking $U(1) \to 1$ with homotopy group $\pi_1 \neq 1$ indicates the existence of string-like topological excitations in the system (for an extended introduction and review see e.g. Ref. [@review]). For example, for a unit winding string solution along the $z$ axis, the classical field equations of motion obtained from the Lagrangian density (\[lagr\]) admit a stable finite energy configuration describing the string and given by (using the cylindrical coordinates $r,\theta,z$)
$$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{\rm string} &=& \frac{\rho(r)}{\sqrt{2}} e^{i \theta}\;,
\label{phi string}
\\
A_{\mu, {\rm string}} &=& \frac{1}{e} A(r)\; \partial_\mu \theta\;,
\label{A string}\end{aligned}$$
where the functions $\rho(r)$ and $A(r)$ vanish at the origin and have the asymptotic behavior $\phi(r \to \infty) \to \rho_v \equiv \sqrt{6
m_\phi^2/\lambda}$ and $A(r \to \infty) \to 1$. The functions $\rho(r)$ and $A(r)$ are obtained (numerically) by solving the classical field equations. If we write the field $\phi$ as $\phi =\rho \exp (i\chi
)/\sqrt{2}$, then from (\[phi string\]) and (\[A string\]) for the string, at spatial infinity $\rho$ goes to the vacuum $\rho_v$ and $A_\mu$ becomes a pure gauge. This also gives, in order to get a finite energy for the string configuration, that $\partial_\mu \chi = e A_\mu $ at $r\to \infty$, so $D_\mu \phi=0$. This leads then that, by taking some contour $C$ surrounding the symmetry axis, and using Stokes’ theorem, to the nonvanishing magnetic flux
$$\Phi = \oint A_\mu dx^\mu = \oint \partial_\mu \chi dx^\mu = 2\pi/e\;.
\label{flux}$$
Since $\phi$ must be single-valued, the Eq. (\[flux\]) implies that on the string $\chi$ must be singular. Therefore, the phase $\chi$ can be separated into two parts: in a regular part and in a singular one, due to the string configuration. We will use this latter fact in the next section when describing the topological vortex string contributions to the partition function, which are then characterized by multivalued (or singular) phases of the scalar field.
The Dual-transformed action {#dual}
===========================
Let us start by writing the partition function for the Abelian Higgs model (\[lagr\]), which, in Euclidean space-time is given by
$$Z[\beta ]=\int \mathcal{D}A\mathcal{D}\phi \mathcal{D}\phi^*
\exp\left\{ -S\left[ A_\mu ,\phi ,\phi^*\right] - S_{GF} \right\} \;,
\label{ZAphi}$$
where in the above expression $S$ denotes the Euclidean action,
$$S \left[ A_\mu ,\phi ,\phi^*\right] =\int_0^\beta d\tau \int
d^3x\left[ \frac{1}{4} {}F_{\mu \nu }{}F_{\mu \nu }+|D_\mu \phi|^2
+V(\phi)\right] \;,
\label{actini}$$
where $\beta=1/T$ is the inverse of the temperature and $S_{GF}$ in (\[ZAphi\]) is some appropriate gauge-fixing and ghost term that must be added to the action to perform the functional integral over the relevant degrees of freedom. We will come back later to this term and explicitly fix it within the formalism described below. Note also that the functional integral in Eq. (\[ZAphi\]) is to be performed over the bosonic scalar and gauge fields satisfying the usual periodic boundary conditions in imaginary time with period $\beta =1/T$ [@kapusta; @bellac].
By writing the complex Higgs field $\phi$ in the polar parameterization form $\phi =\rho e^{i\chi }/\sqrt{2}$, the functional integration measure in Eq. (\[ZAphi\]) is changed to
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}\phi \mathcal{D}\phi^*\to \mathcal{D}\rho \mathcal{D}
\chi \left( \prod_x\rho \right) \;,\end{aligned}$$
and the quantum partition function becomes
$$Z=\int \mathcal{D}A_\mu \mathcal{D}\rho \mathcal{D}\chi \left( \prod_x\rho
\right) \exp \left\{ -S\left[ A_\mu ,\rho ,\chi \right] -S_{GF}\right\} \;,
\label{ZArhochi}$$
with
$$S\left[ A_\mu ,\rho ,\chi \right] =\int d\tau d^3x\left[ \frac 14F_{\mu \nu
}F_{\mu \nu }+\frac 12\left( \partial _\mu \rho \right) ^2+\frac 12\rho
^2\left( \partial _\mu \chi +eA_\mu \right) ^2-\frac{m_\phi ^2}2\rho
^2+\frac \lambda {4!}\rho ^4\right] \;.
\label{SArhochi}$$
In order to make explicit the contribution of the nontrivial topological field configuration in the partition function (\[ZArhochi\]), it is more convenient to work with the dual version of Eq. (\[SArhochi\]). To achieve this equivalent dual action we start by splitting the scalar phase field $\chi $ in its regular and singular terms, $\chi =\chi _{\mathrm{reg}}+\chi _{\mathrm{sing}}$. Lets for now, for convenience, omit the gauge fixing term $S_{GF}$ in Eq. (\[ZArhochi\]) and re-introduce it again in the final transformed action. Following e.g. the procedure of Refs. [@klee; @orland; @chernodub; @antonov1; @kleinert], the functional integral over $\chi $ in Eq. (\[ZArhochi\]) can then be rewritten as
$$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int \mathcal{D}\chi \,\exp \left[ -\int d^4x\frac 12\rho ^2\left(
\partial _\mu \chi +eA_\mu \right) ^2\right] } \nonumber \\
&=&\int \mathcal{D}\chi _{\mathrm{sing}}\,\mathcal{D}\chi _{\mathrm{reg}}
\mathcal{D}C_\mu \left( \prod_x\rho ^{-4}\right) \,\exp \left\{ -\int
d^4x\left[ \frac 1{2\rho ^2}C_\mu ^2-iC_\mu \left( \partial _\mu
\chi _{\mathrm{reg}}\right) -iC_\mu \left( \partial _\mu \chi _{\mathrm{sing}
}+eA_\mu \right) \right] \right\} \nonumber \\
&=&\int \mathcal{D}\chi _{\mathrm{sing}}\left( \prod_x\rho ^{-4}\right)
\mathcal{D}W_{\mu \nu }\,\exp \left\{ -\int d^4x\left[ \frac{\kappa ^2}{
2\rho ^2}V_\mu ^2+e\kappa A_\mu V_\mu +i\pi \kappa W_{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu
\nu }\right] \right\} \;,
\label{dual2}\end{aligned}$$
where we have performed the functional integral over $\chi _{\mathrm{reg}}$ in the second line of Eq. (\[dual2\]). This gives a constraint on the functional integral measure, $\delta (\partial _\mu C_\mu )$, which can be represented in a unique way by expressing the $C_\mu $ in terms of an antisymmetric field, $C_\mu = -i\frac \kappa 2\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho
}\partial _\nu W_{\lambda \rho }\equiv \kappa V_\mu $, which then leads to the last expression in Eq. (\[dual2\]). $\kappa $ is some arbitrary parameter with mass dimension and $\omega _{\mu \nu
}$ is the vorticity given only in terms of the singular phase part of $\chi$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\omega _{\mu \nu }\equiv \frac 1{4\pi }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho
}\left( \partial _\mu \partial _\nu -\partial _\nu \partial _\mu \right)
\chi (x)\;.
\label{omega-munu}\end{aligned}$$
Next, in order to linearize the dependence on the gauge field in the action we introduce a new antisymmetric tensor field $G_{\mu \nu }$ through the identity
$$\exp \left( -\frac 14\int d^4x {}F_{\mu \nu }^2\right) =\int \mathcal{D}G_{\mu
\nu }\,\exp \left[ \int d^4x\left( -\frac{\mu _W^2}4G_{\mu \nu }^2-\frac{\mu
_W}2\,\tilde{G}_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right) \right] \;,
\label{dual3}$$
with $$\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu} \equiv
\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}G_{\lambda\rho}\;.$$
Substituting Eqs. (\[dual2\]) and (\[dual3\]) back into Eq. (\[ZArhochi\]), we can immediately perform the functional integral over the $A_\mu $ field. Taking also for convenience $e\kappa =\mu _W$, we then obtain for Eq. (\[ZArhochi\]) the result
$$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{Z= \int \mathcal{D}W_{\mu \nu }\mathcal{D}\chi _{\rm sing}
\mathcal{D}G_{\mu \nu }\delta \left[ \epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta
}\partial _\mu \left( G_{\alpha \beta }-\frac 12W_{\alpha \beta }\right)
\right] \,\mathcal{D}\rho \,\left( \prod_x\rho ^{-3}\right) } \nonumber \\
&&\times \exp \left\{ -\int d^4x\left[ \frac{\mu _W^2}4G_{\mu \nu }^2+
\frac{\mu _W^2}{2e^2\rho ^2}V_\mu ^2+\frac{1}{2}
\left( \partial_\mu \rho \right)^2-
\frac{m_\phi ^2}{2} \rho ^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\rho^4+
i\pi \frac{\mu _W}{e} W_{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu }\right]
\right\} \,.\end{aligned}$$
The constraint $\epsilon_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\partial_\mu
\left( G_{\alpha \beta }-W_{\alpha \beta }\right) =0$ can be solved by setting
$$G_{\mu \nu }=W_{\mu \nu
}-\frac 1{\mu _W}\left( \partial _\mu B_\nu -\partial _\nu B_\mu \right),$$
where $B_\mu$ is an arbitrary gauge field, thus obtaining for the partition function the expression (and re-introducing the gauge fixing term)
$$Z=\int \mathcal{D}W_{\mu \nu
}\mathcal{D}\chi_{\mathrm{sing}}\,\mathcal{D}B_\mu\,\mathcal{D}
\rho \,\left( \prod_x\rho ^{-3}\right)\;\exp\left\{ -S_{\rm
dual}\left[ W_{\mu \nu },B_\mu, \rho ,\chi_{\rm sing} \right]
-S_{GF}\right\}, \label{ZWBrho}$$
with
$$S_{\rm dual}= \int d^4x\left[ \frac{\mu _W^2}{2e^2\rho ^2}V_\mu
^2+\frac 14\left( \mu _WW_{\mu \nu }-\partial _\mu B_\nu +\partial
_\nu B_\mu \right) ^2+ \frac 12\left( \partial _\mu \rho \right)
^2-\frac{m_\phi ^2}2\rho ^2+\frac \lambda {4!}\rho ^4+i\pi
\frac{\mu _W}eW_{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu }\right] \;.
\label{SWBrho}$$
This dual model is completely equivalent to the original Abelian Higgs model in the polar representation given by Eqs. (\[ZArhochi\]) and (\[SArhochi\]) and so, any calculations done using (\[ZWBrho\]) must lead to the same results as those done with the original action. For example, if we compute the effective potential for a constant scalar field configuration $\rho_c$ from the latter should be the same as the one obtained by the former. This we will check explicitly shortly. The advantage of the dual version is that it explicitly exhibits the dependence on the singular configuration of the Higgs field, making it appropriate to study phase transitions driven by topological defects. However, we need to be careful with gauge invariance, in special in the dual model (\[SWBrho\]), since it has more gauge freedom than the original model. Now we come to the part concerning the gauge fixing term $S_{GF}$ in (\[ZWBrho\]). From Eq. (\[SWBrho\]) we see that the dual action exhibits invariance under the double gauge transformation: the hypergauge transformation
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta W_{\mu \nu }(x) &=&\partial_\mu \xi_\nu (x)-\partial_\nu \xi_\mu
(x)\;, \nonumber \\
\delta B_\mu &=&\mu_W\xi_\mu (x)\;,
\label{gauge1}\end{aligned}$$
and the usual gauge transformation
$$\delta B_\mu =\partial_\mu \theta (x)\;, \label{gauge2}$$
where $\xi_\mu (x)$ and $\theta (x)$ are arbitrary vector and scalar functions, respectively. Choosing $\xi_\mu
=B_\mu $ in the first transformation is equivalent to fix the gauge through the condition $B_\mu =0$ [@orland] and this is equivalent to choose the unitary gauge in Eq. (\[ZWBrho\]).
At this point, it would be interesting to analyze the gauge fixing procedures for this model and to show that the resulting effective potential does not depend on the gauge fixing parameters within our parametrization choice for the complex scalar field. For simplicity, we neglect at this time the last term in the exponential in Eq. (\[SWBrho\]) due to the vorticity. In order to evaluate the effective potential we need to specify the gauge fixing term $S_{GF}$. To fix the gauge for the antisymmetric tensor field, associated to the first gauge transformation in Eq. (\[gauge1\]), we need to introduce a vector ghost field. We here do this in the same way the gauge is fixed and corresponding ghost terms appear in the analogous case of choosing gauge terms for two-form gauge field models [@gaugefix]. As we see below, this vector ghost also exhibits a gauge invariance which, therefore, need to be fixed. This leads to one more ghost field associated to this subsidiary gauge invariance. Next, we also need to fix the second gauge invariance associated to the transformation (\[gauge2\]) and to add its corresponding ghost field. Therefore, three constants are needed to completely fix the gauge freedom [@gaugefix]. This process leads to the following relevant additional terms that define the gauge-fixing term in the partition function,
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{GF}} &=&\int d^4x\left\{ -\frac{1}{2\theta }\left( \partial^\mu
W_{\mu \nu }+\partial _\nu \psi +u\mu _WB_\nu \right) ^2+i\overline{\zeta }
^\nu \left[ \left( \partial ^2+u\mu _W^2\right) \zeta _\nu -\partial _\nu
\partial ^\mu \zeta _\mu +\partial _\nu \vartheta +u\mu _W\partial _\nu
c\right] \right. \nonumber \\
&+&\left. i\zeta ^\nu \left( \partial _\nu \overline{\vartheta }-\mu
_W\partial _\nu \overline{c}\right) +\overline{\sigma }\partial ^2\sigma -i
\overline{c}\partial ^2c+\frac 1{2\xi }\left( \partial _\mu B^\mu \right)
^2\right\} \;, \label{SGF}\end{aligned}$$
where $\psi ,\overline{c},c,\overline{\sigma },\sigma ,\overline{\vartheta },
\vartheta $ are the ghost fields and $\theta ,u$ and $\xi $ are the gauge parameters.
We can easily perform the functional integrals over the ghost fields appearing in Eq. (\[SGF\]). Besides an overall normalization factor independent of the action fields (and the background Higgs field) we get for the quantum partition function
$$\begin{aligned}
Z &=&N\int \mathcal{D}W_{\mu \nu }\,\mathcal{D}\rho \,\mathcal{D}B_\mu \,
\mathcal{D}\overline{\eta }\,\mathcal{D}\eta \,\exp \left\{ -\int d^4x\left[
\frac{{\mu _W}^2}{2e^2\rho ^2}V_\mu ^2+\frac 14\left( \mu _WW_{\mu \nu
}-\partial _\mu B_\nu +\partial _\nu B_\mu \right) ^2\right. \right.
\nonumber \\
&+&\left. \left. \frac 12\left( \partial _\mu \rho \right) ^2-
\frac{m_\phi ^2}2\rho ^2+\frac \lambda {4!}\rho ^4-
\overline{\eta }\rho ^{-3}\eta -\frac
1{2\theta }\left( \partial ^\mu W_{\mu \nu }\right) ^2+\frac u{2\theta }
\mu_W W_{\mu \nu }\left( \partial ^\mu B^\nu -\partial ^\nu B^\mu \right)
+\frac{1}{2\xi }\left( \partial _\mu B^\mu \right) ^2\right] \right\} .
\label{Zgaugefix}\end{aligned}$$
where $\overline{\eta }$, $\eta $ are the ghost fields used to exponentiate the Jacobian $\rho ^{-3}$ in the functional integration measure in Eq. (\[ZWBrho\]).
Let us now compute, for instance, the effective potential for a constant background field $\rho _c$ from (\[Zgaugefix\]). The effective potential for $\rho_c$ is defined as usual, by writing $\rho$ in terms of the constant background field plus the quantum fluctuations around this constant field configuration, $\rho =\rho_c+\rho ^{\prime }$, and performing the functional integration over $\rho^\prime$ and remaining fields. In the usual derivation [@dolan], the effective potential for interacting field theories is evaluated perturbatively as an expansion in loops, which is equivalent to an expansion in powers of $\hbar $ [@col-wein]. The one-loop approximation for $V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\rho _c)$ is then equivalent to incorporating the first quantum corrections to the classical potential $V(\rho _c)$. For a general case of $N$-particle species interacting with the Higgs field, its one-loop effective potential can be written in the generic form (in Minkowski spacetime)
$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{1-loop}}(\rho _c)=V(\rho _c)\mp
\frac{1}{2}i \sum_{j=1}^Ng_j \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}
\ln \left[ k^2-M_j^2(\rho
_c)\right] \;,
\label{Veff}$$
where the negative sign in Eq. (\[Veff\]) stands for boson fields, while the positive one is for fermion (and ghost) fields. $g_j$ labels the number of degrees of freedom for the particle species coupled to the scalar Higgs field and $M_j(\rho
_c)$ their mass spectrum. The momentum integrals in Eq. (\[Veff\]), when working in the Matsubara formalism of finite temperature field theory (see e.g. [@dolan; @kapusta; @bellac]), are expressed as
$$\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4} = i\frac 1\beta \sum_{\omega _n}\int
\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3} \;,$$
and the four-momentum $k_\mu =({\bf k},i \omega _n)$, where $\omega _n=2\pi nT$, $n=0,\pm 1, \ldots$, represent the Matsubara frequencies for bosons, while for fermions we have $\omega _n=(2n+1)\pi T$.
Using Eq. (\[Veff\]) and from Eq. (\[Zgaugefix\]), we obtain quantum correction coming from the $\rho^{\prime },W_{\mu \nu },B_\mu ,
\bar{\eta},\eta $ fields. At the one-loop level, we then obtain the effective potential for the dual Abelian Higgs model,
$$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\rho _c) &=&\frac{m_\phi ^2}2\rho _c^2+\frac \lambda
{4!}\rho _c^4-\frac 12i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln \mathrm{\det }\left[
iD^{-1}(k)\right] _{\rho ^{\prime }}-\frac 12i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln
\mathrm{\det }\left[ iD^{-1}(k)\right] _{B_\mu ,W_{\mu \nu }} \nonumber \\
&-&3i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln \rho _c+(\mathrm{terms\;independent\;of\;%
}\rho _c)\;,
\label{Veffdual}\end{aligned}$$
where $[iD^{-1}(k)]_{\rho ^{\prime }}$ comes from the quadratic term in $\rho ^{\prime }$ of the Lagrangian density, given in momentum space by
$$\left[ iD^{-1}(k)\right]_{\rho ^{\prime }}=
k^2 +m_\phi ^2-\lambda \rho _c^2/2\;,
\label{Drho}$$
while $\left[ iD^{-1}(k)\right] _{B_\mu ,W_{\mu \nu }}$ is the matrix of quadratic terms in the gauge field $B_\mu $ and antisymmetric field $W_{\mu \nu }$,
$$\left[ iD^{-1}(k) \right]_{B_\mu ,W_{\alpha \beta }}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-g^{\mu \nu }k^2+(1-1/\xi )k^\mu k^\nu & -i\left( \mu _W-\frac u\theta
\right) k^\lambda g^{\mu \rho } \\
i\left( \mu _W-\frac u\theta \right) k^\alpha g^{\beta \nu } &
\mu_W^2\left( \frac{k^2}{e^2\rho _c^2}-1\right) G^{\alpha \lambda \beta
\rho }+\left( \frac 1\theta -\frac{\mu _W^2}{e^2\rho _c^2}\right)
K^{\alpha \lambda \beta \rho }
\end{array}
\right) \;.
\label{DBW}$$
where we have used the notation
$$G^{\alpha \lambda \beta \rho }=\frac 14\left( g^{\alpha \lambda }
g^{\beta
\rho }-g^{\alpha \rho }g^{\beta \lambda }\right) \;, \label{G4}$$
and
$$K^{\alpha \lambda \beta \rho }=\frac 12\left( k^\alpha k^\lambda
g^{\beta
\rho }-k^\alpha k^\rho g^{\beta \lambda }\right) \;. \label{K4}$$
The explicit computation of (\[Veffdual\]) is a tedious one, but it can be shown that all gauge dependence factorize from (\[Veffdual\]) as terms independent of the background field and consequently can be dropped out. For the generating function (\[Zgaugefix\]) this has been shown by the authors of the first reference in [@gaugefix]. For the computation of the effective potential this is most easily shown in the case of the original model. As we have emphasized before, the model described by Eq. (\[Zgaugefix\]) is just the dual of the Abelian Higgs model in the covariant gauge in the polar representation for the complex Higgs field. As such, they are physically equivalent and the effective potential for the shifted action in (\[Zgaugefix\]) must lead to the same effective potential as that obtained from the original Abelian Higgs model in the covariant gauge. This is easily seen from Eq. (\[SArhochi\]), where, by taking a covariant gauge fixing term, one has the Lagrangian density
$$\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{4}
{}F_{\mu \nu } {}F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\left( \partial _\mu
\rho \right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\rho^2\left( \partial_\mu \chi -
eA_\mu \right)^2 + \frac{m_\phi^2}{2}\rho^2-\frac{\lambda}{4!}\rho^4
-\frac{1}{2\xi } (\partial_\mu A^\mu )^2+\bar{\eta}\rho \eta +
\bar{c}\partial^2c\;,
\label{Lcov}$$
where $\bar{\eta},\eta $ are the ghost fields for the Jacobian factor in Eq. (\[ZArhochi\]) and $\bar{c},c$ are the ghosts due to the gauge-fixing term. The effective potential for a constant field background $\rho _c$ is defined in the usual way, as said above. We obtain, for instance, the one-loop effective potential,
$$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\rho _c) &=&\frac{m_\phi^2}2\rho _c^2+\frac \lambda
{4!}\rho_c^4-\frac 12i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln \mathrm{\det }\left[
iD^{-1}(k)\right]_{\rho^{\prime }}-\frac{1}{2}i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln
\mathrm{\det }\left[ iD^{-1}(k)\right]_{\chi ,A_\mu } \nonumber \\
&+&i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln \rho_c+ i \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln
k^2\;,
\label{Veffcov}\end{aligned}$$
where the last two terms in (\[Veffcov\]) come from the functional integration over the ghost terms of (\[Lcov\]). $[iD^{-1}(k)]_{\rho^{\prime }}$ is the same as before, given by Eq. (\[Drho\]), while $[iD^{-1}(k)]_{\chi ,A_\mu }$ is the matrix of quadratic terms (in momentum space) for the $\chi $ and $A_\mu $ fields,
$$\left[ iD^{-1}(k) \right]_{\chi ,A_\mu }=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\rho _c^2k^2 & ie\rho _c^2k^\nu \\
-ie\rho _c^2k^\mu & -g^{\mu \nu }(k^2-e^2\rho _c^2)+(1-1/\xi )k^\mu k^\nu
\end{array}
\right) \;.
\label{DchiA}$$
Substituting (\[Drho\]) and (\[DchiA\]) in (\[Veffcov\]), we obtain the result
$$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\rho _c) &=&\frac{m_\phi ^2}2\rho_c^2+\frac \lambda
{4!}\rho_c^4-\frac 12i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln (k^2-M_H^2)-\frac
12i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln \left[ -\frac 1\xi
(k^2-M_A^2)^{3/2}k^4\rho _c^2\right] \nonumber \\
&+&i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln \rho_c+i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\ln
k^2\;,
\label{Veffcov2}\end{aligned}$$
where $M_H^2 = - m_\phi^2 + \lambda \rho_c^2/2$ and $M_A^2 = e^2
\rho_c^2$ are the Higgs and gauge field (squared) masses as usual. From Eq. (\[Veffcov2\]) we readily see that the contributions from the ghost fields, including the divergent contribution due to the Jacobian coming from the radial parametrization for the scalar field $\phi$, cancel with identical terms coming from the gauge and scalar phase field matrix quadratic term, Eq. (\[DchiA\]). These same cancellations happens when working with the analogous expression for the effective potential, Eq. (\[Veffdual\]), in terms of the dual $B_\mu$ and $W_{\mu \nu}$ fields, including again the cancellation of the divergent Jacobian due to an analogous contribution appearing in the $W_{\mu \nu}$ field quadratic term, as seen from the matrix of quadratic terms, Eq. (\[DBW\]). All gauge dependence (on $\xi $) can be separated from (\[Veffcov2\]) as a background independent term that can be dropped out. The emerging result is identical to the effective potential obtained, e.g., in Ref. [@tye].
Once the equivalence of the original and the dual model is checked and the gauge-fixing peculiarities of the dual model can be dealt with conveniently, we can move on to consider the contribution of singular field-configurations with non-trivial vorticity to the effective potential.
The effective potential in the presence of vortex–string vacuum configurations {#effpot}
==============================================================================
Let us now reinstate the contribution due to nontrivial singular structures of the Higgs phase in the calculations of the one-loop effective potential. This is given by the last term in Eq. (\[SWBrho\]), for the coupling of the antisymmetric field $W_{\mu\nu}$ with the vorticity term due to the singular phase of the Higgs field. As we saw, it is associated to the existence of vortex-like solutions for the equations of motion of the action (\[actini\]) [@nielsen-olesen]. These can be associated to string-like topological defect configurations that are either infinite in length or forming finite-size closed loops. By open configurations we mean the existence of magnetic monopoles at the end points [@review] and we will not consider these kind of structures here since we restrict our study only to the Abelian theory. Also, we will only consider here field configurations which generate closed magnetic vortex lines in the three spatial Euclidean dimensions, since these are more suitable to the field theoretical analysis we will adopt in the following and are also expected to be the dominant topology for strings close to the transition point [@review].
The coupling term of the antisymmetric field with the vorticity source $\omega _{\mu \nu }$, defined in Eq. (\[omega-munu\]), is non-vanishing for the singular term $\chi _{\mathrm{sing}}$ of the Higgs field phase and hence this interaction term will contribute to the action, along with the world sheet of the string. In the zero temperature case, the source $\omega_{\mu\nu}$ is associated to the surface element of a (tube-like) world sheet of a closed vortex-string [@klee; @orland; @seo-suga]. Following the Dirac construction [@dirac], it is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\mu \nu }(x)=n\int_Sd\sigma_{\mu \nu }(x)\delta ^4[x-y(\xi )]\;,
\label{vort2}\end{aligned}$$
where $n$ is a topological quantum number, the winding number, which we here restrict to the lowest values, $n=\pm 1$, corresponding to the energetically dominant configurations. The element of area on the world sheet swept by the string is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
d\sigma_{\mu \nu }(x)=\left( \frac{\partial x_\mu }{\partial \xi ^0}
\frac{\partial x_\nu }{\partial \xi^1}-\frac{\partial x_\mu }{\partial \xi^1}
\frac{\partial x_\nu }{\partial \xi^0}\right) d^2\xi
\label{sigma}\end{aligned}$$
and $y_\mu (\xi )$ represents a point on the world sheet $S$ of the vortex-string, with internal coordinates $\xi^0$ and $\xi^1$. As usual, we consider that $\xi^1$ is a periodic variable, since we work with closed strings, whereas $\xi^0$ will be proportional to the time variable (at zero temperature), in such a way that $\xi^1$ parameterizes a closed string at a given instant $\xi^0$. Using (\[vort2\]), the interaction of the string with the antisymmetric field in the action becomes
$$\int d^4x\;i\pi \frac{\mu_W}eW_{\mu \nu }(x)\omega_{\mu \nu }(x)=
\frac{i}{2}\int_S d\sigma^{\mu \nu }(y)\frac{2\pi \mu_W} e W_{\mu \nu }(y).
\label{interaction}$$
To proceed further with the evaluation of the string contribution to the partition function we will now introduce a (nonlocal) field associated to the string. For this we take the standard Marshall–Ramond procedure [@nambu2; @mar-ramond] of quantizing the vortex–strings as nonlocal objects and associate to them a wave function $\Psi [C]$, a functional field, where $C$ is the closed vortex–string curve in Euclidean space-time. In the second-quantized form this means that the quanta associated to the field $\Psi$ are the vortex–strings in the system. In introducing the vortex–string field, we first note that the interaction term Eq. (\[interaction\]) is in the form of a current coupled to the antisymmetric field. Second, the coupling of the field $\Psi [C]$ with $W_{\mu \nu }$ should respect the gauge symmetries of the model, in particular the hypergauge one, Eq. (\[gauge1\]). This is fulfilled by defining the following covariant derivative term, as proposed by Nambu [@nambu2],
$$D_{\sigma ^{\mu \nu }}(x)=\frac \delta {\delta \sigma^{\mu \nu }(x)}-
i\frac{2\pi \mu _W}{e} W_{\mu \nu }(x)\;.
\label{covar}$$
Here $\delta \sigma^{\mu\nu }(x)$ is to be considered as an infinitesimal rectangular deformation of area $\delta A$ of the original curve $A$ at a point $x$ and so the functional derivative of the string field can be defined as the difference between $\Psi [C+\delta \sigma ]$ and the original configuration $\Psi[C]$, divided by the infinitesimal area, taking the limit $\delta A\rightarrow 0$ (see for instance, Refs. [@rey; @kawai; @seothesis]). The hypergauge transformation (\[gauge1\]) is now supplemented by the vortex–string field transformation
$$\Psi [C]\to \exp \left[ -i\frac{2\pi \mu_W}e\oint dx^\mu \xi _\mu
(x)\right] \Psi [C]\;.
\label{Psigauge}$$
This gives sense to Eq. (\[covar\]) as a covariant derivative, since it commutes with the above phase change of $\Psi [C]$.
From the definition of the covariant derivative (\[covar\]) the invariant action for the string under the combined transformations (\[gauge1\]) and (\[Psigauge\]) becomes (see the Appendix for more details)
$$S_{\mathrm{string}}(\Psi [C],W_{\mu \nu })=\oint_Cdx_\nu \left[
|D_{\sigma^{\mu \nu }}\Psi [C]|^2-M_0^2|\Psi [C]|^2\right] \;,
\label{Sstring}$$
whose explicit form and derivation has been given originally by the authors of Refs. [@seo-suga; @kawai] when considering the existence of $N$ connected vortex world surfaces in Euclidean space-time. The mass term for the string field in (\[Sstring\]) is given by Eq. (\[M0square\]) below. It is also possible to write an action over local fields by defining a functional
$$\hat{\psi}_C\equiv 4\left( \frac{2\pi }e\right) ^2\sum_{C_{x,t}}
\frac{1}{a^3l}\left| \Psi [C]\right| ^2,
\label{local psic}$$
where $l$ is the length of a curve $C$, and $C_{x,t}$ represents a curve passing through a point $x$ in a fixed direction $t$; also, the parameter $a$ is to be considered as a small quantity (the lattice spacing in Ref. [@seo-suga]), which we choose to be proportional to $\Lambda^{-1}$. The vacuum expectation value of $\hat{\psi}_C$ is denoted by $\psi _C$, which represents the sum of existence probabilities of vortices in $C_{x,t}$. In terms of $\hat{\psi}_C$, it can be shown that the contribution of the vortices to the quantum partition function, indicated by the last term in Eq. (\[SWBrho\]) and involved with the integration over $\chi_{\mathrm{sing}}$, can be written as [@seo-suga]
$$\int \mathcal{D}\Psi [C]\mathcal{D}\Psi ^{*}[C]\exp \left\{ -\int d^4x\left[
\frac 14\left( \frac e{2\pi }\right) ^2M_0^4\hat{\psi}_C+\frac{\mu _W^2}{4}
W_{\mu \nu }^2\hat{\psi}_C\right] \right\} ,
\label{vortexcontr}$$
where
$$M_0^4\equiv \frac{1}{a^4} \left(e^{\tau_s a^2}-6\right)
\label{M0square}$$
and $\tau_s$ is the string tension (the total energy per unit length of the vortex-string) [@kawai; @seothesis]. In terms of the parameters of the Abelian Higgs model the string tension is given by [@hindmarsh] $\tau_s = \pi \rho_c^2 \, \epsilon (\lambda/e^2)$, where $\epsilon(\lambda/e^2)$ is a function that increases monotonically with the ratio of coupling constants. We should also note that the factor $a^4$ in Eq. (\[M0square\]) does not have a direct relation with a four-dimensional space-time. Thus, the relation between $M_0$ and $\Lambda$ ($\sim a^{-1}$) is still expected at finite temperature.
Eq. (\[vortexcontr\]) implies, together with Eq. (\[SWBrho\]), that an immediate consequence of $\psi_C\neq 0$ is the increase of the $W_{\mu \nu}$ mass. This is directly associated with a shift in the mass of the original gauge field in the broken phase, $M_A=e\rho_c$, as
$$M_A^2\rightarrow M_A^2(1+\psi_C).
\label{m-W}$$
Since the field $\psi_C$, defined by Eq. (\[local psic\]), works just like a local field for the vortex-strings, we are allowed to define an effective potential for its vacuum expectation value $\psi_C$ in just the same way as we do for a constant Higgs field. Since this vortex-string field only couples directly to $W_{\mu \nu}$, at the one-loop level the effective potential for $\psi_C$ will only involve internal propagators of the antisymmetric tensor field. This effective potential, at one-loop order and at $T=0$, was actually computed in Ref. [@seo-suga] in the Landau gauge for the antisymmetric tensor field propagator and it is given by (in Euclidean momentum space and at finite temperatures)
$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\text{1-loop}}(\psi_C)=\left( \frac e{2\pi }\right)^2
M_0^4 \psi_C+\frac{3}{2} \frac{1}{\beta} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}
\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi )^3}\ln \left[
\frac{\omega_n^2 + {\bf k}^2+M_A^2(1+\psi_C)}{\omega_n^2 +
{\bf k}^2+M_A^2}\right] .
\label{VeffT0}$$
By performing the sum over the Matsubara frequencies in (\[VeffT0\]), we obtain the finite-temperature expression for $V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\rm 1-loop}(\psi_C)$. This is a standard calculation that gives
$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(\beta )}(\psi_C)=\left( \frac{e}{2\pi }\right)^2
M_0^4 \psi_C + \frac{3}{2}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \omega_{\psi_C}
({\bf k})+ 3 \, \frac{1}{\beta} \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
\ln \left\{ 1-\exp \left[-\beta \omega_{\psi_C}({\bf k})\right]\right\} ,
\label{VeffT}$$
where
$$\omega_{\psi_C}^2(\mathbf{k})={\bf k}^2+M_A^2 \left( 1+\psi_C\right)\;,$$
and in Eq. (\[VeffT\]) we have neglected the terms independent of $\psi_C$. Eq. (\[VeffT\]) can now be used to estimate the critical temperature for which vortex-strings condense exactly like when we take the effective potential for a constant scalar field to determine the critical temperature of phase transition [@dolan]. By expanding $V_{\text{eff}}^{(\beta )}$ in the high-temperature limit $M_A\sqrt{1+\psi_C}/T \ll 1$ (this entails expanding the temperature-dependent term in (\[VeffT\]) just the same way we expand the corresponding term in the usual effective potential for a constant scalar field [@dolan; @kapusta]), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
V_{\text{eff},\text{string}}^{( \beta )}(\psi_C) &=&\left(
\frac{e}{2\pi }\right)^2 M_0^4 \psi_C + \frac{3}{2} \int \frac{d^3k}
{(2\pi)^3}\omega_{\psi _C}({\bf k}) - \frac{\pi^2}{30 \beta^4}+
\frac{M_A^2(1+\psi_C)}{8\beta^2} -
\frac{1}{4 \pi \beta} M_A^3(1+\psi_C)^{3/2} \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{3 M_A^4 (1+\psi_C)^2}{64\pi ^2}
\ln \left[ \beta^2 M_A^2 (1+\psi_C)
\right] + \frac{3c}{64\pi ^2} M_A^4 (1+\psi_C)^2 +
{\cal O}\left[ M_A^6(1+\psi_C)^3 \beta^2 \right] ,
\label{Veff-highT}\end{aligned}$$
where $c\simeq 5.4076$. The momentum integral appearing in the right-hand side of Eq. (\[Veff-highT\]) represents the temperature-independent part of the effective potential, and it can be done directly. Using the cutoff $\Lambda$ we obtain for that term result
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{3}{2} \int \frac{d^3k}
{(2\pi)^3}\omega_{\psi _C}({\bf k}) &=& \frac{3\Lambda }{16\pi ^2}\left[
\Lambda ^2+M_A^2(1+\psi _C)\right] ^{3/2}-\frac{3\Lambda }{32\pi ^2}
M_A^2(1+\psi _C)\left[ \Lambda ^2+M_A^2(1+\psi _C)\right] ^{1/2} \nonumber
\\
&&-\frac{3M_A^4}{32\pi ^2}(1+\psi _C)^2\ln \left\{ \frac{\Lambda +\left[
\Lambda ^2+M_A^2(1+\psi _C)\right] ^{1/2}}{M_A(1+\psi _C)^{1/2}}\right\}
\;.
\label{intk}\end{aligned}$$
Before entering in the analysis of Eq. (\[Veff-highT\]) it is useful to recall that the Abelian Higgs model can support either second order or first order phase transitions. The ratio of the coupling constants $\alpha=e^2/\lambda$, that measure the relative intensity of the gauge coupling $e$ and the fourth power of the Higgs potential $\lambda$, controls these two regimes. Thus, for $\alpha\ll 1$ the gauge coupling is quite small and the phase diagram is dominated by the second order phase transition of the pure Higgs model. On the other hand, as $\alpha$ gets bigger, the gauge field fluctuations are more relevant opening the possibility of inducing a first order transition. This is evident from the result (\[Veff-highT\]), where the gauge field contribution to the effective potential generates already at one-loop order a cubic term in the Higgs background field, which in the usual effective potential for the Higgs field is the term that leads to a first order phase transition in the model.
The discussion above is also in parallel with the phenomenology of the Laundau-Ginzburg theory for superconductors, where the parameter $\kappa
\sim 1/\alpha^{1/2}$ (also called the Ginzburg parameter), measuring the ratio of the penetration depth and the coherent length, controls the regimes called Type II and Type I superconductors. In the former $\alpha\ll 1$ (or $\kappa > 1$), the metal-superconductor transition is second order and the gauge fluctuations are not important, while in the latter $\alpha \gtrsim 1$ , the gauge fluctuations could turn the transition first order via a Coleman-Weinberg mechanism [@col-wein]. In our case, the coherent length is governed by $a\sim 1/M_H$, where $M_H$ is here the temperature dependent Higgs mass, while the penetration depth is proportional to $1/M_A$, where $M_A$ is the (temperature dependent) gauge field mass. Although this effect, of the emergence of a first order phase transition, is so weak that it is not observable in superconductors, it could play an important role in relativistic quantum field theory (for a pedagogic discussion of this issues see, for instance the first volume of Kleinert’s books in Ref. [@kleinertI-II]).
We turn back now to the analysis of Eq. (\[Veff-highT\]). The lattice spacing $a= 1/\Lambda$ can be taken as the distance between strings [@rivers]. Therefore, we can consider that close to the critical point for condensation, determined by some temperature $T_s$, $a$ can approximately be given by the string typical radius. Then, since we are interested in the determination of a critical point, we can write (see for example also Ref. [@copeland])
$$\begin{aligned}
1/a &\sim & m_\phi \left( 1-\frac{T^2}{T_c^2} \right)^{1/2} \;.
\label{aT}\end{aligned}$$
If we also use that $\rho_c$ (the Higgs vacuum expectation value) can be expressed as
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho _c &\simeq &\sqrt{\frac{6m_\phi ^2}\lambda }
\left( 1-\frac{T^2}{{T_c}^2}\right) ^{1/2}\;,
\label{rhocT}\end{aligned}$$
we see that, in the deep second order regime, where $\alpha =
e^2/\lambda \ll 1$, we have $\Lambda^2\gg M_A^2 (1+\psi_C)$ and we can expand Eq. (\[intk\]) accordingly. Substituting this expansion back in Eq. (\[Veff-highT\]) and using Eq. (\[M0square\]), we obtain the result (neglecting $\psi_C$-independent terms and higher order terms)
$$V_{\text{eff},\text{string}}^{(\beta)}(\psi_C) \simeq
\left[ \frac{e^2}{4 \pi^2 a^4} \left(e^{\tau_s a^2}-6\right) +
\frac{3 e^2 \rho_c^2}{16\pi ^2 a^2} +
\frac{e^2 \rho_c^2}{8}\, T^2\right] \psi_C
-\frac{e^3 \rho_c^3}{4\pi}
\left( 1+\psi_C \right)^{3/2} T -
\frac{3 e^4 \rho_c^4 \ln \left( 2\Lambda/T \right) }{32\pi^2}
\psi_C^2 \;,
\label{Veff-highT3}$$
With $a$ and $\rho_c$ given by Eqs. (\[aT\]) and (\[rhocT\]), we can then see that the quantum and thermal corrections in the effective potential for strings, Eq. (\[Veff-highT3\]), are naturally ordered in powers of $\alpha$. Therefore, in the regime $\alpha \ll 1$ the leading order correction to the tree-level potential in Eq. (\[Veff-highT3\]) is linear in $\psi_C$, while the second and the third correction terms are ${\cal O}(\alpha^{3/2})$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$, respectively. Thus, the linear term in $\psi_C$ controls the transition in the deep second order regime since the other terms are all subleading in $\alpha$. Thus, near criticality, determined by some temperature $T_s$ where the linear term in Eq. (\[Veff-highT3\]) vanishes, $V_{\text{eff},\text{string}}^{(\beta )}(\psi_C)\sim 0$ in the $\alpha
\ll 1$ regime.
The phase transition temperature $T_s$, which is interpreted as the temperature of transition from the normal vacuum to the state of condensed strings, is then determined by the temperature where the linear term in $\psi_C$ in Eq. (\[Veff-highT3\]) vanishes and it is found to be
$$T_s=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi a^2 \rho_c}\left( 6- e^{\tau_s a^2}-
\frac{3 a^2 \rho_c^2}{4} \right)^{1/2}\;,
\label{Ts1}$$
where the rhs of Eq. (\[Ts1\]) is evaluated at $T=T_s$. We can now compare the result obtained for $T_s$, given by the solution of Eq. (\[Ts1\]), with the usual mean-field critical temperature $T_c =
\sqrt{12 m_\phi^2/(3 e^2 + 2\lambda/3)}$ [@dolan], for which the effective mass term of the Higgs field, obtained from $V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(\beta)} (\rho_c)$, vanishes. Using again Eqs. (\[aT\]) and (\[rhocT\]), with the result $\tau_s a^2 \sim {\cal
O}(1/\lambda)$ and in the perturbative regime $e^2 \ll \lambda \ll 1$, it follows from Eq. (\[Ts1\]) that
$$\frac{T_c-T_s}{T_c} \sim {\cal O} \left( \frac{e^{-1/\lambda}}{\lambda^{2}}
\right) \left[ 1+ {\cal O}(\alpha)\right]\;,
\label{critical shift}$$
with next order corrections to the critical temperatures difference being of order ${\cal O}(\alpha)$. This result for $T_s$ allows us to identify it with the Ginzburg temperature $T_G$ for which the contribution of the gauge field fluctuations become important. These results are also found to be in agreement with the calculations done by the authors in Ref. [@copeland], who analyzed an analogous problem using the partition function for strings configurations, in the same regime of deep second order transition.
Also, in the regime where gauge fluctuations are stronger, $\alpha
=e^2/\lambda \gtrsim 1$, the second term in Eq. (\[Veff-highT3\]) of order $\alpha^{3/2}$, induces a cubic term $\rho_c^3$ to the effective potential, favoring the appearance of a first order phase transition instead of a second order one. This mechanism of changing a second order phase transition into a first order one by means of gauge fluctuations is usually referred to as the Coleman-Weinberg mechanism [@col-wein]. Coleman and Weinberg analyzed this effect in the context of a fourth dimensional Ginzburg-Landau theory, while a similar effect in a three dimensional theory was subsequently studied in Ref. [@halperin].
In our context, we see that the non-trivial vacuum $\psi_c\ne 0$ above the critical temperature $T_s$ enhance the first order phase transition by an amount $(1+\psi_c)^{3/2}$. Here, since $T_s\sim T_c$, we see that the driven mechanism of the first order transition is a melting of topological defects. This mechanism is very well known in condensed matter physics (see for instance the first reference in [@kleinertI-II]) and always leads to a first order phase transition (except in two dimensions).
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have considered the evaluation of the partition function for the finite temperature Abelian Higgs model in the context of a dualized model realization. The advantage of adopting this procedure is that in the dual version of the model we explicitly identify the contribution of topological defects in the action. This way we can identify the coupling of a topological current with the matter fields, which in the dual field model, refers to a two-form, antisymmetric gauge field that emerges form the dualization procedure. We also have discussed the issue of gauge invariance in the context of the dual model and computed all gauge fixing and required ghost terms.
The importance of the procedure we here have adopted is that now we can take into account in the functional path integration the contribution of not only constant vacuum field fluctuations but also those nontrivial, inhomogeneous vacuum excitations that must emerge whenever in a theory that exhibits spontaneous symmetry breaking the associated homotopy group differs from the identity, which then points out to the existence (in the broken phase) of stable topological excitations. In this paper we have considered the case of vortex-string topological excitations of the $U(1)$ complex Higgs field gauged model.
By considering closed magnetic fluxes in $3+1$ dimensions, we have been able to define a local order parameter associated to the quantal vortex-string field, making then possible to define and calculate the effective potential associated to this vortex-string field order parameter. Evaluating the effective potential at one-loop order and at finite temperatures we have presented an explicit formula for the condensation temperature for vortex-strings in the system, which then characterizes a transition point that we have shown to lie [*below*]{} the mean-field critical temperature obtained just from the contributions of the constant scalar Higgs field vacuum expectation value to the partition function.
We have shown that in the deep second order regime $e^2/\lambda\ll 1$, the critical temperature for vortex condensation can be associated with the Ginzburg temperature where the gauge fluctuations become important, in agreement with similar results, but obtained by a different method, by the authors in Ref. [@copeland]. Further, we have been able to show a manifestation of the Coleman-Weinberg mechanism, by means of which the second order phase transition can turn into a first order one through the effect due to gauge field fluctuation contributions in the effective potential. The vortex condensation above $T_s$ is seen to enhance the transition. Usually, it is possible to estimate the latent heat from the cubic term in the effective potential . However, in the high $\alpha\equiv e^2/\lambda$ regime, where this term is important it is not simple to calculate a reliable value for the vortex condensation $|\psi_C|$ since we have disregarded in our model vortex interactions.
The fact that $T_s<T_c$ tempts us to interpret this transition in two steps. As we reach the temperature $T_s$ from below, we have a vortex condensation, but without completely restoring the broken symmetry, obtaining in this way an intermediate phase at temperatures $T < T_c$, since we still have a nonvanishing value for the Higgs background field $\rho_c$. As we continue rising the temperature, we have the final melting at $T_c$. This is usually known in the condensed matter community as a premelting process. The possibility of having this type of mechanism is very interesting in the context of relativistic quantum field theory, specially related with inflationary scenarios. However, we need to be very careful with this interpretation. The actual window $T_s< T< T_c$ is very difficult to estimate, and is certainly very tiny in the regime $\alpha\ll 1$ as discussed above and seen from the result Eq. (\[critical shift\]). A better interpretation of the problem may be possible if both $\psi_C$ and $\rho_c$, the vortex-string expectation value and the Higgs vacuum expectation value, respectively, are considered as two independent variables in the complete effective potential $V_{\rm
eff}^{(\beta)}(\rho_c,\psi_C)$ and study the problem as a coupled two-field system. However, for greater $\alpha$, where this mechanism is more suitable to be realized, it is not possible to disregard higher order terms in the effective potential. In particular, we have not considered in our model vortex interactions and they could be very important in this regime, possibly changing this scenario. Nevertheless, this premelting mechanism is a very interesting possibility signaled by our one-loop calculation and we believe it should deserved further attention in future works.
We also hope that the method we have employed in this paper will be useful for further investigations, in an analytical way, of the importance of topological excitations to phase transitions in general, not only in the case of the Abelian gauge Higgs model studied here, but also for non-Abelian gauge Higgs models as well, where, e.g. magnetic monopole like excitations can also be studied in the same context.
The authors would like to thank Profs. H. Kleinert and M. Chernodub for useful comments and also for bringing to our attention additional previous references related to the subjected of this paper. We also thank Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq-Brazil), Funda[ç]{}[ã]{}o de Amparo [à]{} Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), CAPES and SR2-UERJ for the financial support. D. G. Barci would like to acknowledge the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), where part of this work was realized, for the kind hospitality.
The dual formalism for topological field configurations {#AppendixSugamoto}
=======================================================
In the formalism developed in Refs. [@seo-suga; @seothesis; @kawai], the torus-like world sheets of a closed string contribute to the partition function as a sum over the number and shapes of such world sheets. The formalism is easier to understand when one considers first the corresponding monopole problem, which involves a topological object of one dimension less than the string problem, and one may proceed by analogy.
In the monopole case, one deals with a sum over the number and shapes of closed loops. The monopole is taken as a relativistic particle in interaction with an electromagnetic potential, for which we write the action
$$S[x_\mu (\tau )]=mn^2\int ds\,\frac{4\pi n}e\oint A_\mu (x)
\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }d\tau ,$$
where $m$, $e$ are the mass and charge of the monopole and $n$ its topological number. For $N$ monopoles, each with its own topological number, we have the functional integration
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{N=0}^\infty \frac 1{N!}\int \prod_{i=1}^N\mathcal{D}
y_\mu^{(i)}\sum_{\{n^{(i)}\}}\exp \left\{ i\sum_{i=1}^N\left[ -M\left(
n^{(i)}\right) ^2\oint ds+\frac{4\pi n}e\oint dy_\mu ^{(i)}A^\mu
(y^{(i)})\right] \right\} \nonumber \\
&=&\exp \left[ \int \mathcal{D}y\sum_ne^{i\left( -Mn^2\oint ds+
\frac{4\pi n}{e} \oint dy_\mu A^\mu (y)\right) }\right] ,\end{aligned}$$
and because of this exponentiation one needs to consider only the action of a single monopole. From now on, we put $n=1$ for the most favorable case. The functional integral measure is defined through the introduction of a hypercubic space-time lattice, with lattice spacing $a$. In this way, the integral measure is reduced to the sum over all closed paths $C$. The first term in the action is just the total length of a path; if there are $L$ steps of size $a$ on the lattice for the entire path, then its total length is $aL$. The second term, the line integral of the field potential, is a Wilson loop over the closed path. Defining as usual a link variable $A_\ell$ for each step $\ell $ on the path, we may write a lattice partition function
$$\sum_C e^{-MaL(C)+i\sum_{\ell \in C}\frac{4\pi}{A_\ell }}=
\sum_{L=0}^\infty
\frac{1}{L}\sum_nK(n,n;L),
\label{lpartition}$$
where we have introduced the kernel
$$K(n,m;L)=\sum_{C(n\rightarrow m;L)}e^{-MaL+
i\sum_{\ell \in C}\frac{4\pi }{e}
aA_\ell },
\label{kernel}$$
for which it is understood that the sum is carried out over all paths that go from site $n$ to site $m$ in $L$ steps. The $1/L$ factor on the right-hand side of (\[lpartition\]) is included in order to avoid double counting.
In an analogous manner, one may construct an expression for the sum over the number and shapes of the closed world sheets in the string problem [@kawai; @seo-suga; @seothesis]. One starts with the Nambu–Goto action, together with an interaction of the string with an antisymmetric (Kalb–Ramond) field,
$$S\left[ x^\mu (\xi ^0,\xi ^1)\right] =-\tau_s \oint d^2\xi \sqrt{-g}+i\frac
\pi emn\oint d^2\xi \sqrt{-g}\epsilon ^{ab}\partial _ax^\mu \partial _bx^\nu
W_{\mu \nu }(x).
\label{nambuaction}$$
Here $x^\mu $ is a point on the world sheet described by the string as it propagates through space-time and $g$ is the determinant of the sheet metric tensor, given by$g_{ab}=\frac{\partial x^\mu }{\partial \xi ^a}
\frac{\partial x_\mu }{\partial \xi ^b}$, $a$, $b=0,1$, with $\xi ^0$ a time-like coordinate variable on the world sheet and $\xi ^1$ a space-like one. The factor $\tau_s $ in Eq. (\[nambuaction\]) is identified with the string tension. We follow Kawai [@kawai], differently from Seo and Sugamoto [@seo-suga], and keep the string dynamics term in our computations.
As in the monopole case, the sum over all numbers of world sheets also exponentiate, so that we may write
$$e^Z=\exp \left\{ \int \mathcal{D}x\,e^{iS\left[ x^\mu (\xi )\right]
}\right\} .$$
In the present case, the integration measure is again defined through the use of a space-time lattice of spacing $a$ in all directions. The partition function on the lattice then reads
$$Z=\sum_{{\rm all \; closed \;torus-like \; surfaces \;}S}
e^{-\tau_s a^2A(S)+i\frac{2\pi m}e\sum_{p\in S}a^2W_{p,n}},$$
where $a^2$ is the area of an elementary lattice plaquette and $A(S)$ is the number of plaquettes on the surface $S$; $W_{p,n}$ is the gauge (Kalb–Ramond) field relative to the plaquette $p$ at site $n$.
Proceeding with the analogy with the monopole case, we now have a kernel relative to the tube-like surface of $A$ plaquettes, with the curves $C_1$ and $C_2$ as boundaries of $S$,
$$K(C_1,C_2;A)=\sum_{S(C_1,C_2;A)}e^{-\tau_s a^2A+i\frac{2\pi m}e\sum_{p\in
S}a^2W_p},$$
so that
$$Z=\sum_{A=0}^\infty \frac 1A\sum_CK(C,C;A).$$
Both the monopole and string kernels satisfy a recurrence equation, as they should be seen respectively as the transition probability for the monopole at site $m$ to go to site $n$ in $L$ steps or the string to evolve from curve $C_1$ to curve $C_2$ sweeping a surface with $A$ plaquettes. In the monopole case, the recurrence is established by stating that the probability for the monopole to arrive at site $n$ in $L$ steps is in fact the product of the probability for it to arrive at some nearest-neighbor site of $n$ in $L-1$ steps and the probability of the last step. Therefore,
$$K(n,m;L)=\sum_{\pm \mu }K(n-a\hat{\mu},m;L-1)e^{-Ma+i\frac{4\pi }ea
A_{n-a \hat{\mu},\mu }},$$
where $\ell =(n-a\hat{\mu},\mu )$ is the last link, on which we have the gauge field $A_{n-a\hat{\mu},\mu }$. Likewise, in the string case,
$$K(C_1,C_2;A)=\sum_{\pm \mu \text{, }\mu \neq t}
K(C_{1,n,\mu},C_2;A-1)e^{-\tau_s a^2+i\frac{2\pi m}ea^2W_{n-a\hat{\mu},t\mu }},
\label{recurrence}$$
where $C_{1,n,\mu }$ is a deformation of the curve $C_1$ in which one eliminates the link $n,n+a\hat{t}$ for inclusion or deletion of a plaquette of area $a^2$. Also, the sum is taken over all directions $\mu $ perpendicular to the curve ($t$ is a variable on the curve).
By going to the continuum limit ($a\rightarrow 0$), both kernels satisfy a diffusion-like equation similar to that found by Stone and Thomas [@stone],
$$\frac \partial {\partial \bar{L}}K(x,y;\bar{L})=\left[ \left(
\partial_\mu^x+i\frac{4\pi }eA_\mu (x)\right) ^2-m^2\right]
K(x,y;\bar{L}),
\label{kermon}$$
with $\bar{L}=a^2Le^{-Ma}$ , $m^2=\frac 1{a^2}(e^{Ma}-8)$, and [@seo-suga]
$$\frac \partial {\partial \bar{A}}K(C_1,C_2;\bar{A})=\left[ \left( \frac
\delta {\delta \sigma _{\mu t}}+i\frac{2\pi m}eW_{\mu t}(x)\right)
^2-M^2\right] K(C_1,C_2;\bar{A}),
\label{kerstr}$$
where $\bar{A}=a^4Ae^{-\tau_s a^2}$ and $M^2=\frac 1{a^4}(e^{\tau_s a^2}-6)$. In fact, the differential operators on the right-hand side of both Eqs. (\[kermon\]) and (\[kerstr\]) have the form of a squared covariant derivative. In the first case the operator is
$$D_\mu =\partial _\mu +i\frac{4\pi }eA_\mu (x).$$
On the lattice, acting on a scalar field $\phi (x)$, it is written as [@rothe]
$$D_\mu \phi (x)=\frac{1}{a}\left( U_{x,x+a\hat{\mu}}^{-1}
\phi (x+a\hat{\mu}) -\phi (x)\right)\;,$$
with $U_{x,x+a\hat{\mu}}=\exp \left[ ia\frac{4\pi }eA_\mu (x)\right]$ being the gauge field link variable. Its square then reads
$$D_\mu D_\mu \phi (x)=\frac 1{a^2}\left[ \sum_\mu
\left( U_{x,x+a\hat{\mu}}\phi (x+a\hat{\mu})+
U_{x,x-a\hat{\mu}}^{-1}\phi (x-a\hat{\mu})\right)
-8\phi (x)\right] ,$$
so that when acting on the first argument of the kernel, we have
$$\left( D_\mu D_\mu \phi (x)+\frac 8{a^2}\right) K(x,y;L-1)=\frac
1{a^2}\sum_{\pm \mu }K(x-a\hat{\mu},y;L-1)e^{ia\frac{4\pi }eA_\mu (x-
a\hat{\mu})}\;,$$
and, therefore,
$$\frac{K(n,m,L)-K(n,m,L-1)}{e^{-Ma}a^2}=\left[ D_\mu D_\mu -\frac
1{a^2}\left( e^{Ma}-8\right) \right] K(n,m;L-1),$$
from which follows the given continuum equation
$$\frac \partial {\partial \bar{L}}K(n,m;\bar{L})=\left( D_\mu ^2-m^2\right)
K(n,m;\bar{L}),$$
for $\bar{L}=e^{-Ma}a^2L$ and $m^2=\frac 1{a^2}(e^{Ma}-8)$, as stated.
A similar reasoning in one dimension less shows the string recurrence relation (\[recurrence\]) appearing as a discretized form of the second diffusion equation (\[kerstr\]).
[99]{}
D. A. Kirzhnits and A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. **42B**, 471 (1972).
L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D** 9**, 2904 (1974).
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D** 9**, 3357 (1974).
J. I. Kapusta, *Finite-Temperature Field Theory* (Cambridge University Press, 1989).
M. Le Bellac, *Thermal Field Theory* (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, [*Principles of Condensed Matter Physics*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1995).
H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nuc. Phys. B** 61**, 45 (1973).
G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B** 79**, 276 (1974).
A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. **20**, 194 (1974); Soviet Phys. JETP **41**, 988 (1976).
S. Coleman, *Aspects of Symmetry* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985).
R. Rajaraman, *Solitons and Instantons* (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1989).
A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard, *Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
H. Kleinert, [*Gauge fields in Condensed Matter, Vol I: Superflow and Vortex lines*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989); [*Gauge fields in Condensed Matter, Vol II: Stresses and Defects, Differential geometry, Crystal defects*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989).
C. A. de Carvalho, D. Bazeia, O. J. P. Eboli and G. C. Marques, Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 3256 (1985); J. M. Guerra Jr., G. C. Marques and S. J. Rodrigues, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 2022 (1990).
E. Copeland, D. Haws and R. Rivers, Nuc. Phys. **B319**, 687 (1989).
E. C. Marino, G. C. Marques, R. O. Ramos and J. S. Ruiz, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 3690 (1992); E. C. Marino and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 1093 (1994).
M. P. A. Fisher and D. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. [**B39**]{} 2756 (1989).
A. Sugamoto, Phys. Rev. D** 19**, 1820 (1979).
K. Seo and A. Sugamoto, Phys. Rev. D** 24**, 1630 (1981).
H. Kawai, Progr. Theor. Phys. **65**, 351 (1981).
M. Kalb and P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. D** 9** , 2273 (1974).
Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. D** 10**, 4262 (1974).
Y. Nambu, in *Quark Confinement and Field Theory*, proceedings of the Rochester Conference of 1976 (Wiley, New York, 1977).
K. Seo, M. Okawa and A. Sugamoto, Phys. Rev. D **19**, 3744** **(1979); K. Seo and M. Okawa, Phys. Rev. D **21**, 1614 (1980).
A. Sugamoto, arxiv: hep-th/9611051; R. Endo, K. Seo and A. Sugamoto, Grav. Cosmol. **8**, 56 (2002).
M. Hatsuda, S. Yahikosawa, P. Ao and D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. B **49**, 15870 (1994); M. Sato and S. Yahikosawa, Nucl. Phys. B **436**, 100 (1995).
M. Stone and P. R. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. **41**, 351 (1978).
K. Bardacki and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D ** 18**, 2849 (1978).
K. Lee, Phys. Rev. D** 48**, 2493 (1993).
P. Orland, Nuc. Phys. B** 428**, 221 (1994).
E. T. Akhmedov, M. N. Chernodub, M. I. Polikarpov and M. A. Zubkov, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 2087 (1996).
D. Antonov and D. Ebert, Eur. Phys. J. C ** 12**, 349 (2000); D. Antonov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A** 14**, 4347 (1999).
H. Kleinert, Lett. Nuovo Cimento [**35**]{}, 405 (1982); Phys. Lett. B [**293**]{}, 168 (1992); see also, Chapter 13 in the second volume of Ref. [@kleinertI-II].
S. Deguchi and Y. Kokubo, Mod. Phys. Lett. A ** 17**, 503 (2002); S. Deguchi, T. Mukai and T. Nagajima, Phys. Rev. D** 59**, 065003 (1999); N. Maggiore and S.P. Sorella, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A** 8**, 929 (1993); E. Guadagnini, N. Maggiore and S. P. Sorella, Phys. Lett. B** 255**, 65 (1991).
S. Coleman and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D ** 7**, 1888 (1973).
S. H. Henry Tye and Y. V. Karevsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **13**, 95 (1998).
P. A. M. Dirac, Phys. Rev. D** 74**, 817 (1948).
Y. Nambu, in *Broken Symmetry* (World Scientific, Hong Kong, 1995).
C. Marshall and P. Ramond, Nuc. Phys. B ** 85**, 375 (1975).
S.-J. Rey, Phys. Rev. D **40**, 3396 (1989).
K. Seo, *Dual Transformation in Gauge Theories and a Possible Confinement Mechanism in the Abelian Higgs Model*, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tokyo, UT-355 (1981).* *
M. B. Hindmarsh and T. W. B. Kibble, Rept. Progr. Phys. **48**, 477 (1995).
R. J. Rivers, Zeit. für Phys. **C 22**, 137 (1984).
B. I. Halperin, T. C. Lubensky and S. K. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**32**]{}, 292 (1974).
H. J. Rothe, *Lattice Gauge Theories*, 2nd edition (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).
[^1]: Regular Associate of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), Trieste, Italy
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We report the first lattice QCD calculation of the form factors for the standard model tree-level decay $B_s\to K \ell\nu$. In combination with future measurement, this calculation will provide an alternative exclusive semileptonic determination of $|V_{ub}|$. We compare our results with previous model calculations, make predictions for differential decay rates and branching fractions, and predict the ratio of differential branching fractions between $B_s\to K\tau\nu$ and $B_s\to K\mu\nu$. We also present standard model predictions for differential decay rate forward-backward asymmetries and polarization fractions and calculate potentially useful ratios of $B_s\to K$ form factors with those of the fictitious $B_s\to\eta_s$ decay. Our lattice simulations utilize nonrelativistic QCD $b$ and highly improved staggered light quarks on a subset of the MILC Collaboration’s $2+1$ asqtad gauge configurations, including two lattice spacings and a range of light quark masses.'
author:
- 'C.M. Bouchard'
- '[G. Peter]{} Lepage'
- Christopher Monahan
- Heechang Na
- Junko Shigemitsu
title: ' $B_s \to K \ell \nu$ form factors from lattice QCD '
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sec-Intro}
============
The decay $B_s \to K\ell\nu$ occurs at tree-level in the standard model via the flavor-changing charged-current $b \to u$ transition, making it an alternative to $B\to\pi\ell\nu$ in the determination of $|V_{ub}|$ from exclusive semileptonic decays. The difference in these processes, a spectator strange quark in $B_s\to K\ell\nu$ vs a spectator down quark in $B\to\pi\ell\nu$, is beneficial for lattice QCD simulations, because it improves the ratio of signal to noise. Though this process has not yet been observed, its measurement is planned at LHCb and is possible during an $\Upsilon(5S)$ run at BelleII. This provides a prediction opportunity for lattice QCD.
In addition to the calculation of form factors for $B_s\to~K$, we also calculate their ratios with form factors for the fictitious $B_s \to \eta_s$ decay. Such ratios are essentially free of our largest systematic error, perturbative matching. In combination with a future calculation of $B_s \to \eta_s$ using a highly improved staggered (HISQ) $b$ quark, these ratios would yield a non-perturbative evaluation of the matching factor for the $b \to u$ current with nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) $b$ quark. This matching factor would be applicable to $B_s\to K \ell \nu$ and $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ simulations using NRQCD $b$ quarks.
To include correlations among the data for both decays, correlation function fits must include vast amounts of correlated data. To make such fits feasible, we have developed a new technique, called chaining, discussed in Appendix \[app-basics\]. In addition, the use of marginalization techniques developed in Ref. [@Hornbostel:2011] significantly reduces the time required for the fits.
The chiral, continuum, and kinematic extrapolations are performed simultaneously using the modified $z$ expansion [@Na:2010; @Na:2011] with the chiral logarithmic corrections fixed by the results of hard pion chiral perturbation theory (HPChPT) [@Bijnens:2010; @Bijnens:2011]. The factorization of chiral corrections and kinematics, as found at one-loop order by HPChPT, suggests the modified $z$ expansion is a natural choice for carrying out this simultaneous extrapolation. We refer to the combination of HPChPT chiral logarithmic corrections and the modified $z$ expansion as the HPChPT $z$ expansion.
Form factors and matrix elements {#sec-FFsnMEs}
================================
The vector hadronic matrix element is parametrized by the scalar and vector form factors $f_{0,+}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle K | V^\mu | B_s \rangle &=& f_+ \left( p_{B_s}^\mu +p_K^\mu - \frac{ M_{B_s}^2 - M_K^2 }{ q^2 }\,q^\mu \right) \nonumber \\
& & +\ f_0\ \frac{ M_{B_s}^2 - M_K^2 }{ q^2 }\, q^\mu,\end{aligned}$$ where $V^\mu = \bar{u} \gamma^\mu b$ and $q^\mu = p_{B_s}^\mu - p_K^\mu$. At intermediate stages of the calculation we recast $f_{0,+}$ in terms of the more convenient form factors $f_{\parallel,\perp}$ $$\langle K | V^\mu | B_s \rangle = \sqrt{2M_{B_s}} \left( \frac{p_{B_s}^\mu}{M_{B_s}}\ f_\parallel + p_\perp^\mu\ f_\perp \right),$$ where $p_\perp^\mu = p_K^\mu - p_{B_s}^\mu (p_K\cdot p_{B_s}) / M_{B_s}^2$. In the $B_s$ meson rest frame, the form factors $f_{\parallel,\perp}$ are simply related to the temporal and spatial components of the hadronic vector matrix elements, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle K | V^0 | B_s \rangle &=& \sqrt{2M_{B_s}}\ f_\parallel, \label{eq-fpardef} \\
\langle K | V^k | B_s \rangle &=& \sqrt{2M_{B_s}}\ p_K^k\ f_\perp. \label{eq-fperpdef}\end{aligned}$$ The scalar and vector form factors are related to $f_{\parallel,\perp}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
f_0 &=& \frac{\sqrt{2M_{B_s}}}{M_{B_s}^2-M_K^2} \left[ (M_{B_s}-E_K) f_{\parallel} + {\bf p}_K^2 f_{\perp} \right], \label{eq-f0def} \\
f_+ &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2M_{B_s}}}\left[ f_{\parallel} + (M_{B_s}-E_K) f_{\perp} \right], \label{eq-fplusdef}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf p}_K$ is the kaon three-momentum. This discussion generalizes in a straightforward way for the $B_s\to\eta_s$ matrix elements.
Simulation {#sec-Simulation}
==========
[lcccccccccc]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensemble & $L^3\times N_t$ & $r_1/a$ & $au_0m_{\rm sea}$ & $u_0$ & $N_{\rm conf}$ & $N_{\rm tsrc}$ & $am_u$ & $am_s$ & $am_b$ & $aE_{b\bar b}^{\rm sim}$\
\[0.5ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1 & $24^3 \times 64$ & 2.647(3)& 0.005/0.05 & 0.8678 & 1200 & 2 & 0.0070 & 0.0489 & 2.650 & 0.28356(15)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2 & $20^3 \times 64$ & 2.618(3)& 0.01/0.05 & 0.8677 & 1200 & 2 & 0.0123 & 0.0492 & 2.688 & 0.28323(18)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3 & $20^3 \times 64$ & 2.644(3)& 0.02/0.05 & 0.8688 & 600 & 2 & 0.0246 & 0.0491 & 2.650 & 0.27897(20)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1 & $28^3 \times 96$ & 3.699(3)& 0.0062/0.031 & 0.8782 & 1200 & 4 & 0.00674 & 0.0337 & 1.832 & 0.25653(14)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F2 & $28^3 \times 96$ & 3.712(4)& 0.0124/0.031 & 0.8788 & 600 & 4 & 0.01350 & 0.0336 & 1.826 & 0.25558(28)\
\[0.5ex\]
\[tab-ens\]
Ensemble averages are performed with the MILC Collaboration’s $2+1$ asqtad gauge configurations [@Bazavov:2010] listed in Table \[tab-ens\]. Valence quarks in our simulation are nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) [@Lepage:1992] $b$ quarks, tuned in Ref. [@Na:2012], and highly improved staggered (HISQ) [@Follana:2007] light and $s$ quarks, the propagators for which were generated in Refs. [@Na:2010; @Na:2011]. Valence quark masses for each ensemble used in the simulations are collected in Table \[tab-ens\] and correspond to pion masses ranging from, approximately, 260MeV to 500MeV.
Heavy-light $B_s$ meson bilinears $\Phi_{B_s}^\alpha$ are built from NRQCD $b$ and HISQ $s$ quarks (for details see Ref. [@Na:2012]) and light-light kaon (and similarly for the $\eta_s$) bilinears $\Phi_K$ are built from HISQ light and $s$ quarks (for details see Ref. [@Na:2010]). From these bilinears we build two and three point correlation function data $$\begin{aligned}
C^{\alpha\beta}_{B_s}(t_0,t) &=& \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{{\bf x}, {\bf y}} \langle \Phi^\beta_{B_s}(t,{\bf y})\ \Phi^{\alpha\dagger}_{B_s}(t_0,{\bf x}) \rangle, \label{eq-B2pt} \\
C_{K,{\bf p}}(t_0,t) &=& \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{{\bf x}, {\bf y}} e^{i\,{\bf p} \cdot ({\bf x} - {\bf y})}\langle \Phi_K(t,{\bf y})\ \Phi^\dagger_K(t_0,{\bf x}) \rangle, \nonumber \\
& & \label{eq-X2pt} \\
C^\alpha_{J,{\bf p}}(t_0,t,T) &=& \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{{\bf x}, {\bf y}, {\bf z}} e^{i\,{\bf p}\cdot ({\bf z} - {\bf x})} \nonumber \\
& &\!\!\times \langle \Phi_K(t_0+T,{\bf x})\ J(t,{\bf z})\ \Phi^{\alpha\dagger}_{B_s}(t_0,{\bf y}) \rangle, \label{eq-3pt}\end{aligned}$$ where indices $\alpha, \beta$ specify $b$ quark smearing. We generate data for both a local and Gaussian smeared $b$ quark, with smearing function $\phi$ introduced via the replacement $\sum_{\bf y} \to \sum_{{\bf y}, {\bf y}'} \phi({\bf y}'-{\bf y})$ in Eqs. (\[eq-B2pt\]) and (\[eq-3pt\]). Three point and daughter meson two point correlation function data are generated at four daughter meson momenta, corresponding to ${\bf p}L\,\in\,2\pi\{(000), (100), (110), (111)\}$. In three point data, these momenta are inserted at ${\bf x}$ in Fig. \[fig-feyndiag\]. The sum over ${\bf x}$ in Eqs. (\[eq-X2pt\]) and (\[eq-3pt\]) is performed using random wall sources with U(1) phases $\xi$, i.e. $\sum_{\bf x} \to \sum_{{\bf x}, {\bf x}'} \xi({\bf x}) \xi({\bf x}')$. In the three point correlator a $B_s$ meson source is inserted at timeslice $t_0$, selected at random on each configuration to reduce autocorrelations. The current $J$ is inserted at timeslices $t$ such that $t_0\leq t\leq t_0+T$ and the daughter meson is annihilated at timeslice $t_0+T$. Prior to performing the fits, all data are shifted to a common $t_0=0$. This three point correlator setup is depicted in Fig. \[fig-feyndiag\]. Additional details regarding the two and three point correlation function generation can be found in Ref. [@Bouchard:2013a].
The flavor-changing current $J$ is an effective lattice vector current $\mathcal{V}_\mu$ corrected through $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s, \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b, \alpha_s/(am_b))$. The lattice currents that contribute through this order are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}_\mu^{(0)} &=& \overline{\Psi}_u\, \gamma_\mu\, \Psi_b, \\
\mathcal{V}_\mu^{(1)} &=&-\frac{1}{2 am_b} \overline{\Psi}_u\, \gamma_\mu\, {\boldsymbol \gamma} \cdot {\boldsymbol \nabla}\, \Psi_b.\end{aligned}$$ Matrix elements of the continuum vector current $\langle V_\mu \rangle$ are matched to those of the lattice vector current according to $$\langle V_\mu\rangle = (1+\alpha_s \rho_0^{(V_\mu)})\langle \mathcal{V}_\mu^{(0)}\rangle + \langle \mathcal{V}_\mu^{(1), {\rm sub}}\rangle ,
\label{eq-Vmatch}$$ where $$\langle \mathcal{V}_\mu^{(1), {\rm sub}}\rangle \equiv \langle \mathcal{V}_\mu^{(1)}\rangle - \alpha_s \zeta_{10}^{V_\mu} \langle \mathcal{V}_\mu^{(0)}\rangle.$$ The matching calculation is done to one loop using massless HISQ lattice perturbation theory [@Monahan:2013]. In implementing the matching, we omit $\mathcal{O}\left( \alpha_s\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b \right)$ contributions. Ref. [@Gulez:2007], which used asqtad valence quarks, found contributions of this order to be negligible. In Ref. [@Bouchard:2013a], which used HISQ valence quarks, these contributions to the temporal component of the vector current were studied and again were found to be negligible. We also omit $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b)^2$ relativistic matching corrections. These, and higher order, omitted contributions to the matching result in our leading systematic error. An estimate of this error, and its incorporation in our fit results, is discussed in the following section.
\[fig-feyndiag\]
Correlation function fits {#sec-CorrFits}
=========================
Two and three point correlation function fit Ansätze, and the selection of priors, closely follows the methods of Ref. [@Bouchard:2013a]. Two point $B_s$ data are fit to $$\begin{gathered}
C^{\alpha \beta}_{B_s}(t) = \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} b^{\alpha(n)}b^{\beta(n)\dagger} e^{-E^{{\rm sim} (n)}_{B_s}t} \\
+ \sum_{m=0}^{\tilde{N}-1} \tilde{b}^{\alpha(m)}\tilde{b}^{\beta(m)\dagger}(-1)^te^{-\tilde{E}^{{\rm sim} (m)}_{B_s}t}, \label{eq-B2ptfit}\end{gathered}$$ where tildes denote oscillating state contributions and $E^{\rm sim}_{B_s}$ is the simulated $B_s$ energy. The physical ground state $B_s$ mass is related to the simulation ground state energy by $$E^{(0)}_{B_s} = E_{B_s}^{{\rm sim}(0)} + \frac{1}{2} (M_{b\bar b}^{\rm expt} - E_{b \bar b}^{\rm sim})$$ where $M_{b\bar b}^{\rm expt} = 9.450(4)$ GeV [@Gregory:2011] is adjusted from experiment to remove electromagnetic, $\eta_b$ annihilation, and charmed sea effects not present in our simulations, and $E^{\rm sim}_{b\bar b}$ is the spin-averaged energy of $b\bar b$ states calculated on the ensembles used in the simulation and listed in Table \[tab-ens\]. The $b$ quark smearing is indicated by indices $\alpha, \beta$. Kaon and $\eta_s$ two point correlator data are fit to an expression of the form[^2] $$\begin{gathered}
C_{{\bf p}}(t) = \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} |d_{{\bf p}}^{(n)}|^2 \big( e^{-E^{(n)}t} + e^{-E^{(n)}(N_t-t)} \big) \\
+ \sum_{m=0}^{\tilde{N}-1} | \tilde{d}_{{\bf p}}^{(m)}|^2 (-1)^t \big( e^{-\tilde{E}^{(m)}t} + e^{-\tilde{E}^{(m)}(N_t-t)} \big). \label{eq-X2ptfit}\end{gathered}$$ Results of two point fits satisfy the dispersion relation and are stable with respect to variations in $(N,\tilde{N})$ and the range of timeslices included in the fits, as demonstrated for kaon two point data in Ref. [@Bouchard:2013a].
Three point correlation function data are described by $$\begin{gathered}
C^{\alpha}_{J, {\bf p}}(t,T) \\
= \sum_{n,m=0}^{N-1} d^{(n)}_{{\bf p}} A_{J, {\bf p}}^{(n,m)} b^{\alpha(m)\dagger} e^{-E^{(n)}(T-t)} e^{-E^{{\rm sim} (m)}_{B_s}t} \\
+ \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \sum_{m=0}^{\tilde{N}-1} d^{(n)}_{{\bf p}} B_{J, {\bf p}}^{(n,m)} \tilde{b}^{\alpha(m)\dagger} (-1)^t e^{-E^{(n)}(T-t)} e^{-\tilde{E}^{{\rm sim} (m)}_{B_s}t} \\
+ \sum_{n=0}^{\tilde{N}-1} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} \tilde{d}^{(n)}_{{\bf p}} C_{J, {\bf p}}^{(n,m)} b^{\alpha(m)\dagger} (-1)^{T-t} e^{-\tilde{E}^{(n)}(T-t)} e^{-E^{{\rm sim} (m)}_{B_s}t} \\
+ \sum_{n,m=0}^{\tilde{N}-1} \tilde{d}^{(n)}_{{\bf p}} D_{J, {\bf p}}^{(n,m)} \tilde{b}^{\alpha(m)\dagger} (-1)^T e^{-\tilde{E}^{(n)}(T-t)} e^{-\tilde{E}^{{\rm sim} (m)}_{B_s}t},
\label{eq-3ptfit}\end{gathered}$$ where the three point amplitudes $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ are proportional to the hadronic matrix elements. The ground state hadronic matrix element is obtained from $A^{(0,0)}$ $$\frac{4}{\sqrt{2}}A_{J,\bf p}^{(0,0)} = \frac{a^3 \langle K_{\bf p}^{(0)} |J| B_s^{(0)} \rangle }{\sqrt{2a^3E_K^{(0)}} \sqrt{2a^3 E^{(0)}_{B_s}}},$$ where the factor of $4/\sqrt{2}$ accounts for numerical factors introduced in the simulation and associated with taste averaging and HISQ inversion. In the correlator fits we include data for several temporal separations $T$ between the mother and daughter mesons. On the coarse ensembles we include data for $T=13,14,15$ while for the fine ensembles we include $T=23, 24$ data.
On each ensemble we perform a simultaneous fit to two and three point correlation function data for the $B_s\to K$ and $B_s\to \eta_s$ decays, at all simulated momenta, including both spatial and temporal currents, and for the temporal separations listed above. This ensures correlations among these data are accounted for in the analysis. However, fits to such large data sets produce unwieldy data covariance matrices and are typically not convergent, or require a prohibitively large number of iterations. This can be partially addressed by thinning the data, e.g. by the use of singular value decomposition (SVD) cuts, but this reduces the accuracy of the fits.
To address this problem we introduce a technique, which we refer to as chaining, to simplify fits to very large data sets. Consider a data set consisting of $N$ correlators, ${\rm data}=({\rm correlator}_1, {\rm correlator}_2, \dots, {\rm correlator}_N)$. Before the fit, all fit parameters are assigned priors. Chaining first fits ${\rm correlator}_1$ then uses the best fit mean values and covariances to replace the corresponding priors in subsequent fits. The updated set of priors is then used in the fit to ${\rm correlator}_2$. In this and all subsequent fits, correlations are accounted for between the data being fit and those priors which are best fit results from previous fits—this is an important step as it prevents “double counting" data. After this second fit, the priors are again updated according to the best fit mean values and covariances. This process is repeated for all correlators. The collection of best fit mean values and covariances following the fit to ${\rm correlator}_N$ are the final fit results. Chaining is described in greater detail in Appendix \[app-basics\].
We combine the use of Bayesian [@Lepage:2002], marginalized [@Hornbostel:2011], and chained fitting techniques. Our final fit results use marginalization with a total of $(N, \tilde{N})=(8,8)$ states accounted for, of which $(6,1)$ are explicitly fit. We refer to such fits with the shorthand notation, $(6,1)/(8,8)$. States accounted for but not explicitly fit are marginalized in that their contributions are subtracted from the data prior to the fit. This technique reduces significantly the time required to perform the fits. In Fig. \[fig-marg\] we show the stability of the fits under variations in the numbers of states explicitly included and the total number of states accounted for in the fit.
[lcccc]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensemble & $f^{B_s K}_0(000)$ & $f^{B_s K}_0(100)$ & $f^{B_s K}_0(110)$ & $f^{B_s K}_0(111)$\
\[0.5ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1 & 0.8244(23) & 0.7081(27) & 0.6383(30) & 0.5938(41)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2 & 0.8427(25) & 0.6927(35) & 0.6036(49) & 0.536(12)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3 & 0.8313(29) & 0.6953(33) & 0.6309(30) & 0.5844(46)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1 & 0.8322(25) & 0.6844(35) & 0.5994(43) & 0.5551(56)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F2 & 0.8316(27) & 0.6915(38) & 0.6119(43) & 0.5563(61)\
\[0.5ex\]\
\[-2.5ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensemble && $f^{B_s K}_+(100)$& $f^{B_s K}_+(110)$ & $f^{B_s K}_+(111)$\
\[0.5ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1 && 2.087(16) & 1.657(14) & 1.378(13)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2 && 1.880(12) & 1.412(16) & 1.142(33)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3 && 1.773(11) & 1.4212(84) & 1.184(10)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1 && 1.878(13) & 1.385(12) & 1.158(13)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F2 && 1.834(14) & 1.396(10) & 1.163(14)\
\[0.5ex\]
\[tab-BsKcorrfits\]
The $B_s\to K$ form factor results from the correlation function fits are tabulated in Table \[tab-BsKcorrfits\] and additional details are given in Appendix \[sec-corrfit\_results\].
The form factors obtained from these fits preserve correlations resulting from shared gauge field configurations and quark propagators used in data generation. The preservation of correlations is demonstrated in the top panel of Fig. \[fig-correlations\] where, e.g., significant correlations among the $B_s\to K$ form factor fit results are seen at common momenta and nonzero correlations among form factors for the two decays is suggested. The bottom panel of Fig. \[fig-correlations\] shows the distribution over all ensembles of correlations among form factors for the two decays. Accounting for these correlations is useful in our determination of the ratio of form factors for the two decays. Fit results for $B_s\to\eta_s$, and the resulting form factor ratios, are presented in Appendix \[sec-Ratio\].
Chiral, continuum, and kinematic extrapolation {#sec-Extrap}
==============================================
The results of HPChPT [@Bijnens:2010; @Bijnens:2011] suggest a factorization, to at least one-loop order, of the soft physics of logarithmic chiral corrections and the physics associated with kinematics in the form factors describing semileptonic decays of heavy mesons, $$f_{\parallel, \perp}(E) = (1 + [\text{logs}])\ \mathcal{K}_{\parallel, \perp}(E).
\label{eq-fact}$$ The logarithmic chiral corrections, calculated in Ref. [@Bijnens:2011] for several $B_{(s)}$ decays, are independent of $E$. An unspecified function $\mathcal{K}$ characterizes the kinematics.
To obtain results over the full kinematic range one must include lattice simulation data over a range of energies. However, for any relevant physical scale $\Lambda$ (e.g. $\Lambda_{QCD}$, $1/r_1,\ \Lambda_{\rm ChPT},\ \dots$), $E \gtrsim \Lambda$ at nominal lattice momenta and there is no convergent expansion of the unknown function $\mathcal{K}(E)$ in powers of $E/\Lambda$. This is an inherent limitation of characterizing the kinematics in terms of energy. The energy of the daughter meson is a poor variable with which to describe the kinematics.
In contrast, the $z$ expansion [@Boyd:1996; @Arnesen:2005; @Bourrely:2010] provides a convergent, model-independent characterization of the kinematics over the entire kinematically accessible range. Combining a $z$ expansion on each ensemble[^3] with the HPChPT inspired factorization of Eq. (\[eq-fact\]) allows a simultaneous chiral, continuum, and kinematic extrapolation of lattice data at arbitrary energies. Because the chiral logs are the same for $f_{\parallel}$ and $f_{\perp}$, linear combinations (i.e. $f_{0}$ and $f_+$) factorize in the same way and have the same chiral logs. Motivated by these observations, we construct a HPChPT-motivated modified $z$ expansion, which we call the “HPChPT $z$ expansion", and fit the lattice data of Tables \[tab-BsKcorrfits\] and \[tab-BsEtascorrfits\], with accompanying covariance matrix, to fit functions of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-genform}
P_{0,+}(q^2) f_{0,+}(q^2) &=& (1 + [\text{logs}]) \nonumber \\
&\times& \sum_{k=0}^{K} a_k^{(0,+)} D_k^{(0,+)} z(q^2)^k,
\label{eq-basicz}\end{aligned}$$ where \[logs\] are the continuum HPChPT logs of Ref. [@Bijnens:2011], and generic analytic chiral and discretization effects are accounted for by $D_k$. Resonances above $q^2_{\rm max}$ but below the $B_sK$ production threshold, i.e. those in the range $q^2_{\rm max} < q^2 < (M_{B_s}+M_K)^2$, are accounted for via the Blaschke factor, $P=1-q^2/M^2_{\rm res}$. Though not observed, we allow for the possibility of a $J^P=0^+$ state in $P_0$, with choice of mass guided by Ref. [@Gregory:2011]. Our fit results are insensitive to the presence of this state. The factorization suggested by HPChPT may not hold at higher order [@Colangelo:2012] so we allow chiral analytic terms, which help parametrize effects from omitted higher order chiral logs, to have energy dependence (i.e. to vary with $k$).
We note that Eq. (\[eq-genform\]) is the modified $z$ expansion introduced in Refs. [@Na:2010; @Na:2011], with the coefficients of the chiral logarithmic corrections fixed by the results of HPChPT. In the chiral and continuum limits $$\lim_{\substack{
m\to m_{\rm physical} \\
a\to 0
}}
(1+[\text{logs}])\, a_k D_k = b_k\ \text{of Ref.~\cite{Bourrely:2010}},
\label{eq-limit}$$ and Eq. (\[eq-genform\]) is equivalent to the Bourrely-Caprini-Lellouch parametrization [@Bourrely:2010] of the form factors.
Following Ref. [@Bourrely:2010] we impose a constraint on $a_K^{(+)}$ from the expected scaling behavior of $f_+(q^2)$ in the neighborhood of $q^2_{\rm max}$. The resulting fit function for $f_+$ is $$\begin{gathered}
P_+(q^2) f_+(q^2,a) \\
= ( 1+[\text{logs}] ) \sum_{k=0}^{K-1} a_k^{(+)} D_k^{(+)}(a) \big[ z(q^2)^k - (-1)^{k-K} \frac{k}{K} z(q^2)^K \big].
\label{eq-P+}\end{gathered}$$ We write $f(q^2,a)$, $z(q^2)$, and $D_k(a)$, explicitly exposing the dependence on $q^2$ and $a$. This is useful in explaining the implementation of a second kinematic constraint we impose on the form factors. At the kinematic endpoint $q^2=0$, the continuum extrapolated form factors $f_0$ and $f_+$ are equal, i.e. $f_0(0,0) = f_+(0,0)$. We impose this constraint by fixing the coefficient $a_0^{(0)}$, $$\begin{gathered}
a_0^{(0)} D_0^{(0)}(0) = - \sum_{k=1}^K a_k^{(0)} D_k^{(0)}(0) z(0)^k \\
+ \sum_{k=0}^{K-1} a_k^{(+)}D_k^{(+)}(0) \big[ z(0)^k - (-1)^{k-K} \frac{k}{K} z(0)^K \big].\end{gathered}$$ Imposing this constraint results in the fit function for $f_0$: $$\begin{gathered}
P_0(q^2) f_0(q^2,a) = ( 1+[\text{logs}] ) \\
\times \bigg\{ \sum_{k=1}^{K} a_k^{(0)} \Big[ D_k^{(0)}(a) z(q^2)^k - \frac{ D_0^{(0)}(a) }{ D_0^{(0)}(0) } D_k^{(0)}(0) z(0)^k \Big] \\
+ \frac{ D_0^{(0)}(a) }{ D_0^{(0)}(0) } \sum_{k=0}^{K-1} a_k^{(+)} D_k^{(+)}(0) \big[ z(0)^k - (-1)^{k-K} \frac{k}{K} z(0)^K \big] \bigg\}.
\label{eq-P0}\end{gathered}$$ In the fit functions for $f_0$ and $f_+$, Eqs. (\[eq-P+\]) and (\[eq-P0\]), $D_k$ and \[logs\] are given by, $$\begin{aligned}
D_k &=& 1 + c^{(k)}_1 x_\pi + c^{(k)}_2 \big( \frac{1}{2}\delta x_\pi + \delta x_K \big) \nonumber \\
&+& c^{(k)}_3 \delta x_{\eta_s} + d^{(k)}_1 (a/r_1)^2 + d^{(k)}_2 (a/r_1)^4 \nonumber \\
&+& e^{(k)}_1 (aE_K)^2 + e^{(k)}_2 (aE_K)^4, \label{eq-Dk} \\{}
[\text{logs}] &=& -\frac{3}{8} x_\pi ( \log x_\pi + \delta_{FV}) - \frac{1+6g^2}{4} x_K \log x_K \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1+12g^2}{24}x_{\eta} \log x_{\eta}, \label{eq-logs}\end{aligned}$$ with implicit indices in Eq. (\[eq-Dk\]) specifying the scalar or vector form factor. We account for momentum-independent and momentum-dependent discretization effects in $D_k$. The values of $aE_K$ that enter the fit are the values from the simulation and are, of course, small. Finite volume effects in the simulation are included via a shift $\delta_{FV}$ in the pion log [@Bernard:2002]. The infinite volume limit is taken by setting this shift to zero. Eq. (\[eq-logs\]) gives the HPChPT [@Bijnens:2011] result for the chiral logarithmic correction to $B_s\to K$ form factors. These expressions make use of the dimensionless quantities $$\begin{aligned}
x_{\pi, K, \eta} &=& \frac{M_{\pi, K, \eta}^2}{(4\pi f_\pi)^2} , \label{eq-x} \\
\delta x_{\pi, K} &=& \frac{(M^{\rm asqtad}_{\pi, K})^2 - (M^{\rm HISQ}_{\pi, K})^2}{(4\pi f_\pi)^2}, \label{eq-mixed} \\
\delta x_{\eta_s} &=& \frac{(M^{\rm HISQ}_{\eta_s})^2 - (M^{\rm physical}_{\eta_s})^2}{(4\pi f_\pi)^2},\label{eq-strange}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_\eta^2 = (M^2_\pi + 2M^2_{\eta_s})/3$. We determine $q^2$ and $z$ on each ensemble using correlator fit results for meson masses and simulation momenta. Light and heavy quark discretization effects are accommodated for by making the $d_i^{(k)}$ mild functions of the masses, accomplished by the replacements $$\begin{aligned}
d_1^{(k)} &\to& d_1^{(k)} (1 + l^{(k)} _1 x_\pi + l^{(k)} _2 x^2_\pi) (1+ h^{(k)} _1 \delta x_b + h^{(k)} _2 \delta x_b^2 ), \nonumber \\
d_2^{(k)} &\to& d_2^{(k)} (1 + l^{(k)} _3 x_\pi + l^{(k)} _4 x^2_\pi) (1+ h^{(k)} _3 \delta x_b + h^{(k)} _4 \delta x_b^2 ), \nonumber \\
\label{eq-disc}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta x_b = am_b - 2.26$ is chosen so that as $am_b$ varies over the coarse and fine ensembles $-0.4 \lesssim \delta x_b \lesssim 0.4$.
Lastly, we account for uncertainty associated with the perturbative matching of Sec. \[sec-Simulation\]. With the matching coefficients calculated in Ref. [@Monahan:2013], we find $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s, \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b, \alpha_s/(am_b))$ contributions to be $\sim\!4\%$ of the total contribution to $\langle V_0\rangle$. Of this $4\%$ the majority, $\sim\!3.5\%$, comes from the one loop $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ correction and $<\!1\%$ from the NRQCD matching via $\langle J_0^{(1),{\rm sub}}\rangle$. For $\langle V_k\rangle$ we find contributions at this order to be $\sim\!2\%$, with $\sim\!1\%$ coming from the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ correction and $<\!1\%$ from the NRQCD matching. The matching error results from omitted higher order corrections, the size of which we estimate from observed leading order effects, where we conservatively use the larger 4%. Following the arguments outlined in Ref. [@Bouchard:2013a] we estimate the matching error to be the same size as the observed $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s, \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b, \alpha_s/(am_b))$ contributions and take the matching error to be 4%. This is equivalent to taking the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ matching coefficient to be four times larger than the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ matching coefficient $\rho_0^{(V_0)}$ (13 times larger than $\rho_0^{(V_k)}$). This uncertainty is associated with the hadronic matrix elements and therefore, by Eqs. (\[eq-fpardef\]) and (\[eq-fperpdef\]), with $f_\parallel$ and $f_\perp$. To correctly incorporate it in the results for $f_0$ and $f_+$ we convert our fit functions for $f_{0,+}$ into $f_{\parallel, \perp}$, multiply by $(1+ m_{\parallel, \perp})$, where $m_{\parallel,\perp}$ is a coefficient representing the matching error with a prior central value of zero and width 0.04, then convert back to $f_{0,+}$ before performing the fit. Schematically, we modify the fit functions, defined in Eqs. (\[eq-P+\]) and (\[eq-P0\]), by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.3in} f_0, f_+ \to f_\parallel, f_\perp \\
&&\hspace{-0.3in} f_\parallel, f_\perp \to (1+m_\parallel)f_\parallel, (1+m_\perp)f_\perp \label{eq-matcherr} \\
&&\hspace{-0.3in} (1+m_\parallel)f_\parallel, (1+m_\perp)f_\perp \to f^{\rm corrected}_0, f^{\rm corrected}_+\!,\end{aligned}$$ then we use $f^{\rm corrected}_{0,+}$ to fit the results of the correlation function fits of Sec. \[sec-CorrFits\]. Conversions between the form factors $f_{0,+}$ and $f_{\parallel,\perp}$ are performed using Eqs. (\[eq-f0def\]) and (\[eq-fplusdef\]).
The results of a simultaneous fit to the data for $f_{0,+}^{B_sK}$ and $f_{0,+}^{B_s\eta_s}$, in which the maximum order of $z$ \[specified by $K$ in Eqs. (\[eq-P+\]) and (\[eq-P0\])\] is 3 and $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.} = 84.0/70$, are shown relative to the data in Fig. \[fig-HPChPTfit\_BsK\_ens\] for $B_s\to K$. Details of prior choices and fit results are given in Appendix \[sec-HPChPTz\_results\].
We test the stability of this fit to the following modifications of the fit Ansätze:
1. Truncate the $z$ expansion at $\mathcal{O}(z^2)$.
2. Truncate the $z$ expansion at $\mathcal{O}(z^4)$.
3. Truncate the $z$ expansion at $\mathcal{O}(z^5)$.
4. Drop $\mathcal{O}(aE_K)^4$ momentum-dependent and $\mathcal{O}(a^4)$ momentum-independent discretization terms in Eq. (\[eq-Dk\]).
5. Drop the $am_b$-dependent discretization terms in Eq. (\[eq-disc\]).
6. Drop the light-quark mass-dependent discretization terms in Eq. (\[eq-disc\]).
7. Add the following next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) chiral analytic terms to $D_k$ as defined in Eq. (\[eq-Dk\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&& c_4^{(k)} x_\pi^2 + c_5^{(k)}\big( \frac{1}{2}\delta x_\pi + \delta x_K \big)^2 + c_6^{(k)} \delta x^2_{\eta_s} \nonumber \\
&& +\ c_7^{(k)} x_\pi \big( \frac{1}{2}\delta x_\pi + \delta x_K \big) + c_8^{(k)} x_\pi \delta x_{\eta_s} \label{eq-NNLO}\\
&& +\ c_9^{(k)}\big( \frac{1}{2}\delta x_\pi + \delta x_K \big) \delta x_{\eta_s} + c_{10}^{(k)} x_\pi (a/r_1)^2 \nonumber \\
&& +\ c_{11}^{(k)}\big( \frac{1}{2}\delta x_\pi + \delta x_K \big)(a/r_1)^2 + c_{12}^{(k)} \delta x_{\eta_s} (a/r_1)^2 . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
8. Drop the sea- and valence-quark mass difference term $\big( \frac{1}{2}\delta x_\pi + \delta x_K \big)$ from Eq. (\[eq-Dk\]).
9. Drop the strange quark mistuning term $\delta x_{\eta_s}$ from Eq. (\[eq-Dk\]).
10. Drop finite volume effects, i.e. set $\delta_{FV}=0$ in Eq. (\[eq-logs\]).
The stability of the $B_s\to K$ fit results to these modifications is shown in Fig. \[fig-BsKstability\], where results are shown at the extrapolated $q^2=0$ point. This point is furthest from the data region where simulations are performed and therefore is particularly sensitive to changes in the fit function. In Fig. \[fig-BsKstability\] our final fit result, as defined by Eqs. (\[eq-P+\]) and (\[eq-P0\]) with $K=3$ and by Eqs. (\[eq-Dk\])–(\[eq-disc\]), is indicated by the dashed line and gray band.
Modifications 1, 2, and 3 vary the order of the truncation in $z$ and demonstrate that by $\mathcal{O}(z^3)$ fit results have stabilized and errors have saturated. We therefore conclude that the error of the $\mathcal{O}(z^3)$ fit adequately accounts for the systematic error due to truncating the $z$ expansion.
Momentum-dependent and momentum-independent discretization effects proportional to $a^4$ are removed in modification 4. This results in a modest increase in $\chi^2$ and a negligible shift in the fit result. This suggests our final fit, which includes the $a^4$ effects, adequately accounts for all discretization effects observed in the data.
In modifications 5 and 6 we remove heavy- and light-quark mass-dependent discretization effects with essentially no impact on the fit. That our results are independent of light-quark mass dependent discretization effects suggests that staggered taste violating effects are accommodated for by a generic $a^2$ dependence.
Modification 7 tests the truncation of chiral analytic terms after next-to-leading-order (NLO) by adding the NNLO terms listed in Eq. (\[eq-NNLO\]). This results in a slight decrease in $\chi^2$ but has no noticeable effect on the fit central value or error. From this we conclude that errors associated with omitted higher order chiral terms are negligible.
Differences in sea and valence quark masses, due in part to our use of HISQ valence- and asqtad sea-quarks, are neglected in modification 8. This results in a small increase in $\chi^2$ and negligible change in the fit results. We account for these small mass differences in our final fit, though this test suggests they are unimportant in the fit.
Effects due to strange quark mass mistuning on the ensembles are omitted in modification 9, resulting in a modest increase in $\chi^2$ and no change in the fit central value and error. We include these effects in our final fit.
Modification 10 results in nearly identical fit results, suggesting that finite volume effects are negligible in our data. We include these effects in our final fit results.
\
Form Factor Results {#sec-FF_results}
===================
In this section we present final results, with a complete error budget, for the $B_s\to K$ form factors. We provide the needed information to reconstruct the form factors and compare our results with previous model calculations.
Fig. \[fig-HPChPTfit\_BsK\_phys\] shows the results of the chiral, continuum, and kinematic extrapolation of Sec. \[sec-Extrap\], plotted over the entire kinematic range of $q^2$. The form factors, extrapolated to $q^2=0$, have the value $f_{0,+}^{B_sK}(0)=0.323(63)$.
Fit errors for the HPChPT $z$ expansion {#sec-errbrkdwn}
---------------------------------------
The inputs in our chiral, continuum, and kinematic extrapolation fits are data (the correlator fit results for $f_0$ and $f_+$ in Tables \[tab-BsKcorrfits\] and \[tab-BsEtascorrfits\] with the accompanying covariance matrix) and priors. The total hessian error of the fit can be described in terms of contributions from these inputs, as described in detail in Appendix \[app-basics\]. We group priors in a meaningful, though not unique, way and discuss the error associated with the chiral, continuum, and kinematic extrapolation based on these groupings. As the priors are, by construction, uncorrelated with one another, we can group them together in any way we find meaningful. The resulting error groupings are uncorrelated and add in quadrature to the total error. In Fig. \[fig-modzerr\] we plot the following relative error components as functions of $q^2$:
1. [*experiment:*]{} This is the error in the fit due to uncertainty of experimentally determined, and other, input parameters. It is the sum in quadrature of the errors due to priors for the “Group I" fit parameters listed in Table \[tab-modzpriorsI\]. This error is independent of $q^2$ and subdominant.
2. [*kinematic:*]{} This error component is due to the priors for the coefficients $a_k^{(0,+)}$ in Eqs. (\[eq-P+\]) and (\[eq-P0\]). A comparison of the fit results from modifications 1, 2, and 3 in Fig. \[fig-BsKstability\] shows that by $\mathcal{O}(z^3)$ the fit results have stabilized and errors have saturated. The kinematic error therefore includes the error associated with truncating the $z$ expansion. The extrapolation to values of $q^2$ for which we have no simulation data is controlled by the $z$ expansion. As a result, the growth in form factor errors away from the simulation region is due almost entirely to kinematic and statistical errors.
3. [*chiral:*]{} This error component is the sum in quadrature of errors associated with priors for $c_i^{(k)}$ in Eq. (\[eq-Dk\]). These terms are responsible for extrapolating to the physical light quark mass and for accommodating for the slight strange quark mistuning and the small mismatch in sea and valence quark masses due to the mixed action used in the simulation. As shown in Fig. \[fig-modzerr\], these errors are subdominant and do not vary significantly with $q^2$.
4. [*discretization:*]{} We account for momentum-dependent discretization effects via the $e_i^{(k)}$, and momentum-independent discretization effects via the $d_i^{(k)}$, terms of Eq. (\[eq-Dk\]). In addition we allow for heavy- and light-quark mass-dependent discretization effects via the $h_i^{(k)}$ and $l_i^{(k)}$ terms in Eq. (\[eq-disc\]). The discretization error component, which is essentially independent of $q^2$, is the sum in quadrature of the error due to the priors for these fit parameters.
5. [*statistical:*]{} The statistical component of the error is due to uncertainty in the data, i.e. the errors from form factor fit results of Table \[tab-BsKcorrfits\]. Simulation data exist for $q^2 \gtrsim 17\ {\rm GeV}^2$ for $f_0$ and over the range $17\ {\rm GeV}^2 \lesssim q^2 \lesssim 22\ {\rm GeV}^2$ for $f_+$. Extrapolation beyond these regions leads to increasing errors.
6. [*matching:*]{} The matching error is due to the uncertainty associated with the priors for $m_{\parallel, \perp}$ introduced in Eq. (\[eq-matcherr\]) and discussed in the surrounding text.
\
In addition to the largest sources of error, which we account for directly in the fit, there are remaining systematic uncertainties.
We simulate with degenerate light quarks and neglect electromagnetism. By adjusting the physical kaon mass ($M_{K^\pm} \to M_{K^0}$) used in the chiral, continuum and kinematic extrapolation, we estimate the “kinematic" effects of omitting electromagnetic and isospin symmetry breaking in our simulation to be $\lesssim 0.1\%$. It is more difficult to determine the size of the full effects. However, in general electromagnetic and isospin effects are expected to be sub-percent. We assume the error in our form factor calculation due to these effects is negligible relative to other sources of uncertainty.
Our simulations include up, down, and strange sea quarks and we assume omitted charm sea quark effects are negligible. This has been the case for processes in which it has been possible and appropriate to perturbatively estimate effects of charm quarks in the sea [@Davies:2010].
Our final form factor results, multiplied by the Blaschke factor $P_{0,+}$, are shown in Fig. \[fig-FF\_compare\] where they are compared with results from a model calculation using perturbative QCD (pQCD) [@Wang:2012] and a relativistic quark model (RQM) [@Faustov:2013]. Our results provide significant clarification on the form factors at large $q^2$.
Reconstructing $B_s\to K \ell \nu$ Form Factors {#sec-recon}
-----------------------------------------------
[lcccccc]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coefficient & & & & & & Value\
\[1ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(0)}_1$ & & & & & & 0.315(129)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(0)}_2$ & & & & & & 0.945(1.305)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(0)}_3$ & & & & & & 2.391(4.671)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(+)}_0$ & & & & & & 0.3680(214)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(+)}_1$ & & & & & & -0.750(193)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(+)}_2$ & & & & & & 2.720(1.458)\
\[0.5ex\]\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $b^{(0)}_1$ & $b^{(0)}_2$ & $b^{(0)}_3$ & $b^{(+)}_0$ & $b^{(+)}_1$ & $b^{(+)}_2$\
\[0.5ex\] & & & & & &\
\[-3ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(0)}_1$ & $1.676\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.462\times 10^{-1}$ & $4.453\times 10^{-1}$ & $1.165\times 10^{-3}$ & $2.140\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.434\times 10^{-1}$\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(0)}_2$ & & $1.702$ & $5.852$ & $9.481\times 10^{-3}$ & $2.255\times 10^{-1}$ & $1.539$\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(0)}_3$ & & & $2.181\times 10^{1}$ & $2.963\times 10^{-2}$ & $7.472\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.325$\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(+)}_0$ & & & & $4.577\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.157\times 10^{-3}$ & $-1.309\times 10^{-3}$\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(+)}_1$ & & & & & $3.721\times 10^{-2}$ & $1.858\times 10^{-1}$\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$b^{(+)}_2$ & & & & & & $2.124$\
\[0.5ex\]
\[tab-coeffs\]
In the physical limit our form factor results are parametrized in a BCL [@Bourrely:2010] form with coefficients $b_k^{(0,+)}$ \[see Eq. (\[eq-limit\])\]. Including the kinematic constraint and terms through order $z^3$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
P_0(q^2) f_0(q^2) &= \sum_{k=1}^{3}b_k^{(0)} (z^k - z(0)^k) \nonumber \\
+ & \sum_{k=0}^{2} b_k^{(+)} \left[z(0)^k - (-1)^{k-3} \frac{k}{3} z(0)^3\right] , \label{eq-ezf0} \\
P_+(q^2) f_+(q^2) &= \sum_{k=0}^{2} b_k^{(+)} \left[z^k - (-1)^{k-3} \frac{k}{3} z^3\right] , \label{eq-ezf+}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
z(q^2) &=& \frac{\sqrt{t_+ - q^2} - \sqrt{t_+-t_0} }{\sqrt{t_+ - q^2} + \sqrt{t_+-t_0} } ,\\
t_+ &=& (M_{B_s}+M_K)^2 ,\\
t_0 &=& (M_{B_s}+M_K) (\sqrt{M_{B_s}} - \sqrt{M_K})^2, \\
P_{0,+}(q^2) &=& 1-q^2/M_{0,+}^2,\end{aligned}$$ and the resonance masses are $M_0=5.6794(10)\,{\rm GeV}$ and $M_+=5.32520(48)\,{\rm GeV}$. The values of the coefficients $b_k^{(0,+)}$, derived from the extrapolation fit results of Sec. \[sec-Extrap\], and the associated covariance matrix, are given in Table \[tab-coeffs\]. Note that it is necessary to take into account the correlations among the coefficients to correctly reproduce the form factor errors.
Phenomenology {#sec-pheno}
=============
With the benefit of [*ab initio*]{} form factors from lattice QCD, we explore the standard model implications of our results. In this section we make standard model predictions for several observables related to the $B_s\to K\ell\nu$ decay for $\ell=\mu$ and $\tau$.
The standard model $B_s\to K \ell \nu$ differential decay rate is related to the form factors by $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{d\Gamma}{dq^2} = \frac{G_F^2 |V_{ub}|^2}{24\pi^3 M^2_{B_s}} \Big(1-\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\Big)^2\ |{\bf p}_K| \bigg[ \Big( 1+\frac{m_\ell^2}{2q^2} \Big) M^2_{B_s} {\bf p}_K^2 |f_+|^2 \\
+\ \frac{3m_\ell^2}{8q^2} (M^2_{B_s} - M^2_K)^2 |f_0|^2\bigg].\end{gathered}$$ In Fig. \[fig-dZetadq2\_mu\] we plot predicted differential decay rates for $B_s\to K \mu \nu$ and $B_s\to K \tau \nu$, divided by $|V_{ub}|^2$, over the full kinematic range of $q^2$.
\
The ratio $\Gamma/|V_{ub}|^2$ can be combined with experimental results for the decay rates, typically differential decay rates integrated over $q^2$ bins, to allow the determination of $|V_{ub}|$. In Eqs. (\[eq-Zetamu\]) and (\[eq-Zetatau\]) we give numerical results for $d\Gamma/dq^2$, integrated over the kinematically accessible regions of $q^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(B_s\to K\mu\nu)/|V_{ub}|^2 &=& 7.75(1.52)\ {\rm ps}^{-1}, \label{eq-Zetamu} \\
\Gamma(B_s\to K\tau\nu)/|V_{ub}|^2 &=& 4.92(0.60)\ {\rm ps}^{-1}. \label{eq-Zetatau}\end{aligned}$$ Combining our form factor results with the current[^4] inclusive and exclusive semileptonic determinations of $|V_{ub}|$, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{exclusive } |V_{ub}| &=& 3.47(22) \times 10^{-3}, \label{eq-excl} \\
\text{inclusive } |V_{ub}| &=& 4.41(22) \times 10^{-3}, \label{eq-incl}\end{aligned}$$ we demonstrate in Fig. \[fig-dBdq2\_diffVub\] the potential of this decay to shed light on this $\sim\!3\sigma$ discrepancy. In this and subsequent figures, dark interior bands represent the error in the differential branching fractions omitting the error associated with $|V_{ub}|$. Experimental errors commensurate with these predictions, especially for the $B_s\to K\tau\nu$ decay or at large $q^2$ for the $B_s\to K\mu\nu$ decay, would allow differentiation between the current inclusive and exclusive values of $|V_{ub}|$.
\
Decays that couple to the $\tau$ have increased dependence on the scalar form factor and to new physics models with scalar states (see, e.g., Refs. [@Tsai:1997; @Chen:2006] for a discussion of new physics in the closely related decay $B\to \pi \tau \nu$). The ratio of the $B_s\to K\tau\nu$ differential branching fraction to that for $B_s\to K\mu\nu$, $$R^\tau_\mu(q_{\rm low}^2, q_{\rm high}^2) = \frac{ \int_{q_{\rm low}^2}^{q_{\rm high}^2}dq^2\ d\mathcal{B}/dq^2(B_s\to K \tau\nu) }{\int_{q_{\rm low}^2}^{q_{\rm high}^2}dq^2\ d\mathcal{B}/dq^2(B_s\to K \mu\nu) },
\label{eq-Rtaumu}$$ is therefore a potentially sensitive probe of new physics. Integrating over the full kinematic range, we find $$R_\mu^\tau(m_\mu^2, q^2_{\rm max}) = 0.695(50),
\label{eq-R}$$ where $q^2_{\rm max}=(M_{B_s} - M_K)^2$. We plot the standard model prediction for this ratio, as a function of $q^2=(q^2_{\rm low}+q^2_{\rm high})/2$, over the full kinematic range in Fig. \[fig-Rtaumu\].
The angular dependence of the differential decay rate, neglecting final state electromagnetic interactions, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2\Gamma}{dq^2\, d\cos\theta_\ell} &=& \frac{G_F^2 |V_{ub}|^2}{128\pi^3 M_{B_s}^2}\, \Big(1-\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\Big)^2 |{\bf p}_K| \nonumber \\
&&\times \Big[ 4M_{B_s}^2 | {\bf p}_K |^2 \Big(\sin^2\theta_\ell + \frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2} \cos^2\theta_\ell \Big) f_+^2 \nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{4m_\ell^2}{q^2} (M^2_{B_s} - M^2_K) M_{B_s} | {\bf p}_K | \cos\theta_\ell f_0 f_+ \nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2} (M^2_{B_s} - M^2_K)^2 f_0^2 \Big],\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_\ell$ is defined, in the $q^2$ rest frame (i.e. where ${\bf p}_\ell + {\bf p}_\nu$ is zero), as the angle between the final state lepton and the $B_s$ meson. From this angular dependence we can extract a forward-backward asymmetry [@Meissner:2013], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}^\ell_{\rm FB}(q^2) &=& \Bigg[ \int_0^1 - \int_{-1}^0 \Bigg] d\cos\theta_\ell \frac{d^2\Gamma}{dq^2\, d\cos\theta_\ell} \\
&=& \frac{G_F^2 |V_{ub}|^2}{32\pi^3 M_{B_s}}\, \Big(1-\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\Big)^2 |{\bf p}_K|^2 \nonumber \\
& & \times \frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2} (M^2_{B_s} - M^2_K) f_0 f_+,\end{aligned}$$ which is suppressed in the standard model by a factor of $m_\ell^2/q^2$. In Fig. \[fig-AFB\_diffVub\] we show standard model predictions for the forward-backward asymmetry using the inclusive and exclusive values for $|V_{ub}|$. Integrating over the full kinematic range of $q^2$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{m_\mu^2}^{q^2_{\rm max}} dq^2\ \mathcal{A}^\mu_{\rm FB}(q^2)/|V_{ub}|^2 &=& 0.052(17)\ {\rm ps}^{-1}, \label{eq-AFBmu} \\
\int_{m_\tau^2}^{q^2_{\rm max}} dq^2\ \mathcal{A}^\tau_{\rm FB}(q^2)/|V_{ub}|^2 &=& 1.40(20)\ {\rm ps}^{-1}. \label{eq-AFBtau}\end{aligned}$$
\
Normalizing the forward-backward asymmetry by the differential decay rate removes $|V_{ub}|$ ambiguity and most hadronic uncertainties, $$\bar{\mathcal{A}}^\ell_{\rm FB}(q^2_{\rm low}, q^2_{\rm high}) = \frac{\int_{q_{\rm low}^2}^{q_{\rm high}^2}dq^2\ \mathcal{A}^\ell_{\rm FB}(q^2)}{\int_{q_{\rm low}^2}^{q_{\rm high}^2} dq^2\ d\Gamma/dq^2},
\label{eq-AFBn}$$ and represents the probability the lepton will have a momentum component, in this frame, in the direction of motion of the parent $B_s$ meson. Integrating over $q^2$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathcal{A}}^\mu_{\rm FB}(m^2_\mu, q^2_{\rm max}) &=& 0.0066(10), \\
\bar{\mathcal{A}}^\tau_{\rm FB}(m^2_\tau, q^2_{\rm max}) &=& 0.284(17) ,\end{aligned}$$ with central values equal to those obtained by taking the ratio of results from Eqs. (\[eq-AFBmu\]) and (\[eq-AFBtau\]) with those from Eqs. (\[eq-Zetamu\]) and (\[eq-Zetatau\]). The errors, however, are $\sim\!3\times$ smaller when correlations are accounted for. The normalized standard model asymmetries are plotted in Fig. \[fig-AFBn\] as a function of $q^2$.
\
The production of right-handed final state leptons is helicity-suppressed in the standard model, providing a probe of new physics via helicity-violating interactions. The standard model differential decay rates for left-handed (LH) and right handed (RH) polarized final state leptons in $B_s\to K\ell\nu$ decays is [@Meissner:2013] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\Gamma({\rm LH})}{dq^2} &=& \frac{G_F^2 |V_{ub}|^2 |{\bf p}_K|^3}{24\pi^3} \Big(1-\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\Big)^2 f_+^2\ , \nonumber \\
\frac{d\Gamma({\rm RH})}{dq^2} &=& \frac{G_F^2 |V_{ub}|^2 |{\bf p}_K|}{24\pi^3} \frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2} \Big(1-\frac{m_\ell^2}{q^2}\Big)^2 \\
&& \times \Bigg[\frac{3}{8} \frac{(M^2_{B_s}-M^2_K)^2}{M^2_{B_s}} f^2_0 + \frac{1}{2} |{\bf p}_K|^2 f^2_+ \Bigg], \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and the $\ell$-polarization distribution is given by the difference $$\mathcal{A}_{\rm pol}^\ell(q^2) = \frac{d\Gamma({\rm LH})}{dq^2} - \frac{d\Gamma({\rm RH})}{dq^2}.$$ We plot the $\tau$-polarization distribution, again using the inclusive and exclusive values of $|V_{ub}|$ from Eqs. (\[eq-excl\]) and (\[eq-incl\]), in Fig. \[fig-Apol\_tau\]. Because of their relatively small mass, muons produced in the decay are predominantly left-handed and the plot of $\mathcal{A}_{\rm pol}^\mu$ is equivalent to the total differential decay rate. Integrating the $\ell$-polarization distributions over $q^2$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{m_\mu^2}^{q^2_{\rm max}} dq^2\ \mathcal{A}^\mu_{\rm pol}(q^2)/|V_{ub}|^2 &=& 7.61(1.60)\ {\rm ps}^{-1}, \label{eq-Apolmu} \\
\int_{m_\tau^2}^{q^2_{\rm max}} dq^2\ \mathcal{A}^\tau_{\rm pol}(q^2)/|V_{ub}|^2 &=& 0.52(32)\ {\rm ps}^{-1}. \label{eq-Apoltau}\end{aligned}$$
As with the forward-backward asymmetry, we normalize the $\ell$-polarization distribution by the differential decay rate to remove ambiguity associated with $|V_{ub}|$ and hadronic uncertainties. The resulting polarization fraction [@Meissner:2013] is defined by $$\bar{\mathcal{A}}_{\rm pol}^\ell(q^2_{\rm low}, q^2_{\rm high}) = \frac{\int_{q^2_{\rm low}}^{q^2_{\rm high}} dq^2\ \mathcal{A}_{\rm pol}^\ell(q^2)}{\int_{q^2_{\rm low}}^{q^2_{\rm high}} dq^2\ d\Gamma / dq^2}.
\label{eq-Apoln}$$ Integrating over $q^2$ we find the standard model prediction for the fraction of polarized leptons to be $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathcal{A}}_{\rm pol}^\mu(m^2_\mu, q^2_{\rm max}) &=& 0.982({}_{-79}^{+18}), \\
\bar{\mathcal{A}}_{\rm pol}^\tau(m^2_\tau, q^2_{\rm max}) &=& 0.105(63),\end{aligned}$$ where the error associated with the numerical integration of $\bar{\mathcal{A}}_{\rm pol}^\mu$ ($\pm0.079$) has been truncated to satisfy the constraint that $\bar{\mathcal{A}}_{\rm pol}^\ell<1$. The $q^2$ dependence of the $\ell$-polarization fraction is plotted in Fig. \[fig-Apoln\].
\
Summary and Outlook {#sec-summary}
===================
Using NRQCD $b$ and HISQ light and strange valence quarks with the MILC $2+1$ dynamical asqtad configurations, we report on the first lattice QCD calculation of the form factors for the semileptonic decay $B_s \to K \ell\nu$.
With the help of a new technique, called chaining, we fit the $B_s\to K$ correlator data simultaneously with data for the fictitious decay $B_s\to\eta_s$. Fitting these data simultaneously accounts for correlations—useful for constructing ratios of form factors. We extrapolate our lattice form factor results to the continuum, to physical quark mass, and over the full kinematic range of $q^2$ using a combination of the modified $z$ expansion and HPChPT that we refer to as the HPChPT $z$ expansion.
We then make standard model predictions for:
1. differential decay rates divided by $|V_{ub}|^2$, an observable that, when combined with experiment, will allow an alternative semileptonic exclusive determination of $|V_{ub}|$,
2. differential branching fractions using both the inclusive and exclusive semileptonic $B\to\pi\ell\nu$ determinations of $|V_{ub}|$,
3. the ratio of differential branching fractions $R^\tau_\mu(q^2)$,
4. the forward-backward asymmetry, using inclusive and exclusive values of $|V_{ub}|$,
5. the normalized forward-backward asymmetry,
6. the $\tau$-polarization distribution in the differential decay rate for $B_s\to K\tau\nu$, and
7. the $\ell$-polarization fraction in the differential decay rate for $B_s\to K\ell\nu$, for $\ell=\mu, \tau$.
In Appendix \[sec-Ratio\] we construct ratios of form factors for $B_s\to K$ with those for $B_s\to\eta_s$. In combination with a future calculation of $B_s\to\eta_s$ using HISQ $b$, these ratios can provide a nonperturbative determination of the $b\to u$ current matching factor. This would be relevant for both $B_s\to K \ell \nu$ and $B\to\pi \ell \nu$ simulations using NRQCD $b$ quarks.
Our results, built on first principles lattice QCD form factors, greatly clarify standard model expectations [@Meissner:2013] based on model estimates of form factors [@Wang:2012; @Faustov:2013; @Verma:2012], most notably at large $q^2$. Combining our form factors, which are most precise at large $q^2$, with model calculations, typically more reliable at low $q^2$, would result in a more precise determination of $f_0$ and $f_+$. We are studying the possibility of further refining $B_s\to K\ell\nu$ standard model predictions using such form factors.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
=================
This research was supported by the DOE and NSF. We thank the MILC collaboration for making their asqtad $N_f=2+1$ gauge field configurations available. Computations were carried out at the Ohio Supercomputer Center and on facilities of the USQCD collaboration funded by the Office of Science of the U.S. DOE.
Fitting Basics {#app-basics}
==============
Here we describe in more detail two aspects of our statistical analysis: 1) the definition of our error budgets for fit results; and 2) the technique for chained fits of multiple data sets. We also discuss a general procedure for testing fit procedures. These are general techniques applicable to many types of fitting problems [@software]. Finally we illustrate these ideas with an example drawn from this paper.
Fits and Error Budgets
----------------------
The formal structure of a least-squares problem involves fitting input data $y_i$ with functions $f_i(p)$ by adjusting fit parameters $p_\alpha$ to minmize $$\chi^2(p) = \sum_{ij} \Delta y(p)_i \left(\mathrm{cov}_y^{-1}\right)_{ij}
\Delta y(p)_j,$$ where $\mathrm{cov}_{ij}$ is the covariance matrix for the input data and $$\Delta y(p)_i \equiv f_i(p) - y_i.$$ There are generally two types of input data—actual data, and prior data for each fit parameter—but we lump these together here since they enter $\chi^2(p)$ in the same way. So the sums here over $i$ and $j$ are over all data and priors. Note that priors and data may be correlated in some problems.
The best-fit parameters $\overline p_\alpha$ are those that minimize $\chi^2$: $$\partial_\alpha \chi^2(\overline p) = 2
\sum_{ij} \partial_\alpha f_i(\overline p) \left(\mathrm{cov}_y^{-1}\right)_{ij}
\Delta y(\overline p)_j = 0
\label{eq:pbar}$$ where the derivative $\partial_\alpha \equiv \partial/\partial \overline p_\alpha$. The inverse covariance matrix, $\partial_\alpha\partial_\beta \chi^2(\overline p) / 2$, for the $\overline p_\alpha$ is then given by $$\left(\mathrm{cov}_p^{-1}\right)_{\alpha\beta}
= \sum_{ij} \partial_\alpha f_i(\overline p) \left(\mathrm{cov}_y^{-1}\right)_{ij}
\partial_\beta f_j(\overline p) + \mathcal{O}(\Delta y),
\label{eq:covp}$$ where we neglect terms proportional to $\Delta y$ (which makes sense for reasonable fits to accurate data). This is the conventional result.
The uncertainties in the $\overline p_\alpha$ are due to the uncertainties in the input data $y_i$, and, for very accurate data, depend linearly upon $\mathrm{cov}_y$. The relationship can be demonstrated by differentiating Eq. (\[eq:pbar\]) with respect to $y_j$ to obtain $$\sum_\beta \left(\mathrm{cov}_p^{-1}\right)_{\alpha\beta}
\frac{\partial \overline p_\beta}{\partial y_j}
= \sum_i\partial_\alpha f_i(\overline p) \left(\mathrm{cov}_y^{-1}\right)_{ij} + \mathcal{O}(\Delta y),$$ where again we neglect terms proportional to $\Delta y$. Solving for $\partial \overline p_\beta/\partial y_j$ gives: $$\frac{\partial \overline p_\beta}{\partial y_j} = \sum_{\alpha i}
\left(\mathrm{cov}_p\right)_{\beta\alpha} \partial_\alpha f_i(\overline p) \left(\mathrm{cov}_y^{-1}\right)_{ij}
\label{eq:dpdy}$$ In the high-statistics, small-error limit the covariances in the $\overline p_\alpha$ are related to those in the $y_i$ by the standard formula $$\left(\mathrm{cov}_p\right)_{\alpha\beta}
= \sum_{ij} \frac{\partial \overline p_\alpha}{\partial y_i}
\left(\mathrm{cov}_y\right)_{ij}
\frac{\partial \overline p_\beta}{\partial y_j},
\label{eq:covpy}$$ and, indeed, substituting Eq. (\[eq:dpdy\]) into this equation reproduces Eq. (\[eq:covp\]) for $\mathrm{cov}_p$.
Eqs. (\[eq:dpdy\]) and (\[eq:covpy\]) allow us to express the error $\sigma_g$ for a function $g(\overline p)$ of the best-fit parameter values in terms of the input errors: $$\sigma_g^2 \equiv \sum_{\alpha\beta} \partial_\alpha g(\overline p)
\left(\mathrm{cov}_p\right)_{\alpha\beta}
\partial_\beta g(\overline p)
= \sum_{ij} c_{ij} \left(\mathrm{cov}_y\right)_{ij}
\label{eq:covg}$$ where $$c_{ij} \equiv \sum_{\alpha\beta}
\partial_\alpha g(\overline p)
\frac{\partial \overline p_\alpha}{\partial y_i}
\frac{\partial \overline p_\beta}{\partial y_j}
\partial_\beta g(\overline p).$$ and Eq. (\[eq:dpdy\]) is used to evaluate $\partial \bar p_\alpha / \partial y_i$. We can then decompose $\sigma_g^2$ into separate contributions coming from the different block-diagonal submatrices of $\mathrm{cov}_y$. These contributions to $\sigma_g$ constitute the error budget for $g(\overline p)$.
The $c_{ij}$s in Eq. (\[eq:covg\]) depend upon both the $y_i$ and their covariance matrix, but that dependence can be neglected to leading order in $\mathrm{cov}_y$. Consequently Eq. (\[eq:covg\]) can be used to estimate the impact on $\sigma_g$ of possible modifications to any element of $\mathrm{cov}_y$.
Note that the data’s covariance matrix $\mathrm{cov}_y$ can be quite singular if there are strong correlations in the data. This can make it numerically difficult to invert the matrix for use in $\chi^2(p)$. This problem is typically dealt with by using a *singular value decomposition* (SVD) to regulate the most singular components of the covariance matrix. In our fits we rescale the covariance matrix by its diagonal elements to obtain the correlation matrix, which we then diagonalize. We introduce a minimum eigenvalue by setting any smaller eigenvalue equal to the minimum. We then reconstitute the correlation matrix, and rescale it back into a (less singular) covariance matrix which we use in the fit. This procedure, in effect, increases the error in the data and so increases the uncertainties in the final fit results; it is a conservative move.
It is common when using SVD to discard eigenmodes corresponding to the small eigenvalues. This is equivalent to setting the variance associated with these modes to infinity in the fit. In our implementation, all eigenmodes are retained, but the small eigenvalues are replaced by a (larger) minimum eigenvalue. This is a more realistic estimate for the variances of these modes—that is, more realistic than setting them to infinity—and gives more accurate fit results.
Chained Fits
------------
Chained fits simplify fits of multiple data sets whose fit functions share fit parameters by allowing us to fit each data set separately. To illustrate, consider two sets of data, $y_{i}(A)$ and $y_{j}(B)$, that we fit with functions $f_{i}(A, p)$ and $f_{j}(B, p)$, respectively—both functions of the same fit parameters $p_\alpha$ (unlike the previous section, here we do not lump the priors in with the $y$s). The fit procedure is straightforward in a Bayesian framework if $y(A)$ and $y(B)$ are statistically uncorrelated. We first fit, say, data set $y(A)$ to obtain best-fit estimates $\overline
p(A)$ for the parameters and an estimate $\mathrm{cov}_{p(A)}$ for the parameters’ covariance matrix. We then fit data set $y(B)$, but using $\overline p(A)$ and $\mathrm{cov}_{p(A)}$ to form the prior for the fit parameters.
This two-step fit merges the information contained in $y(A)$ with that from $y(B)$ by feeding the information from the first fit into the second fit as prior information. The order in which the data sets are fit doesn’t matter in the high-statistics (Gaussian) limit; with larger errors, it is better to fit the more accurate data set first. The $\chi^2$ for the two-step fit is the sum of the $\chi^2$s for each step.
The situation is slightly more complicated if $y(A)$ and $y(B)$ are correlated. Then the best-fit parameters $\overline p(A)$ from the first fit above are correlated with the second data set $y(B)$. The $p(A)$-$y(B)$ covariance can be computed from $$\mathrm{cov}_{p(A) y(B)} \equiv \sum_{y(A)}
\frac{\partial \overline p(A)}{\partial y(A)} \mathrm{cov}_{y(A) y(B)}$$ using Eq. (\[eq:dpdy\]) in the previous section. This correlation must be included in the second fit, to data set $y(B)$. So the second fit uses the best-fit parameters $\overline p(A)$ from the first fit to construct the prior, together with $\mathrm{cov}_{p(A)}$ for parameter-parameter covariances and $\mathrm{cov}_{p(A)y(B)}$ for parameter-data covariances.
We refer to a sequential fit of multiple data sets, where the best-fit parameters and covariance matrix from one fit are used as the prior for the next fit, as a *chained fit*. It is essential in such fits to account for possible correlations between the priors (from previous fits) and the data being fit at each stage. The results of a chained fit should agree with those of a simultaneous fit in the limit of large (i.e., Gaussian) statistics.
Testing Fits
------------
It is generally useful to have ways of testing particular fit strategies. One simple approach to testing is to create multiple fake data sets that are very similar to the actual data being fit, but where the exact values for the fit parameters are known ahead of time. Running several such data sets through an analysis code tells you very quickly whether, for example, your analysis code gives results that are correct to within one sigma 68% of the time, as is desired.
It is easy to create fake data sets of this sort. One simple recipe is the following:
1. Fit the actual data to obtain a set of parameter values $p_{\alpha}^*$ such that the fit function $f_i(p^*)$ closely matches the mean values $y_i$ of the actual data. Calculate the difference between the actual means of the data and the fit values for $p=p^*$: $$\delta y_i \equiv f_i(p^*) - y_i.
\label{eq:dy}$$
2. Create a bootstrap copy $y_i^\mathrm{bs}$ of the original data and replace its mean values by: $$y^*_i = y^\mathrm{bs}_i + \delta y_i$$ The fake data set then consists of the mean values $y^*_i$ and the covariance matrix $\mathrm{cov}_y$ of the original data. The role of the bootstrap here is to generate fluctuations in the means with the same distribution as the original data. These data sets will fluctuate around central values $f_i(p^*)$ rather than the original means of the data.
3. Repeat the second step to create any number of additional fake data sets.
Each fake data set is fit using the same procedure that was used to analyze the original data. The results for the fit parameters are compared with the parameter values $p^*$ used to define the correction $\delta y_i$ \[Eq. (\[eq:dy\])\], since, by construction, these are the *correct* values for the parameters in the fake data.
Typically only a handful of parameters from a fit are of interest. Their best-fit values from different fake data sets will differ, but they should all agree with the $p^*$ values to within the errors generated by the fake fit (that is, to within one sigma 68% of the time, two sigma 95% of the time, and so on). Such tests can reveal, for example, potential problems coming from poor priors or inadequate SVD cuts, or biases in particular combinations of fit parameters.
Example
-------
We compare chained and unchained fit results in Fig. \[fig-chain\_compare\]. Because unchained fits to very large data sets are unreliable, for purposes of comparison we divide the data into the smallest subsets that allow the extraction of individual matrix elements. Such fits are uncorrelated in that they neglect correlations among data at different momenta, for different currents, and among the two decays. The uncorrelated fits include only one decay mode ($B_s\to K$ or $B_s\to\eta_s$), data for only one simulation momentum (000, 100, 110, or 111), and only one current ($V_t$ or $V_k$). These fits are still complicated, however, as they require the minimum amount of data needed to extract a single matrix element. This minimum number of correlators consists of parent and daughter two point and three point data, i.e. $B_s\to B_s$, $\eta_s\to\eta_s(000)$, and $B_s\to V_t \to \eta_s(000)$. Including correlations results in marked improvement in the accuracy of matrix elements obtained from the noisiest data—that for $V_k$ at large momenta. This improvement can be traced to correlations of these data with the more precise data for $V_t$ (for the same decay and at a common momentum), as demonstrated in Fig. \[fig-correlations\].
In addition to properly accounting for correlations in the data, chaining reduces the time required to perform the fits. While the uncorrelated fits required a total of 1 hour 14 minutes, the chained (8,8) fit required only 24 minutes. The use of marginalization significantly reduces the time required. The chained and marginalized (6,1)/(8,8) fit required only 57 seconds.
Correlator Fit Results {#sec-corrfit_results}
======================
The method for selecting priors for correlator fits was described in detail in Appendix B of Ref. [@Bouchard:2013a]. We use the same method in this analysis. Tables \[tab-MBcorrfit\], \[tab-MKcorrfit\], and \[tab-MEtascorrfit\] tabulate priors and fit results for ground state energies. They compares results obtained from fits to two point correlation function data to those from simultaneous fits to two and three point correlation function data, as described in Sec. \[sec-CorrFits\]. The combined fits show improved precision for the $B_s$ meson mass and the larger momenta daughter meson energies, suggesting that the three point correlation function data provide additional information to the fit. Within errors, the two point and simultaneous two and three point fit results are consistent.
[llll]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensemble & Prior & 2pt & 2+3pt\
\[0.5ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1 & 0.537(53) & 0.53780(72) & 0.53801(31)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2 & 0.54(6) & 0.54360(84) & 0.54234(35)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3 & 0.54(8) & 0.5362(15) & 0.53575(36)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1 & 0.405(55) & 0.4081(13) & 0.40869(21)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F2 & 0.407(60) & 0.40770(64) & 0.40710(23)\
\[0.5ex\]
\[tab-MBcorrfit\]
[lllll]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensemble & $aM^{(0)}_K$ & $aE^{(0)}_{K(100)}$ & $aE^{(0)}_{K(110)}$ & $ aE^{(0)}_{K(111)}$\
\[0.5ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1 & 0.312(17) & 0.41(11) & 0.48(23) & 0.55(28)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.31211(15) & 0.40657(58) & 0.48461(76) & 0.5511(16)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.31195(14) & 0.40661(49) & 0.48408(63) & 0.5513(13)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2 & 0.329(24) & 0.45(15) & 0.55(15) & 0.61(31)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.32863(18) & 0.45406(85) & 0.5511(16) & 0.6261(75)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.32870(16) & 0.45434(73) & 0.5506(11) & 0.6273(35)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3 & 0.356(25) & 0.475(75) & 0.58(20) & 0.65(30)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.35717(22) & 0.47521(85) & 0.5723(11) & 0.6524(30)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.35744(21) & 0.47507(71) & 0.57218(80) & 0.6539(18)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1 & 0.229(60) & 0.32(24) & 0.39(34) & 0.43(40)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.22865(11) & 0.32024(66) & 0.39229(86) & 0.4515(25)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.22861(12) & 0.32020(61) & 0.39192(82) & 0.4528(16)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F2 & 0.246(36) & 0.33(23) & 0.40(30) & 0.47(37)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.24577(13) & 0.33322(52) & 0.40214(73) & 0.4623(14)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.24566(13) & 0.33310(50) & 0.40184(72) & 0.4624(11)\
\[0.5ex\]
\[tab-MKcorrfit\]
[lllll]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensemble & $aM^{(0)}_{\eta_s}$ & $aE^{(0)}_{\eta_s(100)}$ & $aE^{(0)}_{\eta_s(110)}$ &$aE^{(0)}_{\eta_s(111)}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1 & 0.411(9) & 0.487(12) & 0.553(50) & 0.61(11)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.41111(12) & 0.48736(23) & 0.55311(29) & 0.61148(60)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.41107(11) & 0.48726(23) & 0.55294(29) & 0.61135(52)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2 & 0.415(12) & 0.52(5) & 0.61(11) & 0.68(23)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.41445(17) & 0.51949(46) & 0.6063(12) & 0.6797(31)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.41446(15) & 0.51934(44) & 0.60647(67) & 0.6794(18)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3 & 0.412(20) & 0.518(40) & 0.61(12) & 0.69(35)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.41180(23) & 0.51757(63) & 0.60723(78) & 0.6831(23)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.41175(20) & 0.51742(57) & 0.60720(67) & 0.6843(14)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1 & 0.294(24) & 0.37(10) & 0.43(23) & 0.48(34)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.294109(93) & 0.36965(31) & 0.43278(45) & 0.4867(13)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.294066(88) & 0.36988(26) & 0.43301(38) & 0.48729(88)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F2 & 0.293(30) & 0.369(89) & 0.43(18) & 0.49(30)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.29315(12) & 0.36939(35) & 0.43259(45) & 0.48810(87)\
\[-0.4ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.29310(12) & 0.36927(35) & 0.43197(48) & 0.48729(97)\
\[0.5ex\]
\[tab-MEtascorrfit\]
[lcccccc]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group I & Prior & Fit\
\[0.5ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$r_1$ \[fm\] & 0.3133(23) & 0.3133(23)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$g_{B^*B\pi}$ & 0.51(20) & 0.53(20)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$M_{\eta_s^{\rm phys}}$ \[GeV\] & 0.6858(40) & 0.6858(40)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta^{B_sK}_0$ \[GeV\] & 0.3127(10) & 0.3126(10)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta^{B_sK}_+$ \[GeV\] & -0.04157(42) & -0.04157(42)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta^{B_s\eta_s}_0$ \[GeV\] & 0.4000(10) & 0.4000(10)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta^{B_s\eta_s}_+$ \[GeV\] & 0.0487(22) & 0.0487(22)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$m_\parallel$ & 0.00(4) & 0.000(40)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$m_\perp$ & 0.00(4) & 0.001(40)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$r_1/a$ & 2.647(3) & 2.6465(30)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$r_1/a$ & 2.618(3) & 2.6186(30)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$r_1/a$ & 2.644(3) & 2.6438(30)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$r_1/a$ & 3.699(3) & 3.6992(30)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$r_1/a$ & 3.712(4) & 3.7117(40)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_{B_s}$ & 3.2303(12) & 3.2300(12)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_{B_s}$ & 3.2663(13) & 3.2668(12)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_{B_s}$ & 3.2336(13) & 3.2333(12)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_{B_s}$ & 2.30849(89) & 2.30841(87)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_{B_s}$ & 2.30035(90) & 2.30048(88)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_K^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.31195(14) & 0.31196(14)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_K^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.32870(17) & 0.32868(17)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_K^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.35744(21) & 0.35746(21)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_K^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.22861(12) & 0.22861(12)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_K^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.24566(13) & 0.24565(13)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_K^{\rm asqtad}$ & 0.36530(29) & 0.36532(29)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_K^{\rm asqtad}$ & 0.38331(24) & 0.38331(24)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_K^{\rm asqtad}$ & 0.40984(21) & 0.40983(21)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_K^{\rm asqtad}$ & 0.25318(19) & 0.25316(19)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_K^{\rm asqtad}$ & 0.27217(21) & 0.27219(21)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_\pi^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.15988(12) & 0.15988(12)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_\pi^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.21097(16) & 0.21097(16)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_\pi^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.29309(22) & 0.29309(22)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_\pi^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.13453(11) & 0.13453(11)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_\pi^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.18737(13) & 0.18736(13)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_\pi^{\rm asqtad}$ & 0.15971(20) & 0.15971(20)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_\pi^{\rm asqtad}$ & 0.22447(17) & 0.22447(17)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_\pi^{\rm asqtad}$ & 0.31125(16) & 0.31125(16)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_\pi^{\rm asqtad}$ & 0.14789(18) & 0.14789(18)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_\pi^{\rm asqtad}$ & 0.20635(18) & 0.20365(18)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_{\eta_s}^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.41107(11) & 0.41109(11)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_{\eta_s}^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.41447(15) & 0.41442(15)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_{\eta_s}^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.41176(20) & 0.41177(20)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_{\eta_s}^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.294066(89) & 0.294053 (89)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$aM_{\eta_s}^{\rm HISQ}$ & 0.29310(12) & 0.29312(12)\
\[0.9ex\]
\[tab-modzpriorsI\]
HPChPT $z$ Expansion Fit Results {#sec-HPChPTz_results}
================================
Group I parameters listed in Table \[tab-modzpriorsI\] insert error in the fit based on uncertainty associated with input parameters – quantities not determined by the data. Priors for $r_1$ and $M_{\eta^{\rm phys}_s}$ are taken from Ref. [@Davies:2009]. We base our prior choice for the $BB^*\pi$ coupling $g_{BB^*\pi}$ on the combined works in Ref. [@gBBstarPi]. Resonance masses for the Blaschke factors $P_{0,+}$ introduced in Eq. (\[eq-basicz\]) are calculated relative to the $B_s$ meson mass in our simulations, $$\begin{aligned}
M^{B_sK}_0 &=& M_{B_s} - (M_{B_s}-M_B) + 400(1)\, {\rm MeV}, \\
M^{B_sK}_+ &=& M_{B_s} - (M_{B_s}-M_B) + \Delta^{\rm hyperfine}_B, \\
M^{B_s\eta_s}_0 &=& M_{B_s} + 400(1)\, {\rm MeV}, \\
M^{B_s\eta_s}_+ &=& M_{B_s} + \Delta^{\rm hyperfine}_{B_s},\end{aligned}$$ and we refer to the shift relative to $M_{B_s}$ as $\Delta^{B_sK, B_s\eta_s}_{0,+}$. The $M_{B_s}-M_B$ and hyperfine splittings are taken from the PDG [@PDG:2012]. We tested increasing the uncertainty in the location of the scalar pole, which we have taken to be $400(1)\, {\rm MeV}$ above the $J^P=0^-$ state. A splitting of $400(50)\, {\rm MeV}$ gives identical results for the form factors, in both the central value and error, but accommodates for part of the error in $f_0$ via allowed uncertainty in $M_0$. To reconstruct the form factors in this case, correlations between $P_0$ and the coefficients of the $z$ expansion must be accounted for. By effectively fixing $M_0$ we arrive at the same fit results and can neglect uncertainty in $P_0$ and correlations with the coefficients. The 4% uncertainty associated with the perturbative matching is accounted for by $m_{\parallel}$ and $m_\perp$, where we use prior central values of zero and width 0.04, as explained by Eq. (\[eq-matcherr\]) and surrounding text. Matrix elements for $B_s\to K$ and $B_s\to\eta_s$ use the same matching factors so we use common $m_{\parallel,\perp}$ for both data sets. We use values for $r_1/a$ from Ref. [@Bazavov:2010] and $M_{\pi,K}^{\rm asqtad}$ from Ref. [@Aubin:2004]. We use values for $M_{\pi, K,\eta_s}^{\rm HISQ}$ and $M_{B_s}$ from best fit results in this and an ongoing $B\to\pi$ analysis using HISQ valence quarks.
The Group II parameters of Table \[tab-modzpriorsII\] are quantities determined by the fit. We choose priors for $a_k$ to be $0\pm5$, based roughly on the unitarity constraint, and verified that fit results are insensitive to variations in the prior width from 1 to 10. Chiral analytic terms are written in terms of dimensionless parameters that are naturally $\mathcal{O}(1)$. For this reason we use priors of zero with width one for $c_1$ and $c_3$. Based on previous analyses using the same ensembles we know that sea-quark effects are smaller than those of the valence quarks, so we choose priors for $c_2$ to be $0 \pm 0.3$. The leading order HISQ discretization effects are $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s a^2)$, so for the coefficients $d_1$ and $e_1$ which characterize the $\mathcal{O}(a^2)$ discretization effects, we choose priors of $0\pm 0.3$. Coefficients $d_2$ and $e_2$ characterize $\mathcal{O}(a^4)$ effects and we use $0\pm 1$. The coefficients $h$ and $l$ characterize light- and heavy-quark mass-dependent discretization effects. These terms are written in terms of $\mathcal{O}(1)$ quantities and we take the coefficients to have priors of $0\pm1$.
[lcccccccccccc]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& & & & & &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group II & Prior & $f_0^{B_sK}$ & $f_+^{B_sK}$ & $f_0^{B_s\eta_s}$ & $f_+^{B_s\eta_s}$ & & Group II & Prior & $f_0^{B_sK}$ & $f_+^{B_sK}$ & $f_0^{B_s\eta_s}$ & $f_+^{B_s\eta_s}$\
\[0.5ex\]\
\[-3ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$a_0$ & 0(5) & 0.24(10) & 0.284(32) & 0.04(12) & 0.293(30) & & $h_1^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & 0.31(92) & 0.37(92) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.22(95)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$a_1$ & 0(5) & 0.7(1.0) & -0.58(16) & 0.0(1.2) & -0.99(18) & & $h_1^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$a_2$ & 0(5) & 1.9(3.6) & 2.1(1.1) & 2.1(4.3) & 3.2(1.7) & & $h_1^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$c_1^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & 0.01(60) & 0.07(11) & -0.23(99) & -0.16(15) & & $h_2^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & 0.20(0.99) & 0.02(99) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.15(99)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$c_1^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.11(90) & -0.16(38) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.39(25) & & $h_2^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$c_1^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & -0.04(99) & -0.62(85) & 0.11(98) & -1.25(86) & & $h_2^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$c_2^{(0)}$ & 0(0.3) & -0.24(27) & 0.05(29) & -0.03(27) & 0.15(29) & & $h_3^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.1(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$c_2^{(1)}$ & 0(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.02(30) & 0.00(30) & -0.01(30) & & $h_3^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$c_2^{(2)}$ & 0(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.01(30) & 0.00(30) & -0.01(30) & & $h_3^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$c_3^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & 0.37(99) & -1.22(74) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.19(70) & & $h_4^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$c_3^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.34(97) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.24(94) & & $h_4^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$c_3^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.1(1.0) & -0.20(99) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.00(99) & & $h_4^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$d_1^{(0)}$ & 0(0.3) & 0.16(18) & -0.20(22) & -0.02(21) & -0.15(24) & & $l_1^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & 0.64(0.97) & 0.18(0.98) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.24(98)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$d_1^{(1)}$ & 0(0.3) & -0.01(30) & -0.06(30) & 0.00(30) & -0.05(29) & & $l_1^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$d_1^{(2)}$ & 0(0.3) & 0.01(30) & -0.03(30) & 0.00(30) & -0.01(30) & & $l_1^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$d_2^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & -0.22(92) & -0.32(94) & -0.02(85) & -0.21(94) & & $l_2^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & 0.1(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.1(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$d_2^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.1(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.07(99) & & $l_2^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$d_2^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.1(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & & $l_2^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$e_1^{(0)}$ & 0(0.3) & -0.21(17) & 0.13(24) & -0.09(16) & 0.15(23) & & $l_3^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & -0.1(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.1(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$e_1^{(1)}$ & 0(0.3) & -0.01(30) & 0.00(29) & 0.00(30) & -0.06(28) & & $l_3^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$e_1^{(2)}$ & 0(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.02(30) & 0.00(30) & -0.02(30) & & $l_3^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$e_2^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & 0.40(24) & 0.12(30) & 0.26(19) & 0.02(25) & & $l_4^{(0)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$e_2^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & -0.1(1.0) & 0.25(94) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.04(83) & & $l_4^{(1)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[-0.0ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$e_2^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.03(99) & & $l_4^{(2)}$ & 0(1) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0(1.0)\
\[0.5ex\]
\[tab-modzpriorsII\]
$B_s \to \eta_s$ Form Factors and Ratios {#sec-Ratio}
========================================
The results of $B_s\to\eta_s$ correlator fits are tabulated in Table \[tab-BsEtascorrfits\] and plotted as data points in the top two panels of Fig. \[fig-HPChPTfit\_BsEtas\]. From these plots one sees that simulation data exhibit very small light sea quark mass and lattice spacing dependence. These fit results are obtained from a single fit to both the $B_s\to K$ and $B_s\to\eta_s$ data described in Sec. \[sec-CorrFits\]. As a result, the $B_s\to\eta_s$ fit results of Table \[tab-BsEtascorrfits\] are correlated with the $B_s\to K$ results of Table \[tab-BsKcorrfits\], as shown in Fig. \[fig-correlations\].
[ccccc]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensemble & $f^{B_s \eta_s}_0(000)$ & $f^{B_s \eta_s}_0(100)$ & $f^{B_s \eta_s}_0(110)$ & $f^{B_s \eta_s}_0(111)$\
\[0.5ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1 & 0.8135(17) & 0.7352(22) & 0.6813(19) & 0.6381(21)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2 & 0.8205(21) & 0.7127(33) & 0.6475(39) & 0.5921(70)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3 & 0.8140(26) & 0.7095(32) & 0.6504(31) & 0.6069(39)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1 & 0.8179(20) & 0.7107(23) & 0.6410(26) & 0.5862(47)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F2 & 0.8229(24) & 0.7096(31) & 0.6383(33) & 0.5874(51)\
\[0.5ex\]\
\[-2.5ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensemble && $f^{B_s \eta_s}_+(100)$& $f^{B_s \eta_s}_+(110)$ & $f^{B_s \eta_s}_+(111)$\
\[0.5ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1 && 1.843(10) & 1.5476(62) & 1.3400(63)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2 && 1.742(13) & 1.3885(99) & 1.150(17)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3 && 1.6802(95) & 1.3855(84) & 1.1771(85)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1 && 1.6928(71) & 1.3497(55) & 1.134(10)\
\[-0.2ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F2 && 1.7012(97) & 1.3588(72) & 1.155(11)\
\[0.5ex\]
\[tab-BsEtascorrfits\]
The $B_s\to\eta_s$ form factor data of Table \[tab-BsEtascorrfits\] is extrapolated to the physical quark mass, the continuum limit, and over the entire kinematic range using the HPChPT $z$ expansion described in Sec. \[sec-Extrap\]. This fit is also done simultaneously with the extrapolation of the $B_s\to K$ data. The fit functions for the simultaneous chiral, continuum, and kinematic extrapolation of $B_s\to\eta_s$ are equivalent to those of Sec. \[sec-Extrap\], with Eqs. (\[eq-Dk\]) and (\[eq-logs\]) modified as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
D_k &=& 1 + c^{(k)}_1 x_K + c^{(k)}_2 \delta x_K + c^{(k)}_3 \delta x_{\eta_s} \nonumber \\
&+& d^{(k)}_1 (a/r_1)^2 + d^{(k)}_2 (a/r_1)^4 \nonumber \\
&+& e^{(k)}_1 (aE_{\eta_s})^2 + e^{(k)}_2 (aE_{\eta_s})^4, \label{eq-DkEtas} \\{}
[\text{logs}] &=& -\frac{1+3g^2}{2} x_K \log x_K - \frac{1+3g^2}{6}x_{\eta} \log x_{\eta}, \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ with implicit indices in Eq. (\[eq-DkEtas\]) specifying scalar or vector form factor. Results of this fit for the $B_s\to\eta_s$ form factors are shown relative to data, and extrapolated over the full kinematic range of $q^2$, in Fig. \[fig-HPChPTfit\_BsEtas\].
The HPChPT $z$ expansion stability analysis outlined in Sec. \[sec-Extrap\] involved simultaneous fits to both $B_s\to K$ and $B_s\to \eta_s$ data. The $B_s\to \eta_s$ fit results for each of the modifications discussed in that analysis are shown in Fig. \[fig-BsEtasstability\]. Because these results are from a simultaneous fit, the values of $\chi^2$ in Fig. \[fig-BsKstability\] are applicable here as well and are reproduced for convenience in Fig. \[fig-BsEtasstability\]. Note that the chiral analytic terms for $B_s\to\eta_s$ differ slightly from those for $B_s\to K$, c.f. Eqs. (\[eq-Dk\]) and (\[eq-DkEtas\]). As a result, the NNLO analytic terms added to the $B_s\to\eta_s$ fit function in modification 7 differ from those listed in Eq. (\[eq-NNLO\]).
\
Error breakdown plots for the $B_s\to\eta_s$ form factors are shown in Fig. \[fig-modzerr\_BsEtas\].
\
\
In the ratios of form factors, $$\begin{aligned}
R_\parallel(q^2) &=& \frac{f_\parallel^{B_s K}(q^2)}{f_\parallel^{B_s\eta_s}(q^2)}, \\
R_\perp(q^2) &=& \frac{f_\perp^{B_s K}(q^2)}{f_\perp^{B_s\eta_s}(q^2)},\end{aligned}$$ the leading systematic error, that due to one-loop perturbative matching, largely cancels. Fig. \[fig-FFratios\] plots the ratios as functions of $q^2$ and shows that they are most precisely determined at $q^2=(M_{B_s}-M_{\eta_s})^2$, where $$\begin{aligned}
R_\parallel\big((M_{B_s}-M_{\eta_s})^2\big) &=& 0.821(22) , \\
R_\perp\big((M_{B_s}-M_{\eta_s})^2\big) &=& 0.931(30).\end{aligned}$$ The errors of the ratios are broken down into components in Fig. \[fig-FFratios\_err\]. Neglecting correlations among the $B_s\to K$ and $B_s\to\eta_s$ decays yields ratios at this $q^2$ with $\sim\!30\%$ larger errors. When combined with lattice results for $f_{\parallel, \perp}^{B_s\eta_s}$ using HISQ $b$ quarks, these ratios will provide a nonperturbative determination of the NRQCD $b\to u$ current matching factor, applicable to both $B_s\to K$ and $B\to\pi$.
\
[99]{}
K. Hornbostel, G.P. Lepage, C.T.H. Davies, R.J. Dowdall, H. Na, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 031504 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.031504) \[[arXiv:1111.1363 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1363)\]
H. Na, C. T. H. Davies, E. Follana, G. P. Lepage, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 114506 (2010)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.114506) \[[arXiv:1008.4562 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4562)\]
H. Na, C. T. H. Davies, E. Follana, J. Koponen, G. P. Lepage, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 114505 (2011)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.114505) \[[arXiv:1109.1501 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.1501)\]
J. Bijnens and I. Jemos, [Nucl. Phys. B [**840**]{}, 54 (2010)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.06.021); [Erratum-ibid. B [**844**]{}, 182 (2011)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.10.024) \[[arXiv:1006.1197 \[hep-ph\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1197)\]
J. Bijnens and I. Jemos, [Nucl. Phys. B [**846**]{}, 145 (2011)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.12.012) \[[arXiv:1011.6531 \[hep-ph\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6531)\]
A. Bazavov, C. Bernard, C. DeTar, S. Gottlieb, U. M. Heller, J. E. Hetrick, J. Laiho, L. Levkova, P. B. Mackenzie, M. B. Oktay, R. Sugar, D. Toussaint, and R. S. Van de Water (MILC), [Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, 1349 (2010)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.1349) \[[arXiv:0903.3598 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3598)\]
G. P. Lepage, L. Magnea, C. Nakhleh, U. Magnea, and K. Hornbostel (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 4052 (1992)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.46.4052) \[[arXiv:hep-lat/9205007](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/9205007)\]
H. Na, C. J. Monahan, C. T. H. Davies, R. Horgan, G. P. Lepage and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 034506 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.034506) \[[arXiv:1202.4914 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4914)\]
E. Follana, Q. Mason, C. Davies, K. Hornbostel, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, H. Trottier, and K. Wong (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 054502 (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.054502) \[[arXiv:hep-lat/0610092](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0610092)\]
C. M. Bouchard, G. P. Lepage, C. Monahan, H. Na, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 054509 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.054509); [Erratum-ibid. D [**88**]{}, 079901 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.079901) \[[arXiv:1306.2384 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1306.2384)\]
C. Monahan, J. Shigemitsu, and R. Horgan (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 034017 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.034017) \[[arXiv:1211.6966 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1211.6966)\]
E. Gulez, A. Gray, M. Wingate, C. T. H. Davies, G. P. Lepage, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 074502 (2006)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.074502); [Erratum-ibid D [**75**]{}, 119906 (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.119906) \[[arXiv:hep-lat/0601021](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0601021)\]
E. B. Gregory, C. T. H. Davies, I. D. Kendall, J. Koponen, K. Wong, E. Follana, E. Gámiz, G. P. Lepage, E. H. Müller, H. Na, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 014506 (2011)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014506) \[[arXiv:1010.3848 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3848)\]
G. P. Lepage, B. Clark, C. T. H. Davies, K. Hornbostel, P. B. Mackenzie, C. Morningstar and H. Trottier, [Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**106**]{}, 12 (2002)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5632(01)01638-3) \[[arXiv:hep-lat/0110175](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0110175)\]
C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and R. F. Lebed, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 4603 (1995)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.4603) \[[arXiv:hep-ph/9412324](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9412324)\]
C. M. Arnesen, B. Grinstein, I. Z. Rothstein, and I. W. Stewart, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 071802 (2005)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.071802) \[[arXiv:hep-ph/0504209](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0504209)\]
C. Bourrely, I. Caprini, and L. Lellouch, [Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 013008 (2009)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.013008); [Erratum-ibid. D [**82**]{}, 099902 (2010)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.099902) \[[arXiv:0807.2722 \[hep-ph\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2722)\]
G. Colangelo, M. Procura, L. Rothen, R. Stucki, and J. Tarrus [JHEP [**09**]{} (2012) 081](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FJHEP09%282012%29081) \[[arXiv:1208.0498 \[hep-ph\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1208.0498)\]
C. Bernard (MILC), [Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 054031 (2002)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.054031) \[[arXiv:hep-lat/0111051](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0111051)\]
C. T. H. Davies, C. McNeile, E. Follana, G. P. Lepage, H. Na, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} 114504 (2010)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.114504) \[[arXiv:1008.4018 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4018)\]
W.-F. Wang and Z.-J. Xiao, [Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 114025 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.114025) \[[arXiv:1207.0265 \[hep-ph\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0265)\]
R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, [Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 094028 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.094028) \[[arXiv:1304.3255 \[hep-ph\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3255)\]
J. Beringer [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), [Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 010001 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001) and 2013 partial update for the 2014 edition \[[http://pdg.lbl.gov](http://pdg.lbl.gov/)\]
S. Aoki [*et al.*]{} (FLAG Working Group), [arXiv:1310.8555 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8555v2) \[<http://itpwiki.unibe.ch/flag>\]; J. A. Bailey [*et al.*]{} (FNAL Lattice and MILC), [Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 054507 (2009)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.054507) \[[arXiv:0811.3640](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0811.3640)\]; E. Gulez, A. Gray, M. Wingate, C. T. H. Davies, G. P. Lepage, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 074502 (2006)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.074502); [Erratum-ibid. D [**75**]{}, 119906 (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.119906) \[[hep-lat/0601021](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0601021)\]
Y. S. Tsai, [Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 55, 293 (1997)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5632(97)00226-0)
C.-H. Chen and C.-Q. Geng, [JHEP [**10**]{} (2006) 053](http://iopscience.iop.org/1126-6708/2006/10/053/) \[[arXiv:hep-ph/0608166](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0608166)\]
Ulf-G. Meißner and W. Wang, [JHEP [**01**]{} (2014) 107](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP01(2014)107) \[[arXiv:1311.5420 \[hep-ph\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1311.5420)\]
R.C. Verma, [J. Phys. G [**39**]{}, 025005 (2012)](http://iopscience.iop.org/0954-3899/39/2/025005/) \[[arXiv:1103.2973 \[hep-ph\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2973)\]
The fitting software used in this paper is available online: see G. P. Lepage (2012). lsqfit v4.8.5.1. ZENODO. [10.5281/zenodo.10236](https://zenodo.org/record/10236#.U4nMQSglYoY) for a general package for nonlinear least-squares fitting, and G. P. Lepage (2012). corrfitter v3.7.1. ZENODO. [10.5281/zenodo.10237](https://zenodo.org/record/10237#.U4nMuiglYoY) for a general package for fitting 2-point and 3-point correlators. This software implements the strategies discussed in Appendix \[app-basics\] of this paper.
C. T. H. Davies, E. Follana, I. D. Kendall, G. P. Lepage, and C. McNeile (HPQCD), [Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 034506 (2010)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.034506) \[[arXiv:0910.1229 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1229)\]
H. Ohki, H. Matsufuru, and T. Onogi, [Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 094509 (2008)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.094509) \[[arXiv:0802.1563 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.1563v1.pdf)\]; W. Detmold, C.-J. David Lin, and S. Meinel, [Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 114508 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.114508) \[[arXiv:1203.3378 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3378)\]; F. Bernardoni, J. Bulava, M. Donnellan, and R. Sommer (ALPHA), [arXiv:1404.6951 \[hep-lat\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.6951);
C. Aubin, C. Bernard, C. DeTar, J. Osborn, Steven Gottlieb, E. B. Gregory, D. Toussaint, U. M. Heller, J. E. Hetrick, and R. Sugar (MILC), [Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 114501 (2004)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.114501) \[[arXiv:hep-lat/0407028](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0407028)\]
[^1]: bouchard.18@osu.edu
[^2]: The zero momentum $\eta_s$ has no oscillating state contributions due to mass degeneracy of its valence quarks.
[^3]: This assumes the general arguments on which the $z$ expansion is based hold for heavier than physical quark masses and at finite lattice spacing.
[^4]: For inclusive $|V_{ub}|$ we take the value from the Particle Data Group [@PDG:2012]. For the exclusive determination we use the “global lattice + Belle" results reported by the FLAG-2 collaboration [@FLAG2].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'E. Paunzen, H.M. Maitzen, O.I. Pintado, A. Claret, I.Kh. Iliev, and M. Netopil'
date: 'Received 31 March 2006 / Accepted 08 July 2006'
title: 'Chemically peculiar stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
The classical chemically peculiar (CP) stars of the upper main sequence (luminosity classes V and IV) are targets of detailed investigations since their first description by Maury (1897). They provide excellent test objects for astrophysical processes like diffusion, convection, and stratification in stellar atmospheres in the presence of rather strong magnetic fields. These mechanisms for stars, both in the Milky Way and its surrounding stellar systems, contribute important knowledge to stellar evolution under different local circumstances, e.g., different metallicities.
CP stars can be detected very efficiently by applying the $\Delta a$ photometric system (cf. Paunzen et al. 2005a), which measures the characteristic broadband absorption feature located around 520nm, which is most certainly a consequence of the non-solar elemental abundance distribution of CP and related objects in the presence of a strong stellar magnetic field (Kupka et al. 2004). It samples its depth, comparing the flux at the center (521nm, $g_{\rm 2}$), with the adjacent regions (503nm, $g_{\rm 1}$ and 551nm, $y$), using bandwidths from 11nm to 23nm. The respective index $a$ was introduced as $$a = g_{\rm 2} - (g_{\rm 1} + y)/2.$$ The intrinsic peculiarity index $\Delta a$ is defined as the difference between the individual $a$-values and those (=$a_{\rm 0}$) of non-peculiar stars of the same color. The locus of the $a_{\rm 0}$-values has been called, the normality line.
Virtually all peculiar objects with magnetic fields (CP2 and CP4 stars, Preston 1974) have positive $\Delta a$ values in excess of +100mmag whereas Be/Ae/shell and metal-weak (e.g., $\lambda$ Bootis group) stars exhibit significantly negative ones up to $-$35mmag (Paunzen et al. 2005a). In general, some spectroscopic binary systems can mimic a positive $\Delta a$ value of up to +16mmag, which is well below the observed values for the stars presented in this paper. Later type, evolved objects of luminosity classes III to I might also show the same behavior, but can be easily identified within the color-magnitude diagram and do not influence the overall statistics.
In this paper we present our efforts to detect chemically peculiar stars in the field of NGC 2136/7, a binary cluster system, located in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). In total, we observed 417 objects of which five turned out to be bona fide magnetic CP stars. These observations, added to our statistical analysis in the LMC presented in Paunzen et al. (2005b), show an overall occurrence of 2.2(6)% for chemically peculiar stars in the LMC.
Observations and reduction
==========================
The observations were done on twelve nights at two different telescopes with the identical $\Delta a$ filter set:
- CASLEO: 215cm telescope, TEK-1024 CCD, field of view of about 9.5$\arcmin$, August 2001 and January 2003, observer: O.I. Pintado
- ESO-LaSilla: Bochum 61cm telescope, Thompson 7882 CCD, 384x576 pixels, 3$\arcmin$x4$\arcmin$, April 1995, observers: H.M. Maitzen and E. Paunzen
The filters have the following characteristics: $g_1$ ($\lambda_c$=5027Å, FWHM=222Å, Peak transmission=66%), $g_2$ (5205/107/50), and $y$ (5509/120/54). In total, 69 frames for the three filters (20/23/26) were obtained.
The bias subtraction, dark correction, flat-fielding, and a point-spread function fitting were carried out within standard IRAF V2.12.2 routines on a Personal Computer with a Linux distribution.
One of the advantages of the $\Delta a$ photometric system is that the “standard” as well as program stars are always on the same frame. Because of instrumentally induced offsets and different air masses between the individual frames, photometric reduction of each frame was performed separately and the measurements were then averaged and weighted by their individual photometric errors.
In total, 417 stars were measured in the field. We were not able to resolve the innermost regions ($\approx$20$\arcsec$) of NGC2136/7 due to the seeing conditions and saturation.
The tables with all data for the individual cluster stars as well as nonmembers are available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5), http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/Abstract.html, or upon request from the first author. These tables include our internal numbers, J2000.0 coordinates, the $X$ and $Y$ coordinates within our frames, the observed $(g_{1}-y)$ and $a$ values with their corresponding errors, the $V$ magnitudes, the $(B-V)$ colors from the literature, the $\Delta a$-values derived from the normality lines of $(g_{1}-y)$ (excluding nonmembers), and the number of observations, respectively.
--------- ---------- ----------- ------------- ---------- -------------
165 +47.79 $-$87.73 +0.164(7) +0.095 $-$0.449(5)
204 +98.00 $-$16.22 $-$0.255(8) $-$0.062 $-$1.480(6)
219 +110.54 $-$57.90 +0.479(14) $-$0.056 $-$4.153(9)
228 +117.09 $-$30.35 +0.443(8) +0.074 $-$4.264(6)
233 +120.22 $-$214.24 $-$0.220(2) +0.044 $-$1.051(2)
283 +167.19 $-$96.05 $-$0.084(3) +0.049 $-$1.663(2)
91 $-$91.72 $-$416.28 $-$0.205(7) +0.041 $-$1.483(7)
110 $-$54.52 $-$157.76 +0.005(8) +0.060 +0.051(7)
127 $-$13.32 $-$146.05 +0.701(10) +0.053 +0.330(6)
392 +377.70 $-$202.34 +0.033(3) $-$0.053 $-$0.709(2)
\[cps\]
--------- ---------- ----------- ------------- ---------- -------------
: Peculiar objects found in the field of NGC2136/7 (upper part) and its surrounding area (lower part). The objects No. 127 and 228 are most certainly not classical chemically peculiar stars, whereas No. 219 is a red supergiant with high mass-loss and emission. The errors in the final digits of the corresponding quantity are in parenthesis.
{width="170mm"}
NGC 2136/7 and its surrounding field population
===============================================
Dirsch et al. (2000) concluded that NGC 2136 and NGC 2137 are a physical binary (possibly triple) cluster system of same age (log$t$=8.0) and metallicity (\[Fe/H\]=$-$0.55) located at $\alpha$(2000.0)=05$^{\rm h}$53$^{\rm m}$00$^{\rm s}$ and $\delta$(2000.0)=$-$69$\degr$29$\arcmin$30$\farcs$ The estimated reddening of $E(B-V)$=0.1mag is typical for other clusters in the LMC.
Especially interesting is their result of the surrounding field population. They found a younger age and lower metallicity than for the clusters. However, the error of their metallicity determination is 0.59dex.
Unfortunately it was not possible to use the Str[ö]{}mgren photometry from Dirsch et al. (2000) for the calibration of our photometric values and the identification of objects because it has been available neither in electronic form nor upon request from the authors of the given reference. Furthermore, no printed tables are available.
We have therefore used the Johnson-Kron-Cousins photometric $UBVI$ data published by Zaritsky et al. (2004). They provide no consecutive numbering system but equatorial coordinates (see their Table 1). The identification of stars in common was done in two steps. First of all, we identified the brightest objects by eye and derived a first calibration of the instrumental magnitude $y_{inst}$ versus $V$ and the coordinates within our frames ($X$, $Y$) versus ($\alpha$, $\delta$). With these preliminary values, a second automatic iteration was done limiting the magnitude difference to 0.5mag and a varying radius limit. It is difficult to decide which objects coincide in the cluster areas of NGC 2136/7. If more than one object from the catalogue by Zaritsky et al. (2004) matches at the same level of significance, we did not include its $UBVI$ data in the analysis. In total we identified 248 objects that were used for the final calibration of the instrumental magnitudes $y_{inst}$ and $(g_1 - y)_{inst}$. In parenthesis are the errors in the final digits of the corresponding quantity $$\begin{aligned}
V &=& -5.372(15) + 0.983(5)\cdot y_{inst} \\
B-V &=& +3.12(6) + 2.38(6)\cdot(g_1 - y)_{inst}.\end{aligned}$$ The absolute magnitudes were calculated by using the distance modulus of 18.5mag taken from Alves (2004) and $A_V$=3.1$\cdot E(B-V)$=0.31mag.
150 apparent members of NGC 2136/7 were selected based on the cluster radii and coordinates listed in Dirsch et al. (2000).
For the normality line, the $(g_1-y)$ measurements were converted into dereddened $(B-V)_0$ values. The normality lines of NGC2136/7 and its surrounding area coincide excellently, allowing to merge them into one final diagram. The following correlation for the normality line was found to be $$a_0\,=\,0.540(1)\,+\,0.113(1)\cdot (B-V)_0.$$ The result is shown graphically in Fig. \[fig1\]. The 3$\sigma$ limit is estimated to be $\pm$0.014mag, a value which is well in line with those of galactic open clusters, taking into account the magnitude limit of about $V$=19mag that was reached (Paunzen et al. 2005c).
Results
=======
In Table \[cps\], we have summarized the results for the peculiar objects that deviate significantly from the normality line (Fig. \[fig1\]).
From the photometric indices we conclude that the objects No. 91, 110, 165, 233, and 283 fall well into the domain of the classical magnetic chemically peculiar objects (G[ó]{}mez et al. 1998).
The star No. 228 is a red supergiant with $(B-V)_0$=+0.443(8) and $M_V$=$-$4.264(6)mag. This star group can exhibit positive $\Delta a$ values as investigated by Paunzen et al. (2005a). Also, No. 219 turns out to be a red supergiant, but with the opposite effect of having a significant negative $\Delta a$ value probably caused by a high mass-loss rate together with emission in the stellar envelope (van Loon et al. 1999). This might be an effect bearing some similarity to Be stars (Pavlovski & Maitzen 1989).
Object No. 127 cannot be addressed as a classical chemically peculiar star. Its $(B-V)_0$ value of +0.701(10)mag and absolute magnitude of +0.330(6)mag is typical of an evolved G-type star of luminosity class IV to III (Ginestet et al. 2000). The evolutionary status of it is not in line with the age of NGC 2136/7, but it would be compatible with the ages derived for the field population of the LMC (Dolphin 2000). There are several peculiar, mainly CN and CH abnormal stars, in this spectral domain (Taylor 1999). The capability to detect such objects with $\Delta a$ photometry has not yet been investigated and certainly deserves further research.
Finally, No. 204 and 392, which show significant negative $\Delta a$ values, are probable Be/Ae stars because they seem to be too hot for members of the $\lambda$ Bootis group (Paunzen et al. 2002).
We follow the approach given by Paunzen et al. (2005b) and derive the total number of chemically peculiar stars having significant positive $\Delta a$ values in NGC 2136/7 and its surrounding field compared to all investigated objects in the relevant spectral range up to F2 or $(B-V)_0\,=\,0.3$mag resulting in 2.7% and 1.8%, respectively. Using these values and those listed in Table 3 of Paunzen et al. (2005b), we derive a mean occurrence of 2.2(6)% for chemically peculiar stars in the LMC.
North (1993) studied the percentage of chemically peculiar stars in open clusters of the Milky Way. He found a number of 5% to 10% for the magnetic ones in open clusters with similar ages to those used for this study (see his Figure III). This percentage is almost identical with that of the galactic field. The number for the LMC is only about half the value that in the Milky Way. Up to now, no correlation of this mean value with the metallicity and the occurrence in clusters or the field population of the LMC is evident.
This result is based on four widely different fields in the LMC, making it highly significant, which is important for theories of the origin and evolution of CP stars. The overall metallicity of the LMC is reduced by up to 0.5dex compared to the Sun, and its global magnetic field consists of a coherent axisymmetric spiral of field strength that is weaker than that of the Milky Way. Both parameters might significantly influence the origin of the CP stars’ magnetic fields. Still it is a matter of debate if the stellar magnetic field is due to the survival of frozen-in fossil fields originating from the medium out of which the stars were formed or if a dynamo mechanism is acting in the stellar interior.
![Mass (upper panel) and age (lower panel) distribution for all 35 photometrically detected CP stars in the LMC. The isochrones for the analysis are from Claret (2006) who takes the reduced metallicity of the LMC into account. The distributions are compatible with those of open cluster CP stars in the Milky Way (North 1993).[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="85mm"}
As a last step, we have calibrated the masses and ages for all 35 photometrically detected CP stars in the LMC using appropriates isochrones by Claret (2006). They take into account the reduced metallicity and moderate core overshooting (\[X\]=0.739, \[Z\]=0.007, $a_{ov}$=0.20). All stars were individually fitted to derive the age and mass with a distance modulus of 18.5mag as well as a reddening of $E(B-V)\,=\,0.1$mag. Such a “statistical” approach naturally introduces an unknown error for the determination of the masses and ages for the individual objects. But, none of the investigated clusters significantly deviates from the chosen values (Maitzen et al. 2001; Paunzen et al. 2005b). From our experience (Claret et al. 2003; P[ö]{}hnl et al. 2005), we estimate a heuristic error of about 15% for the individual parameters. However, we will only analyze the complete sample of CP stars and not specific objects. Figure \[fig2\] shows the histograms of the ages and masses of the investigated sample of 35 photometrically detected CP stars excluding probable cool type objects and Be/Ae as well as metal-weak stars. One has to keep in mind that this sample is biased due to poor number statistics and the census of the investigated spectral range (= masses).
The $\Delta a$ values are at a maximum around A0 for CP2 stars and decrease for hotter and cooler objects, which reflects the incidence of these objects in respect to all stars in this spectral range (Maitzen & Vogt 1983). The occurrence of hot CP4 stars compensates, to a certain amount, the overall percentage for early to late B-type objects (Paunzen et al. 2005a). This behavior can be also seen in Fig. \[fig2\].
If we compare Fig. \[fig2\] to the results for CP stars in galactic open clusters by North (1993), we find perfect agreement for the following conclusion: [*all kinds of CP stars are main sequence, core-hydrogen burning objects with masses between 1.5 and 7M$_{\sun}$.*]{}
Conclusions
===========
We present the results of our search for CP stars of the upper main sequence in the LMC clusters NGC2136/7 and the surrounding field applying the intermediate band $\Delta a$ photometry, which measures the characteristic broadband absorption feature located around 520nm.
In total, 417 objects were measured on 69 individual frames observed with two different telescopes. We report the detection of five classical chemically peculiar objects and two Be/Ae stars. In addition, three peculiar objects were found that deserve further attention.
We conclude from our investigations of NGC 1711, NGC 1866, NGC 2136/7, their surroundings, and one independent field of the LMC population that the occurrence of classical chemically peculiar stars is 2.2(6)% for chemically peculiar stars in the LMC.
The age and mass distributions, derived by applying appropriate isochrones, do not alter from those of CP stars in galactic open clusters.
This provides a valuable observational source for understanding the CP phenomenon of the upper main sequence in a different global environment than in our Milky Way.
This research was performed within the projects [*P17580*]{} and [*P17920*]{} of the Austrian Fonds zur F[ö]{}rderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FwF), as well as the City of Vienna (Hochschuljubil[ä]{}umsstiftung project: $\Delta a$ Photometrie in der Milchstrasse und den Magellanschen Wolken, H-1123/2002). I.Kh. Iliev acknowledges support by the Bulgarian National Science Fund under grant F-1403/2004 and the Pinehill Foundation. Use was made of the SIMBAD database, operated at the CDS, Strasbourg, France and the WEBDA database, operated at the University of Vienna. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System. The authors acknowledge the use of the CCD and data reduction acquisition system supported by US NSF Grant AST 90-15827 to R.M. Rich.
Alves, D. R. 2004, New Astronomy Reviews, 48, 659 Claret, A. 2006, A&A, 453, 769 Claret, A., Paunzen, E., & Maitzen, H. M. 2003, A&A, 412, 91 Dirsch, B., Richtler, T., Gieren, W., & Hilker, M. 2000, A&A, 360, 133 Dolphin, A. E. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 281 Ginestet, N., Carquillat, J. M., & Jaschek, C. 2000, A&AS, 142, 13 G[ó]{}mez, A. E., Luri, X., Grenier, S., Figueras, F., North, P., Royer, F., Torra, J., & Mennessier, M. O. 1998, A&A, 336, 953 Kupka, F., Paunzen, E., Iliev, I. Kh., & Maitzen, H. M. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 863 Maitzen, H. M., & Vogt, N. 1983, A&A, 123, 48 Maitzen, H. M., Paunzen, E., & Pintado, O. I. 2001, A&A, 371, L5 Maury, A. 1897, Ann. Astron. Obs. Harvard Vol. 28, Part 1 North, P. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 44, Peculiar versus Normal Phenomena in A-type and Related Stars, ed. M. M. Dworetsky, F. Castelli, & R. Faraggiana, 577 Paunzen, E., Iliev, I. Kh., Kamp, I., & Barzova, I. S. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1030 Paunzen, E., St[ü]{}tz, Ch., & Maitzen, H. M. 2005a, A&A, 441, 631 Paunzen, E., Pintado, O. I., Maitzen, H. M., & Claret A. 2005b, MNRAS, 362, 1025 Paunzen, E., Netopil, M., Iliev, I. Kh., Maitzen, H. M., Claret, A., & Pintado, O. I. 2005c, A&A, 443, 157 Pavlovski, K., & Maitzen, H. M. 1989, A&AS, 77, 351 P[ö]{}hnl, H., Paunzen, E., & Maitzen H. M. 2005, A&A, 441, 1111 Preston, G. W. 1974, ARA&A, 12, 257 Taylor, B. J. 1999, A&AS, 139, 63 van Loon, J. Th., Groenewegen, M. A. T., de Koter, A., Trams, N. R., Waters, L. B. F. M., Zijlstra, A. A., Whitelock, P. A., & Loup, C. 1999, A&A, 351, 559 Zaritsky, D., Harris, J., Thompson, I. B., & Grebel, E. K. 2004, AJ, 128, 1606
[^1]: Based on observations at CASLEO and ESO-La Silla
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
**English:** We prove several results on weak symplectic fillings of contact $3$–manifolds, including: (1) Every weak filling of any planar contact manifold can be deformed to a blow up of a Stein filling. (2) Contact manifolds that have fully separating planar torsion are not weakly fillable—this gives many new examples of contact manifolds without Giroux torsion that have no weak fillings. (3) Weak fillability is preserved under splicing of contact manifolds along symplectic pre-Lagrangian tori—this gives many new examples of contact manifolds without Giroux torsion that are weakly but not strongly fillable.
We establish the obstructions to weak fillings via two parallel approaches using holomorphic curves. In the first approach, we generalize the original Gromov-Eliashberg “Bishop disk” argument to study the special case of Giroux torsion via a Bishop family of holomorphic annuli with boundary on an “anchored overtwisted annulus”. The second approach uses punctured holomorphic curves, and is based on the observation that every weak filling can be deformed in a collar neighborhood so as to induce a stable Hamiltonian structure on the boundary. This also makes it possible to apply the techniques of Symplectic Field Theory, which we demonstrate in a test case by showing that the distinction between weakly and strongly fillable translates into contact homology as the distinction between twisted and untwisted coefficients.
[francais]{} **Français:** On montre plusieurs résultats concernant les remplissages faibles de variétés de contact de dimension $3$, notamment : (1) Les remplissages faibles des variétés de contact planaires sont à déformation près des éclatements de remplissages de Stein. (2) Les variétés de contact ayant de la torsion planaire et satisfaisant une certaine condition homologique n’admettent pas de remplissages faibles – de cette manière on obtient des nouveaux exemples de variétés de contact qui ne sont pas faiblement remplissables. (3) La remplissabilité faible est préservée par l’opération de somme connexe le long de tores pré-Lagrangiens — ce qui nous donne beaucoup de nouveaux exemples de variétés de contact sans torsion de Giroux qui sont faiblement, mais pas fortement remplissables.
On établit une obstruction à la remplissabilité faible avec deux approches qui utilisent des courbes holomorphes. La première méthode se base sur l’argument original de Gromov-Eliashberg des disques de Bishop . On utilise une famille d’anneaux holomorphes s’appuyant sur un anneau vrillé ancré pour étudier le cas spécial de la torsion de Giroux. La deuxième méthode utilise des courbes holomorphes à pointes, et elle se base sur l’observation que dans un remplissage faible, la structure symplectique peut être déformée au voisinage du bord, en une structure Hamiltonienne stable. Cette observation permet aussi d’appliquer les méthodes à la théorie symplectique de champs, et on montre dans un cas simple que la distinction entre les remplissabilités faible et forte se traduit en homologie de contact par une distinction entre coefficients tordus et non tordus.
address:
- |
Institut de mathématiques de Toulouse\
Université Paul Sabatier – Toulouse III\
118 route de Narbonne\
F-31062 Toulouse Cedex 9\
FRANCE
- |
Institut für Mathematik\
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin\
10099 Berlin\
Germany
author:
- Klaus Niederkrüger
- Chris Wendl
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Weak Symplectic Fillings and Holomorphic Curves
---
Introduction
============
The study of symplectic fillings via $J$–holomorphic curves goes back to the foundational result of Gromov [@Gromov_Kurven] and Eliashberg [@Eliashberg_HoloDiscs], which states that a closed contact $3$–manifold that is overtwisted cannot admit a weak symplectic filling. Let us recall some important definitions: in the following, we always assume that $(W,\omega)$ is a symplectic $4$–manifold, and $(M,\xi)$ is an oriented $3$–manifold with a positive and cooriented contact structure. Whenever a contact form for $\xi$ is mentioned, we assume it is compatible with the given coorientation.
A contact $3$–manifold $(M,\xi)$ embedded in a symplectic $4$–manifold $(W,\omega)$ is called a **contact hypersurface** if there is a contact form $\alpha$ for $\xi$ such that $d\alpha =
{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}$. In the case where $M = {\partial}W$ and its orientation matches the natural boundary orientation, we say that $(W,\omega)$ has **contact type boundary** $(M,\xi)$, and if $W$ is also compact, we call $(W,\omega)$ a **strong symplectic filling** of $(M,\xi)$.
A contact $3$–manifold $(M,\xi)$ embedded in a symplectic $4$–manifold $(W,\omega)$ is called a **weakly contact hypersurface** if ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{\xi}}} > 0$, and in the special case where $M = {\partial}W$ with the natural boundary orientation, we say that $(W,\omega)$ has **weakly contact boundary** $(M,\xi)$. If $W$ is also compact, we call $(W,\omega)$ a **weak symplectic filling** of $(M,\xi)$.
It is easy to see that a strong filling is also a weak filling. In general, a strong filling can also be characterized by the existence in a neighborhood of ${\partial}W$ of a transverse, outward pointing *Liouville vector field*, i.e. a vector field $Y$ such that ${{\mathcal{L}_{Y}}}\omega = \omega$. The latter condition makes it possible to identify a neighborhood of ${\partial}W$ with a piece of the symplectization of $(M,\xi)$; in particular, one can then enlarge $(W,\omega)$ by symplectically attaching to ${\partial}W$ a cylindrical end.
The Gromov-Eliashberg result was proved using a so-called *Bishop family* of pseudoholomorphic disks: the idea was to show that in any weak filling $(W,\omega)$ whose boundary contains an overtwisted disk, a certain *noncompact* $1$–parameter family of $J$–holomorphic disks with boundary on ${\partial}W$ must exist, but yields a contradiction to Gromov compactness. In [@Eliashberg_HoloDiscs], Eliashberg also used these techniques to show that all weak fillings of the tight $3$–sphere are diffeomorphic to blow-ups of a ball. More recently, the Bishop family argument has been generalized by the first author [@NiederkruegerPlastikstufe] to define the *plastikstufe*, the first known obstruction to symplectic filling in higher dimensions.
In the mean time, several finer obstructions to symplectic filling in dimension three have been discovered, including some which obstruct strong filling but not weak filling. Eliashberg [@Eliashberg_torus] used some of Gromov’s classification results for symplectic $4$–manifolds [@Gromov_Kurven] to show that on the $3$–torus, the standard contact structure is the only one that is strongly fillable, though Giroux had shown [@Giroux_plusOuMoins] that it has infinitely many distinct weakly fillable contact structures. The first examples of tight contact structures without weak fillings were later constructed by Etnyre and Honda [@EtnyreHonda_weakly], using an obstruction due to Paolo Lisca [@Lisca_fillings] based on Seiberg-Witten theory.
The simplest filling obstruction beyond overtwisted disks is the following. Define for each $n\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ the following contact $3$–manifolds with boundary: $$T_n := \bigl({{\mathbb{T}}}^2\times [0,n],\,
\sin (2\pi z)\, d{\varphi}+ \cos (2\pi z)\,d{\vartheta}\bigr)\; ,$$ where $({\varphi}, {\vartheta})$ are the coordinates on ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 = {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times
{{\mathbb{S}}}^1$, and $z$ is the coordinate on $[0,n]$. We will refer to $T_n$ as a **Giroux torsion domain**.
![The region between the grey planes on either side represents half a Giroux torsion domain. The grey planes are pre-Lagrangian tori with their characteristic foliations, which show the contact structure turning along the $z$–axis as we move from left to right. Domains with higher Giroux torsion can be constructed by gluing together several half-torsion domains.[]{data-label="fig: half-torsion domain"}](torsion.pdf){width="5cm"}
Let $(M,\xi)$ be a $3$–dimensional contact manifold. The **Giroux torsion** $\operatorname{Tor}(M, \xi) \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}\cup \{\infty\}$ is the largest number $n \ge 0$ for which we can find a contact embedding of the Giroux torsion domain $T_n \hookrightarrow M$. If this is true for arbitrarily large $n$, then we define $\operatorname{Tor}(M,
\xi) = \infty$.
Due to the classification result of Eliashberg [@Eliashberg_Overtwisted], overtwisted contact manifolds have infinite Giroux torsion, and moreover, one can assume in this case that the torsion domain $T_n \subset M$ separates $M$. It is not known whether a contact manifold with infinite Giroux torsion must be overtwisted in general.
The present paper was motivated partly by the following fairly recent result.
A closed contact $3$–manifold $(M,\xi)$ with positive Giroux torsion does not have a strong symplectic filling. Moreover, if it contains a Giroux torsion domain $T_n$ that splits $M$ into separate path components, then $(M,\xi)$ does not even admit a *weak* filling.
The first part of this statement was proved originally by David Gay with a gauge theoretic argument, and the refinement for the separating case follows from a computation of the Ozsváth-Szabó contact invariant due to Paolo Ghiggini and Ko Honda. Observe that due to the remark above on overtwistedness and Giroux torsion, the result implies the Eliashberg-Gromov theorem.
As this brief sampling of history indicates, holomorphic curves have not been one of the favorite tools for defining filling obstructions in recent years. One might argue that this is unfortunate, because holomorphic curve arguments have a tendency to seem more geometrically natural and intuitive than those involving the substantial machinery of Seiberg-Witten theory or Heegaard Floer homology—and in higher dimensions, of course, they are still the only tool available. A recent exception was the paper [@ChrisGirouxTorsion], where the second author used families of holomorphic cylinders to provide a new proof of Gay’s result on Giroux torsion and strong fillings. By similar methods, the second author has recently defined a more general obstruction to strong fillings [@ChrisOpenBook2], called *planar torsion*, which provides many new examples of contact manifolds $(M,\xi)$ with $\operatorname{Tor}(M,\xi) = 0$ that are nevertheless not strongly fillable. The reason these results apply primarily to *strong* fillings is that they depend on moduli spaces of *punctured* holomorphic curves, which live naturally in the noncompact symplectic manifold obtained by attaching a cylindrical end to a strong filling. By contrast, the Eliashberg-Gromov argument works also for weak fillings because it uses compact holomorphic curves with boundary, which live naturally in a compact almost complex manifold with boundary that is pseudoconvex, but not necessarily convex in the *symplectic* sense. The Bishop family argument however has never been extended for any compact holomorphic curves more general than disks, because these tend to live in moduli spaces of nonpositive virtual dimension.
In this paper, we will demonstrate that both approaches, via compact holomorphic curves with boundary as well as punctured holomorphic curves, can be used to prove much more general results involving *weak* symplectic fillings. As an illustrative example of the compact approach, we shall begin in [[§\[sec:annulus\]]{}]{} by presenting a new proof of the above result on Giroux torsion, as a consequence of the following.
\[thm:BishopGirouxTorsion\] Let $(M, \xi)$ be a closed $3$–dimensional contact manifold embedded into a closed symplectic $4$–manifold $(W,\omega)$ as a weakly contact hypersurface. If $(M,\xi)$ contains a Giroux torsion domain $T_n \subset M$, then the restriction of the symplectic form $\omega$ to $T_n$ cannot be exact.
By a theorem of Eliashberg [@Eliashberg_capping] and Etnyre [@Etnyre_capping], every weak filling can be capped to produce a closed symplectic $4$–manifold. The above statement thus implies a criterion for $(M,\xi)$ to be not weakly fillable—our proof will in fact demonstrate this directly, without any need for the capping result. We will use the fact that every Giroux torsion domain contains an object that we call an *anchored overtwisted annulus*, which we will show serves as a filling obstruction analogous to an overtwisted disk. Note that for a torsion domain $T_n
\subset M$, the condition that $\omega$ is exact on $T_n$ is equivalent to the vanishing of the integral $$\int_{{{\mathbb{T}}}^2\times\{c\}} \omega$$ on any slice $T^2 \times \{c\} \subset T_n$. For a strong filling this is *always* satisfied since $\omega$ is exact on the boundary, and it is also always satisfied if $T_n$ separates $M$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm:BishopGirouxTorsion\] is of some interest in itself for being comparatively low-tech, which is to say that it relies only on technology that was already available as of 1985. As such, it demonstrates new potential for well established techniques, in particular the Gromov-Eliashberg Bishop family argument, which we shall generalize by considering a “Bishop family of holomorphic annuli” with boundaries lying on a $1$–parameter family of so-called *half-twisted annuli*. Unlike overtwisted disks, a single overtwisted annulus does not suffice to prove anything: the boundaries of the Bishop annuli must be allowed to vary in a nontrivial family, called an *anchor*, so as to produce a moduli space with positive dimension. One consequence of this extra degree of freedom is that the required energy bounds are no longer automatic, but in fact are only satisfied when $\omega$ satisfies an extra cohomological condition. This is one way to understand the geometric reason why Giroux torsion always obstructs strong fillings, but only obstructs weak fillings in the presence of extra topological conditions. This method also provides some hope of being generalizable to higher dimensions, where the known examples of filling obstructions are still very few.
In [[§\[sec:punctured\]]{}]{}, we will initiate the study of weak fillings via punctured holomorphic curves in order to obtain more general results. The linchpin of this approach is Theorem \[theorem: stableHypersurface\] in [[§\[sec: collar neighborhood weak boundary\]]{}]{}, which says essentially that any weak filling can be deformed so that its boundary carries a stable Hamiltonian structure. This is almost as good as a strong filling, as one can then symplectically attach a cylindrical end—but extra cohomological conditions are usually needed in order to do this without losing the ability to construct nice holomorphic curves in the cylindrical end. It turns out that the required conditions are *always* satisfied for planar contact manifolds, and we obtain the following surprising generalization of a result proved for strong fillings in [@ChrisGirouxTorsion].
\[thm:planar\] If $(M,\xi)$ is a planar contact $3$–manifold, then every weak filling of $(W,\omega)$ is symplectically deformation equivalent to a blow up of a Stein filling of $(M,\xi)$.
\[cor:planar\] If $(M,\xi)$ is weakly fillable but not Stein fillable, then it is not planar.
\[cor:Dehntwists\] Given any planar open book supporting a contact manifold $(M,\xi)$, the manifold is weakly fillable if and only if the monodromy of the open book can be factored into a product of positive Dehn twists.
The second corollary follows easily from the result proved in [@ChrisGirouxTorsion], that every planar open book on a strongly fillable contact manifold can be extended to a Lefschetz fibration of the filling over the disk. This fact was used in recent work of Olga Plamenevskaya and Jeremy Van Horn-Morris [@PlamenevskayaVanHorn] to find new examples of planar contact manifolds that have either unique fillings or no fillings at all. Theorem \[thm:planar\] in fact reduces the classification question for weak fillings of planar contact manifolds to the classification of Stein fillings, and as shown in [@ChrisFiberSums] using the results in [@ChrisGirouxTorsion], the latter reduces to an essentially combinatorial question involving factorizations of monodromy maps into products of positive Dehn twists. Note that most previous classification results for weak fillings (e.g. [@Eliashberg_HoloDiscs; @Lisca_Lens; @PlamenevskayaVanHorn]) have applied to rational homology spheres, as it can be shown homologically in such settings that weak fillings are always deformable to strong ones. Theorem \[thm:planar\] makes no such assumption about the topology of $M$.
It is easy to see that nothing like Theorem \[thm:planar\] holds for non-planar contact manifolds in general. There are of course many examples of weakly but not strongly fillable contact manifolds; still more will appear in the results stated below. There are also Stein fillable contact manifolds with weak fillings that cannot be deformed into blown up Stein fillings: for instance, Giroux shows in [@Giroux_plusOuMoins] that the standard contact $3$–torus $({{\mathbb{T}}}^3,\xi_1)$ admits weak fillings diffeomorphic to $\Sigma \times
{{\mathbb{T}}}^2$ for any compact oriented surface $\Sigma$ with connected boundary. As shown in [@ChrisGirouxTorsion] however, $({{\mathbb{T}}}^3,\xi_1)$ has only one Stein filling, diffeomorphic to ${{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}\times {{\mathbb{T}}}^2$, and if $\Sigma \ne {{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}$ then $\Sigma\times {{\mathbb{T}}}^2$ is not homeomorphic to any blow-up of ${{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}\times {{\mathbb{T}}}^2$, since $\pi_2(\Sigma \times {{\mathbb{T}}}^2) = 0$.
Using similar methods, [[§\[sec:punctured\]]{}]{} will also generalize Theorem \[thm:BishopGirouxTorsion\] to establish a new obstruction to weak symplectic fillings in dimension three. We will recall in §\[subsec:review\] the definition of a planar torsion domain, which is a generalization of a Giroux torsion domain that furnishes an obstruction to strong filling by a result in [@ChrisOpenBook2]. The same will not be true for weak fillings, but becomes true after imposing an extra homological condition: for any closed $2$–form $\Omega$ on $M$, one says that $M$ has *$\Omega$–separating* planar torsion if $$\int_L \Omega = 0$$ for every torus $L$ in a certain special set of disjoint tori in the torsion domain.
\[theorem: planarTorsion\] Suppose $(M,\xi)$ is a closed contact $3$–manifold with $\Omega$–separating planar torsion for some closed $2$–form $\Omega$ on $M$. Then $(M,\xi)$ admits no weakly contact type embedding into a closed symplectic $4$–manifold $(W,\omega)$ with ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}$ cohomologous to $\Omega$. In particular, $(M,\xi)$ has no weak filling $(W,\omega)$ with $[{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}] = [\Omega]$.
As is shown in [@ChrisOpenBook2], any Giroux torsion domain embedded in a closed contact manifold has a neighborhood that contains a planar torsion domain, thus Theorem \[theorem: planarTorsion\] implies another proof of Theorem \[thm:BishopGirouxTorsion\]. If each of the relevant tori $L \subset M$ separates $M$, then $\int_L
\Omega = 0$ for all $\Omega$ and we say that $(M,\xi)$ has *fully separating* planar torsion.
\[cor:obstruction\] If $(M,\xi)$ is a closed contact $3$–manifold with fully separating planar torsion, then it admits no weakly contact type embedding into any closed symplectic $4$–manifold. In particular, $(M,\xi)$ is not weakly fillable.
The statement about non-fillability in Corollary \[cor:obstruction\] also follows from a recent computation of the twisted ECH contact invariant that has been carried out in parallel work of the second author [@ChrisOpenBook2]. The proof via ECH is however extremely indirect, as according to the present state of technology it requires the isomorphism established by Taubes [@Taubes_ECH5] from ECH to monopole Floer homology, together with results of Kronheimer and Mrowka [@KronheimerMrowka_contact] that relate the monopole invariants to weak fillings. Our proof on the other hand will require no technology other than holomorphic curves.
We now show that there are many contact manifolds without Giroux torsion that satisfy the above hypotheses. Consider a closed oriented surface $$\Sigma = \Sigma_+ \cup_\Gamma \Sigma_-$$ obtained as the union of two (not necessarily connected) surfaces $\Sigma_\pm$ with boundary along a multicurve $\Gamma \ne \emptyset$. By results of Lutz [@Lutz_CircleActions], the $3$–manifold ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1
\times \Sigma$ admits a unique (up to isotopy) ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant contact structure $\xi_\Gamma$ such that the surfaces $\{*\} \times
\Sigma$ are all convex and have $\Gamma$ as the dividing set. If $\Gamma$ has no component that bounds a disk, then the manifold $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \Sigma, \xi_\Gamma)$ is tight [@Giroux_cercles Proposition 4.1], and if $\Gamma$ also has no two connected components that are isotopic in $\Sigma$, then it follows from arguments due to Giroux (see [@Massot_vanishing]) that $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \Sigma, \xi_\Gamma)$ does not even have Giroux torsion. But as we will review in [[§\[subsec:review\]]{}]{}, it is easy to construct examples that satisfy these conditions and have planar torsion.
\[cor:notWeakly\] For the ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant contact manifold $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times
\Sigma,\xi_\Gamma)$ described above, suppose the following conditions are satisfied (see Figure \[fig:notWeakly\]):
1. $\Gamma$ has no contractible components and no pair of components that are isotopic in $\Sigma$.
2. $\Sigma_+$ contains a connected component $\Sigma_P \subset
\Sigma_+$ of genus zero, whose boundary components each separate $\Sigma$.
Then $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \Sigma,\xi_\Gamma)$ has no Giroux torsion and is not weakly fillable.
[r]{}[0.4]{}
The example of the tight $3$–tori shows that the homological condition in the Giroux torsion case cannot be relaxed, and indeed, the first historical examples of weakly but not strongly fillable contact structures can in hindsight be understood via the distinction between separating and non-separating Giroux torsion. In [[§\[sec:handles\]]{}]{}, we will introduce a new symplectic handle attachment technique that produces much more general examples of weak fillings:
\[thm:weakConstruction\] Suppose $(W,\omega)$ is a (not necessarily connected) weak filling of a contact $3$–manifold $(M,\xi)$, and $T \subset M$ is an embedded oriented torus which is pre-Lagrangian in $(M,\xi)$ and symplectic in $(W,\omega)$. Then:
1. $(W,\omega)$ is also a weak filling of every contact manifold obtained from $(M,\xi)$ by performing finitely many Lutz twists along $T$.
2. If $T' \subset M$ is another torus satisfying the stated conditions, disjoint from $T$, such that $\int_T \omega =
\int_{T'} \omega$, then the contact manifold obtained from $(M,\xi)$ by splicing along $T$ and $T'$ is also weakly fillable.
See [[§\[sec:handles\]]{}]{} for precise definitions of the Lutz twist and splicing operations, as well as more precise versions of Theorem \[thm:weakConstruction\]. We will use the theorem to explicitly construct new examples of contact manifolds that are weakly but not strongly fillable, including some that have planar torsion but no Giroux torsion. Let $$\Sigma = \Sigma_+ \cup_\Gamma \Sigma_-$$ be a surface divided by a multicurve $\Gamma$ into two parts as described above. The principal circle bundles $P_{\Sigma,e}$ over $\Sigma$ are distinguished by their Euler number $e = e(P) \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ which can be easily determined by removing a solid torus around a fiber of $P_{\Sigma,e}$, choosing a section outside this neighborhood, and computing the intersection number of the section with a meridian on the torus. The Euler number thus measures how far the bundle is from being trivial. Lutz [@Lutz_CircleActions] also showed that every nontrivial ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–principal bundle $P_{\Sigma,e}$ with Euler number $e$ over $\Sigma$ admits a unique (up to isotopy) ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant contact structure $\xi_{\Gamma, e}$ that is tangent to fibers over the multicurve $\Gamma$ and is everywhere else transverse. For simplicity, we will continue to write $\xi_\Gamma$ for the corresponding contact structure $\xi_{\Gamma,0}$ on the trivial bundle $P_{\Sigma,0} = {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \Sigma$.
\[thm:weakFillings\] Suppose $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e},\xi_{\Gamma,e}\bigr)$ is the ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant contact manifold described above, for some multicurve $\Gamma \subset \Sigma$ whose connected components are all non-separating. Then $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e},\xi_{\Gamma,e}\bigr)$ is weakly fillable.
\[cor:weakNotStrong\] There exist contact $3$–manifolds without Giroux torsion that are weakly but not strongly fillable. In particular, this is true for the ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant contact manifold $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times
\Sigma,\xi_\Gamma)$ whenever all of the following conditions are met:
1. $\Gamma$ has no connected components that separate $\Sigma$, and no pair of connected components that are isotopic in $\Sigma$,
2. $\Sigma_+$ has a connected component of genus zero,
3. Either of the following is true:
1. $\Sigma_+$ or $\Sigma_-$ is disconnected,
2. $\Sigma_+$ and $\Sigma_-$ are not diffeomorphic to each other.
Our proof of Theorem \[thm:weakFillings\] will actually produce not just a weak filling of $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e},\xi_{\Gamma,e}\bigr)$ but also a connected weak filling of a disjoint union of this with another contact $3$–manifold. By Etnyre’s obstruction [@Etnyre_planar] (or by Theorem \[thm:planar\]), it follows that $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e}, \xi_{\Gamma,e}\bigr)$ is not planar whenever $\Gamma \subset \Sigma$ has no separating component.
One further implication of the techniques introduced in [[§\[sec:punctured\]]{}]{} is that weak fillings can now be studied using the technology of Symplectic Field Theory. The latter is a general framework introduced by Eliashberg, Givental and Hofer [@SymplecticFieldTheory] for defining contact invariants by counting $J$–holomorphic curves in symplectizations and in noncompact symplectic cobordisms with cylindrical ends. In joint work of the second author with Janko Latschev [@LatschevWendl], it is shown that SFT contains an algebraic variant of planar torsion, which gives an infinite hierarchy of obstructions to the existence of strong fillings and exact symplectic cobordisms in all dimensions.[^1] Stable Hamiltonian structures can be used to incorporate weak fillings into this picture as well: analogously to the situation in Heegaard Floer homology, the distinction between strong and weak is then seen algebraically via twisted (i.e. group ring) coefficients in SFT.
We will explain a special case of this statement in [[§\[subsec:SFT\]]{}]{}, focusing on the simplest and most widely known invariant defined within the SFT framework: contact homology. Given a contact manifold $(M,\xi)$, the contact homology ${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi\big)}$ can be defined as a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$–graded supercommutative algebra with unit: it is the homology of a differential graded algebra generated by Reeb orbits of a nondegenerate contact form, where the differential counts rigid $J$–holomorphic spheres with exactly one positive end and arbitrarily many negative ends. (See [[§\[subsec:SFT\]]{}]{} for more precise definitions.) We say that the homology *vanishes* if it satisfies the relation ${{\mathbf{1}}}= 0$, which implies that it contains only one element. In defining this algebra, one can make various choices of coefficients, and in particular for any linear subspace ${\mathcal{R}}\subset H_2(M ; {{\mathbb{R}}})$, one can define contact homology as a module over the group ring[^2] $${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}] = \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^N c_i e^{A_i}
\ \Bigm|\ c_i \in {{\mathbb{Q}}},\ A_i \in H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}\right\} \;,$$ with the differential “twisted” by inserting factors of $e^A$ to keep track of the homology classes of holomorphic curves. We will denote the contact homology algebra defined in this way for a given subspace ${\mathcal{R}}\subset H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})$ by $${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]\big)} \;.$$ There are two obvious special cases that must be singled out: if ${\mathcal{R}}= H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})$, then the coefficients reduce to ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$, and we obtain the **untwisted** contact homology ${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}\big)}$, in which the group ring does not appear. If we instead set ${\mathcal{R}}=
\{0\}$, the result is the **fully twisted** contact homology ${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})]\big)}$, which is a module over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})]$. There is also an intermediately twisted version associated to any cohomology class $\beta \in H^2_{{\operatorname{dR}}}(M)$, namely ${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\beta]\big)}$, where we identify $\beta$ with the induced linear map $H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) \to {{\mathbb{R}}}, \, A \mapsto
{{\langle{\beta},{A}\rangle}}$. Observe that the canonical projections ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})] \to {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\beta] \to {{\mathbb{Q}}}$ yield algebra homomorphisms $${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})]\big)} \to {{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi;\,
{{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\beta]\big)} \to {{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}\big)} \;,$$ implying in particular that whenever the fully twisted version vanishes, so do all the others. The choice of twisted coefficients then has the following relevance for the question of fillability.
[^3] \[thm:SFT\] Suppose $(M,\xi)$ is a closed contact $3$–manifold with a cohomology class $\beta \in H^2_{{\operatorname{dR}}}(M)$ for which ${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) /
\ker\beta]\big)}$ vanishes. Then $(M,\xi)$ does not admit any weak symplectic filling $(W,\omega)$ with $[{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}] =
\beta$.
Since weak fillings that are exact near the boundary are equivalent to strong fillings up to symplectic deformation (cf. Proposition 3.1 in [@EliashbergContactProperties]), the special case $\beta=0$ means that the *untwisted* contact homology gives an obstruction to strong filling, and we similarly obtain an obstruction to weak filling from the *fully twisted* contact homology:
\[cor:twisted\] For any closed contact $3$–manifold $(M,\xi)$:
1. If ${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}\big)}$ vanishes, then $(M,\xi)$ is not strongly fillable.
2. If ${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})]\big)}$ vanishes, then $(M,\xi)$ is not weakly fillable.
This result does not immediately yield any new knowledge about contact topology, as so far the overtwisted contact manifolds are the only examples in dimension $3$ for which any version (in particular the twisted version) of contact homology is known to vanish, cf. [@YauContactHomologyVanishes] and [@ChrisOpenBook2]. We’ve included it here merely as a “proof of concept” for the use of SFT with twisted coefficients to study weak fillings. For the higher order algebraic filling obstructions defined in [@LatschevWendl], there are indeed examples where the twisted and untwisted theories differ, corresponding to tight contact manifolds that are weakly but not strongly fillable.
We conclude this introduction with a brief discussion of open questions.
Insofar as planar torsion provides an obstruction to weak filling, it is natural to wonder how sharp the homological condition in Theorem \[theorem: planarTorsion\] is. The most obvious test cases are the ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant product manifolds $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \Sigma,
\xi_\Gamma)$, under the assumption that $\Sigma \setminus \Gamma$ contains a connected component of genus zero, as for these the question of strong fillability is completely understood by results in [@ChrisOpenBook2] and [@ChrisFiberSums]. Theorems \[theorem: planarTorsion\] and \[thm:weakFillings\] give criteria when such manifolds either are or are not weakly fillable, but there is still a grey area in which neither result applies, e.g. neither is able to settle the following:
Suppose $\Sigma = \Sigma_+ \cup_\Gamma \Sigma_-$, where $\Sigma
\setminus \Gamma$ contains a connected component of genus zero and some connected components of $\Gamma$ separate $\Sigma$, while others do not. Is $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \Sigma, \xi_\Gamma)$ weakly fillable?
Another question concerns the classification of weak fillings: on rational homology spheres this reduces to a question about strong fillings, and Theorem \[thm:planar\] reduces it to the Stein case for all planar contact manifolds, which makes general classification results seem quite realistic. But already in the simple case of the tight $3$–tori, one can combine explicit examples such as $\Sigma
\times {{\mathbb{T}}}^2$ with our splicing technique to produce a seemingly unclassifiable zoo of inequivalent weak fillings. Note that the splicing technique can be applied in general for contact manifolds that admit fillings with homologically nontrivial pre-Lagrangian tori, and these are *never* planar, because due to an obstruction of Etnyre [@Etnyre_planar] fillings of planar contact manifolds must have trivial $b_2^0$.
Other than rational homology spheres, are there any non-planar weakly fillable contact $3$–manifolds for which weak fillings can reasonably be classified?
On the algebraic side, it would be interesting to know whether Theorem \[thm:SFT\] actually implies any contact topological results that are not known; this relates to the rather important open question of whether there exist tight contact $3$–manifolds with vanishing contact homology. In light of the role played by twisted coefficients in the distinction between strong and weak fillings, this question can be refined as follows:
Does there exist a tight contact $3$–manifold with vanishing (twisted or untwisted) contact homology? In particular, is there a weakly fillable contact $3$–manifold with vanishing untwisted contact homology?
The generalization of overtwistedness furnished by planar torsion gives some evidence that the answer to this last question may be no. In particular, planar torsion as defined in [@ChrisOpenBook2] comes with an integer-valued *order* $k \ge 0$, and for every $k
\ge 1$, our results give examples of contact manifolds with planar $k$–torsion that are weakly but not strongly fillable. This phenomenon is also detected algebraically both by Embedded Contact Homology [@ChrisOpenBook2] and by Symplectic Field Theory [@LatschevWendl], where in each case the untwisted version vanishes and the twisted version does not. Planar $0$–torsion, however, is fully *equivalent* to overtwistedness, and thus always causes the twisted theories to vanish. Thus on the $k=0$ level, there is a conspicuous lack of candidates that could answer the above question in the affirmative.
Relatedly, the distinction between twisted and untwisted contact homology makes just as much sense in higher dimensions, yet the distinction between weak and strong fillings apparently does not. The simplest possible definition of a weak filling in higher dimensions, that ${\partial}W = M$ with ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{\xi}}}$ symplectic, is not very natural and probably cannot be used to prove anything. A better definition takes account of the fact that $\xi$ carries a natural conformal symplectic structure, and $\omega$ should be required to define the same conformal symplectic structure on $\xi$: in this case we say that $(M,\xi)$ is **dominated** by $(W,\omega)$. In dimension three this notion is equivalent to that of a weak filling, but surprisingly, in higher dimensions it is equivalent to *strong* filling, by a result of McDuff [@McDuff_contactType]. It is thus extremely unclear whether any sensible distinct notion of weak fillability exists in higher dimensions, except algebraically:
In dimensions five and higher, are there contact manifolds with vanishing untwisted but nonvanishing twisted contact homology (or similarly, algebraic torsion as in [@LatschevWendl])? If so, what does this mean about their symplectic fillings?
Another natural question in higher dimensions concerns the variety of possible filling obstructions, of which very few are yet known. There are obstructions arising from the *plastikstufe* [@NiederkruegerPlastikstufe], designed as a higher dimensional analog of the overtwisted disk, as well as from left handed stabilizations of open books [@ContactHomologyLeftHanded]. Both of these cause contact homology to vanish, and there is as yet no known example of a “higher order” filling obstruction in higher dimensions, i.e. something analogous to Giroux torsion or planar torsion, which might obstruct symplectic filling without killing contact homology. One promising avenue to explore in this area would be to produce a higher dimensional generalization of the anchored overtwisted annulus, though once an example is constructed, it may be far from trivial to show that it has nonvanishing contact homology.
Is there any higher dimensional analog of the anchored overtwisted annulus, and can it be used to produce examples of nonfillable contact manifolds with nonvanishing contact homology?
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
We are grateful to Emmanuel Giroux, Michael Hutchings and Patrick Massot for enlightening conversations.
During the initial phase of this research, K. Niederkrüger was working at the *ENS de Lyon* funded by the project *Symplexe* 06-BLAN-0030-01 of the *Agence Nationale de la Recherche* (ANR). Currently he is employed at the *Université Paul Sabatier – Toulouse III*.
C. Wendl is supported by an Alexander von Humboldt Foundation research fellowship.
Giroux torsion and the overtwisted annulus {#sec:annulus}
==========================================
In this section, which can be read independently of the remainder of the paper, we adapt the techniques used in the non-fillability proof for overtwisted manifolds due to Eliashberg and Gromov to prove Theorem \[thm:BishopGirouxTorsion\].
We begin by briefly sketching the original proof for overtwisted contact structures. Assume $(M,\xi)$ is a closed overtwisted contact manifold with a weak symplectic filling $(W,\omega)$. The condition ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{\xi}}} > 0$ implies that we can choose an almost complex structure $J$ on $W$ which is tamed by $\omega$ and makes the boundary $J$–convex. The elliptic singularity in the center of the overtwisted disk ${{\mathbb{D}_\mathrm{OT}}}\subset M$ is the source of a $1$–dimensional connected moduli space ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ of $J$–holomorphic disks $$u:\, \bigl({{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}, {\partial}{{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}\bigr) \to \bigl(W,{{\mathbb{D}_\mathrm{OT}}}\bigr)$$ that represent homotopically trivial elements in $\pi_2\bigl(W,
{{\mathbb{D}_\mathrm{OT}}}\bigr)$, and whose boundaries encircle the singularity of ${{\mathbb{D}_\mathrm{OT}}}$ once. The space ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ is diffeomorphic to an open interval, and as we approach one limit of this interval the holomorphic curves collapse to the singular point in the center of the overtwisted disk ${{\mathbb{D}_\mathrm{OT}}}$.
We can add to any holomorphic disk in ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ a capping disk in ${{\mathbb{D}_\mathrm{OT}}}$, such that we obtain a sphere that bounds a ball, and hence the $\omega$–energy of any disk in ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ is equal to the symplectic area of the capping disk. This implies that the energy of any holomorphic disk in ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ is bounded by the integral of ${{\left\lvert \omega\right\rvert}}$ over ${{\mathbb{D}_\mathrm{OT}}}$, so that we can apply Gromov compactness to understand the limit at the other end of ${{\mathcal{M}}}$. By a careful study, bubbling and other phenomena can be excluded, and the result is a limit curve that must have a boundary point tangent to the characteristic foliation at ${\partial}{{\mathbb{D}_\mathrm{OT}}}$; but this implies that it touches ${\partial}W$ tangentially, which is impossible due to $J$–convexity.
Below we will work out an analogous proof for the situation where $(M,
\xi)$ is a closed $3$–dimensional contact manifold that contains a different object, called an anchored overtwisted annulus. Assuming $(M, \xi)$ has a weak symplectic filling or is a weakly contact hypersurface in a closed symplectic $4$–manifold, we will choose an adapted almost complex structure and instead of using holomorphic disks, consider holomorphic annuli with boundaries varying along a $1$–dimensional family of surfaces. The extra degree of freedom in the boundary condition produces a moduli space of positive dimension. If $\omega$ is also exact on the region foliated by the family of boundary conditions, then we obtain an energy bound, allowing us to apply Gromov compactness and derive a contradiction.
The overtwisted annulus
-----------------------
We begin by introducing a geometric object that will play the role of an overtwisted disk. Recall that for any oriented surface $S
\hookrightarrow M$ embedded in a contact $3$–manifold $(M,\xi)$, the intersection $TS \cap \xi$ defines an oriented singular foliation $S_\xi$ on $S$, called the *characteristic foliation*. Its leaves are oriented $1$–dimensional submanifolds, and every point where $\xi$ is tangent to $S$ yields a singularity, which can be given a sign by comparing the orientations of $\xi$ and $TS$.
Let $(M,\xi)$ be a $3$–dimensional contact manifold. A submanifold ${\mathbb{A}}\cong [0,1] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \hookrightarrow M$ is called a **half-twisted annulus** if the characteristic foliation ${\mathbb{A}}_\xi$ has the following properties:
1. ${\mathbb{A}}_\xi$ is singular along $\{0\} \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ and regular on $(0,1] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$.
2. $\{1\} \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ is a closed leaf.
3. $(0,1) \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ is foliated by an ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant family of characteristic leaves that each meet $\{0\} \times
{{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ transversely and approach ${\partial}{\mathbb{A}}$ asymptotically.
We will refer to the two boundary components ${\partial}_L{\mathbb{A}}:= \{1\}
\times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ and ${\partial}_S{\mathbb{A}}:= \{0\} \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ as the **Legendrian** and **singular** boundaries respectively. An **overtwisted annulus** is then a smoothly embedded annulus ${\mathbb{A}}\subset M$ which is the union of two half-twisted annuli $${\mathbb{A}}= {\mathbb{A}}^- \cup {\mathbb{A}}^+$$ along their singular boundaries (see Figure \[fig: characteristic foliation annuli\]).
[r]{}[0.35]{}
As pointed out to us by Giroux, every neighborhood of a point in a contact manifold contains an overtwisted annulus. Indeed, any knot admits a $C^0$–small perturbation to a Legendrian knot, which then has a neighborhood contactomorphic to the solid torus ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times
{{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}\ni ({\vartheta}; x,y)$ with contact structure $\ker\left( dy -
x\,d{\vartheta}\right)$. A small torus ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \cong {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times
\bigl\{(x,y)\bigm|\, x^2 + y^2 = {\varepsilon}\bigr\}$ is composed of two annuli glued to each other along their boundaries, and the characteristic foliation on each of these is linear on the interior but singular at the boundary. By pushing one of these annuli slightly inward along one boundary component and the other slightly outward along the corresponding boundary component, we obtain an overtwisted annulus.
The above remark demonstrates that a single overtwisted annulus can never give any contact topological information. We will show however that the following much more restrictive notion carries highly nontrivial consequences.
We will say that an overtwisted annulus ${\mathbb{A}}= {\mathbb{A}}^- \cup
{\mathbb{A}}^+ \subset (M,\xi)$ is **anchored** if $(M,\xi)$ contains a smooth ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–parametrized family of half-twisted annuli $\bigl\{ {\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}\bigr\}_{{\vartheta}\in{{\mathbb{S}}}^1}$ which are disjoint from each other and from ${\mathbb{A}}^+$, such that ${\mathbb{A}}^-_0 = {\mathbb{A}}^-$. The region foliated by $\bigl\{
{\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}\bigr\}_{{\vartheta}\in{{\mathbb{S}}}^1}$ is then called the **anchor**.
\[ex: overtwisted annuli in torsion\] Recall that we defined a Giroux torsion domain $T_n$ as the thickened torus ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2\times [0,n] = \bigl\{({\varphi},{\vartheta}; z)\bigr\}$ with contact structure given as the kernel of $$\sin (2\pi z)\, d{\varphi}+ \cos (2\pi z)\,d{\vartheta}\;.$$ For every ${\vartheta}\in S^1$, such a torsion domain contains an overtwisted annulus ${\mathbb{A}}_{\vartheta}$ which we obtain by bending the image of $$[0,1] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \hookrightarrow T_n,\,
\bigl(z,{\varphi}\bigr) \mapsto \bigl({\varphi},
{\vartheta}; z \bigr)$$ slightly downward along the edges $\{0,1\} \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ so that they become regular leaves of the foliation. This can be done in such a way that ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [0,1]$ is foliated by an ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–family of overtwisted annuli, $${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [0,1] = \bigcup_{{\vartheta}\in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1} {\mathbb{A}}_{\vartheta}\;,$$ all of which are therefore anchored.
The example shows that every contact manifold with positive Giroux torsion contains an anchored overtwisted annulus, but in fact, as John Etnyre and Patrick Massot have pointed out to us, the converse is also true: it follows from deep results concerning the classification of tight contact structures on thickened tori [@GirouxBifurcations] that a contact manifold *must* have positive Giroux torsion if it contains an anchored overtwisted annulus.
We will use an anchored overtwisted annulus as a boundary condition for holomorphic annuli. By studying the moduli space of such holomorphic curves, we find certain topological conditions that have to be satisfied by a weak symplectic filling, and which will imply Theorem \[thm:BishopGirouxTorsion\].
The Bishop family of holomorphic annuli
---------------------------------------
In the non-fillability proof for overtwisted manifolds, the source of the Bishop family is an elliptic singularity at the center of the overtwisted disk. For an anchored overtwisted annulus, holomorphic curves will similarly emerge out of singularities of the characteristic foliation, in this case the singular boundaries of the half-twisted annuli in the anchor, which all together trace out a pre-Lagrangian torus. We shall first define a boundary value problem for pseudoholomorphic annuli with boundary in an anchored overtwisted annulus, and then choose a special almost complex structure near the singularities for which solutions to this problem can be constructed explicitly. If $\omega$ is exact on the anchor, then the resulting energy bound and compactness theorem for the moduli space will lead to a contradiction.
For the remainder of [[§\[sec:annulus\]]{}]{}, suppose $(W,\omega)$ is a weak filling of $(M,\xi)$, and the latter contains an anchored overtwisted annulus ${\mathbb{A}}= {\mathbb{A}}^- \cup {\mathbb{A}}^+$ with anchor $\{{\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}\}_{{\vartheta}\in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1}$ such that ${\mathbb{A}}^-_0 = {\mathbb{A}}^-$. The argument will require only minor modifications for the case where $(W,\omega)$ is closed and contains $(M,\xi)$ as a weakly contact hypersurface; see Remark \[remark:hypersurface\].
### A boundary value problem for anchored overtwisted annuli {#moduliSpace}
We will say that an almost complex structure $J$ on $W$ is **adapted to the filling** if it is tamed by $\omega$ and preserves $\xi$. The fact that $\xi$ is a positive contact structure implies that any $J$ adapted to the filling makes the boundary ${\partial}W$ pseudoconvex, with the following standard consequences:
\[lemma:Jconvex\] If $J$ is adapted to the filling $(W,\omega)$ of $(M,\xi)$, then:
1. Any embedded surface $S \subset M = {\partial}W$ on which the characteristic foliation is regular is a totally real submanifold of $(W,J)$.
2. Any connected $J$–holomorphic curve whose interior intersects ${\partial}W$ must be constant.
3. If $S \subset {\partial}W$ is a totally real surface as described above and $u :\, \Sigma \to W$ is a $J$–holomorphic curve satisfying the boundary condition $u({\partial}\Sigma) \subset S$, then $u|_{{\partial}\Sigma}$ is immersed and positively transverse to the characteristic foliation on $S$.
Given any adapted almost complex structure $J$ on $(W,\omega)$, the above lemma implies that the interiors $\operatorname{int}{{\mathbb{A}}^+} \subset
{\mathbb{A}}^+$ and $\operatorname{int}{{\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}} \subset
{\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$ are all totally real submanifolds of $(W,J)$. We shall then consider a moduli space of $J$–holomorphic annuli defined as follows. Denote by $A_r$ the complex annulus $$A_r = \bigl\{z\in{{\mathbb{C}}}\bigm|\, 1\le {{\left\lvert z\right\rvert}} \le 1+r\bigr\}\subset {{\mathbb{C}}}$$ of modulus $r > 0$, and write its boundary components as ${\partial}_r^- :=
\bigl\{z\in{{\mathbb{C}}}\bigm|\, {{\left\lvert z\right\rvert}} = 1 \bigr\}$ and ${\partial}_r^+ :=
\bigl\{z\in{{\mathbb{C}}}\bigm|\, {{\left\lvert z\right\rvert}} = 1+r\bigr\}$. We then define the space $$\begin{split}
{{\mathcal{M}}}(J) = \bigcup_{r > 0} \bigl\{ u : A_r \to W \ \bigm|\ & Tu
\circ i = J \circ Tu,
\text{ $u({\partial}_r^+) \subset \operatorname{int}{{\mathbb{A}}^+}$,} \\
&\text{$u({\partial}_r^-) \subset \operatorname{int}{{\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}}$ for any
${\vartheta}\in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$} \bigl\} \Big/ {{\mathbb{S}}}^1,
\end{split}$$ where $\tau \in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ acts on maps $u :\, A_r \to W$ by $\tau \cdot
u(z) := u(e^{2\pi i\tau} z)$. This space can be given a natural topology by fixing a smooth family of diffeomorphisms from a standard annulus to the domains $A_r$, $$\label{eqn:psir}
\psi_r :\, [0,1] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \to A_r : (s,t) \mapsto e^{s\log(1+r) + 2\pi it} \;,$$ and then saying that a sequence $u_k : A_{r_k} \to W$ converges to $u:\, A_r \to W$ in ${{\mathcal{M}}}(J)$ if $r_k \to r$ and $$u_k \circ \psi_{r_k}(s,t + \tau_k) \to u \circ \psi_r(s,t)$$ for some sequence $\tau_k \in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$, with $C^\infty$–convergence on $[0,1] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$.
We will show below that $J$ can be chosen to make ${{\mathcal{M}}}(J)$ a nonempty smooth manifold of dimension one. This explains why the “anchoring” condition is necessary: it introduces an extra degree of freedom in the boundary condition, without which the moduli space would generically be zero-dimensional and the Bishop family could never expand to reach the edge of the half-twisted annuli.
### Special almost complex structures near the boundary
Suppose $\alpha$ is a contact form for $(M,\xi)$. The standard way to construct compatible almost complex structures on the symplectization $\bigl({{\mathbb{R}}}\times M, d(e^t \alpha)\bigr)$ involves choosing a compatible complex structure $J_\xi$ on the symplectic vector bundle $\bigl({{\left.{\xi}\right|_{\{0\}\times M}}}, d\alpha\bigr)$, extending it to a complex structure on $\bigl( {{\left.{T({{\mathbb{R}}}\times
M)}\right|_{\{0\}\times M}}}, d(e^t\alpha)\bigr)$ such that $$J X_\alpha = - {\partial}_t \text{ and } J {\partial}_t = X_\alpha$$ for the Reeb vector field $X_\alpha$ of $\alpha$, and finally defining $J$ as the unique ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–invariant almost complex structure on ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ that has this form at $\{0\} \times M$. Almost complex structures of this type will be essential for the arguments of [[§\[sec:punctured\]]{}]{}. For the remainder of this section, we will drop the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–invariance condition but say that an almost complex structure on ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ is **compatible with $\alpha$** if it takes the above form on $\{0\} \times M$; in this case it is tamed by $d(e^t\alpha)$ on any sufficiently small neighborhood of $\{0\} \times
M$. It is sometimes useful to know that an adapted $J$ on any weak filling can be chosen to match any given $J$ of this form near the boundary.
\[emdedding symplectization into weak collar\] Let $(M,\xi)$ be a contact $3$–manifold with weak filling $(W,\omega)$. Choose any contact form $\alpha$ for $\xi$ and an almost complex structure $J$ on ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ compatible with $\alpha$. Then for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}> 0$, the canonical identification of $\{0\} \times M$ with ${\partial}W$ can be extended to a diffeomorphism from $(-{\varepsilon},0] \times M$ to a collar neighborhood of ${\partial}W$ such that the push-forward of $J$ is tamed by $\omega$.
In particular, this almost complex structure can then be extended to a global almost complex structure on $W$ that is tamed by $\omega$, and is thus adapted to the filling.
Writing $J_\xi := {{\left.{J}\right|_{\xi}}}$, construct an auxiliary complex structure $J_{\mathrm{aux}}$ on ${{\left.{TW}\right|_{M}}}$ as the direct sum of $J_\xi$ on the symplectic bundle $\bigl({{\left.{\xi}\right|_{\{0\}\times M}}}, \omega\bigr)$ with a compatible complex structure on its $\omega$–symplectic complement $\bigl({{\left.{\xi^{\perp \omega}}\right|_{\{0\}\times M}}},
\omega\bigr)$. Clearly this complex structure is tamed by ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{M}}}$.
Define an outward pointing vector field along the boundary by setting $$Y = - J_{\mathrm{aux}}\cdot X_\alpha \;.$$ Extend $Y$ to a smooth vector field on a small neighborhood of $M$ in $W$, and use its flow to define an embedding of a subset of the symplectization $$\Psi:\, (-{\varepsilon}, 0] \times M \to W,\, \bigl(t, p\bigr)
\mapsto \Phi_Y^t(p)$$ for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}> 0$. The restriction of $\Psi$ to $\{0\}\times M$ is the identity on $M$, and the push-forward of $J$ under this map coincides with $J_{\mathrm{aux}}$ along $M$, because $\Psi_* {\partial}_t = Y$. It follows that the push-forward of $J$ is tamed by $\omega$ on a sufficiently small neighborhood of $M= {\partial}W$, and we can then extend it to $W$ as an almost complex structure tamed by $\omega$.
### Generation of the Bishop family {#sec:Bishop family}
We shall now choose an almost complex structure $J_0$ on the symplectization of $M$ that allows us to write down the germ of a Bishop family in ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ which generates a component of ${{\mathcal{M}}}(J_0)$. At the same time, $J_0$ will prevent other holomorphic curves in the same component of ${{\mathcal{M}}}(J_0)$ from approaching the singular boundaries of the half-twisted annuli ${\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$. We can then apply Proposition \[emdedding symplectization into weak collar\] to identify a neighborhood of $\{0\}\times M$ in the symplectization with a boundary collar of $W$, so that $W$ contains the Bishop family.
The singular boundaries of ${\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$ define closed leaves of the characteristic foliation on a torus $$T := \bigcup_{{\vartheta}\in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1} {\partial}_S{\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}\subset M \;,$$ which is therefore a pre-Lagrangian torus. We then obtain the following by a standard Moser-type argument.
\[lemma:preLagCoords\] For sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}> 0$, a tubular neighborhood ${\mathcal{N}}(T) \subset M$ of $T$ can be identified with ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times
(-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon})$ with coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta}; r)$ such that:
- $T = {{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times \{0\}$,
- $\xi = \ker \left[ \cos(2\pi r)\, d{\vartheta}+ \sin(2\pi r)\,
d{\varphi}\right]$,
- ${\mathbb{A}}\cap {\mathcal{N}}(T) = \{ {\vartheta}= 0 \}$, and ${\mathbb{A}}^-_{{\vartheta}_0} \cap {\mathcal{N}}(T) = \{ {\vartheta}={\vartheta}_0,\ r \in
(-{\varepsilon},0] \}$ for all ${\vartheta}_0 \in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$.
Using the coordinates given by the lemma, we can reflect the half-twisted annuli ${\mathbb{A}}^-_{{\vartheta}_0}$ across $T$ within this neighborhood to define the surfaces $${\mathbb{A}}^+_{{\vartheta}_0} := \bigl\{ {\vartheta}= {\vartheta}_0,\
r \in [0,{\varepsilon}) \bigr\} \subset M \;.$$ Each of these surfaces looks like a collar neighborhood of the singular boundary in a half-twisted annulus. Now choose for $\xi$ a contact form $\alpha$ on $M$ that restricts on ${\mathcal{N}}(T)$ to $$\label{eqn:standardT3}
{{\left.{\alpha}\right|_{{\mathcal{N}}(T)}}} = \cos (2\pi r)\,d{\vartheta}+
\sin (2\pi r)\, d{\varphi}\;.$$ The main idea of the construction is to identify the set ${\mathcal{N}}(T)$ with an open subset of the unit cotangent bundle ${{\mathbb{T}}}^3 =
{{\mathbb{S}}}\bigl(T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2\bigr)$ of ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2$, with its canonical contact form ${{\alpha_{\mathrm{can}}}}$. We will then use an integrable complex structure on $T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2$ to find explicit families of holomorphic curves that give rise to holomorphic annuli in ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$.
The cotangent bundle of ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 = {{\mathbb{R}}}^2 / {{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$ can be identified naturally with $${{\mathbb{C}}}^2 / i{{\mathbb{Z}}}^2 = {{\mathbb{R}}}^2 \oplus i({{\mathbb{R}}}^2 / {{\mathbb{Z}}}^2)$$ such that the canonical $1$–form takes the form ${{\lambda_{\mathrm{can}}}}= p_1\,dq_1 +
p_2\,dq_2$ in coordinates $[z_1,z_2] = \bigl[p_1 + iq_1, p_2 +i
q_2\bigr]$. The unit cotangent bundle ${{\mathbb{S}}}\bigl(T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2\bigr) =
\bigl\{[p_1 + iq_1, p_2 + iq_2] \in T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2\bigm| \, {{\left\lvert p_1\right\rvert}}^2 +
{{\left\lvert p_2\right\rvert}}^2 = 1 \bigr\}$ can then be parametrized by the map $${{\mathbb{T}}}^3 = {{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \ni ({\varphi},{\vartheta};r) \mapsto
\bigl[\sin 2\pi r + i{\varphi}, \cos 2\pi r + i {\vartheta}\bigr] \in T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \;,$$ and the pull-back of ${{\lambda_{\mathrm{can}}}}$ to ${{\mathbb{T}}}^3$ gives $${{\alpha_{\mathrm{can}}}}:= {{\left.{{{\lambda_{\mathrm{can}}}}}\right|_{T{{\mathbb{S}}}(T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2)}}} = \cos (2\pi r)\,d{\vartheta}+ \sin (2\pi r)\, d{\varphi}\;.$$ The Liouville vector field dual to ${{\lambda_{\mathrm{can}}}}$ is $p_1\, {\partial}_{p_1} + p_2\,
{\partial}_{p_2}$, and we can use its flow to identify $T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \setminus
{{\mathbb{T}}}^2$ with the symplectization of ${{\mathbb{S}}}\bigl(T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2\bigr)$: $$\Phi :\, ({{\mathbb{R}}}\times {{\mathbb{S}}}\bigl(T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2\bigr), d(e^t {{\alpha_{\mathrm{can}}}}))
\to (T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \setminus {{\mathbb{T}}}^2, d{{\lambda_{\mathrm{can}}}}),\, (t;p + iq) \mapsto e^t p + iq \;.$$ Then it is easy to check that the restriction of the complex structure $\Phi^*i$ to $\{0\} \times {{\mathbb{T}}}^3$ preserves $\ker{{\alpha_{\mathrm{can}}}}$ and maps ${\partial}_t$ to the Reeb vector field of ${{\alpha_{\mathrm{can}}}}$, hence $\Phi^*i$ is compatible with ${{\alpha_{\mathrm{can}}}}$. Now for the neighborhood ${\mathcal{N}}(T) \cong {{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times
(-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon})$, denote by $$\Psi :\, (-{\varepsilon},0] \times {\mathcal{N}}(T) \hookrightarrow {{\mathbb{R}}}\times {{\mathbb{T}}}^3$$ the natural embedding determined by the coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta};r)$. Proposition \[emdedding symplectization into weak collar\] then implies:
\[lemma:J0\] There exists an almost complex structure $J_0$ adapted to the filling $(W,\omega)$ of $(M,\xi)$, and a collar neighborhood ${\mathcal{N}}({\partial}W) \cong (-{\varepsilon},0] \times M$ of ${\partial}W$ such that on $(-{\varepsilon},0] \times {\mathcal{N}}(T) \subset W$, $J_0 = \Psi^*\Phi^*i$.
Consider the family of complex lines $L_\zeta :=
\bigl\{(z_1,z_2)\bigm|\, z_2 = \zeta\bigr\}$ in ${{\mathbb{C}}}^2$. The projection of these curves into $T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \cong {{\mathbb{C}}}^2 /i{{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$ are holomorphic cylinders, whose intersections with the unit disk bundle ${{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}(T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2) = \bigl\{ p + iq \in {{\mathbb{C}}}^2 / i{{\mathbb{Z}}}^2 \ \bigm|\ {{\left\lvert p\right\rvert}}^2
\le 1 \bigr\}$ define holomorphic annuli. In particular, for sufficiently small $\delta > 0$ and any $$(c,\tau) \in (0,\delta] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \;,$$ the intersection $L_{(1-c) + i\tau} \cap {{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}(T^*{{\mathbb{T}}}^2)$ is a holomorphic annulus in $\Phi \circ \Psi\bigl((-{\varepsilon},0] \times
{\mathcal{N}}(T)\bigr)$, which therefore can be identified with a $J_0$–holomorphic annulus $$u_{(c,\tau)} :\, A_{r_c} \to W$$ with image in the neighborhood $(-{\varepsilon},0] \times {\mathcal{N}}(T)$, where the modulus $r_c > 0$ depends on $c$ and approaches zero as $c \to 0$. It is easy to check that the two boundary components of $u_{(c,\tau)}$ map into the interiors of the surfaces ${\mathbb{A}}^+_\tau$ and ${\mathbb{A}}^-_\tau$ respectively in ${\partial}W$. Observe that all of these annuli are obviously embedded, and they foliate a neighborhood of $T$ in $W$. We summarize the construction as follows.
\[prop:BishopFamily\] For the almost complex structure $J_0$ given by Lemma \[lemma:J0\], there exists a smooth family of properly embedded $J_0$–holomorphic annuli $$\bigl\{ u_{(c,\tau)} :\, A_{r_c} \to W \bigr\}_{(c,\tau)
\in (0,\delta] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1}$$ which foliate a neighborhood of $T$ in $W \setminus T$ and satisfy the boundary conditions $$u_{(c,\tau)}\left({\partial}_{r_c}^+\right) \subset \operatorname{int}{{\mathbb{A}}^+_\tau},
\qquad
u_{(c,\tau)}\left({\partial}_{r_c}^-\right) \subset \operatorname{int}{{\mathbb{A}}^-_\tau}.$$ In particular the curves $u_{(c,0)}$ for $c \in (0,\delta]$ all belong to the moduli space ${{\mathcal{M}}}(J_0)$.
Denote the neighborhood foliated by the curves $u_{(c,\tau)}$ by $${{\mathcal U}}= \bigcup_{(c,\tau) \in (0,\delta]\times{{\mathbb{S}}}^1} u_{(c,\tau)}(A_{r_c}) \;,$$ and define the following special class of almost complex structures, $${{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\mathcal U}}(\omega,\xi) = \bigl\{ \text{almost complex structures~$J$
adapted to the filling $(W,\omega)$ such that $J \equiv J_0$
on~$\overline{{{\mathcal U}}}$} \bigr\} \;.$$ The annuli $u_{(c,\tau)}$ are thus $J$–holomorphic for any $J \in
{{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\mathcal U}}(\omega,\xi)$, and the space ${{\mathcal{M}}}(J)$ is therefore nonempty. In this case, denote by $${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J) \subset {{\mathcal{M}}}(J)$$ the connected component of ${{\mathcal{M}}}(J)$ that contains the curves $u_{(c,0)}$.
\[lemma:embeddedBoundary\] Every curve $u : A_r \to W$ in ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ is proper, and its restriction to ${\partial}A_r$ is embedded.
Properness follows immediately from Lemma \[lemma:Jconvex\], and due to our assumptions on the characteristic foliation of a half-twisted annulus, embeddedness at the boundary also follows from the lemma after observing that the homotopy class of $u|_{{\partial}_r^\pm}$ is the same as for the curves $u_{(c,0)}$, whose boundaries intersect every characteristic leaf once.
\[prop:intersection\] For $J \in {{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\mathcal U}}(\omega,\xi)$, suppose $u \in {{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ is not one of the curves $u_{(c,0)}$. Then $u$ does not intersect the interior of ${{\mathcal U}}$.
The proof is based on an intersection argument. Each of the curves $u_{(c,\tau)}$ foliating ${{\mathcal U}}$ can be capped off to a cycle $\widehat u_{(c,\tau)}$ that represents the trivial homology class in $H_2(W)$. We shall proceed in a similar way to obtain a cycle $\widehat{u}$ for $u$, arranged such that intersections between the cycles $\widehat{u}$ and $\widehat u_{(c,\tau)}$ can only occur when the actual holomorphic curves $u$ and $u_{(c,\tau)}$ intersect. Then if $u$ is not any of the curves $u_{(c,0)}$ but intersects the interior of ${{\mathcal U}}$, it also is not a multiple cover of any $u_{(c,0)}$ due to Lemma \[lemma:embeddedBoundary\], and therefore must have an isolated positive intersection with some curve $u_{(c,\tau)}$. It follows that $[\widehat u_{c_0}] \bullet
[\widehat{u}] > 0$, but since $[\widehat u_{c_0}] = 0 \in H_2(W)$, this is a contradiction.
We construct the desired caps as follows. Suppose $u({\partial}^-_r)
\subset {\mathbb{A}}^-_{{\vartheta}_0}$. We may assume without loss of generality that $u$ and $u_{(c,\tau)}$ intersect each other in the *interior*, and since this intersection will not disappear under small perturbations, we can adjust $\tau$ so that it equals neither $0$ nor ${\vartheta}_0$. A cap for $u_{(c,\tau)}$ can then be constructed by filling in the space in ${\mathbb{A}}^-_\tau \cup
{\mathbb{A}}^+_\tau$ between the two boundary components of $u_{(c,\tau)}$; clearly the resulting homology class $[\widehat
u_{(c,\tau)}$\] is trivial.
The cap for $u$ will be a piecewise smooth surface in ${\partial}W$ constructed out of three smooth pieces:
- A subset of ${\mathbb{A}}^+$ filling the space between the singular boundary ${\partial}_S{\mathbb{A}}^+$ and $u({\partial}^+_r)$,
- A subset of ${\mathbb{A}}^-_{{\vartheta}_0}$ filling the space between the singular boundary ${\partial}_S{\mathbb{A}}^-_{{\vartheta}_0}$ and $u({\partial}^-_r)$,
- An annulus in $T = \{ r = 0\}$ defined by letting ${\vartheta}$ vary over a path in ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ that connects $0$ to ${\vartheta}_0$ by moving in a direction such that it does not hit $\tau$.
By construction, the two caps are disjoint, and since both are contained in ${\partial}W$, neither intersects the interior of either curve.
### Local structure of the moduli space {#subsubsec:index}
We now show that ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ can be given a nice local structure for generic data.
For generic $J \in {{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\mathcal U}}(\omega,\xi)$, the moduli space ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ is a smooth $1$–dimensional manifold.
Since ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ is connected by assumption, the dimension can be derived by computing the Fredholm index of the associated linearized Cauchy-Riemann operator for any of the curves $u_{(c,0)}
\in {{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$. By Lemma \[lemma:embeddedBoundary\], every curve $u \in {{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ is somewhere injective, thus standard arguments as in [@McDuffSalamonJHolo] imply that for generic $J
\in {{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\mathcal U}}(\omega,\xi)$, the subset of curves in ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ that are not completely contained in $\overline{{{\mathcal U}}}$ is a smooth manifold of the correct dimension. Proposition \[prop:intersection\] implies that the remaining curves all belong to the family $u_{(c,0)}$, and for these we will have to examine the Cauchy-Riemann operator more closely since $J$ cannot be assumed to be generic in $\overline{{{\mathcal U}}}$.
Abbreviate $u = u_{(c,0)} :\, A_r \to W$ for any $c \in (0,\delta]$. Since $u$ is embedded, a neighborhood of $u$ in ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ can be described via the *normal Cauchy-Riemann operator* (cf. [@ChrisTransversality]), $$\label{eqn:DuN}
\mathbf{D}_u^N :\, W^{1,p}_{\ell,\zeta}(N_u) \to
L^p\bigl(\overline{{\operatorname{Hom}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(TA_r,N_u)\bigr)\;,$$ where $p > 2$, $N_u \to A_r$ is the complex normal bundle of $u$, $\mathbf{D}_u^N$ is the normal part of the restriction of the usual linearized Cauchy-Riemann operator $D{\bar{{\partial}}}_J(u)$ (which acts on sections of $u^*TW$) to sections of $N_u$, and the subscripts $\ell$ and $\zeta$ represent a boundary condition to be described below. We must define the normal bundle $N_u$ so that at the boundary its intersection with $T{\mathbb{A}}$ has real dimension one, thus defining a totally real subbundle $$\ell = N_u|_{{\partial}A_r} \cap (u|_{{\partial}A_r})^*T{\mathbb{A}}\subset N_u|_{{\partial}A_r} \;.$$ To be concrete, note that in the coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta};r)$ on ${\mathcal{N}}(T)$, the image of $u$ can be parametrized by a map of the form $$v:\, [-r_0,r_0] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \to (-{\varepsilon},0] \times {\mathcal{N}}(T),\,
(\sigma,\tau) \mapsto (a(\sigma); \tau , 0 ; \sigma)$$ for some $r_0 > 0$, where $a(\sigma)$ is a smooth, convex and even function. Choose a vector field along $v$ of the form $$\nu(\sigma,\tau) = \nu_1(\sigma) \, {\partial}_r + \nu_2(\sigma) \, {\partial}_t$$ which is everywhere transverse to the path $\sigma\mapsto
(a(\sigma),\sigma)$ in the $tr$–plane, and require $$\nu(\pm r_0,\tau) = \mp {\partial}_r \;.$$ Then the vector fields $\nu$ and $i\nu$ along $v$ span a complex line bundle that is everywhere transverse to $v$, and its intersection with $T{\mathbb{A}}$ at the boundary is spanned by ${\partial}_r$. We define this line bundle to be the normal bundle $N_u$ along $u$, which comes with a global trivialization defined by the vector field $\nu$, for which we see immediately that both components of the real subbundle $\ell$ along ${\partial}A_r$ have vanishing Maslov index. To define the proper linearized boundary condition, we still must take account of the fact that the image of ${\partial}^-_r$ for nearby curves in the moduli space may lie in different half-annuli ${\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$: this means there is a smooth section $\zeta \in
\Gamma(N_u|_{{\partial}^-_r})$ which is everywhere transverse to $\ell$, such that the domain for $\mathbf{D}_u^N$ takes the form $$\begin{split}
W^{1,p}_{\ell,\zeta}(N_u) := \bigl\{ \eta \in W^{1,p}(N_u) \
\bigm|\
&\text{$\eta(z)\in \ell_z$ for all $z \in {\partial}^+_r$},\\
&\text{$\eta(z) + c\, \zeta(z) \in \ell_z$ for all $z \in
{\partial}^-_r$ and any constant $c \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$} \bigr\} \; .
\end{split}$$ Leaving out the section $\zeta$, we obtain the standard totally real boundary condition $$W^{1,p}_\ell(N_u) := \{ \eta \in W^{1,p}(N_u) \ |\
\text{$\eta(z)\in \ell_z$ for all $z \in {\partial}A_r$} \} \;,$$ and the Riemann-Roch formula implies that the restriction of $\mathbf{D}^N_u$ to this smaller space has Fredholm index $0$. Since the smaller space has codimension one in $W^{1,p}_{\ell,\zeta}(N_u)$, the index of $\mathbf{D}^N_u$ on the latter is $1$, which proves the dimension formula for ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$. Moreover, since $N_u$ has complex rank one, there are certain *automatic transversality* theorems that apply: in particular, Theorem 4.5.36 in [@ChrisThesis] implies that is always surjective, and ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ is therefore a smooth manifold of the correct dimension, even in the region where $J$ is not generic.
### Energy bounds {#sec:energy_bound}
Assume now that $\omega$ is exact on the anchor, i.e. there exists a $1$–form $\beta$ on the region $\bigcup_{{\vartheta}\in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1}
{\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$ with $d\beta = \omega$. The aim of this section is to find a uniform bound on the $\omega$–energy $$E_\omega (u) = \int_{A_r} u^* \omega$$ for all curves $$u:\, \bigl(A_r, \partial_r^- \cup \partial_r^+ \bigr)
\to (W, {\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}\cup {\mathbb{A}}^+)$$ in the connected moduli space ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ generated by the Bishop family.
Given such a curve $u \in {{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$, there exists a smooth $1$–parameter family of maps $$\{ u_t:\, A_{r} \to W \}_{t\in [{\varepsilon},1]} \;,$$ such that $u_{\varepsilon}$ is a reparametrization one of the explicitly constructed curves $u_{(c,0)}$ that foliate ${{\mathcal U}}$, and $u_1 = u$. The map $\bar{u} : [{\varepsilon},1] \times A_r \to W : (t,z) \mapsto u_t(z)$ then represents a $3$–chain, and applying Stokes’ theorem to the integral of $d(\bar{u}^*\omega)=0$ over $[{\varepsilon},1] \times A_r$ gives $$E_\omega(u) = E_\omega(u_{\varepsilon})
- \int_{[{\varepsilon},1]\times {\partial}A_{r}} \bar{u}^*\omega \;.$$ The image $\bar{u}\bigl([{\varepsilon},1]\times {\partial}A_{r}\bigr)$ has two components $\bar{u}\bigl([{\varepsilon},1]\times {\partial}_{r}^+\bigr)$ and $\bar{u}\bigl([{\varepsilon},1]\times {\partial}_{r}^-\bigr)$. The first lies in a single half-twisted annulus ${\mathbb{A}}^+$, and thus the absolute value of $\int_{[{\varepsilon},1]\times {\partial}_{r}^+} \bar{u}^*\omega$ can be bounded by $\int_{{\mathbb{A}}^+} {{\left\lvert \omega\right\rvert}}$. For the second component, the image $\bar{u}\bigl([{\varepsilon},1] \times {\partial}_{r}^-\bigr)$ lies in the anchor $\bigcup_{{\vartheta}\in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1} {\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$, so we can write $$E_\omega(u) \le E_\omega(u_{\varepsilon}) + \int_{{\mathbb{A}}^+} {{\left\lvert \omega\right\rvert}}
+ \int_{{\partial}_{\varepsilon}^-} u_{\varepsilon}^*\beta - \int_{{\partial}_r^-} u^*\beta \;.$$
It remains only to find a uniform bound on the last term in this sum, $\int_{{\partial}_r^-} u^*\beta$. Observe that $u(\partial_r^-)$ and the singular boundary ${\partial}_S{\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$ enclose an annulus within ${\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$, thus $${{\left\lvert \int_{\partial_r^+} u^*\beta\right\rvert}} \le \int_{{\partial}_S {\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}}
{{\left\lvert \beta\right\rvert}} + \int_{{\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}}{{\left\lvert \omega\right\rvert}} \;.$$ This last sum is uniformly bounded since the surfaces ${\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$ for ${\vartheta}\in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ form a compact family.
### Gromov compactness for the holomorphic annuli
The main technical ingredient still needed for the proof of Theorem \[thm:BishopGirouxTorsion\] is the following application of Gromov compactness.
\[prop:compactness\] Suppose $J$ is generic in ${{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\mathcal U}}(\omega,\xi)$, $\omega$ is exact on the anchor, and $$u_k:\, \bigl(A_{r_k}, \partial_{r_k}^- \cup \partial_{r_k}^+ \bigr) \to
(W, {\mathbb{A}}^-_{{\vartheta}_k} \cup {\mathbb{A}}^+)$$ is a sequence of curves in ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ with images not contained in ${{\mathcal U}}$. Then there exist $r > 0$, ${\vartheta}\in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ and a sequence $\tau_k \in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ such that after passing to a subsequence, $r_k \to r$, ${\vartheta}_k \to {\vartheta}$ and the maps $$z \mapsto u_k(e^{2\pi i\tau_k} z)$$ are $C^\infty$–convergent to a $J$–holomorphic annulus $u:\, A_r
\to W$ satisfying $u({\partial}^-_r) \subset {\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$ and $u({\partial}^+_r) \subset {\mathbb{A}}^+$.
The energies $\int_{A_{r_k}} u_k^*\omega$ are uniformly bounded due to the exactness assumption, and the proof is then essentially the same as in the disk case, cf. [@Eliashberg_HoloDiscs] or [@Zehmisch_Diplomarbeit]. A priori, $u_k$ could converge to a nodal holomorphic annulus, with nodes on both the boundary and the interior. Boundary nodes are impossible however for topological reasons, as each boundary component of $u_k$ must pass exactly once through each leaf in an ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–family of characteristic leaves, and any boundary component in a nodal annulus will also pass *at least* once through each of these leaves. Having excluded boundary nodes, $u_k$ could converge to a bubble tree consisting of holomorphic spheres and either an annulus or a pair of disks, all connected to each other by interior nodes. This however is a codimension $2$ phenomenon, and thus cannot happen for generic $J$ since ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ is $1$–dimensional. Here we make use of two important facts:
1. Any component of the limit that has nonempty boundary must be somewhere injective, as it will be embedded at the boundary by the same argument as in Lemma \[lemma:embeddedBoundary\]. Such components therefore have nonnegative index.
2. $(W,\omega)$ is semipositive (as is always the case in dimension $4$), hence holomorphic spheres of negative index cannot bubble off.
With this, the proof of Proposition \[prop:compactness\] is complete.
### Proof of Theorem \[thm:BishopGirouxTorsion\]
Assume $(W,\omega)$ is a weak filling of $(M,\xi)$ and the latter has positive Giroux torsion. As shown in Example \[ex: overtwisted annuli in torsion\], $(M,\xi)$ contains an anchored overtwisted annulus. For this setting, we defined in [[§\[moduliSpace\]]{}]{} a moduli space of $J$–holomorphic annuli ${{\mathcal{M}}}(J)$ with a $1$–parameter family of totally real boundary conditions. In [[§\[sec:Bishop family\]]{}]{}, we found a special almost complex structure $J_0$ which admits a Bishop family of holomorphic annuli, and thus generates a nonempty connected component ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J_0)
\subset {{\mathcal{M}}}(J_0)$. This space remains nonempty after perturbing $J_0$ generically outside the region foliated by the Bishop family, thus producing a new almost complex structure $J$ and nonempty moduli space ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$. We then showed in [[§\[subsubsec:index\]]{}]{} that ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ is a smooth $1$–dimensional manifold, which is therefore diffeomorphic to an open interval, one end of which corresponds to the collapse of the Bishop annuli into the singular circle at the center of the overtwisted annulus. In particular, this implies that ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ is not compact, and the key is then to understand its behavior at the other end. The assumption that $\omega$ is exact on the anchor provides a uniform energy bound, with the consequence that if all curves in $u$ remain a uniform positive distance away from the Legendrian boundaries of ${\mathbb{A}}^+$ and ${\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$, Proposition \[prop:compactness\] implies ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ is compact. But since the latter is already known to be false, this implies that ${{\mathcal{M}}}_0(J)$ contains a sequence of curves drawing closer to the Legendrian boundary, and applying Proposition \[prop:compactness\] again, a subsequence converges to a $J$–holomorphic annulus that touches the Legendrian boundary of ${\mathbb{A}}^+$ or ${\mathbb{A}}^-_{\vartheta}$ tangentially. That is impossible by Lemma \[lemma:Jconvex\], and we have a contradiction. Together with the following remark, this completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:BishopGirouxTorsion\].
\[remark:hypersurface\] If $(M,\xi) \subset (W,\omega)$ is a separating hypersurface of weak contact type, then half of $(W,\omega)$ is a weak filling of $(M,\xi)$ and the above argument provides a contradiction. To finish the proof of the theorem, it thus remains to show that $(M,\xi)$ under the given assumptions can never occur as a *nonseparating* hypersurface of weak contact type in any closed symplectic $4$–manifold $(W,\omega)$. This follows from almost the same argument, due to the following trick introduced in [@AlbersBramhamWendl]. If $M$ does not separate $W$, then we can cut $W$ open along $M$ to produce a connected symplectic cobordism $(W_0,\omega_0)$ between $(M,\xi)$ and itself, and then attach an infinite chain of copies of this cobordism to obtain a *noncompact* symplectic manifold $(W_\infty,\omega_\infty)$ with weakly contact boundary $(M,\xi)$. Though noncompact, $(W_\infty,\omega_\infty)$ is *geometrically bounded* in a certain sense, and an argument in [@AlbersBramhamWendl] uses the monotonicity lemma to show that for a natural class of adapted almost complex structures on $W_\infty$, any connected moduli space of $J$–holomorphic curves with boundary on ${\partial}W_\infty$ and uniformly bounded energy also satisfies a uniform $C^0$–bound. In light of this, the above argument for the compact filling also works in the “noncompact filling” furnished by $(W_\infty,\omega_\infty)$, thus proving that $(M,\xi)$ cannot occur as a nonseparating weakly contact hypersurface.
We will use this same trick again in the proof of Theorem \[theorem: planarTorsion\]. In relation to Theorem \[thm:planar\], it also implies that in any closed symplectic $4$–manifold, a weakly contact hypersurface that is planar must always be separating. This is closely related to Etnyre’s theorem [@Etnyre_planar] that planar contact manifolds never admit weak semifillings with disconnected boundary, which also can be shown using holomorphic curves, by a minor variation on the proof of Theorem \[thm:planar\].
It should be possible to generalize the Bishop family idea still further by considering “overtwisted planar surfaces” with arbitrarily many boundary components (Figure \[fig:OTplanar\]). The disk or annulus would then be replaced by a $k$–holed sphere $\Sigma$ for some integer $k \ge 1$, with Legendrian boundary, of which $k-1$ of the boundary components are “anchored” by ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–families of half-twisted annuli. The characteristic foliation on $\Sigma$ must in general have $k-2$ hyperbolic singular points. One would then find Bishop families of annuli near the anchored boundary components, which eventually must collide with each other and could be glued at the hyperbolic singularities to produce more complicated $1$–dimensional families of rational holomorphic curves with multiple boundary components, leading in the end to a more general filling obstruction.
One situation where such an object definitely exists is in the presence of planar torsion (see [[§\[subsec:review\]]{}]{}), though we will not pursue this approach here, as that setting lends itself especially well to the punctured holomorphic curve techniques explained in the next section.
Punctured pseudoholomorphic curves and weak fillings {#sec:punctured}
====================================================
We begin this section by showing that up to symplectic deformation, every weak filling can be enlarged by symplectically attaching a cylindrical end in which the theory of finite energy punctured $J$–holomorphic curves is well behaved. This fact is standard in the case where the symplectic form is exact near the boundary: indeed, Eliashberg [@EliashbergContactProperties] observed that if $(W,\omega)$ is a weak filling of $(M,\xi)$ and $H^2_{{\operatorname{dR}}}(M) = 0$, then one can always deform $\omega$ in a collar neighborhood of ${\partial}W$ to produce a strong filling of $(M,\xi)$, which can then be attached smoothly to a half-symplectization of the form $\bigl([0,\infty)
\times M, d(e^t\alpha)\bigr)$. For obvious cohomological reasons, this is not possible whenever $[{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{M}}}] \ne 0 \in
H^2_{{\operatorname{dR}}}(M)$. The solution is to work in the more general context of stable Hamiltonian structures, in which $M$ carries a closed maximal rank $2$–form that is not required to be exact. We will recall in [[§\[sec: weak to stable\]]{}]{} the important properties of stable hypersurfaces and stable Hamiltonian structures, proving in particular (Proposition \[prop:cohomology\]) that there exist stable Hamiltonian structures representing every de Rham cohomology class. We will then use this in [[§\[sec: collar neighborhood weak boundary\]]{}]{} to prove Theorem \[theorem: stableHypersurface\], that weak boundaries can always be deformed to stable hypersurfaces. A quick review of the definition and essential facts about planar torsion will then be given in [[§\[subsec:review\]]{}]{}, leading in [[§\[subsec:proof\]]{}]{} to the proofs of Theorems \[thm:planar\] and \[theorem: planarTorsion\].
Stable hypersurfaces and stable Hamiltonian structures {#sec: weak to stable}
------------------------------------------------------
Let us recall some important definitions. The first originates in [@HoferZehnder].
\[def: stableHypersurface\] Given a symplectic manifold $(W,\omega)$, a hypersurface $M$ is called **stable** if it is transverse to a vector field $Y$ defined near $M$ whose flow $\Phi^t_Y$ for small ${{\left\lvert t\right\rvert}}$ preserves characteristic line fields, i.e. if $M_t := \Phi^t_Y(M)$ and $\ell_t
\subset TM_t$ is the kernel of ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM_t}}}$, then $(\Phi^t_Y)_* \ell_0 = \ell_t$.
As an important special case, if $(W,\omega)$ is a strong filling of $(M,\xi)$, then ${\partial}W$ is stable, as it is transverse to an outward pointing Liouville vector field which dilates $\omega$ and therefore preserves characteristic line fields. In this case we say the boundary of $W$ is **convex**; if ${\partial}W$ is instead transverse to an *inward* pointing Liouville vector field, we say it is **concave**.
Stable hypersurfaces were initially introduced in order to study dynamical questions, but it was later recognized that they also yield suitable settings for the theory of punctured $J$–holomorphic curves. In this context, the following more intrinsic notion was introduced in [@BourgeoisCompactness].
A **stable Hamiltonian structure** on an oriented $3$–manifold $M$ is a pair $$\mathcal{H} = (\lambda,\Omega)$$ consisting of a $1$–form $\lambda$ and $2$–form $\Omega$ such that
1. $d\Omega = 0$,
2. $\lambda \wedge \Omega > 0$,
3. $\ker\Omega \subset \ker(d\lambda)$.
The second condition implies that $\Omega$ has maximal rank and is nondegenerate on the distribution $$\xi := \ker\lambda \;,$$ so that $(\xi,\Omega)$ is a symplectic vector bundle. There is then a positively transverse vector field $X$ uniquely determined by the conditions $$\Omega(X,\cdot) = 0, \qquad \lambda(X) = 1\;,$$ and the flow of $X$ preserves both $\xi$ and $\Omega$. Conversely, a triple $(X,\xi,\Omega)$ satisfying these properties uniquely determines $(\lambda,\Omega)$, and thus can be taken as an alternative definition of a stable Hamiltonian structure.
If $M \subset (W,\omega)$ is a stable hypersurface and $Y$ is the transverse vector field of Definition \[def: stableHypersurface\], then we can orient $M$ in accordance with the coorientation determined by $Y$ and assign to it a stable Hamiltonian structure $(\lambda,\Omega)$ defined as follows: $$\label{eqn:SHS}
\lambda := {{\left.{\bigl(\iota_Y \omega\bigr)}\right|_{TM}}},
\qquad\text{ and }\qquad \Omega := {{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}} \;.$$ Now $\Omega$ is obviously closed and nondegenerate on $\xi :=
\ker\lambda$, and the stability condition implies that for any vector $X$ in the characteristic line field on $M$, $${{\left.{\bigl({{\mathcal{L}_{Y}}} \omega\bigr)(X,\cdot)}\right|_{\xi}}} = 0 \;.$$ From this it is an easy exercise to verify that the pair $(\lambda,\Omega)$ satisfies the conditions of a stable Hamiltonian structure.
Given a $3$–manifold $M$ with stable Hamiltonian structure $(\lambda,\Omega)$, the $2$–form $$\label{eqn:SHSomega}
\omega := \Omega + d(t\lambda)$$ on $(-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}) \times M$ is symplectic for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}> 0$. Conversely, and more generally (cf. Lemma 2.3 in [@CieliebakMohnkeCompactness]):
\[normalform for weak collars\] Let $(W,\omega)$ be a symplectic $4$–manifold whose interior contains a closed oriented hypersurface $M \subset W$, and let $\lambda$ be a nonvanishing $1$–form on $M$ that defines a cooriented (and thus also oriented) $2$–plane distribution $\xi$. Assume ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{\xi}}} > 0$. Then writing $\Omega =
{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}$, there exists an embedding $$\Phi:\, (-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}) \times M \hookrightarrow W$$ for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}> 0$, such that $\Phi(0,\cdot)$ is the inclusion and $$\Phi^*\omega = \Omega + d(t\lambda) \;.$$
Since $\omega$ is nondegenerate on $\xi$, there is a unique vector field $X_\omega$ on $M$ determined by the conditions $\omega(X_\omega,\cdot) \equiv 0$ and $\lambda(X_\omega) \equiv 1$. Choose a smooth section $Y$ of ${{\left.{TW}\right|_{M}}}$ such that $Y$ also lies in the $\omega$–complement of $\xi$ and $\omega(Y,
X_\omega) \equiv 1$. Extend this arbitrarily as a nowhere zero vector field on some neighborhood of $M$. Then $Y$ is transverse to $M$, and ${{\left.{(\iota_Y\omega)}\right|_{TM}}} = \lambda$.
Using the flow $\Phi_Y^t$ of $Y$, we can define for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}> 0$ an embedding $$\Phi:\, (-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}) \times M \to W, \,
(t,p) \mapsto \Phi_Y^t(p)\;,$$ and compare $\omega_0 := \Phi^*\omega$ with the model $\omega_1 :=
d(t\,\lambda) + \Omega$ on $(-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}) \times M$, shrinking ${\varepsilon}$ if necessary so that $\omega_1$ is symplectic. Then $\omega_1$ and $\omega_0$ are symplectic forms that match identically along $\{0\} \times M$, and the usual Moser deformation argument provides an isotopy between them on a neighborhood of $\{0\} \times M$.
This result has an obvious analog for the case ${\partial}W = M$. Given this, if $(W,\omega)$ is any symplectic manifold with stable boundary ${\partial}W = M$ and $\mathcal{H} = (\lambda, \Omega)$ is an induced stable Hamiltonian structure, then one can glue a cylindrical end $[0,\infty)
\times M$ symplectically to the boundary as follows. Choose ${\varepsilon}> 0$ sufficiently small so that $$\label{eqn:makeItSymplectic}
\left(\Omega +
t\,d\lambda \right)|_\xi > 0 \quad \text{ for all ${{\left\lvert t\right\rvert}} \le
{\varepsilon}$},$$ and let $\mathcal{T}$ denote the set of smooth functions $${\varphi}:\, [0,\infty) \to [0,{\varepsilon})$$ which satisfy ${\varphi}(t) = t$ for $t$ near $0$ and ${\varphi}' > 0$ everywhere. Then if a neighborhood of ${\partial}W$ is identified with $(-{\varepsilon},0] \times M$ as above, we can define the completed manifold $$W^\infty := W \cup \bigl( [0,\infty) \times M \bigr)$$ by the obvious gluing, and assign to it a $2$–form $$\label{eqn:completion}
\omega_{\varphi}:= \begin{cases}
\omega & \text{ in $W$},\\
\Omega + d({\varphi}\lambda) & \text{ in $[0,\infty) \times M$}
\end{cases}$$ which is symplectic for any ${\varphi}\in \mathcal{T}$ due to . There is also a natural class ${{\mathcal{J}}}(\omega, \mathcal{H})$ of almost complex structures on $W^\infty$, where we define $J$ to be in ${{\mathcal{J}}}(\omega,
\mathcal{H})$ if
1. $J$ is compatible with $\omega$ on $W$,
2. $J$ is ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–invariant on $[0,\infty) \times M$, maps ${\partial}_t$ to $X$ and restricts to a complex structure on $\xi$ compatible with ${{\left.{\Omega}\right|_{\xi}}}$.
Then any $J \in {{\mathcal{J}}}(\omega, \mathcal{H})$ is compatible with any $\omega_{\varphi}$ for ${\varphi}\in \mathcal{T}$. Observe that whenever $\lambda$ is a contact form, the conditions characterizing $J \in
{{\mathcal{J}}}(\omega, \mathcal{H})$ on the cylindrical end depend on $\lambda$, but *not on $\Omega$*, as ${{\left.{J}\right|_{\xi}}}$ is compatible with ${{\left.{\Omega}\right|_{\xi}}}$ if and only if it is compatible with ${{\left.{d\lambda}\right|_{\xi}}}$. In this case we simply say that $J$ is **compatible** with $\lambda$ on the cylindrical end.
For $J \in {{\mathcal{J}}}(\omega, \mathcal{H})$, we define the **energy** of a $J$–holomorphic curve $u:\, \dot{\Sigma} \to
W^\infty$ by $$E(u) = \sup_{{\varphi}\in \mathcal{T}} \int u^*\omega_{\varphi}\;.$$ Then $E(u) \ge 0$, with equality if and only if $u$ is constant. It is straightforward to show that this notion of energy is equivalent to the one defined in [@BourgeoisCompactness], in the sense that uniform bounds on either imply uniform bounds on the other. Thus if $\dot{\Sigma}$ is a punctured Riemann surface, finite energy $J$–holomorphic curves have *asymptotically cylindrical* behavior at nonremovable punctures, i.e. they approach closed orbits of the vector field $X$ at $\{+\infty\} \times M$.
The most popular example of a stable Hamiltonian structure is $(\lambda,\Omega) = (\alpha,d\alpha)$, where $\alpha$ is a contact form; this is the case that arises naturally on the boundary of a strong filling. One can then obtain other stable Hamiltonian structures in the form $$\label{eqn:SHScontact}
(\lambda,\Omega) = (\alpha,F\,d\alpha) \;,$$ for any function $F:\, M \to (0,\infty)$ such that $dF \wedge d\alpha
= 0$. In fact, since $\ker(d\alpha)$ is a vector bundle of rank $1$ whenever $\xi = \ker\alpha$ is contact, *every* stable Hamiltonian structure in this case has the form of , and the vector field $X$ is the usual Reeb vector field $X_\alpha$. In this context it will be useful to know that one can choose $F$ so that $F\,d\alpha$ may lie in any desired cohomology class. In order to formulate a sufficiently general version of this statement, we will need the following definition.
\[defn:symmetric\] Suppose $K \subset (M,\xi)$ is a transverse knot. We will say that a contact form $\alpha$ for $\xi$ is in **standard symmetric form near $K$** if a neighborhood ${\mathcal{N}}(K) \subset M$ of $K$ can be identified with a solid torus ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times {{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}\ni ({\vartheta};
\rho,{\varphi})$, thus defining positively oriented cylindrical coordinates in which $K = \{ \rho = 0 \}$ and $\alpha$ takes the form $$\alpha = f(\rho)\, d{\vartheta}+ g(\rho)\, d{\varphi}$$ for some smooth functions $f , g :\, [0,1] \to {{\mathbb{R}}}$ with $f(0) > 0$ and $g(0) = 0$.
Recall that by the contact neighborhood theorem, there always exists a contact form in standard symmetric form near any knot transverse to the contact structure. The condition that $\alpha$ is a positive contact form in these coordinates then amounts to the condition $f(\rho) g'(\rho) - f'(\rho) g(\rho) > 0$ for $\rho > 0$, and $g''(0)
> 0$. An oriented knot is called **positively transverse** if its orientation matches the coorientation of the contact structure; in this case its orientation must always match the orientation of the ${\vartheta}$–coordinate in the above definition.
\[remark:nondegenerate\] Recall that a contact form $\alpha$ is called **nondegenerate** whenever its Reeb vector field $X_\alpha$ admits only nondegenerate periodic orbits. The transverse knot $K \subset M$ is always the image of a periodic orbit if $\alpha$ is in standard symmetric form near $K$. Then after multiplying $\alpha$ by a smooth function that depends only on $\rho$, one can always arrange without loss of generality that $K$ and all its multiple covers are *nondegenerate* orbits and are the only periodic orbits in a small neighborhood of $K$. In this way we can always find nondegenerate contact forms that are in standard symmetric form near $K$.
\[prop:cohomology\] Suppose $(M,\xi)$ is a contact $3$–manifold, $$K = K_1 \cup \dotsb \cup K_n \subset M$$ is an oriented positively transverse link, $N_K \subset M$ is a neighborhood of $K$ and $\alpha$ is a contact form for $\xi$ that is in standard symmetric form near $K$. Then for any set of positive real numbers $c_1,\dotsc,c_n > 0$, there exists a smooth function $F:\, M \to (0,\infty)$ such that the following conditions are satisfied:
1. $(\alpha, F\,d\alpha)$ is a stable Hamiltonian structure.
2. $F \equiv 1$ on $M\setminus N_K$ and $F$ is a positive constant on a smaller neighborhood of $K$.
3. $[ F\,d\alpha] \in H^2_{{\operatorname{dR}}}(M)$ is Poincaré dual to $c_1\,
[K_1] + \dotsb + c_n\, [K_n] \in H_1(M ; {{\mathbb{R}}})$.
Since every oriented link has a $C^0$–small perturbation that makes it positively transverse (see for example [@Geiges_book]), *every* homology class in $H_1(M ; {{\mathbb{R}}})$ can be represented by a finite linear combination $$c_1\, [K_1] + \dotsb + c_n\, [K_n]$$ where $c_1,\dotsc,c_n > 0$ and $K_1 \cup \dotsb \cup K_n$ is a positively transverse link.
A few days after the first version of this paper was made public, Cieliebak and Volkov unveiled a comprehensive study of stable Hamiltonian structures [@CieliebakVolkovSHS] which includes an existence result closely related to Proposition \[prop:cohomology\], and valid also in higher dimensions.
We will have $[F\,d\alpha] = {{\operatorname{PD}}}\bigl(c_1[K_1] + \dotsb +
c_n[K_n]\bigr)$ if and only if $$\int_S F\,d\alpha = \sum_{i=1}^n c_i\, [K_i] \bullet [S]$$ for every closed oriented surface $S \subset M$. Then a function $F$ with the desired properties can be constructed as follows. By assumption, each component $K_i \subset K$ comes with a tubular neighborhood ${\mathcal{N}}(K_i) \subset N_K$ that is identified with ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times {{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}\ni ({\vartheta}; \rho,{\varphi})$, on which $\alpha$ has the form $$\alpha = f_i(\rho)\, d{\vartheta}+ g_i(\rho) \, d{\varphi}$$ for some smooth functions $f_i, g_i :\, [0,1] \to {{\mathbb{R}}}$ with $f_i(0) >
0$ and $g_i(0) = 0$. Denote the union of all these coordinate neighborhoods by ${\mathcal{N}}(K)$. Now choose $h:\, M \to (0,\infty)$ to be any smooth function with the following properties:
1. The support of $h$ is in the interior of ${\mathcal{N}}(K)$.
2. On each neighborhood ${\mathcal{N}}(K_i)$, $h$ depends only on the $\rho$–coordinate, and restricts to a function $h_i(\rho)$ that is constant for $\rho$ near $0$ and satisfies $$2\pi \int_0^1 h_i(\rho)\, g_i'(\rho)\,d\rho = c_i \;.$$
Now for any closed oriented surface $S \subset M$, we can deform $S$ so that its intersection with ${\mathcal{N}}(K)$ is a finite union of disks of the form $\{{\vartheta}_0\} \times {{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}\subset {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times {{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}$ for each $x = ({\vartheta}_0,0,0) \in K_i \cap S$, each oriented according to the intersection index $\sigma(x) = \pm 1$. Thus if we set $F = 1 + h$, then $$\begin{split}
\int_S F\,d\alpha &= \int_S d\alpha + \int_S h\,d\alpha \\
&= \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{x \in K_i \cap S} \sigma(x)
\int_{{{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}} h_i(\rho)\, g_i'(\rho)\,d\rho \wedge d{\varphi}\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^n c_i\, [K_i] \bullet [S] \;,
\end{split}$$ as desired.
Collar neighborhoods of weak boundaries {#sec: collar
neighborhood weak boundary}
---------------------------------------
The application of punctured holomorphic curve methods to weak fillings is made possible by the following result.
\[theorem: stableHypersurface\] Suppose $(W,\omega)$ is a symplectic $4$–manifold with weakly contact boundary $(M,\xi)$, $K = K_1 \cup \dotsb \cup K_n \subset M$ is a positively transverse link with positive numbers $c_1,\dotsc,c_n > 0$ such that the homology class $$c_1\,[K_1] + \dotsb + c_n\, [K_n] \in H_1(M; {{\mathbb{R}}})$$ is Poincaré dual to $[{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}] \in H^2_{{\operatorname{dR}}}(M)$, ${\mathcal{N}}(K)$ is a tubular neighborhood of $K$, $\lambda$ is a contact form for $\xi$ that is in standard symmetric form near $K$ (cf. Definition \[defn:symmetric\]), and ${\mathcal{N}}(M) \subset W$ is a collar neighborhood of ${\partial}W$. Then there exists a symplectic form $\widehat{\omega}$ on $W$ such that
1. $\widehat{\omega} = \omega$ on $W \setminus {\mathcal{N}}(M)$,
2. $M$ is a stable hypersurface in $(W,\widehat{\omega})$, with an induced stable Hamiltonian structure of the form $(C\,\lambda,
F\,d\lambda)$ for some constant $C > 0$ and smooth function $F:\,
M \to (0,\infty)$ that is constant near $K$ and outside of ${\mathcal{N}}(K)$.
In light of Proposition \[prop:cohomology\], the result will be an easy consequence of the lemmas proved below, which construct various types of symplectic forms on collar neighborhoods, compatible with given distributions on the boundary. For later applications (particularly in [[§\[sec:handles\]]{}]{}), it will be convenient to assume that the distribution $\xi = \ker\lambda$ is not necessarily contact; we shall instead usually assume it is a *confoliation*, which means $$\lambda \wedge d\lambda \ge 0 \;.$$ Observe that if $\Omega$ is the restriction of a symplectic form $\omega$ on $(-{\varepsilon},0] \times M$ to the boundary, and $\lambda$ is a nonvanishing $1$–form on $M$ with $\xi = \ker\lambda$, then ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{\xi}}} > 0$ if and only if $$\lambda \wedge \Omega > 0 \;.$$ Conversely, whenever this inequality is satisfied for a $1$–form $\lambda$ and $2$–form $\Omega$ on $M$, one can define a symplectic form on $(-{\varepsilon},0] \times M$ for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}> 0$ by the formula $$d(t\,\lambda) + \Omega \;,$$ where $t$ denotes the coordinate on the interval $(-{\varepsilon},0]$. Lemma \[normalform for weak collars\] shows that $\omega$ can always be assumed to be of this form in the right choice of coordinates. The following lemma then provides a symplectic interpolation between any two cohomologous symplectic structures of this form for a fixed confoliation $\xi$, as long as we are willing to rescale the $1$–form $\lambda$.
\[lemma:interpolation\] Suppose $M$ is a closed oriented $3$–manifold, and fix the following data:
- ${{\mathcal U}}, {{\mathcal U}}' \subset M$ are open subsets with $\overline{{{\mathcal U}}}
\subset {{\mathcal U}}'$,
- $\xi \subset TM$ is a cooriented confoliation, defined as the kernel of a nonvanishing $1$–form $\lambda$ such that $\lambda
\wedge d\lambda \ge 0$,
- $\Omega_0$ and $\Omega_1$ are closed, cohomologous $2$–forms that are both positive on $\xi$ and satisfy $$\Omega_1 = \Omega_0 + d\eta$$ for some $1$–form $\eta$ with compact support in ${{\mathcal U}}$.
Then for any ${\varepsilon}> 0$ sufficiently small, $[-{\varepsilon},0]
\times M$ admits a symplectic form $\omega$ which satisfies ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{\xi}}} > 0$ on $\{0\} \times M$ and the following additional properties:
1. $\omega = d(t\lambda) + \Omega_0$ in a neighborhood of $\{-{\varepsilon}\} \times M$ and outside of $[-{\varepsilon},0] \times
{{\mathcal U}}'$,
2. $\omega = d(\varphi\,\lambda) + \Omega_1$ in a neighborhood of $\{0\} \times M$, where $\varphi :\, [-{\varepsilon},0] \times M \to
[-{\varepsilon},\infty)$ is a smooth function that depends only on $t$ in $[-{\varepsilon},0] \times {{\mathcal U}}$ and satisfies ${\partial}_t\varphi > 0$ everywhere.
Assume ${\varepsilon}> 0$ is small enough so that $\lambda \wedge
(\Omega_1 - {\varepsilon}\,d\lambda)$ and $\lambda \wedge (\Omega_0 -
{\varepsilon}\,d\lambda)$ are both positive volume forms. Choose smooth functions $\varphi:\,[-{\varepsilon},0] \times M \to [-{\varepsilon},\infty)$ and $f:\,[-{\varepsilon},0] \to [0,1]$ such that $f(t) =0$ for $t$ near $-{\varepsilon}$ and $f(t) = 1$ for $t$ near $0$, while $\varphi(t,p) = t$ whenever $t$ is near $-{\varepsilon}$ or $p \in
M\setminus {{\mathcal U}}'$, and ${\partial}_t\varphi > 0$ everywhere. The latter gives rise to a smooth family of functions $$\varphi_t = \varphi(t,\cdot) :\, M \to {{\mathbb{R}}}\;,$$ for which we shall also assume that $d\varphi_t$ vanishes outside of ${{\mathcal U}}' \setminus \overline{{{\mathcal U}}}$ for all $t \in [-{\varepsilon},0]$. We must then show that under these conditions, $\varphi$ can be chosen so that the closed $2$–form $$\omega := d\bigl(\varphi\, \lambda\bigr) + \Omega_0
+ d\bigl(f\,\eta\bigr)$$ is nondegenerate, where $f$ is lifted in the obvious way to a function on $[-{\varepsilon},0] \times M$. We compute, $$\begin{split}
\omega \wedge \omega & = 2 {\partial}_t\varphi\,dt \wedge \lambda \wedge
\left[ (1-f)\, \Omega_0 + f\, \Omega_1 +
\varphi_t\, d\lambda \right] \\
& \qquad + 2 f'\,dt\wedge \eta \wedge \bigl[ (1-f)\, \Omega_0 +
f\,\Omega_1 + \varphi_t\, d\lambda \bigr] + 2 f' \,dt \wedge
\eta \wedge d\varphi_t \wedge \lambda \; ,
\end{split}$$ and observe that the first of the three terms is a positive volume form, while the second vanishes outside of $[-{\varepsilon},0] \times
{{\mathcal U}}$ due to the compact support of $\eta$, and the third vanishes everywhere since the supports of $d\varphi_t$ and $\eta$ are disjoint. Thus if $\varphi$ is chosen with ${\partial}_t\varphi$ sufficiently large on $[-{\varepsilon},0]\times {{\mathcal U}}$, the first term dominates the second and we have $\omega \wedge \omega > 0$ everywhere. The condition ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{\xi}}} > 0$ on $\{0\}
\times M$ is now immediate from the construction.
Combining Proposition \[prop:cohomology\] with this lemma in the special case ${{\mathcal U}}= M$, Theorem \[theorem: stableHypersurface\] now follows from the observation that if $(\lambda,\Omega)$ is a stable Hamiltonian structure such that $\lambda$ is contact, and $\varphi$ is a strictly increasing smooth positive function on some interval in ${{\mathbb{R}}}$, then the level sets $\{T\} \times M$ are all stable hypersurfaces with respect to the symplectic form $d(\varphi\,
\lambda) + \Omega$, inducing the stable Hamiltonian structure $(\varphi'(T)\,\lambda , \varphi(T)\, d\lambda + \Omega)$ on such a hypersurface.
For the handle attaching argument in [[§\[sec:handles\]]{}]{}, we will also need a variation on Lemma \[lemma:interpolation\] that changes $\lambda$ instead of $\omega$.
\[lemma:interpolation2\] Suppose $M$ is a closed oriented $3$–manifold, and fix the following data:
- ${{\mathcal U}}, {{\mathcal U}}' \subset M$ are open subsets with $\overline{{{\mathcal U}}}
\subset {{\mathcal U}}'$,
- $\{\xi_\tau\}_{\tau \in [0,1]}$ is a $1$–parameter family of confoliations, defined via a smooth $1$–parameter family of nonvanishing $1$–forms $\lambda_\tau$ with $\lambda_\tau \wedge
d\lambda_\tau \ge 0$, all of which are identical outside of ${{\mathcal U}}$,
- $\Omega$ is a closed $2$–form that is positive on $\xi_\tau$ for all $\tau \in [0,1]$.
Then for any ${\varepsilon}> 0$ sufficiently small, $[-{\varepsilon},0]
\times M$ admits a symplectic form $\omega$ which satisfies ${{\left.{\omega}\right|_{\xi_1}}} > 0$ on $\{0\} \times M$ and the following additional properties:
1. $\omega = d(t\,\lambda_0) + \Omega$ in a neighborhood of $\{-{\varepsilon}\} \times M$ and outside of $[-{\varepsilon},0] \times
{{\mathcal U}}'$,
2. $\omega = d(\varphi\,\lambda_1) + \Omega$ in a neighborhood of $\{0\} \times M$, where $\varphi :\, [-{\varepsilon},0] \times M \to
[-{\varepsilon},\infty)$ is a smooth function that depends only on $t$ in $[-{\varepsilon},0] \times {{\mathcal U}}$ and satisfies ${\partial}_t\varphi > 0$ everywhere.
Assume ${\varepsilon}> 0$ is small enough so that $\lambda_\tau \wedge
(\Omega - {\varepsilon}\, d\lambda_\tau) > 0$ for all $\tau \in [0,1]$. Pick a smooth function $$[-{\varepsilon},0] \to [0,1] :\, t \mapsto \tau$$ such that $\tau = 0$ for all $t$ near $-{\varepsilon}$ and $\tau = 1$ for all $t$ near $0$, and use this to define a $1$–form $\Lambda$ on $[-{\varepsilon},0] \times M$ by $$\Lambda_{(t,m)} = \left(\lambda_{\tau}\right)_m$$ for all $(t,m) \in [-{\varepsilon},0] \times M$. Next, choose a smooth function $\varphi:\,[-{\varepsilon},0] \times M \to [-{\varepsilon},\infty)$ such that $\varphi(t,m) = t$ whenever $t$ is near $-{\varepsilon}$ or $m
\in M\setminus {{\mathcal U}}'$, and ${\partial}_t\varphi > 0$ everywhere. Denote by $$\varphi_t = \varphi(t,\cdot) : M \to {{\mathbb{R}}}\;,$$ the resulting smooth family of functions, and assume also that $d\varphi_t$ vanishes outside of ${{\mathcal U}}' \setminus \overline{{{\mathcal U}}}$ for all $t \in [-{\varepsilon},0]$. Now set $$\omega = d\bigl(\varphi\, \Lambda\bigr) + \Omega$$ and compute: $$\omega \wedge \omega = 2 {\partial}_t\varphi \, dt \wedge \lambda_\tau \wedge
\left(\Omega + \varphi_t\, d\lambda_\tau \right)
+ \left( \varphi_t \, d\Lambda \right)^2 + 2 \varphi_t\,
d\Lambda \wedge \Omega + 2 \varphi_t\, d\varphi_t \wedge \lambda_\tau
\wedge d\Lambda \;.$$ The first term is a positive volume form and can be made to dominate the second and third if ${\partial}_t\varphi$ is large enough; note that the second and third terms also vanish completely outside of $[-{\varepsilon},0] \times {{\mathcal U}}$ since $\lambda_\tau$ is then independent of $\tau$, so that $\Lambda$ reduces to a $1$–form on $M$ and both terms are thus $4$–forms on a $3$–manifold. For the same reason, the last term vanishes everywhere.
Review of planar torsion {#subsec:review}
------------------------
In this section we recall the important definitions and properties of planar torsion; we shall give only the main ideas here, referring to [@ChrisOpenBook2] for further details.
Recall that an **open book decomposition** of a closed oriented $3$–manifold $M$ is a fibration $\pi:\, M \setminus B \to {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$, where the **binding** $B \subset M$ is an oriented link, and the fibers are oriented surfaces with embedded closures whose oriented boundary is $B$. The fibers are connected if and only if $M$ is connected, and we call the connected components of the fibers **pages**. We wish to consider two topological operations that can be performed on an open book:
1. *Blowing up* a binding circle $\gamma \subset B$: this means replacing $\gamma$ by the unit circle bundle in its normal bundle, or equivalently, removing a small neighborhood of $\gamma$ so that $M$ becomes a manifold $\widehat{M}$ with $2$–torus boundary. Defining $\widehat{B} = B \setminus \gamma$, the fibration $\pi:\, M \setminus B \to {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ now induces a fibration $$\hat{\pi}:\, \widehat{M} \setminus \widehat{B} \to {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \;.$$ The structure associated with this fibration is called a **blown up open book** with binding $\widehat{B}$. Observe that ${\partial}\widehat{M}$ also carries a distinguished $1$–dimensional homology class, arising from the meridian on the tubular neighborhood of $\gamma$.
2. *The binding sum*: consider two distinct binding circles $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 \subset B$, which come with distinguished trivializations of their normal bundles $\nu\gamma_1,\nu\gamma_2$ determined by the open book. Any orientation preserving diffeomorphism $\gamma_1 \to \gamma_2$ is then covered by a unique (up to homotopy) orientation reversing isomorphism $$\Phi :\, \nu\gamma_1 \to \nu\gamma_2$$ which is constant with respect to the distinguished trivializations. Blowing up both $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, we obtain a manifold $\widehat{M}$ with two torus boundary components ${\partial}_1\widehat{M}$ and ${\partial}_2\widehat{M}$, and $\Phi$ determines a unique (up to isotopy) orientation reversing diffeomorphism $$\widehat{\Phi} :\, {\partial}_1\widehat{M} \to {\partial}_2\widehat{M} \;,$$ which we may assume restricts to orientation preserving diffeomorphisms between boundary components of fibers of $\hat{\pi}$. Gluing ${\partial}_1\widehat{M}$ and ${\partial}_2\widehat{M}$ together via $\widehat{\Phi}$ then gives a new closed manifold $\check{M}$, containing a distinguished torus ${\mathcal{I}}\subset
\check{M}$, called the **interface**, which also carries distinguished $1$–dimensional homology classes (unique up to sign) determined by the meridians. Due to the orientation reversal, the fibration is not well defined on the interface, but it determines a fibration $$\check{\pi} :\, \check{M} \setminus (\check{B} \cup {\mathcal{I}})
\to {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \;,$$ where $\check{B} := B \setminus (\gamma_1 \cup \gamma_2)$. The associated structure is called a **summed open book** with binding $\check{B}$ and interface ${\mathcal{I}}$. If $M_1$ and $M_2$ are two distinct manifolds with open books, one can attach them by choosing some collection of binding circles in $M_1$, pairing each with a distinct binding circle in $M_2$ and constructing the binding sum for each pair. We use the shorthand notation $$M_1 \boxplus M_2$$ for any manifold and summed open book constructed from two open books in this way.
Clearly both operations can also be performed on binding components of blown up or summed open books, so iterating them finitely many times we can produce a more complicated manifold (possibly with boundary), carrying a more general decomposition known as a **blown up summed open book**. If $M$ carries such a structure, then it comes with a fibration $$\pi :\, M \setminus (B \cup {\mathcal{I}}) \to {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \;,$$ where the **binding** $B$ is an oriented link and the **interface** ${\mathcal{I}}$ is a disjoint union of tori. The connected components of fibers of $\pi$ are again called **pages**, and their closures are generally immersed surfaces, as they occasionally may have multiple boundary components that coincide as oriented circles in the interface. We call a blown up summed open book **irreducible** if the fibers $\pi^{-1}(*)$ are all connected, and **planar** if they also have genus zero.
Generalizing the standard definition of a contact structure supported by an open book, we say that a contact form $\alpha$ on $M$ with induced Reeb vector field $X_\alpha$ is a **Giroux form** if it satisfies the following conditions:
1. $X_\alpha$ is positively transverse to the interiors of all pages,
2. $X_\alpha$ is positively tangent to the boundaries of the closures of all pages,
3. The characteristic foliation induced on ${\mathcal{I}}\cup {\partial}M$ by $\ker\alpha$ has closed leaves representing the distinguished homology classes determined by meridians.
It follows that the interface and boundary are always foliated by closed orbits of the Reeb vector field for any Giroux form. We say that a contact structure $\xi$ is **supported** by the summed open book whenever it is the kernel of a Giroux form.
\[ex:S1invariant\] Suppose $\Sigma$ is a compact, connected and oriented surface, possibly with boundary, and $\xi$ is a positive, cooriented and ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant contact structure on ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \Sigma$, such that the curves ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \{z\}$ are Legendrian for all $z \in
{\partial}\Sigma$. We can then divide $\Sigma$ into the following subsets: $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_+ &= \{ z \in \Sigma \ |\ \text{${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \{z\}$ is
positively transverse} \} \;, \\
\Sigma_- &= \{ z \in \Sigma \ |\ \text{${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \{z\}$ is
negatively transverse} \} \;, \\
\Gamma &= \{ z \in \Sigma \ |\ \text{${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \{z\}$ is
Legendrian} \} \;.
\end{aligned}$$ By assumption, ${\partial}\Sigma \subset \Gamma$. The Lutz construction [@Lutz_CircleActions] produces such a contact structure for any given multicurve $\Gamma$ that contains ${\partial}\Sigma$ and divides $\Sigma$ into two separate pieces $\Sigma_+$ and $\Sigma_-$. In fact, one can find a contact form $\alpha$ for $\xi$ such that for every $t \in {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$, the Reeb vector field $X_\alpha$ is positively transverse to $\{t\} \times \Sigma_+$, negatively transverse to $\{t\} \times \Sigma_-$ and tangent to $\{t\} \times \Gamma$. This is thus a Giroux form for a blown up summed open book, whose pages are the connected components of $\{t\} \times
(\Sigma\setminus\Gamma)$, with trivial monodromy. The interface is the union of all the tori ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \gamma$ for connected components $\gamma \subset \Gamma$ in the interior of $\Sigma$, and the binding is empty.
A blown up summed open book is called **symmetric** if its boundary and binding are both empty, and it is obtained as a binding sum of two connected pieces $M_+ \boxplus M_-$, with open books whose pages are diffeomorphic to each other. The two simplest examples of contact structures supported by symmetric summed open books are the standard contact structures on ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^2$ and ${{\mathbb{T}}}^3$: the former can be obtained as a binding sum of two open books with disk-like pages, and the latter as a binding sum of two open books with cylindrical pages and trivial monodromy.
\[defn:planarTorsion\] A **planar torsion domain** is any contact $3$-manifold $(M,\xi)$, possibly with boundary, together with a supporting blown up summed open book that can be obtained as a binding sum of two separate nonempty pieces, $$M = M_0 \boxplus M_1 \;,$$ where $M_0$ carries an irreducible planar summed open book without boundary, and $M_1$ carries an arbitrary blown up summed open book (possibly disconnected), such that the induced blown up summed open book on $M$ is not symmetric. The interior of $M$ then contains a compact submanifold with nonempty boundary, $$M^P \subset M \;,$$ called the **planar piece**, which is obtained from $M_0$ by blowing up all of its summed binding components. The closure of $M
\setminus M^P$ is called the **padding**.
We say that a contact $3$–manifold $(M,\xi)$ has **planar torsion** whenever it admits a contact embedding of some planar torsion domain.
Note that the interface of the blown up summed open book on a planar torsion domain contains the (nonempty) boundary of the planar piece, and may also have additional components in its interior.
\[defn:planarSeparating\] For any closed $2$–form $\Omega$ on a closed contact $3$–manifold $(M,\xi)$, we say that $(M,\xi)$ has **$\Omega$–separating planar torsion** if it contains a planar torsion domain such that $\int_L \Omega = 0$ for every interface torus $L$ in the planar piece. If each of these tori is nullhomologous in $H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})$, then we say $(M,\xi)$ has **fully separating planar torsion**.
The fully separating condition can only be satisfied when the planar piece $M^P \subset M$ has no interface tori in its interior and each of its boundary components separates $M$. This follows from the observation that an interface torus in an irreducible blown up summed open book is *always* homologically nontrivial.
\[ex:OTGiroux\] As shown in [@ChrisOpenBook2], any open neighborhood of a Lutz twist contains a fully separating planar torsion domain whose planar piece has disk-like pages, and in fact planar torsion of this type (called *planar $0$–torsion*) is equivalent to overtwistedness. Similarly, a neighborhood of a Giroux torsion domain always contains a planar torsion domain whose planar piece has cylindrical pages (called *planar $1$–torsion*).
\[ex:S1invariant2\] The ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant contact manifold $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \Sigma,\xi)$ of Example \[ex:S1invariant\] is a planar torsion domain whenever $\Sigma\setminus \Gamma$ contains a connected component of genus zero whose closure is disjoint from ${\partial}\Sigma$, but which is not diffeomorphic to both $\Sigma_+$ and $\Sigma_-$. The fully separating condition is satisfied whenever every boundary component of the genus zero piece separates $\Sigma$.
The following is a combination of two of the main results in [@ChrisOpenBook2].
\[thm:holOpenbook\] If $(M,\xi)$ is a closed contact $3$–manifold with planar torsion then it is not strongly fillable. Moreover, if $M^P \subset M$ denotes the planar piece of a planar torsion domain in $M$ and $\pi:\, M^P \setminus (B \cup {\mathcal{I}}) \to {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ is the associated fibration with binding $B$ and interface ${\mathcal{I}}$, then for any ${\varepsilon}> 0$, $(M,\xi)$ admits a Morse-Bott contact form $\alpha$ and a generic ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–invariant almost complex structure $J$ on ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$, compatible with $\alpha$, such that:
- $\alpha$ is in standard symmetric form (see Definition \[defn:symmetric\]) near $B$, and the components of $B$ are nondegenerate elliptic Reeb orbits of Conley-Zehnder index $1$ (with respect to the trivialization determined by the open book) and period less than ${\varepsilon}$.
- The interface and boundary tori ${\mathcal{I}}\cup {\partial}M \subset
M^P$ are Morse-Bott submanifolds foliated by Reeb orbits of period less than ${\varepsilon}$.
- All Reeb orbits in $M$ outside of $B \cup {\mathcal{I}}\cup {\partial}M^P$ have period at least $1$.
- The interior of each planar page $\pi^{-1}(\tau)$ is the projection to $M$ of an embedded finite energy punctured $J$–holomorphic curve $$u_\tau :\, \dot{\Sigma} \to {{\mathbb{R}}}\times M \;,$$ with only positive ends and Fredholm index $2$.
Proofs of Theorems \[thm:planar\] and \[theorem: planarTorsion\] {#subsec:proof}
----------------------------------------------------------------
The important feature that Theorems \[thm:planar\] and \[theorem: planarTorsion\] have in common is that they involve weak fillings of contact manifolds that admit regular families of index $2$ punctured holomorphic spheres. For Theorem \[thm:planar\], the idea will be to stabilize the boundary so that the pages of a given planar open book can be lifted to holomorphic curves in the cylindrical end—we can then repeat precisely the argument used for strong fillings in [@ChrisGirouxTorsion], as the resulting moduli space spreads into the filling to form the fibers of a symplectic Lefschetz fibration. The idea for Theorem \[theorem: planarTorsion\] is similar, except that instead of a Lefschetz fibration, we will get a contradiction. First however we must take care to stabilize the boundary in such a way that the desired holomorphic curves in the cylindrical end will actually exist, and this is not trivial since by Theorem \[theorem: stableHypersurface\], we can only choose the contact form freely outside of a neighborhood of a certain transverse link.
\[lemma:mappingDuTore\] Suppose $\Sigma$ is a compact oriented surface with nonempty boundary, $\varphi :\, \Sigma \to \Sigma$ is a diffeomorphism with support away from the boundary, and $\Sigma_\varphi$ denotes the mapping torus of $\varphi$, i.e. the manifold $({{\mathbb{R}}}\times \Sigma) /
\sim$ where $(t+1,z) \sim (t,\varphi(z))$ for all $t \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$, $z \in
\Sigma$. Then for any given connected component $L \subset
{\partial}\Sigma_\varphi$, every homology class $h \in H_1(\Sigma_\varphi)$ can be represented as a sum of cycles $$h = h_\Sigma + h_L \;,$$ where $h_\Sigma$ lies in a fiber of the natural fibration $\Sigma_\varphi \to {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$, and $h_L$ lies in $L$.
The fibration $\Sigma_\varphi \to {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ gives rise to an exact sequence $$H_1(\Sigma) \stackrel{\varphi_* - 1}{\longrightarrow} H_1(\Sigma)
\stackrel{\iota_*}{\longrightarrow} H_1(\Sigma_\varphi)
\stackrel{\Phi}{\longrightarrow} H_0(\Sigma) \cong {{\mathbb{Z}}}\;,$$ where $\iota :\, \Sigma \to \Sigma_\varphi$ is the inclusion and $\Phi$ computes the intersection number of any $1$–cycle in the interior of $\Sigma_\varphi$ with a fiber. Thus if we choose any reference cycle $h_0 \in H_1(\Sigma_\varphi)$ that passes once transversely through each fiber, the exact sequence implies that any $h \in H_1(\Sigma_\varphi)$ decomposes as a sum of the form $$h = \iota_*(h_\Sigma) + c\, h_0$$ for $h_\Sigma \in H_1(\Sigma)$ and $c \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$. The lemma follows since $h_0$ can be represented by a loop in any given connected component of ${\partial}\Sigma_\varphi$.
Assume $(W,\omega)$ is a weak filling of $(M,\xi)$, and the latter either is planar or contains a planar torsion domain with planar piece $M^P \subset M$, whose binding and interface are denoted by $B^P,{\mathcal{I}}^P \subset M^P$ respectively. In the planar case it makes sense also to define $M^P = M$ and ${\mathcal{I}}^P = \emptyset$, so in both cases $M^P$ carries a planar blown up summed open book with binding $B^P$ and interface ${\mathcal{I}}^P$. After modifying $\omega$ via Theorem \[theorem: stableHypersurface\], we can assume ${\partial}W$ is a stable hypersurface, with an induced stable Hamiltonian structure of the form $\mathcal{H} = (\lambda, F\,d\lambda)$, where $\lambda$ is a contact form for $\xi$ that is in standard symmetric form near some positively transverse link $K = K_1 \cup \dotsb \cup K_n$. The latter must be chosen so that $$\label{eqn:PD}
{{\operatorname{PD}}}\bigl([{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}]\bigr) = \sum_{i=1}^n c_i\, [K_i]$$ for some set of positive real numbers $c_1,\dotsc,c_n > 0$.
\[lemma:outsidePlanar\] If $\int_L \omega = 0$ for every connected component $L \subset
{\mathcal{I}}^P \cup {\partial}M^P$, then one can choose the positively transverse link $K$ to be a disjoint union of three links $$K = K_B \cup K_P \cup K' \;,$$ where $K_B$ is a subcollection of the oriented components of $B^P$, $K_P$ lies in a single page in $M^P$ and $K' \subset M \setminus
M^P$.
Note that in the planar case, $M^P = M$ and the condition on the boundary and interface is vacuous: then applying Lemma \[lemma:mappingDuTore\] to the mapping torus of the monodromy of the open book, we see that for any oriented binding component $\gamma \subset B^P$, any $h \in H_1(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})$ can be written as $h = c\,[\gamma] + h_P$ for some $c \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $h_P$ is represented by a cycle in a page. If $c < 0$, we can exploit the fact that the total binding is the boundary of a page and thus rewrite $c\,[\gamma]$ as a positive linear combination of the other oriented binding components.
For the case of a planar torsion domain, we have ${\partial}M^P \ne
\emptyset$ and must show first that $h =
{{\operatorname{PD}}}\bigl([{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}]\bigr)$ under the given assumptions can be represented by a cycle that does not intersect ${\mathcal{I}}^P \cup {\partial}M^P$. The above argument then completes the proof.
To find a representative cycle disjoint from ${\mathcal{I}}^P \cup {\partial}M^P$, suppose $K = K_1 \cup \dotsb \cup K_n$ is any oriented link with $c_1\, [K_1] + \dotsb + c_n\, [K_n]$ Poincaré dual to $[{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}]$ for some real numbers $c_1,\dotsc,c_n
\ne 0$. Then for each connected component $L \subset {\mathcal{I}}^P
\cup {\partial}M^P$, Poincaré duality implies $$\sum_i c_i\, [K_i] \bullet [L] = \int_L \omega = 0 \;.$$ We can assume $K$ and $L$ have only transverse intersections $x \in
K \cap L$. Now for each component $K_i$, we can replace $K_i$ by a homologous link for which all intersections of $K_i$ with $L$ have the same sign: indeed, if $x , y \in K_i \cap L$ are two intersections of opposite sign, we can eliminate both of them by splicing $K_i$ with a path between $x$ and $y$ along $L$. Having done this, we can also split $K_i$ into multiple parallel components so that each intersects $L$ either not at all or exactly once. Then by switching orientations of $K_i$ and signs of $c_i$, we can arrange for this intersection to be positive. Let us therefore assume that each component $K_i$ has at most one intersection with $L$, which is transverse and positive, so $$\sum_{\{i ; K_i \cap L \ne \emptyset \} } c_i = 0 \;.$$ Now if any intersection $x \in K \cap L$ exists, there must be another $y \in K \cap L$ for which the real coefficient has the opposite sign; for concreteness let us assume $x \in K_1$, $y \in
K_2$, $c_1 > 0$ and $c_2 < 0$. We can then eliminate one of these intersections via the following two steps: first, replace $K_2$ by a disjoint union of two knots $K_2'$ and $K_2''$, where $K_2' := K_2$ and $K_2''$ is a parallel copy of it, and set $c_2' := - c_1$, $c_2'' := c_2 + c_1$. This introduces one additional intersection $y'' \in K_2'' \cap L$. But now since $c_2' = -c_1$, we can eliminate $x$ and $y$ by splicing in a path between them along $L$ to connect $K_1$ and $K_2'$. The result of this operation is a new link $\tilde{K} = \tilde{K}_1 \cup \dotsb \cup
\tilde{K}_{\tilde{n}}$ with real numbers $\tilde{c}_1,\dotsc,\tilde{c}_{\tilde{n}} \ne 0$ such that $$\sum_{i=1}^{\tilde{n}} \tilde{c}_i [\tilde{K}_i] =
\sum_{i=1}^n c_i [K_i]$$ and $\tilde{K} \cap L$ contains one point fewer than $K \cap L$. One can then repeat this process until the intersection of $K$ with ${\mathcal{I}}^P \cup {\partial}M^P$ is empty. By switching orientations of the components $K_i$ again, we can then assume the real coefficients $c_1,\dotsc,c_n$ are all positive.
The lemma has the following consequence: for any fixed page $\Sigma
\subset M^P$, we can now freely choose the contact form $\lambda$ on some open set ${{\mathcal U}}$, $$\Sigma \cup B^P \cup {\mathcal{I}}^P \cup {\partial}M^P \subset {{\mathcal U}}\subset M^P \;,$$ to be the one provided by Theorem \[thm:holOpenbook\], for which there exists a generic almost complex structure $J$ compatible with $\mathcal{H}$ such that the pages in ${{\mathcal U}}$ lift to embedded $J$–holomorphic curves of index $2$ in the symplectization. Enlarge $W$ to $W^\infty$ by attaching a cylindrical end, and extend the compatible $J$ from the end to a generic almost complex structure $J
\in {{\mathcal{J}}}(\omega,\mathcal{H})$ on $W^\infty$. After pushing up by ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–translation, the $J$–holomorphic pages in ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times {{\mathcal U}}$ may be assumed to live in $[c,\infty) \times M$ for arbitrarily large $c >
0$ and thus can also be regarded as $J$–holomorphic curves in $W^\infty$. Since the asymptotic orbits of these curves have much smaller periods than all other Reeb orbits in $M$, the connected $2$–dimensional moduli space ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ of $J$–holomorphic curves in $W^\infty$ that contains these curves satisfies a compactness theorem proved in [@ChrisOpenBook2]: namely, ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ is compact except for codimension $2$ nodal degenerations and curves that “escape” to $+\infty$ (and thus converge to curves in ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$). Moreover, the curves in ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ foliate $W^\infty$ except at a finite set of nodal singularities, which are transverse intersections of two leaves. A similar statement holds for the curves in ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ that form the “boundary” of ${{\mathcal{M}}}$: observe that for any $m \in M \setminus
(B^P \cup {\mathcal{I}}^P \cup {\partial}M^P)$, one can find a sequence $t_k \to
\infty$ such that each of the points $(t_k,m)$ is in the image of a unique curve $u_k \in {{\mathcal{M}}}$, and the latter sequence must converge to a curve in ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ whose projection to $M$ passes through $m$. By positivity of intersections using [@Siefring_intersection], any two of these curves in ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ are either identical or disjoint, and their projections to $M$ are all embedded, thus forming a foliation of $M \setminus (B^P \cup {\mathcal{I}}^P \cup {\partial}M^P)$ by holomorphic curves whose asymptotic orbits all lie in the same Morse-Bott families. At this point the two proofs diverge in separate directions.
Following the proof of Theorem 1 in [@ChrisGirouxTorsion], the curves in the compactification of the moduli space ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ form the fibers of a Lefschetz fibration $$\Pi :\, W^\infty \to {{\mathbb{D}_{{}}}}\;,$$ and the vanishing cycles in this fibration are all homologically nontrivial if $W$ is minimal. It then follows from Eliashberg’s topological characterization of Stein manifolds [@EliashbergSteinManifolds] that $(W,\omega)$ is deformation equivalent to a symplectic blow-up of a Stein domain.
Since the planar piece of a planar torsion domain has nonempty boundary ${\partial}M^P$ by assumption, one can pick any component $L
\subset {\partial}M^P$ and define an *asymptotic evaluation map* as in [@ChrisGirouxTorsion], which defines an embedding of ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ into a certain line bundle over the ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–family of orbits in $L$. It follows that the compactified moduli space $\overline{{{\mathcal{M}}}}$ is diffeomorphic to an annulus, and its curves are the fibers of a Lefschetz fibration $$\Pi :\, W^\infty \to [0,1] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \;,$$ whose boundary is a *symmetric* summed open book. As shown in [@ChrisFiberSums] using ideas due to Gompf, such a Lefschetz fibration always admits a symplectic structure, unique up to symplectic deformation, which produces a *strong* filling of the contact manifold supported by the symmetric summed open book. But $(M,\xi)$ is not strongly fillable due to Theorem \[thm:holOpenbook\], so we have a contradiction.
It remains to exclude the possibility that $(M,\xi)$ could embed into a closed symplectic $4$–manifold $(W,\omega)$ as a nonseparating weakly contact hypersurface. This is ruled out by almost the same argument, using the “infinite chain” trick of [@AlbersBramhamWendl]: as explained in Remark \[remark:hypersurface\], we can cut $W$ open along $M$ and use it to construct a noncompact but geometrically bounded symplectic manifold $(W_\infty,\omega_\infty)$ with weakly contact boundary $(M,\xi)$, then attach a cylindrical end and consider the above moduli space of holomorphic curves in $W_\infty$. The monotonicity lemma gives a $C^0$–bound for these curves, but the same arguments that we used above also imply that they must foliate $W_\infty$, which is already a contradiction since $W_\infty$ is noncompact by construction.
Contact homology and twisted coefficients {#subsec:SFT}
-----------------------------------------
In this section we will justify Theorem \[thm:SFT\] by using the deformation result Theorem \[theorem: stableHypersurface\] to show that any weak filling $(W,\omega)$ of $(M,\xi)$ gives rise to an algebra homomorphism from contact homology with suitably twisted coefficients to a certain Novikov completion of the group ring ${{{\mathbb{Q}}}}\big[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker[{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}]\big]$. Thus if ${{\mathbf{1}}}=0$ in twisted contact homology, the same must be true in the Novikov ring and we obtain a contradiction. Since our main goal is to illustrate the role of twisted coefficients in SFT rather than provide a rigorous proof, we shall follow the usual custom of ignoring transversality problems—let us merely point out at this juncture that abstract perturbations are required (e.g. within the scheme under development by Hofer-Wysocki-Zehnder, cf. [@Hofer_polyfoldSurvey]) in order to make the following discussion fully rigorous.
We first briefly review the definition of contact homology, due to Eliashberg [@EliashbergContactInvariants] and Eliashberg-Givental-Hofer [@SymplecticFieldTheory]. In order to allow maximal flexibility in the choice of coefficients and avoid certain complications of bookkeeping (e.g. torsion in $H_1(M)$), we will set up the theory with only a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$–grading instead of the usual ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$–grading—this choice makes no difference to the vanishing of the homology and its consequences. Assume $(M,\xi)$ is a closed $(2n-1)$–dimensional manifold with a positive and cooriented contact structure, and $\alpha$ is a contact form for $\xi$ such that all closed orbits of the Reeb vector field $X_\alpha$ are nondegenerate. Each closed Reeb orbit $\gamma$ then has a canonically defined mod $2$ Conley-Zehnder index, $\operatorname{CZ}(\gamma) \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$, which defines the even or odd **parity** of the orbit. An orbit is called **bad** if it is the double cover of an orbit with different parity than its own; all other orbits are called **good**. For any linear subspace ${\mathcal{R}}\subset H_2(M ; {{\mathbb{R}}})$, the group ring ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) /
{\mathcal{R}}]$ consists of all finite sums of the form $\sum_{i=1}^N c_i
e^{A_i}$ with $c_i \in {{\mathbb{Q}}}$ and $A_i \in H_2(M ; {{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}$, where multiplication is defined so that $e^A e^B = e^{A + B}$. Now let $${{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M , \alpha ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]\big)}$$ denote the free ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$–graded supercommutative algebra with unit generated by the elements of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M ; {{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]$, which we define to have even degree, together with the symbols $q_\gamma$ for every good Reeb orbit $\gamma$, to which we assign the degree $${{\left\lvert q_\gamma\right\rvert}} = n - 3 + \operatorname{CZ}(\gamma) \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2 \;.$$ Note that orbits with the same image but different periods (i.e. distinct covers of the same orbit) give rise to *distinct* generators in this definition.
To define a differential on ${{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]\big)}$, we must make a few more choices. First, let $C_1,\dotsc,C_N$ denote a basis of cycles generating $H_1(M ; {{\mathbb{R}}})$, and for each good orbit $\gamma$, choose a real singular $2$–chain $F_\gamma$ in $M$ such that ${\partial}F_\gamma = \gamma - \sum_{i=1}^N d_i C_i$ for a (unique) set of coefficients $d_i \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$. Choose also an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–invariant almost complex structure $J$ on ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ which is compatible with $\alpha$. Then any punctured finite energy $J$–holomorphic curve $u : \dot{\Sigma} \to {{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ represents a $2$–dimensional *relative* homology class, which can be completed uniquely to an absolute homology class $[u] \in H_2(M ; {{\mathbb{R}}})$ by adding the appropriate combination of spanning $2$–chains $F_\gamma$. Given $A
\in H_2(M ; {{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}$ and a collection of good Reeb orbits $\gamma^+, \gamma^-_1,\dotsc,\gamma^-_k$ for some $k \ge 0$, we denote by $${{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma^+ ; \gamma^-_1,\dotsc,\gamma^-_k)$$ the moduli space of unparametrized finite energy punctured $J$–holomorphic spheres in homology classes representing $A \in
H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}$, with one positive cylindrical end approaching $\gamma^+$, and $k$ ordered negative cylindrical ends approaching $\gamma^-_1,\dotsc,\gamma^-_k$ respectively.[^4] The components of this moduli space can be oriented coherently [@BourgeoisMohnke], and we call a curve in ${{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma^+ ; \gamma^-_1,\dotsc,\gamma^-_k)$ **rigid** if it lives in a connected component of the moduli space that has virtual dimension $1$. The rigid curves in ${{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma^+ ;
\gamma^-_1,\dotsc,\gamma^-_k)$ up to ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–translation can then be counted algebraically, producing a rational number $$\# \left(\frac{{{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma^+ ; \gamma^-_1,\dotsc,\gamma^-_k)}{{{\mathbb{R}}}}\right)
\in {{\mathbb{Q}}}\;.$$ (Note that since we are allowing the homology class to vary in an equivalence class within $H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})$, ${{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma^+ ;
\gamma^-_1,\dotsc,\gamma^-_k)$ may in general contain a mixture of rigid and non-rigid curves; we ignore the latter in the count.) We then define the differential on generators $q_\gamma$ by $$\label{eqn:differential}
{\partial}q_\gamma = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \sum_{(\gamma_1,\dotsc,\gamma_k)}
\sum_{A \in H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}}
\frac{\kappa_\gamma}{k!} \cdot
\#\left( \frac{{{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma ; \gamma_1,\dotsc,\gamma_k)}{{{\mathbb{R}}}} \right)
e^A q_{\gamma_1} \dotsm q_{\gamma_k},$$ where the second sum is over all ordered $k$–tuples $(\gamma_1,\dotsc,\gamma_k)$ of good orbits, and $\kappa_\gamma \in
{{\mathbb{N}}}$ denotes the covering multiplicity of $\gamma$. It follows from the main compactness theorem of Symplectic Field Theory [@BourgeoisCompactness] that this sum is finite, and moreover that the resulting map $${\partial}:\, {{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]\big)} \to {{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha ;\,
{{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]\big)} \;,$$ extended uniquely to the complex as a ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]$–linear derivation of odd degree, satisfies ${\partial}^2 = 0$. The homology of this complex, $${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]\big)} :=
H_*\left({{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]\big)},{\partial}\right)$$ is a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$–graded algebra with unit which is an invariant of the contact structure $\xi$, called the **contact homology** of $(M,\xi)$ with coefficients in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]$. We say that this homology **vanishes** if it contains only one element; this is equivalent to the relation ${{\mathbf{1}}}=0$, which is true if and only there exists an element $Q \in {{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]\big)}$ such that ${\partial}Q = {{\mathbf{1}}}$. In general, this means there exists a rigid $J$–holomorphic plane that cannot be “cancelled” in an appropriate sense by other rigid curves with the same positive asymptotic orbit.
Suppose now that $n=2$ and $(W,\omega)$ is a weak filling of $(M,\xi)$. By Theorem \[theorem: stableHypersurface\], we can deform $\omega$ to make the boundary stable, inducing a stable Hamiltonian structure $\mathcal{H} = (\alpha,\Omega)$ on $M$ such that $\alpha$ is a nondegenerate contact form for $\xi$, and $\Omega$ is a closed maximal rank $2$–form with $$[\Omega] = [{{\left.{\omega}\right|_{TM}}}] \in H^2_{{\operatorname{dR}}}(M) \;.$$ We can therefore extend $W$ by attaching a cylindrical end $[0,\infty)
\times M)$ with a symplectic structure of the form $d(\varphi(t)
\alpha) + \Omega$ for some small but increasing function $\varphi$. Denote the extended manifold by $W^\infty$, and choose a generic compatible almost complex structure $J \in
{{\mathcal{J}}}(\omega,\mathcal{H})$ on $W^\infty$.
The following observation is now crucial: since $\Omega$ and $d\alpha$ are conformally equivalent as symplectic structures on $\xi$, the compatibility condition for $J$ on the cylindrical end $[0,\infty)
\times M$ depends only on $\alpha$, not on $\Omega$. Thus $J$ determines an almost complex structure on the symplectization ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ of precisely the type that is used to define the differential on ${{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]\big)}$, and the breaking of $J$–holomorphic curves in $W^\infty$ into multi-level curves will generally produce curves that are counted in the computation of ${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]\big)}$. The only difference between this and the case of a *strong* filling is the definition of energy, which does involve $\Omega$, but this makes no difference for the count of curves in ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$.
Relatedly, one can now define another version of contact homology with coefficients that depend on the filling: defining a complex ${{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]\big)}$ the same way as above but replacing ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / {\mathcal{R}}]$ with ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) /
\ker\omega]$, yields a differential $${\partial}_W :\, {{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]\big)}
\to {{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]\big)}$$ by interpreting the term $e^A$ as an element of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) /
\ker\omega]$ through the canonical map $H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) \to H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}})$ induced by the inclusion $M \hookrightarrow W$. We denote the homology of this complex by $${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]\big)} =
H_*\left({{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]\big)},{\partial}_W\right) \;,$$ and observe that since the canonical map $H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) \to H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}})$ takes $\ker\Omega$ into $\ker\omega$, there is also a natural algebra homomorphism $${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\Omega]\big)} \to
{{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]\big)} \;.$$ The right hand side therefore vanishes whenever the left hand side does.
With this understood, we shall now count rigid $J$–holomorphic curves in $W^\infty$ to define an algebra homomorphism from ${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\,
{{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]\big)}$ into a certain Novikov completion of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]$. Choose a basis of $1$–cycles $Z_1,\dotsc,Z_m$ for the image of $H_1(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})$ in $H_1(W;{{\mathbb{R}}})$, and for each of the basis cycles $C_i$ in $M$, choose a real $2$–chain $G_i$ in $W$ such that ${\partial}G_i = C_i - \sum_{j=1}^m d_j Z_j$ for some (unique) coefficients $d_j \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$. Then for any finite energy punctured $J$–holomorphic curve $u : \dot{\Sigma} \to W^\infty$ with positive cylindrical ends approaching Reeb orbits in $M$, these choices allow us again to define an absolute homology class $[u] \in
H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}})$ by adding the relative homology class to the appropriate sum of the spanning $2$–chains $F_\gamma$ and $G_i$.
For any Reeb orbit $\gamma$ in $M$ and $A \in H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega$, denote by $${{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma)$$ the moduli space of unparametrized finite energy $J$–holomorphic planes in $W^\infty$ in homology classes representing $A$, with a positive end approaching the orbit $\gamma$. We call such a plane **rigid** if its connected component of the moduli space has virtual dimension $0$. Since the natural homomorphism $[\omega] :\,
H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) \to {{\mathbb{R}}}$ descends to $H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega$, the holomorphic curves in ${{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma)$ satisfy a uniform energy bound depending on $A$ and $\gamma$, thus the compactness theory implies that ${{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma)$ contains finitely many rigid curves. These can again be counted algebraically (ignoring the non-rigid curves) to define a rational number $\# {{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma) \in {{\mathbb{Q}}}$. Now for any good Reeb orbit $\gamma$ in $M$, define the formal sum $$\label{eqn:cobordismMap}
\Phi_W(q_\gamma) = \sum_{A \in H_2(W) / \ker\omega}
\kappa_\gamma \cdot \#\left( {{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma) \right) e^A \;.$$ This sum is not generally finite unless $\omega$ is exact, but it does belong to the Novikov ring $\Lambda_\omega$, which we define to be the completion of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker \omega]$ obtained by including infinite formal sums $$\left\{ \sum_{i=1}^\infty c_i e^{A_i} \ \Big|\ c_i \in {{\mathbb{Q}}}\setminus\{0\},
\ A_i \in H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker \omega,
\ \langle [\omega] , A_i \rangle \to +\infty \right\} \;.$$ One can extend $\Phi_W$ uniquely as an algebra homomorphism $$\Phi_W :\, {{\operatorname{CC}_*}\big(M,\alpha ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]\big)} \to \Lambda_\omega \;,$$ which we claim descends to the homology ${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) /
\ker\omega]\big)}$. This follows by considering the boundary of the union of all $1$–dimensional connected components of ${{\mathcal{M}}}^A(\gamma)$: indeed, this boundary is precisely the set of all broken rigid curves, consisting of an upper level in ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times M$ that has a positive end approaching $\gamma$ and an arbitrary number of negative ends, which are capped off by a lower level formed by a disjoint union of planes in $W^\infty$. Counting these broken rigid curves yields the identity $$\Phi_W \circ {\partial}_W = 0 \;,$$ implying that $\Phi_W$ descends to an algebra homomorphism $$\Phi_W :\, {{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]\big)} \to \Lambda_\omega \;.$$ Theorem \[thm:SFT\] follows immediately, because we now have a sequence of algebra homomorphisms $${{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\Omega]\big)} \to
{{\operatorname{HC}_*}\big(M,\xi ;\, {{\mathbb{Q}}}[H_2(W;{{\mathbb{R}}}) / \ker\omega]\big)} \to \Lambda_\omega \;,$$ for which ${{\mathbf{1}}}\ne 0$ on the right hand side.
Toroidal symplectic $1$–handles {#sec:handles}
===============================
In this section we introduce a symplectic handle attachment technique that can be used to construct weak fillings of contact manifolds. To apply the method in general, we need the following ingredients:
- A weakly fillable contact manifold $(M,\xi)$, possibly disconnected,
- Two disjoint homologically nontrivial pre-Lagrangian tori $T_+,
T_- \subset (M,\xi)$ with characteristic foliations that are linear and rational,
- Choices of $1$–cycles $K_\pm \subset T_\pm$ that intersect each leaf once,
- A (possibly disconnected) weak filling $(W,\omega)$ of $(M,\xi)$ such that $\omega$ restricts to an area form on the tori $T_\pm$ and (with appropriate choices of orientations) $\int_{T_+} \omega =
\int_{T_-} \omega$.
Note that examples of this setup are easy to find: for instance if $(W_\pm,\omega_\pm)$ are a pair of *strong* fillings of contact manifolds $(M_\pm,\xi_\pm)$ which contain pre-Lagrangian tori $T_\pm
\subset M_\pm$ with $[T_\pm] \ne 0 \in H_2(W_\pm ; {{\mathbb{R}}})$, one may assume after a perturbation that the characteristic foliations on $T_\pm$ are rational. Furthermore one can deform the symplectic structures $\omega_\pm$ so that they vanish on $T_\pm$, and find closed $2$–forms $\sigma_\pm$ on $W_\pm$ such that $\sigma_\pm|_{T_\pm} > 0$ and $\int_{T_\pm} \sigma_\pm = 1$. Then for any ${\varepsilon}> 0$ sufficiently small, $$(W_+, \omega_+ + {\varepsilon}\, \sigma_+) \sqcup
(W_-, \omega_- + {\varepsilon}\, \sigma_-)$$ is a weak filling of $(M,\xi) := (M_+,\xi_+) \sqcup (M_-,\xi_-)$ with the desired properties. We will use a construction of this sort in the proof of Theorem \[thm:weakFillings\].
Given this data, we will show that a new symplectic manifold with weakly contact boundary can be produced by attaching to $W$ a *toroidal $1$–handle* $${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [0,1] \times [0,1]$$ along $T_+ \sqcup T_-$. The effect of this on the contact manifold can be described as a contact topological operation called *splicing*, which essentially cuts $(M,\xi)$ open along $T_+$ and $T_-$ and then reattaches it along a homeomorphism that swaps corresponding boundary components. The result of this operation depends on the isotopy class of the map used when identifying the boundary tori, but a choice can be specified uniquely by requiring that this map take the generators of $H_1(T_-, {{\mathbb{Z}}})$ represented by the cycle $K_-$ and a leaf of the characteristic foliation to the corresponding generators of $H_1(T_+,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$.
We shall describe this topological operation in [[§\[subsec:splicing\]]{}]{}, and prove a general result on toroidal symplectic handle attaching in [[§\[subsec:attaching\]]{}]{}, leading in [[§\[subsec:fillingsConstruction\]]{}]{} to the proof of Theorem \[thm:weakFillings\]. As an easy by-product of the setting we use for handle attaching, we will also see why fillability is preserved under Lutz twists along symplectic pre-Lagrangian tori.
Pre-Lagrangian tori, splicing and Lutz twists {#subsec:splicing}
---------------------------------------------
Assume $(M,\xi)$ is a contact $3$–manifold, let $T\subset M$ be an embedded and oriented pre-Lagrangian torus with rational linear characteristic foliation, and choose a $1$–cycle $K \subset T$ that intersects each characteristic leaf once. We can find a contactomorphism between a neighborhood of $T$ and the local model $$\bigl({{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times (-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}),\,
\ker (d{\vartheta}+ r \,d{\varphi})\bigr) \;,$$ where we use the coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta};r)$ on the thickened torus ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times (-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon})$, such that $T$ is identified with ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times \{0\}$ with its natural orientation, and the ${\vartheta}$–cycles are homologous to $K$ up to sign. This identification is uniquely defined up to isotopy. We shall refer to the coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta};r)$ chosen in this way as **standard coordinates** near $(T,K)$.
Now suppose $(T_+,K_+)$ and $(T_-,K_-)$ are two pairs as described above, with $T_+ \cap T_- = \emptyset$, and choose disjoint neighborhoods ${\mathcal{N}}(T_\pm)$ together with standard coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta};r)$. The coordinates divide each of the neighborhoods ${\mathcal{N}}(T_\pm)$ into two halves: $${\mathcal{N}}^+(T_\pm) := \bigl\{ r \in [0,{\varepsilon}) \bigr\} \subset {\mathcal{N}}(T_\pm)
\quad\text{ and }\quad
{\mathcal{N}}^-(T_\pm) := \bigl\{ r \in (-{\varepsilon},0] \bigr\} \subset {\mathcal{N}}(T_\pm)\;.$$ We can then construct a new contact manifold $(M',\xi')$ by the following steps (see Figure \[fig: splicing\]):
1. Cut $M$ open along $T_+$ and $T_-$, producing a manifold with four pre-Lagrangian torus boundary components ${\partial}{\mathcal{N}}^+(T_+)$, ${\partial}{\mathcal{N}}^-(T_+)$, ${\partial}{\mathcal{N}}^+(T_-)$ and ${\partial}{\mathcal{N}}^-(T_-)$.
2. Attach ${\mathcal{N}}^-(T_-)$ to ${\mathcal{N}}^+(T_+)$ and ${\mathcal{N}}^-(T_+)$ to ${\mathcal{N}}^+(T_-)$ so that the standard coordinates glue together smoothly.
The resulting contact manifold $(M',\xi')$ is uniquely defined up to contactomorphism, and it also contains a distinguished pair of pre-Lagrangian tori $T'_\pm$, namely $$T'_+ := {\mathcal{N}}^+(T_+) \cap {\mathcal{N}}^-(T_-) \subset M'
\quad\text{ and }\quad
T'_- := {\mathcal{N}}^-(T_+) \cap {\mathcal{N}}^+(T_-) \subset M' \;.$$
![Splicing along tori.[]{data-label="fig: splicing"}](splicing.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
\[defn:splicing\] We will say that $(M',\xi')$ constructed above is the contact manifold obtained from $(M,\xi)$ by **splicing** along $(T_+,K_+)$ and $(T_-,K_-)$.
\[ex:LutzTwist\] Consider the tight contact torus $({{\mathbb{T}}}^3,\xi_n)$ for $n \in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, where $$\xi_n = \ker\bigl[ \cos(2\pi n \rho)\, d{\vartheta}+ \sin(2\pi n \rho)\, d{\varphi}\bigr]$$ in coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta},\rho) \in {{\mathbb{T}}}^3$. Then $T_0 := \{ \rho
= 0 \}$ is a pre-Lagrangian torus, to which we assign the natural orientation induced by the coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta})$. If $(M,\xi)$ is another connected contact $3$–manifold with an oriented pre-Lagrangian torus $T \subset M$, then splicing $(M,\xi)
\sqcup ({{\mathbb{T}}}^3,\xi_n)$ along $T$ and $T_0$ produces a new connected contact manifold, namely the one obtained from $(M,\xi)$ by performing $n$ **Lutz twists** along $T$. If $T \subset M$ is compressible then the resulting contact manifold is overtwisted; by contrast, Lutz twists along incompressible tori can be used to construct tight contact manifolds with arbitrarily large Giroux torsion. Note that in this example the choice of the transverse cycles on $T$ and $T_0$ does not influence the resulting manifold.
\[remark:circle\_action\_and\_splicing\] Note that if $(M,\xi)$ is a contact $3$–manifold with an ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–action such that the oriented pre-Lagrangian tori $T_+,T_-
\subset M$ consist of Legendrian ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–orbits, then the splicing operation can be assumed compatible with the circle action, in the sense that the manifold $(M',\xi')$ obtained by splicing is then also an ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–manifold, with the tori $T_\pm'$ consisting of Legendrian orbits.
If sections $\sigma_\pm$ of the ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–action are given in a neighborhood of the tori $T_+,T_-$ in $(M,\xi)$, then we can obtain any desired intersection number $e_+$ between $\sigma_- \cap
{\mathcal{N}}^-(T_-)$ and $\sigma_+ \cap {\mathcal{N}}^+(T_+)$ in $T_+'$ by letting the cycle $K_-$ be the intersection $\sigma_- \cap T_-$, and choosing a cycle $K_+$ that has intersection number $e_+$ with $\sigma_+$. The intersection number $e_-$ between $\sigma_+ \cap
{\mathcal{N}}^-(T_+)$ and $\sigma_- \cap {\mathcal{N}}^+(T_-)$ in $T_-'$ will always be equal to $-e_+$.
Note in particular that we can arrange for the sections $\sigma_\pm$ to glue smoothly after splicing by choosing both cycles $K_\pm
\subset T_\pm$ to be the intersections $\sigma_\pm \cap T_\pm$.
Attaching handles {#subsec:attaching}
-----------------
Given $\delta > 0$, we will use the term **toroidal $1$–handle** to refer to the smooth manifold with boundary and corners, $${{H}}_\delta = {{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [-\delta,\delta] \times [-\delta,\delta] \;.$$ Let $({\varphi},{\vartheta};r,r')$ denote the natural coordinates on ${{H}}_\delta$, and label the smooth pieces of its boundary ${\partial}{{H}}_\delta = {\partial}^N {{H}}_\delta \cup {\partial}^S{{H}}_\delta \cup
{\partial}^W{{H}}_\delta \cup {\partial}^E{{H}}_\delta$ as follows: $${\partial}^N{{H}}_\delta = \{ r' = +\delta \}, \qquad
{\partial}^S{{H}}_\delta = \{ r' = -\delta \}, \qquad
{\partial}^W{{H}}_\delta = \{ r = -\delta \}, \text{ and }
{\partial}^E{{H}}_\delta = \{ r = +\delta \} \;.$$ Observe that if we assign the natural boundary orientations to each of these pieces, then the induced coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta};r)$ are negatively oriented on ${\partial}^N{{H}}_\delta$ but positively oriented on ${\partial}^S{{H}}_\delta$; similarly, the coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta};r')$ are negatively oriented on ${\partial}^W{{H}}_\delta$, and positively oriented on ${\partial}^E{{H}}_\delta$.
Suppose $(M,\xi)$ is a contact manifold, $W = (-{\varepsilon},0] \times M$ is a collar neighborhood with ${\partial}W = M$, and $T_+, T_- \subset M$ are oriented pre-Lagrangian tori with transverse $1$–cycles $K_\pm
\subset T_\pm$ and standard coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta};r)$ on a pair of disjoint neighborhoods $${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times (-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}) \cong {\mathcal{N}}(T_\pm) \subset M \;.$$ Choosing $\delta$ with $0 < \delta < {\varepsilon}$, we can **attach** ${{H}}_\delta$ to $W$ along $(T_+,K_+)$ and $(T_-,K_-)$ via the orientation reversing embeddings $$\begin{split}
\Phi :\,& {\partial}^N{{H}}_\delta \hookrightarrow {\mathcal{N}}(T_+), \,
({\varphi},{\vartheta};r,\delta)
\mapsto ({\varphi},{\vartheta};r) \\
\Phi :\,& {\partial}^S{{H}}_\delta \hookrightarrow {\mathcal{N}}(T_-), \,
({\varphi},{\vartheta};r,-\delta) \mapsto ({\varphi},{\vartheta};-r) \;.
\end{split}$$ Then if $W' = W \cup_\Phi {{H}}_\delta$, after smoothing the corners, the new boundary $M' = {\partial}W'$ is diffeomorphic to the manifold obtained from $M$ by splicing along ($T_+,K_+)$ and $(T_-,K_-)$, where the distinguished tori $T_\pm' \subset M'$ are naturally identified with $$T_\pm' = {{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times \bigl\{(\pm \delta,0)\bigr\} \subset
{\partial}^W {{H}}_\delta \cup {\partial}^E {{H}}_\delta \subset M' \;.$$ The main result of this section is that such an operation can also be defined in the symplectic and contact categories.
\[thm:handles\] Suppose $(W,\omega)$ is a symplectic manifold with weakly contact boundary $(M,\xi)$, and $T_+, T_- \subset M$ are disjoint, oriented pre-Lagrangian tori with rational linear characteristic foliations and transverse $1$–cycles $K_\pm \subset T_\pm$, such that $T_\pm$ are also symplectic with respect to $\omega$, with $$\int_{T_+} \omega = \int_{T_-} \omega > 0\;.$$ Then after a symplectic deformation of $\omega$ near $T_+ \cup T_-$, $\omega$ extends to a symplectic form $\omega'$ on the manifold $$W' = W \cup {{H}}_\delta$$ obtained by attaching a toroidal $1$–handle ${{H}}_\delta$ to $W$ along $(T_+,K_+)$ and $(T_-,K_-)$, so that $(W',\omega')$ then has weakly contact boundary $(M',\xi')$, where the latter is obtained from $(M,\xi)$ by splicing along $(T_+,K_+)$ and $(T_-,K_-)$.
As we saw in Example \[ex:LutzTwist\], Lutz twists along a pre-Lagrangian torus $T \subset (M,\xi)$ can always be realized by splicing $(M,\xi)$ together with a tight contact $3$–torus, and due to the construction of Giroux [@Giroux_plusOuMoins], the latter admits weak fillings for which the pre-Lagrangian tori $\{ \rho =
\text{const} \}$ are symplectic. Thus whenever $(M,\xi)$ has weak filling $(W,\omega)$ and $T \subset M = {\partial}W$ is a torus that is both pre-Lagrangian in $(M,\xi)$ and symplectic in $(W,\omega)$, the above theorem can be used to construct weak fillings of every contact manifold obtained by performing finitely many Lutz twists along $T$. We will see however that the setup needed to prove the theorem yields a much more concrete construction of such a filling:
\[thm:LutzTwists\] Suppose $(W,\omega)$ is a symplectic manifold with weakly contact boundary $(M,\xi)$, and $T \subset M$ is a pre-Lagrangian torus which is also symplectic with respect to $\omega$. Then for any $n
\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, $(W,\omega)$ can be deformed symplectically so that it is also positive on $\xi_n$, where the latter is obtained from $\xi$ by performing $n$ Lutz twists along $T$.
To prove both of these results, we begin by constructing a suitable symplectic deformation of a weak filling near any symplectic pre-Lagrangian torus. The local setup is as follows: let $$M = {{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [-5{\varepsilon},5{\varepsilon}]$$ with coordinates $({\varphi},{\vartheta};r)$ and contact structure $\xi =
\ker\lambda$, where $$\lambda = d{\vartheta}+ r\, d{\varphi}\;.$$ Define also $$W = (-{\varepsilon},0] \times M$$ with coordinates $(t;{\varphi},{\vartheta};r)$, and identifying $M$ with ${\partial}W =
\{0\} \times M$, assume $\Omega$ is a closed $2$–form on $M$ such that ${{\left.{\Omega}\right|_{\xi}}} > 0$, and $$\omega = d(t\, \lambda) + \Omega$$ is a symplectic form on $W$. Lemma \[normalform for weak collars\] guarantees that $\omega$ can always be put in this form without loss of generality. Moreover, assume $\Omega$ is positive on the torus $$T := {{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times \{0\} \subset M \;.$$ By shrinking ${\varepsilon}$ if necessary, we can then assume without loss of generality that $\omega$ is positive on each of the tori $\{t\}
\times {{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times \{r\}$ for $t \in (-{\varepsilon},0]$ and $r \in
[-5{\varepsilon},5{\varepsilon}]$. Define the constant $$\label{eqn:area}
A = \int_T \omega > 0 \;.$$
Let us now define a family of $1$–forms on $M$, $$\lambda_\sigma = d{\vartheta}+ g_\sigma(r)\, d{\varphi}$$ for $\sigma \in [0,1]$, where $g_\sigma :\, [-5{\varepsilon},5{\varepsilon}]\to
{{\mathbb{R}}}$ is a smooth $1$–parameter family of odd functions such that:
1. $g_\sigma(r) = r$, and $g_\sigma(0) = 0$ for all $\sigma \in
[0,1]$ when ${{\left\lvert r\right\rvert}} \ge 4{\varepsilon}$,
2. $g_\sigma' > 0$ for all $\sigma \in (0,1]$,
3. $g_1(r) = r$ for all $r$,
4. $g_0(r) = 0$ for all ${{\left\lvert r\right\rvert}} \le 3{\varepsilon}$.
Then $\lambda_1 = \lambda$, $\lambda_\sigma$ is a contact form for all $\sigma \in (0,1]$ and $\lambda_0$ defines a confoliation, which is integrable in the region $\bigl\{ {{\left\lvert r\right\rvert}} \le 3{\varepsilon}\bigr\}$. Let $\xi_\sigma = \ker\lambda_\sigma$. By shrinking ${\varepsilon}$ again if necessary, we can assume without loss of generality that each $\xi_\sigma$ is sufficiently $C^0$–close to $\xi$ so that $${{\left.{\Omega}\right|_{\xi_\sigma}}} > 0$$ for all $\sigma \in [0,1]$.
Next, choose a smooth cutoff function $$\beta :\, [-5{\varepsilon},5{\varepsilon}] \to [0,1]$$ that has support in $[-3{\varepsilon},3{\varepsilon}]$ and is identically $1$ on $[-2{\varepsilon},2{\varepsilon}]$. We use this to define a smooth $2$–parameter family of $1$–forms for $(\sigma,\tau) \in [0,1]
\times [0,1]$, $$\label{eqn:2parameter}
\lambda_\sigma^\tau = (1 - \tau) \beta(r) \, dr +
\bigl[ 1 - (1 - \tau) \beta(r) \bigr]\, \lambda_\sigma,$$ and distributions $\xi_\sigma^\tau = \ker \lambda_\sigma^\tau$. The following lemma implies that $\xi_\sigma^\tau$ is a contact structure whenever both $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are positive.
\[lemma:contactForms\] Suppose $f(r)$ and $g(r)$ are any two smooth real valued functions on $[-5{\varepsilon},5{\varepsilon}]$ such that the $1$–form $$\alpha = f(r)\, d{\vartheta}+ g(r)\, d{\varphi}$$ on ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [-5{\varepsilon},5{\varepsilon}]$ is contact. Then for any $t
\in [0,1)$, the $1$–form $$\alpha_t := t \beta(r) \, dr + \bigl[ 1 - t \beta(r) \bigr]\, \alpha$$ is also contact.
Noting that $dr \wedge d\alpha = 0$, we compute $$\begin{split}
\alpha_t \wedge d\alpha_t &= \bigl[ t\beta\, dr + (1 - t\beta)\,
\alpha \bigr]
\wedge \bigl[ (1 - t\beta) \, d\alpha - t \beta' \, dr \wedge \alpha \bigr]\\
&= (1 - t\beta)^2 \, \alpha \wedge d\alpha \ne 0 \; . \qedhere
\end{split}$$
By Gray’s stability theorem, each of the contact structures $\xi_\sigma^\tau$ for $\sigma,\tau > 0$ are related to $\xi = \xi_1^1$ by isotopies with support in ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [-4{\varepsilon}, 4{\varepsilon}]$. Thus after a compactly supported isotopy, we can view $\xi$ as a small perturbation of the confoliation $\bar{\xi} := \xi_0^0 =
\ker\bar{\lambda}$, where we define $$\bar{\lambda} = \lambda_0^0 = \beta(r)\, dr + \bigl[ 1 - \beta(r) \bigr]\,
\left( d{\vartheta}+ g_0(r)\, d{\varphi}\right) \;.$$ This $1$–form is identical to $\lambda$ in $\bigl\{ {{\left\lvert r\right\rvert}} \ge
4{\varepsilon}\bigr\}$, but defines a foliation in $\bigl\{ {{\left\lvert r\right\rvert}} \le
3{\varepsilon}\bigr\}$ and takes the especially simple form $$\bar{\lambda} = dr
\quad \text{in ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [-2{\varepsilon},2{\varepsilon}]$} \;.$$ The main technical ingredient we need is then the following deformation result.
\[prop:localModel\] Given the local model of a symplectic pre-Lagrangian torus $T
\subset M = {\partial}W$ described above, for any sufficiently large constant $C > 0$ there exists a symplectic form $\bar{\omega}$ on $W$ with the following properties:
1. $\bar{\omega} = \omega$ outside some compact neighborhood of $T$ in $W$,
2. ${{\left.{\bar{\omega}}\right|_{\bar{\xi}}}} > 0$,
3. $\bar{\omega} = A\, d{\varphi}\wedge d{\vartheta}+ C\, dt \wedge dr$ on some neighborhood of $T$.
Note that $\Omega$ restricts on each of the $2$–plane fields $\xi_\sigma^\tau = \ker \lambda_\sigma^\tau$ to a positive form. This is clear, because $\lambda_\sigma^\tau$ as defined in is pointwise a convex combination of $dr$ and $\lambda_\sigma$, where $\lambda_\sigma \wedge \Omega$ and $dr
\wedge \Omega$ are both positive, the latter due to the assumption that the tori ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times \{r\}$ are all symplectic, the former because ${\varepsilon}$ was chosen small enough to guarantee that ${{\left.{\Omega}\right|_{\xi_\sigma}}} > 0$. We therefore find a smooth homotopy from $\xi$ to $\bar{\xi}$, supported in a neighborhood of $T$, through confoliations on which $\Omega$ is always positive.
Next, let us replace $\Omega$ by a cohomologous closed $2$–form that takes a much simpler form near $T$. Indeed, since $\int_T
\Omega = A = \int_T A\, d{\varphi}\wedge d{\vartheta}$ and $T$ generates $H_2(M)$, there exists a $1$–form $\eta$ on $M$ such that $$A\, d{\varphi}\wedge d{\vartheta}= \Omega + d\eta \;.$$ Choose a smooth cutoff function $F : [-5{\varepsilon},5{\varepsilon}] \to
[0,1]$ that has compact support in $[-2{\varepsilon},2{\varepsilon}]$ and equals $1$ on $[-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}]$, and define the closed $2$–form $$\bar{\Omega} = \Omega + d( F(r)\, \eta)\;,$$ which equals $\Omega$ outside of $\bigl\{ {{\left\lvert r\right\rvert}} \le 2{\varepsilon}\bigr\}$ and $A\, d{\varphi}\wedge d{\vartheta}$ in $\bigl\{ {{\left\lvert r\right\rvert}} \le
{\varepsilon}\bigr\}$. We claim $${{\left.{\bar{\Omega}}\right|_{\bar{\xi}}}} > 0 \;.$$ Indeed, outside of the region $\bigl\{ {{\left\lvert r\right\rvert}} \le 2{\varepsilon}\bigr\}$ this statement is nothing new, and otherwise $\bar{\lambda}
= dr$, so we compute $$\bar{\lambda} \wedge \bar{\Omega} = dr \wedge \bigl[ (1 - F(r)) \, \Omega
+ A F(r) \, d{\varphi}\wedge d{\vartheta}\bigr] > 0\;.$$
The result now follows by applying Lemmas \[lemma:interpolation2\] and \[lemma:interpolation\], in that order. This deforms $\omega$ near $T$ to a symplectic structure of the form $$\bar{\omega} = d(\varphi\, \bar{\lambda}) + \bar{\Omega} \;,$$ where $\varphi(t;{\varphi},{\vartheta};r)$ depends only on $t$ near $T$ and satisfies ${\partial}_t\varphi > 0$, so plugging in the local formulas $\bar{\lambda} = dr$ and $\bar{\Omega} = A\, d{\varphi}\wedge d{\vartheta}$, the above becomes $$\bar{\omega} = {\partial}_t\varphi\, dt \wedge dr + A\, d{\varphi}\wedge d{\vartheta}\;.$$ One can also easily arrange for ${\partial}_t\varphi$ to be constant near $T$ so long as it is sufficiently large, and the result is thus proved.
The following argument generalizes the construction of weak fillings on tight $3$–tori described by Giroux [@Giroux_plusOuMoins]. Consider the confoliation $\bar{\xi}$ and deformed symplectic structure $\bar{\omega}$ constructed in Proposition \[prop:localModel\]. Then $\bar{\omega}$ is also positive on any contact structure $\xi'$ that is sufficiently $C^0$–close to $\bar{\xi}$ as a distribution. It suffices therefore to find, for any $n \in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, a contact structure $\xi_n$ that is $C^0$–close to $\bar{\xi}$ and isotopic to the one obtained by performing $n$ Lutz twists on $\xi$ along $T$. This is easy: for $\sigma \in [0,1]$, define a smooth family of confoliation $1$–forms $\alpha_\sigma$ which match $\lambda_\sigma$ outside the coordinate neighborhood ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}]$, and in ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}]$ are contact and take the form $$F_\sigma(r)\, d{\vartheta}+ G_\sigma(r)\, d{\varphi}\;,$$ such that the curve $r \mapsto (F_0(r),G_0(r)) \in {{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ winds $n$ times counterclockwise about the origin for $r \in
[-{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}]$. Then $\alpha_\sigma$ is contact for every $\sigma \in (0,1]$ and defines a contact structure isotopic to the one we are interested in. It follows now from Lemma \[lemma:contactForms\] that for all $\sigma \in (0,1]$ and $\tau \in (0,1]$, $$\alpha_\sigma^\tau := (1 - \tau) \beta(r) \, dr +
\left[ 1 - (1 - \tau) \beta(r) \right] \alpha_\sigma$$ is a contact form, but as $\sigma \to 0$ and $\tau \to 0$ it converges to $\bar{\lambda}$.
We assume $(W,\omega)$ is a symplectic manifold with weakly contact boundary $(M,\xi)$, and $T_+ , T_- \subset M \subset W$ are oriented tori which are pre-Lagrangian in $(M,\xi)$ and symplectic in $(W,\omega)$, such that $$\int_{T_-} \omega = \int_{T_+} \omega = A > 0 \;.$$ Then for a sufficiently large constant $C > 0$, we can use Proposition \[prop:localModel\] to deform $\omega$ near $T_+$ and $T_-$ to a new symplectic structure $\bar{\omega}$, which takes the form $$\bar{\omega} = C\, dt \wedge dr + A\, d{\varphi}\wedge d{\vartheta}$$ in local coordinates near $T_+$ and $T_-$, and satisfies ${{\left.{\bar{\omega}}\right|_{\bar{\xi}}}} > 0$. Here $\bar{\xi}$ is a confoliation with the following properties:
- $\bar{\xi} = \xi$ outside a small coordinate neighborhood $N
\subset M$ of $T_+ \cup T_-$,
- $\bar{\xi}$ admits a $C^0$–small perturbation to a contact structure, which is isotopic to $\xi$ by an isotopy supported in $N$,
- $\bar{\xi} = \ker dr$ on an even smaller coordinate neighborhood of $T_+ \cup T_-$.
Choose $\delta > 0$ sufficiently small so that the coordinate neighborhoods ${{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [-\delta,\delta]$ of $T_-$ and $T_+$ are contained in the region where $\bar{\xi} = \ker dr$ and $\bar{\omega} = C\, dt \wedge dr + A\, d{\varphi}\wedge d{\vartheta}$. Then we define the following smooth model of a toroidal $1$–handle (see Figure \[fig: sketch of level sets\]): $${{H}}_\delta = \Bigl\{ ({\varphi},{\vartheta}; r,r') \in {{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times [-\delta,\delta]
\times [-\delta,\delta] \, \Bigm|\ {{\left\lvert r\right\rvert}} \le h(r') \Bigr\} \;,$$ where $h :\, [-\delta,\delta] \to (0,\delta]$ is a continuous, even and convex function that is smooth on $(-\delta,\delta)$ and has its derivative blowing up at $r' = \pm\delta$, such that its graph merges smoothly into the lines $r' = \pm\delta$. Denote the smooth pieces of ${\partial}{{H}}_\delta$ by $${\partial}^N {{H}}_\delta = \{ r' = +\delta \}, \, {\partial}^S {{H}}_\delta = \{ r' = -\delta \},\,
{\partial}^W{{H}}_\delta = \{ r = - h(r') \}, \, \text{ and }\, {\partial}^E{{H}}_\delta = \{ r = + h(r') \} \;.$$ This model can be attached smoothly to $W$ as in Figure \[fig: sketch of level sets\], so that $$W' := W \cup {{H}}_\delta$$ has smooth boundary $M' := {\partial}W'$. The symplectic structure $\bar{\omega}$ then extends to $W'$ by defining $$\bar{\omega} = C\, dr' \wedge dr + A\, d{\varphi}\wedge d{\vartheta}$$ on ${{H}}_\delta$, which restricts positively to the smooth confoliation $\bar{\xi}'$ on $M'$ defined by $$\bar{\xi}' = \begin{cases}
\bar{\xi} & \text{ on $M \setminus ({\partial}^N {{H}}_\delta \cup {\partial}^S {{H}}_\delta)$,}\\
T({{\mathbb{T}}}^2 \times \{*\}) & \text{ on ${\partial}^W{{H}}_\delta \cup {\partial}^E {{H}}_\delta$.}
\end{cases}$$ The latter admits a $C^0$–small perturbation to a contact form which is isotopic to the one obtained by splicing $(M,\xi)$ along $T_+$ and $T_-$.
[r]{}[0.4]{}
Proof of Theorem \[thm:weakFillings\] {#subsec:fillingsConstruction}
-------------------------------------
Assume $\Sigma = \Sigma_+ \cup_\Gamma \Sigma_-$ is a closed oriented surface that is the union of two surfaces with boundary along a multicurve $\Gamma \subset \Sigma$ whose connected components are all nonseparating, and let $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e}, \xi_{\Gamma,e}\bigr)$ denote the ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–principal bundle $P_{\Sigma,e}$ over $\Sigma$ with Euler number $e$ together with the ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant contact structure $\xi_{\Gamma,e}$ that is everywhere transverse to the ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–fibers with exception of the tori that lie over the multicurve $\Gamma$. Under these assumptions, we will use the handle attaching technique described in [[§\[subsec:attaching\]]{}]{} to construct a weak filling of $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e},
\xi_{\Gamma,e}\bigr)$. The idea is to obtain $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e},
\xi_{\Gamma,e}\bigr)$ by a sequence of splicing operations from a simpler disconnected contact manifold for which a (disconnected) strong filling is easy to construct by hand. For this strong filling, the components of $\Gamma$ give rise to pre-Lagrangian tori, and the significance of the nonseparating assumption will be that it allows us to perturb the strong filling to a weak one for which these tori become symplectic, and are thus suitable for handle attaching.
The building blocks are obtained in the following way. Let $S$ be a connected, oriented compact surface with non-empty boundary. The *symmetric double* of $S$ is the closed surface $$S^D := S \cup_{{\partial}S} \overline{S} \;,$$ where $\overline{S}$ is a second copy of $S$ taken with reversed orientation, and the two are glued along their boundaries via the identity map. The multicurve $\Gamma_S := {\partial}S \subset S^D$ determines an ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant contact manifold $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times S^D,
\xi_{\Gamma_S})$ in the standard way.
The contact manifold $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times S^D, \xi_{\Gamma_S})$ obtained from a symmetric double has a strong symplectic filling homeomorphic to $[0,1] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times S$.
Regard $S$ together with a positive volume form $\Omega_S$ as a symplectic manifold. Choose a plurisubharmonic Morse function $f:\,
S\to [0,C]$ whose critical values all lie in the interval $[0,{\varepsilon}]$ with ${\varepsilon}< C$, such that $f^{-1}(C) = {\partial}S$. Take now the annulus ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ with symplectic form $dx\wedge
d{\varphi}$, and with plurisubharmonic function $g(x,{\varphi}) = x^2$. The product manifold $$\bigl(({{\mathbb{R}}}\times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1) \times S, \Omega + dx\wedge d{\varphi}\bigr)$$ is a symplectic manifold with a plurisubharmonic function given by $F := f + x^2$. The critical values of this function all lie in $[0,{\varepsilon}]$, so that $N := F^{-1}(C)$ will be a smooth compact hypersurface. In fact, it is easy to see that $N$ is diffeomorphic to ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times S^D$. The standard circle action on the annulus ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$ splits off naturally, so that $N$ is the product of a circle with a closed surface.
We can explicitly give two embeddings of the $3$–manifold ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1\times S$ into $F^{-1}(C) \subset ({{\mathbb{R}}}\times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1) \times S$ as the graphs of the two maps ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times S \to ({{\mathbb{R}}}\times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1)
\times S, \, ({\varphi}, p) \mapsto \bigl(\pm\sqrt{C - f(p)},{\varphi},
p\bigr)$ distinguished by the different signs in front of the square root. The boundary of ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1\times S$ is mapped by both maps to the set $\{0\}\times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times {\partial}S$ so that the two copies are glued along their boundary.
The contact form is defined as $\alpha := - {{\left.{d^cF}\right|_{TN}}} =
- {{\left.{dF\circ J}\right|_{TN}}}$. It is ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1$–invariant (for the standard complex structure on ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1$), and the vector ${\partial}_{\varphi}$ is parallel to $N$, and never lies in the kernel of $\alpha$ with the exception of the points where $d(x^2)$ vanishes, which happens to be exactly along the boundary of $S$. By [@Lutz_CircleActions], this proves that the hypersurface $N$ is contactomorphic to $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times S^D, \xi_{\Gamma_S})$.
Now denote by $$\Sigma_1,\dotsc,\Sigma_N$$ the closures of the connected components of $\Sigma \setminus \Gamma$, whose boundaries $\Gamma_j := {\partial}\Sigma_j$ are all disconnected due to the assumption that components of $\Gamma$ are nonseparating. Then for each $j=1,\dotsc,N$, construct the doubled manifold $\Sigma_j^D$, and define the disconnected contact manifold $$(M_0,\xi_0) = \bigsqcup_{j=1}^N ({{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \Sigma_j^D,
\xi_{\Gamma_j}) \;,$$ which by the proposition above can be strongly filled. Let $(W_j,\omega_j)$ denote the resulting strong filling of ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times
\Sigma_j^D$. For each connected component $\gamma \subset \Gamma_j$, which is also a component of $\Gamma$, the torus ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \gamma
\subset {\partial}W_j$ is a Lagrangian submanifold in $(W_j,\omega_j)$.
There exists a cohomology class $[\beta] \in
H^2_{{\operatorname{dR}}}\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e}\bigr)$ such that $\int_T \beta \ne 0$ for every torus $T$ that lies over a connected component $\gamma \subset
\Gamma$.
By Poincaré duality, it suffices to find a homology class $A \in
H_1\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e}; {{\mathbb{R}}}\bigr)$ whose intersection number $A
\bullet [T_\gamma] \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$ is nonzero for every torus $T_\gamma$ lying over a connected component $\gamma \subset \Gamma$. For each component $\gamma\in \Gamma$, pick an oriented loop $C_\gamma$ in $P_{\Sigma,e}$ with $[C_\gamma] \bullet [T_\gamma] = 1$; this necessarily exists since $\gamma$ and hence also $T_\gamma$ is nonseparating. Then we construct $A$ by the following algorithm: starting with any connected component $\gamma_1 \subset \Gamma$, let $A_1 = [C_{\gamma_1}]$. Then $A_1 \bullet [T_\gamma] \ne 0$ for some subcollection of the components $\gamma \subset \Gamma$, including $\gamma_1$. If there remains a component $\gamma_2
\subset \Gamma$ such that $A_1 \bullet [T_{\gamma_2}] = 0$, then we set $$A_2 = A_1 + d_2\, [C_{\gamma_2}] \;,$$ where $d_2 > 0$ is chosen sufficiently small so that for every component $\gamma \subset \Gamma$ with $A_1 \bullet [T_\gamma]$ nonzero, $A_2 \bullet [T_\gamma]$ is also nonzero. The result is that $A_2 \bullet [T_\gamma]$ is nonzero for a strictly larger set of components than $A_1 \bullet [T_\gamma]$. Thus after repeating this process finitely many times, we eventually find $A \in
H_1\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e}; {{\mathbb{R}}}\bigr)$ with all intersection numbers $A
\bullet [T_\gamma]$ nonzero.
Using the cohomology class $[\beta]$ given by the lemma, orient every torus $T_\gamma \subset P_{\Sigma,e}$ that projects onto a connected component $\gamma \subset \Gamma$ in such a way that $\int_{T_\gamma}
\beta > 0$. We find a closed $2$–form $\sigma$ representing $[\beta]$ that is positive on each of the oriented pre-Lagrangian tori $T_\gamma$. Since every component $\Sigma_j$ has non-empty boundary, it follows that the restriction ${{\left.{P_{\Sigma,e}}\right|_{\Sigma_j}}}$ is trivial so that we can identify it with $${{\left.{P_{\Sigma,e}}\right|_{\Sigma_j}}} \cong {{\mathbb{S}}}^1\times \Sigma_j \;,$$ and we can then pull-back $\sigma$ to each component ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times
\Sigma_j$ to obtain a collection of $2$–forms $\sigma_j$ on the fillings $W_j \cong [0,1] \times {{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \Sigma_j$, all of which are positive on the tori ${{\mathbb{S}}}^1 \times \gamma \subset W_j$. The same is then true for the $2$–forms $\omega_j + {\varepsilon}\,\sigma_j$, with ${\varepsilon}> 0$ chosen sufficiently small so that $$(W_0,\omega_0) := \bigsqcup_{j=1}^N (W_j , \omega_j + {\varepsilon}\, \sigma_j)$$ is a weak filling of $(M_0,\xi_0)$.
Observe now that each torus $T_\gamma$ for a connected component $\gamma \subset \Gamma$ corresponds to *two* pre-Lagrangian tori in $(M_0,\xi_0)$, which are symplectic in $(W_0,\omega_0)$ and have matching integrals of $\omega_0$ by construction. This allows us to attach toroidal $1$–handles to $(W_0,\omega_0)$ along corresponding pairs of tori via Theorem \[thm:handles\], which by Remark \[remark:circle\_action\_and\_splicing\] can be done in a way that is compatible with circle actions. To prescribe the isotopy class of the gluing maps, choose for all except one of the tori $T_\gamma \subset M_0$ the curves $\{*\}\times {\partial}\Sigma_j$ as the transverse cycle. This way the splicing will glue the sections $\{*\}
\times \Sigma_j$ together smoothly along each of the pre-Lagrangian tori. If the transverse cycle is also chosen to be of the form $\{*\}\times {\partial}\Sigma_j$ on the last torus, then the section will in fact glue to a global section, and the resulting manifold will be a weak filling of two disjoint copies of the contact manifold $({{\mathbb{S}}}^1
\times \Sigma, \xi_\Gamma)$. If we instead choose a different transverse cycle on the last torus, we obtain a connected symplectic manifold with weak contact boundary consisting of the disjoint union of the circle bundles $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e}, \xi_{\Gamma,e}\bigr)$ and $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,-e}, \xi_{\Gamma,-e}\bigr)$ with the corresponding contact structures. We claim that the Euler number $e$ is given by the intersection number of the two sections touching the last pre-Lagrangian torus $T_0$, which is equal to the intersection number of the chosen transverse cycle with the curve $\{*\}\times {\partial}\Sigma_j$ . The Euler number is obtained by chosing a section over a disk $D$, a section over the complement of this disk, and computing the intersection number of both sections in the torus that lies over the boundary ${\partial}D$. Our construction yields so far a section of the spliced manifold defined everywhere except at the last pre-Lagrangian torus $T_0$. We can push both parts of the section a bit away from $T_0$, and connect them with a strip crossing this torus. The new section obtained this way is defined over the whole surface $\Sigma$ with the exception of a disk $D$, and it is easy to see that the intersection number between the section we have just constructed, and a section over $D$ is equal to the intersection number of the two initial sections in the pre-Lagrangian torus $T_0$.
Finally, capping the weak contact boundary $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,-e},
\xi_{\Gamma,-e}\bigr)$ using [@Eliashberg_capping; @Etnyre_capping], we obtain a weak filling of $\bigl(P_{\Sigma,e},
\xi_{\Gamma,e}\bigr)$, thus the proof of Theorem \[thm:weakFillings\] is complete.
[^1]: Examples are as yet only known in dimension three, with the exception of *algebraic overtwistedness*, see [@PSOvertwistedIsAlgebraicallyOvertwisted] and [@ContactHomologyLeftHanded].
[^2]: In the standard presentation of contact homology, one usually requires the subspace ${\mathcal{R}}\subset
H_2(M;{{\mathbb{R}}})$ to lie in the kernel of $c_1(\xi)$, however this is only needed if one wants to lift the canonical ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$–grading to a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$–grading, which is unnecessary for our purposes.
[^3]: While the fundamental concepts of Symplectic Field Theory are now a decade old, its analytical foundations remain work in progress (cf. [@Hofer_polyfoldSurvey]), and it has meanwhile become customary to gloss over this fact while using the conceptual framework of SFT to state and “prove” theorems. We do not entirely mean to endorse this custom, but at the same time we have followed it in the discussion surrounding Theorem \[thm:SFT\], which really should be regarded as a *conjecture* for which we will provide the essential elements of the proof, with the expectation that it will become fully rigorous as soon as the definition of the theory is complete.
[^4]: Since various conflicting conventions appear throughout the literature, we should emphasize that our moduli spaces are defined with *ordered* punctures and *no asymptotic markers*. The combinatorial factors in and are written with this in mind.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We explore whether an ultrasoft fermionic mode exists at extremely high temperature in Yukawa theory with massless fermion (coupling constant is ${g}$). We find that the fermion propagator has a pole at $\omega = \pm |{{\mathbf{p}}}|/3-i\zeta$ for ultrasoft momentum ${{\mathbf{p}}}$, where $\zeta \sim {g}^4T \ln {g}^{-1}$, and the residue is $Z\sim {g}^2$. It is shown that one needs to take into account the asymptotic masses and the damping rate of hard particles to get a sensible result for such an ultrasoft fermionic mode; possible vertex correction turns out unnecessary for the scalar coupling in contrast to the gauge coupling.'
address:
- 'Mathematical Physics Laboratory, RIKEN Nishina Center, Saitama 351-0198, Japan'
- 'Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa Oiwakecho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan'
author:
- Yoshimasa Hidaka
- Daisuke Satow
- Teiji Kunihiro
title: Ultrasoft Fermionic Mode in Yukawa Theory at High Temperature
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
It is of basic importance to clarify the nature of quasiparticle or collective excitations for understanding a many-body system, in particular, in the low-energy regime. In a fermion-boson system such as quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum chromodynamics (QCD), and Yukawa theory at so high temperature $T$ that the masses of the particles are negligible, the average inter-particle distance is proportional to $1/T$ and some collective effects can be expected in the soft momentum scale $1/{g}T$ with ${g}$ being the coupling constant. Indeed, soft bosonic modes in the longitudinal as well as the transverse channels exist and are known as plasmon [@plasmon], while the fermionic counter part is known as plasmino [@HTL; @plasmino], both of which have masses of order ${g}T$. In the lower energy region, there exist hydrodynamic modes of bosonic nature, which are actually the zero modes associated with the conservation of energy-momentum and charges. The energy hierarchy of bosonic and fermionic modes at high temperature may be summarized schematically as shown in Fig. \[fig:collective\]. From the figure, one may have an intriguing but natural question whether such ultrasoft ($\lesssim {g}^2T$) or zero modes can exist also in the fermion sector, possibly when the fermion system has a peculiar symmetry such as a chiral symmetry.
In this article, we argue and demonstrate that such a fermion mode can exist in this infrared energy region. Here we should mention that there have been some suggestive works for supporting the existence of such an ultrasoft fermionic mode at finite temperature. It was shown in a one-loop calculation [@3peak; @mitsutani] that when a fermion is coupled with a massive boson with mass $m$, the spectral function of the fermion gets to have a novel peak in the far-low-energy region in addition to the normal fermion and the plasmino, when $T\sim m$, irrespective of the type of boson; it means that the spectral function of the fermion has a three-peak structure in this temperature region. Very recently, the present authors [@shk] have suggested that such a three-peak structure may persist even at the high temperature limit in the sense $m/T\rightarrow 0$, for the massive vector boson on the basis of a gauge-invariant formalism, again, at the one-loop order. Thus, one may expect that the novel excitation may exist in the far-infrared region also for a fermion coupled with a massless boson, although the one-loop analysis admittedly may not be applicable at the ultrasoft momentum region.
In supersymmetric models, the ultrasoft modes are discussed as Nambu-Goldstone fermions called phonino associated with spontaneously breaking of supersymmetry at finite temperature, which is shown by using Ward-Takahashi identity and a diagrammatic technique [@phonino; @lebedev1]. The discussion is extended to QCD at weak coupling [@lebedev2], in which a supersymmetry is assigned at the vanishing coupling. The supersymmetry is explicitly broken by interactions; thus the phonino is not the exact zero mode but a pseudo-phonino.
In this article, we analyze the fermion propagator in the ultrasoft energy region in Yukawa theory, which is a nonsupersymmetric model, because it is the simplest fermion-boson system and hence a good theoretical laboratory. We discuss the existence and the properties of the fermionic mode in the ultrasoft region using a similar diagrammatic technique in Refs. [@lebedev1; @lebedev2; @hidaka]. We deal with a massless fermion. In this case, the important point is that the fermion is chiral; the real part of the retarded fermion self-energy, $\Sigma^R(\omega,{{\mathbf{0}}})$, at zero spatial momentum and the vanishing chemical potential, is an odd function of $\omega$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Re}\,}\Sigma^R(-\omega,{{\mathbf{0}}})=-{\mathrm{Re}\,}\Sigma^R(\omega,{{\mathbf{0}}}).\end{aligned}$$ If the ${\mathrm{Re}\,}\Sigma^R(\omega,{{\mathbf{0}}})$ is a smooth function at $\omega=0$, then, ${\mathrm{Re}\,}\Sigma^R(-\omega,{{\mathbf{0}}})=0$ at $\omega=0$, which implies ${\mathrm{Re}\,}G^{-1}(\omega,{{\mathbf{0}}})=0$ at $\omega=0$; the spectrum has a peak at the origin provided that the imaginary part of the fermion self-energy is not too large. This argument suggests that the existence of the ultrasoft pole may be a universal phenomenon at high temperature in the theory composed of massless fermions coupled with a boson, which includes not only Yukawa theory but also QED and QCD.
It is, however, not a simple task to establish that fermionic modes exist in the ultrasoft region on a general ground beyond the one-loop order because of the infrared divergence called pinch singularity [@lebedev2; @hidaka; @transport; @ultrasoft-am] that breaks a naive perturbation theory, as will be briefly reviewed in the next section. We remark that the same difficulty arises in the calculation of transport coefficients [@hidaka; @transport] and the gluon self-energy [@ultrasoft-am].
We shall show that the retarded fermion propagator has a pole at $\omega = \pm |{{\mathbf{p}}}|/3-i\zeta$ ($\zeta\sim {g}^4T\ln {g}^{-1}$ is introduced later) with the residue $Z\sim {g}^2$ for ultrasoft momentum ${{\mathbf{p}}}$.
![Schematic illustration of the energy hierarchy of bosonic and fermionic modes in a massless fermion-boson system at finite temperature: The vertical axis is the energy scale. The left and right part display the cases of bosonic and fermionic mode, respectively. The bosonic modes may be of scalar-, gauge-bosonic and hydrodynamic ones. No established fermionic mode had been known in the ultrasoft region. []{data-label="fig:collective"}](schematic-intro-english-ultrasoft.eps){width="40.00000%"}
![Diagrammatic representation of the fermion self-energy in Eq. (\[eq:one-loop-bare\]) at one-loop order. The solid and dashed line are the propagator of the fermion and the scalar boson, respectively. In Eq. (\[eq:one-loop-pc\]), the fermion and the boson propagator in the internal lines are replaced by the dressed propagators given in Eq. (\[eq:resum-propagator\]).[]{data-label="fig:oneloop"}](fermion-scalar-selfenergy.eps){width="26.00000%"}
Ultrasoft Fermionic Mode {#sec:resum}
========================
As stated in the Introduction, we deal with a massless fermion (denoted by $\psi$) coupled with a scalar field $\phi$ through the interaction Lagrangian ${\cal L}_I=g\bar{\psi}\psi\phi$ at high temperature $T$. We do not take into account the self-coupling of the scalar fields for simplicity. In this section, we calculate the fermion self-energy to obtain the fermion retarded Green function with an ultrasoft momentum $p\lesssim {g}^2T$ at high temperature. We first see that the naive perturbation theory breaks down in this case. Then, we shall show that a use of a dressed propagator gives a sensible result in the perturbation theory and that the resulting fermion propagator has a new pole in the ultrasoft region.
The retarded self-energy in the one-loop level is given by $$\label{eq:one-loop-bare}
\begin{split}
{\Sigma^R}_{\text{bare}}(p)&= i{g}^2\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\Bigl[{D^{S}}_0(-k){G^R}_0(p+k)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+{D^{R}}_0(-k){G^{S}}_0(p+k)\Bigr],
\end{split}$$ where $D_0^{R,S}(-k)$ and $G_0^{R,S}(p+k)$ are the [*bare*]{} propagators of the fermion and the scalar boson defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bare-propagatorS}
{G^R}_0(k)&=\frac{-{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}}{k^2+ik^0\epsilon},\\
{G^{S}}_0(k)&=\left(\frac{1}{2}-n_F(k^0)\right)i{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}(2\pi){\mathrm{sgn}}(k^0)\delta(k^2),
\\
{D^{R}}_0(k)&=\frac{-1}{k^2+ik^0\epsilon},\\
{D^{S}}_0(k)&=\left(\frac{1}{2}+n_B(k^0)\right)i(2\pi){\mathrm{sgn}}(k^0)\delta(k^2).
\label{eq:bare-propagatorE}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $n_F(k^0)\equiv1/(\exp(k^0/T)+1)$ and $n_B(k^0)\equiv {1/(\exp(k^0/T)-1)}$ are the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distribution functions, respectively. In the present analysis, we have preferentially employed the real-time formalism in Keldysh basis [@Keldysh]. The diagrammatic representation of Eq. (\[eq:one-loop-bare\]) is shown in Fig. \[fig:oneloop\]. Inserting Eqs. (\[eq:bare-propagatorS\]) through (\[eq:bare-propagatorE\]) into (\[eq:one-loop-bare\]), we obtain $$\begin{split}
{\Sigma^R}_{\text{bare}}(p)&= {g}^2\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\Bigl[\left(\frac{1}{2}+n_B(k^0)\right)\\
&\quad\times\frac{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}+{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$p$}}}{p^2+2p\cdot k+i(k^0+p^0)\epsilon}(2\pi){\mathrm{sgn}}(k^0)\delta(k^2)\\
&\qquad-\left(\frac{1}{2}-n_F(k^0+p^0)\right)
\frac{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}+{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$p$}}}{p^2+2p\cdot k+ik^0\epsilon}\\
&\qquad\qquad\times(2\pi){\mathrm{sgn}}(k^0+p^0)\delta((k+p)^2)\Bigr],
\end{split}$$ where we have used the on-shell conditions for the bare particles, $k^2=0$, and $(k+p)^2=0$ in ${G^{S}}_0(p+k)$ and ${D^{S}}_0(-k)$. Then, for small $p$, the self-energy is reduced to $$\begin{split}
{\Sigma^R}_{\text{bare}}(p)&= {g}^2\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}{K}(k)\frac{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}}{2p\cdot k+ik^0\epsilon},
\end{split}$$ where ${K}(k)=(2\pi){\mathrm{sgn}}(k^0)\delta(k^2)(n_F(k^0)+n_B(k^0))$, which is independent of $p$. This approximation is equivalent to the HTL approximation [@HTL]. The HTL approximation is, however, only valid for $p\sim {g}T$, and not applicable in the ultrasoft momentum region. In fact, the retarded self-energy in the one-loop level obtained with use of the bare propagators is found to diverge when $p\rightarrow 0$, since the integrand contains $1/ p\cdot k$, which singularity is the so called “pinch singularity” [@lebedev2; @hidaka; @transport; @ultrasoft-am].
The origin of this singularity is traced back to the use of the bare propagators because the singularity is caused by the fact that the dispersion relations of the fermion and the boson are the same and the damping rates are zero in that propagators. For this reason, one may suspect that this singularity can be removed by adopting the dressed propagators taking into account the asymptotic masses and decay width of the quasiparticles, as will be shown shortly.
Noting that the leading contribution comes from the hard ($k \sim T$) internal and almost on-shell ($k^2\approx 0$) momentum[^1], we are lead to employ the following dressed propagators for the fermion and boson: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:resum-propagator}
{G^R}(k)\simeq&-\frac{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}}{k^2-m^2_f+2i\zeta_f k^0},\\
{G^{S}}(k)\simeq&\left(\frac{1}{2}-n_F(k^0)\right){\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}\frac{4i\zeta_fk^0}{(k^2-m^2_f)^2+4\zeta^2_f(k^0)^2},\\
{D^{R}}(k)\simeq&-\frac{1}{k^2-m^2_b+2i\zeta_b k^0},\\
{D^{S}}(k)\simeq&\left(\frac{1}{2}+n_B(k^0)\right)\frac{4i\zeta_bk^0}{(k^2-m^2_b)^2+4\zeta^2_b(k^0)^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${m_f}^2\equiv {g}^2 T^2/8$ and ${m_b}^2\equiv {g}^2 T^2/6$ are the so called asymptotic masses of the fermion and the boson at $k^2\simeq0$, respectively [@scalar; @dispersion-numerical; @Blaizot:2001nr]. The damping rates of the hard particles, $\zeta_f$ and $\zeta_b$, are of order ${g}^4 T\ln {g}^{-1}$. The logarithmic enhancement for the damping rate of the scalar particle is caused by the soft-fermion exchange, which is the similar enhancement to that of the hard photon [@Kapusta; @Baier]. Using these dressed propagators, we have $$\label{eq:one-loop-pc}
\Sigma^R(p)\simeq {g}^2\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}{K}(k)
\frac{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}}{2p\cdot k +2i k^0\zeta+ \delta m^2 }$$ for small $p$, where $\delta m^2\equiv {m_b}^2-{m_f}^2={g}^2T^2/24$ and $\zeta\equiv \zeta_f+\zeta_b$. Here we have used the modified on-shell condition of the quasi-particles, $k^2-m_f^2+2i\zeta_f k^0=0$ and $k^2-m_b^2+2i\zeta_f b^0=0$, to obtain the denominator of the integrand in Eq. (\[eq:one-loop-pc\]). We neglected $m_b$, $m_f$, $\zeta_b $, and $\zeta_f $ in ${K}(k)$, since the leading contribution comes from hard momenta $k\sim T$. It is worth emphasizing that thanks to $\delta m^2$ and $\zeta$, $\Sigma^R(p)$ given in Eq. (\[eq:one-loop-pc\]) does not diverge in the infrared limit, $p\rightarrow 0$.
Here, we expand Eq. (\[eq:one-loop-pc\]) in terms of $2(p\cdot k+i k^0\zeta)/\delta m^2$. The leading contribution reads $$\label{eq:sigma-p1}
\begin{split}
\Sigma^R(p)&\simeq-{g}^2\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}K(k){\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}\frac{2ik^0\zeta+2p\cdot k}{(\delta m^2)^2}\\
&=-\frac{1}{Z}\left((p^0+i\zeta)\gamma^0+v {{\mathbf{p}}}\cdot {{\boldsymbol \gamma}}\right),
\end{split}$$ with $Z\equiv 8(\delta m^2)^2/({g}^2\pi^2T^4)$ and $v=1/3$. Thus, we get the fermion propagator in the ultrasoft region as $$\label{eq:result-propagator}
\begin{split}
{G^R}{(\omega,{{\mathbf{p}}})}=&-\frac{1}{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$p$}}-\Sigma^{\text {R}}{(\omega,{{\mathbf{p}}})}}
\simeq\frac{1}{\Sigma^{\text {R}}{(\omega,{{\mathbf{p}}})}}\\
=&-\frac{Z}{2}\left(\frac{\gamma^0-\hat{{{\mathbf{p}}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol \gamma}}}{\omega+v|{{\mathbf{p}}}|+i\zeta}+\frac{\gamma^0+\hat{{{\mathbf{p}}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol \gamma}}}{\omega-v|{{\mathbf{p}}}|+i\zeta}\right).
\end{split}$$ Here we have decomposed the fermion propagator into the fermion number $+1$ and $-1$ sectors in the second line. These two sectors are symmetric under ${{\mathbf{p}}}\leftrightarrow -{{\mathbf{p}}}$ and $v\leftrightarrow -v$, so we analyze only the fermion number $+1$ sector in the following: From Eq. (\[eq:result-propagator\]), we find a new pole at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:result-dispersion}
\omega=- v|{{\mathbf{p}}}|+i\zeta.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the real part of $\omega$ is negative for the fermion sector, which suggests that this peak has an antifermion-hole-like character like the antiplasmino [@plasmino]. The dispersion relation of the real part, ${\mathrm{Re}\,}\omega=-v|{{\mathbf{p}}}|$, is shown in Fig. \[fig:dispersion\] together with the HTL results [@HTL; @plasmino] for comparison, where the coupling constant is chosen as ${g}=0.1$. The imaginary part of the pole reads $$\label{eq:result-width}
\zeta \sim {g}^4T \ln {g}^{-1},$$ which is much smaller than those of the normal fermion and the antiplasmino [@scalar]. Since the real part and the imaginary part of the pole are finite for $|{{\mathbf{p}}}|\neq 0$, this mode is a damped oscillation mode. The residue at the pole is evaluated to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:result-residue}
Z =\frac{{g}^2}{72\pi^2}\sim {g}^2,\end{aligned}$$ which means that the mode has only a weak strength in comparison with those of the normal fermion and the antiplasmino, whose residues are order of unity. It is worth mentioning that such a smallness of the residue is actually compatible with the results in the HTL approximation: The sum of the residues of the normal fermion and the anti-plasmino modes obtained in the HTL approximation is unity and thus the sum rule of the spectral function of the fermion is satisfied in the leading order. Therefore, one could have anticipated that the residue of the ultrasoft mode can not be the order of unity but should be of higher order.
Equations (\[eq:result-propagator\]) through (\[eq:result-residue\]) for Yukawa theory are obtained for the first time and constitute the main results of the present work. We emphasize again that the usual HTL approximation [@HTL; @plasmino] is inapplicable in this ultrasoft energy region, and hence such an ultrasoft peak in the spectral function of the fermion necessarily has never been found before. As a summary, the respective coupling orders of the spectral properties of the ultrasoft mode are tabulated in Table. \[tab:result\], together with those of the normal fermion and the antiplasmino obtained in the HTL approximation.
The pole given by Eq. (\[eq:result-dispersion\]) gives rise to a new peak in the spectral function of the fermion as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:spectral}
\rho_+{(\omega,{{\mathbf{p}}})}= \frac{Z}{\pi}{\mathrm{Im}\,}\frac{-1}{\omega+v|{{\mathbf{p}}}|+i\zeta},\end{aligned}$$ which is depicted in Fig. \[fig:spectle\], where $|{{\mathbf{p}}}|$ is set to zero. Since the expression of $\zeta$ is not available in the literature, we simply adopt $\zeta={g}^4T\ln {g}^{-1}/(2\pi)$ in the figure.
![The spectral function in the fermion sector, Eq. (\[eq:spectral\]), as a function of energy $\omega$ at zero momentum. The coupling constant is set to ${g}=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:spectle"}](rest.eps){width="40.00000%"}
![The dispersion relation in the fermionic sector. The coupling constant is set to ${g}=0.1$. The vertical axis is the energy $\omega$, while the horizontal axis is the momentum $|{{\mathbf{p}}}|$. The solid (blue) lines correspond to the normal fermion and the antiplasmino, while the bold solid (red) one to the ultrasoft mode. Notice that since we focus on the fermion sector, the antiplasmino appears instead of the plasmino. The dotted lines denote the light cone. Since our analysis on the ultrasoft mode is valid only in $|{{\mathbf{p}}}|\ll {g}^2T$, the plot in $|{{\mathbf{p}}}|\gtrsim {g}^2T$ may not have physical meaning. The residue of the antiplasmino becomes exponentially small for $|{{\mathbf{p}}}|\gg {g}T$, so the plot of the antiplasmino does not represent physical excitation in $|{{\mathbf{p}}}|\gg {g}T$, either. []{data-label="fig:dispersion"}](htl-ultrasoft.eps){width="35.00000%"}
ultrasoft mode
-------------- --------------------------- ---------------
energy scale $\ll {g}^2T$ $\sim {g}T$
damping rate $\sim {g}^4T\ln {g}^{-1}$ $\sim {g}^2T$
residue $\sim {g}^2 $ $\sim 1$
: The respective coupling orders of the three fermionic modes. The momentum of the ultrasoft mode is set to $\ll {g}^2T$, while the momenta of the HTL results [@plasmon; @scalar] are set to zero. []{data-label="tab:result"}
{width="60.00000%"}
Absence of Vertex Correction {#sec:no-vertex}
============================
So far, we have considered the one-loop diagram. We need to check that the higher-order loops are suppressed by the coupling constant. This task would not be straightforward because, $\delta m^2\sim{g}^2 T^2$ appears in the denominator, as seen in Eq. (\[eq:one-loop-pc\]), which could make invalid the naive expansion in terms of the coupling constant. The possible diagrams contributing in the leading order are ladder diagrams shown in Fig. \[fig:ladder\] because the fermion-boson pair of the propagators gives a contribution of order $1/{g}^2$, and the vertex gives ${g}^2$. However, there is a special suppression mechanism in the present case with the scalar coupling. For example, let us evaluate the first diagram in Fig. \[fig:ladder\], at small $p$. The self-energy is evaluated to be $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\simeq&\frac{{g}^4}{(\delta m^2)^2}\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}K(k)\int\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}K(l)
\frac{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}({\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}-{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$l$}}){\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$l$}}}{(2k\cdot l )}
\\&\times \frac{2p\cdot (k-l)+ 2i(k^0-l^0)\zeta}{\delta m^2} .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Since there are four vertices and two pairs of the propagators whose momenta are almost the same, the formula would apparently yield the factor ${g}^4\times(\delta m^2)^{-2}\sim {g}^0$, which is the order of unity. One can easily verify that this order would remain the same in any higher-loop diagram, so any ladder diagram seems to contribute in the same leading order as explained. However, the explicit evaluation of the numerators of the fermion propagators gives ${\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}({\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}-{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$l$}}){\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$l$}}={\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$l$}}k^2-{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$k$}}l^2$, which turns out to be of order ${g}^2$; this is because the internal particle is almost on-shell, $k^2$, $l^2\sim {g}^2$. In the higher-order diagrams such as the second diagram in Fig. \[fig:ladder\], the same suppression occurs. Thus, the contribution of the ladder diagrams giving a vertex correction is absent in the leading order in the scalar coupling, and hence the one-loop diagram in Fig. \[fig:oneloop\] with the dressed propagators solely gives the leading-order contribution to the self-energy. We remark that a similar suppression occurs in the effective three-point-vertex at $p\sim gT$ [@scalar]. It should be emphasized that this suppression of the vertex corrections is, however, not the case in QED/QCD, where all the ladder diagrams contribute in the leading order and must be summed over [@lebedev2; @QED-paper].
Summary and Concluding Remarks {#sec:summary}
==============================
We have investigated the spectral properties of massless fermion coupled with a massless scalar boson in the ultrasoft momentum region ($p \lesssim {g}^2T$) at high temperature. We have first indicated that a novel resummed perturbation theory is needed beyond the conventional HTL approximation to get a sensible spectral properties in the ultrasoft region: For a consistent calculation in the relevant order of the coupling, we have shown that the use of the dressed propagators with the asymptotic masses and the width for the both fermion and boson is necessary and sufficient; although the vertex corrections due to ladder diagrams is apparently to contribute in the leading order, they turn out to be of higher order in the coupling and can be neglected. We have found that the resulting fermion propagator develops a novel pole yielding a peak in the spectral function in the ultrasoft region: Its pole position, width, and the residue are obtained for the first time in the present work as a function of the asymptotic masses and damping rates; they are summarized and compared with those of the normal-fermion and (anti-)plasmino excitations obtained in the HTL approximation [@HTL; @plasmino] in Table. \[tab:result\]. Thus, we have established the existence of an ultrasoft fermionic mode at high temperature in the case of scalar coupling for the first time, although there were suggestions of the existence of such an ultrasoft fermionic mode [@3peak; @mitsutani; @shk; @lebedev2]. We remark that although the present analysis is given for a massless fermion, an ultrasoft fermion excitation should exist even for a massive fermion, if the bare mass is smaller than ${g}^2T$, which is the smallest scale in our analysis.
We should also emphasize that the existence of a new peak at the origin implies that the fermion spectral function has a three-peak structure, although the central peak has only a small strength. The development of such a three-peak structure at intermediate temperature was suggested in the case where the boson is massive irrespective of the type of the boson [@3peak; @mitsutani; @shk], as mentioned in the Introduction. In this sense, the three-peak structure of the fermion spectral function is a robust and persistent phenomenon to be seen at intermediate and high $T$, at least in Yukawa theories.
Now let us discuss the physical origin of the ultrasoft mode for clarifying its possible universality or robustness at high temperature. As mentioned in the Introduction, an ultrasoft fermionic mode with a vanishing mass can appear as a phonino associated with the spontaneously broken supersymmetry at finite $T$ [@phonino; @lebedev1; @lebedev2]: In the massive Wess-Zumino model, the supersymmetric cancellation of the fermion mass is essential to make the phonino excitation [@lebedev1]. In fact, the massless fermionic mode is realized as a consequence of an exact cancellation of the self-energy with the finite bare mass at the vanishing external momentum due to the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry. This is quite in contrast to the case of the Yukawa model dealt in the present work, where the ultrasoft fermionic modes do [*not*]{} appear when the fermion mass is large. This means that the ultrasoft fermionic mode like the phonino can appear even in a nonsupersymmetric model like the Yukawa model, and there the masslessness of the fermion is an essential ingredient in realizing it. Nevertheless it is interesting that such an exotic fermionic mode can appear both in supersymmetric and nonsupersymmetric models with quite different mechanisms at high temperature. For getting further intuition into the possible mechanism for realizing the ultrasoft fermionic mode in the Yukawa model, it is noted that Kitazawa [*[et al.]{}*]{} argued that the level repulsion due to the Landau damping causes the three-peak structure in Ref. [@3peak], though in the case where a massless fermion is coupled with a [*massive*]{} boson and thus the fermion-boson mass difference squared $\delta m^2$ is nonzero. Indeed a finite $\delta m^2$ plays an important role in the appearance of the ultrasoft mode even when the boson is massless because it ensures the smoothness of the self-energy at the origin: As discussed in Introduction, the real part of the self-energy vanishes at the origin from the symmetry for the massless fermion. The residue of the pole is proportional to $(\delta m^2)^2$ and vanishes if $\delta m^2=0$. In the present work, the mass difference squared is a result by taking into account the effects beyond the HTL approximation and found to be $\delta m^2\sim {g}^2 T^2$. The mass difference in turn causes the smallness of the imaginary part: The imaginary part of the self-energy can originate from the boson emission, the Landau damping, and the imaginary part ($\zeta_{f,b}$) of the dressed propagators obtained beyond the HTL approximation. The former two contributions are found to be zero at the origin [@3peak; @shk] due to the nonzero mass difference or kinematics at the one-loop order. Therefore, the leading contribution of the imaginary part is solely given by the damping rates of the hard particles of order ${g}^4T\ln {g}^{-1}$. As a result, the ultrasoft fermionic mode appears as the sharp peak at the origin with a small residue.
Though the present analysis is limited to Yukawa theory with a scalar coupling, a similar analysis can be performed in other massless fermion-boson system including QED and QCD, although some complications arise [@lebedev2; @QED-paper]: The vertex correction is not negligible in the gauge theories in sharp contrast to the Yukawa theory, so a resummation of the ladder diagram is necessary. We also note that the damping rate of the hard fermion is of the order of ${g}^2T\ln {g}^{-1}$ and “anomalously” large in QED and QCD [@damping-hard-electron]. Then the imaginary part of the fermion pole in the ultrasoft region should be larger than that in the Yukawa theory and the nature of the ultrasoft mode may be different from that in the present case [@QED-paper]. In QCD, the self-coupling between the gluons should be also taken into account [@lebedev2; @QED-paper]. All these matter will be reported in a separate paper [@QED-paper].
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Y. H. thanks Robert D. Pisarski for fruitful discussions and comments. This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for the Global COE Program “The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence” from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan and by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan (No. 20540265).
[99]{} H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D [**26**]{} (1982) 1394.
J. Frenkel and J. C. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B [**334**]{} (1990) 199; E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, [*ibid*]{}. [**339**]{} (1990) 310.
H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D [**26**]{} (1982) 2789; [*ibid*]{}. [**40**]{} (1989) 2410.
M. Kitazawa, T. Kunihiro and Y. Nemoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**117**]{} (2007) 103; see also M. Kitazawa, T. Kunihiro and Y. Nemoto, Phys. Lett. B [**633**]{} (2006) 269. M. Kitazawa, T. Kunihiro, K. Mitsutani and Y. Nemoto, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{} (2008) 045034. D. Satow, Y. Hidaka and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{} (2011) 045017.
L. Girardello, M. T. Grisaru and P. Salomonson, Nucl. Phys. B [**178**]{} (1981) 331; D. Boyanovsky, Phys. Rev. D [**29**]{} (1984) 743; H. Aoyama and D. Boyanovsky, Phys. Rev. D [**30**]{} (1984) 1356; R. Gudmundsdottir and P. Salomonson, Nucl. Phys. B [**285**]{} (1987) 1. V. V. Lebedev and A. V. Smilga, Nucl. Phys. B [**318**]{} (1989) 669. V. V. Lebedev and A. V. Smilga, Annals Phys. [**202**]{} (1990) 229.
Y. Hidaka and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{} (2011) 076004. S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{} (1995) 3591; J. S. Gagnon and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 025014 \[Erratum-ibid. D [**76**]{} (2007) 089902\]; J. S. Gagnon and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 105019.
J. P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Nucl. Phys. B [**570**]{} (2000) 326.
Y. Hidaka and D. Satow, in preparation.
J. S. Schwinger, J. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1961) 407; L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**47**]{} (1964) 1515 \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**20**]{} (1965) 1018\].
E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. B [**337**]{} (1990) 569.
M. H. Thoma, Z. Phys. C [**66**]{} (1995) 491.
A. Peshier, K. Schertler and M. H. Thoma, Annals Phys. [**266**]{} (1998) 162.
J. P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Phys. Rept. [**359**]{} (2002) 355. J. Kapusta, P. Lichard and D. Seibert, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{} (1991) 2774 \[Erratum-ibid. [**47**]{} (1991) 4171\]. R. Baier, H. Nakkagawa, A. Niegawa and K. Redlich, Z. Phys. C [**53**]{} (1992) 433.
V. V. Lebedev and A. V. Smilga, Phys. Lett. B [**253**]{} (1991) 231; Physica A [**181**]{} (1992) 187. J. P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{} (1996) 3080; Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{} (1997) 973.
[^1]: Here we justify neglecting the case that the internal momenta are soft ($k\sim gT$) or smaller; for the soft momentum, the HTL resummed propagators [@HTL-resum] should be used. In these propagators, the dispersion relations of the fermion and the boson are different, so the pinch singularity does not appear.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Deep image relighting is gaining more interest lately, as it allows photo enhancement through illumination-specific retouching without human effort. Aside from aesthetic enhancement and photo montage, image relighting is valuable for domain adaptation, whether to augment datasets for training or to normalize input test data. Accurate relighting is, however, very challenging for various reasons, such as the difficulty in removing and recasting shadows and the modeling of different surfaces. We present a novel dataset, the Virtual Image Dataset for Illumination Transfer (VIDIT), in an effort to create a reference evaluation benchmark and to push forward the development of illumination manipulation methods. Virtual datasets are not only an important step towards achieving real-image performance but have also proven capable of improving training even when real datasets are possible to acquire and available. VIDIT contains 300 virtual scenes used for training, where every scene is captured 40 times in total: from 8 equally-spaced azimuthal angles, each lit with 5 different illuminants. <https://github.com/majedelhelou/VIDIT>'
author:
- Majed El Helou
- Ruofan Zhou
- Johan Barthas
- Sabine Süsstrunk
-
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: |
VIDIT: Virtual Image Dataset\
for Illumination Transfer
---
[cccc]{} [![A selection of scenes captured at 4500K, with the light source placed at (N,NW,SE,S,W,S,NE,W) from left to right then top down. Images are shown downsampled by 2.[]{data-label="fig:teaser"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image024_4500_N.jpg "fig:"){width="0.25\linewidth"}]{}& [![A selection of scenes captured at 4500K, with the light source placed at (N,NW,SE,S,W,S,NE,W) from left to right then top down. Images are shown downsampled by 2.[]{data-label="fig:teaser"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image049_4500_NW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.25\linewidth"}]{}& [![A selection of scenes captured at 4500K, with the light source placed at (N,NW,SE,S,W,S,NE,W) from left to right then top down. Images are shown downsampled by 2.[]{data-label="fig:teaser"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image146_4500_SE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.25\linewidth"}]{}& [![A selection of scenes captured at 4500K, with the light source placed at (N,NW,SE,S,W,S,NE,W) from left to right then top down. Images are shown downsampled by 2.[]{data-label="fig:teaser"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image157_4500_S.jpg "fig:"){width="0.25\linewidth"}]{}\
[![A selection of scenes captured at 4500K, with the light source placed at (N,NW,SE,S,W,S,NE,W) from left to right then top down. Images are shown downsampled by 2.[]{data-label="fig:teaser"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image252_4500_W.jpg "fig:"){width="0.25\linewidth"}]{}& [![A selection of scenes captured at 4500K, with the light source placed at (N,NW,SE,S,W,S,NE,W) from left to right then top down. Images are shown downsampled by 2.[]{data-label="fig:teaser"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image254_4500_S.jpg "fig:"){width="0.25\linewidth"}]{}& [![A selection of scenes captured at 4500K, with the light source placed at (N,NW,SE,S,W,S,NE,W) from left to right then top down. Images are shown downsampled by 2.[]{data-label="fig:teaser"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image261_4500_NE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.25\linewidth"}]{}& [![A selection of scenes captured at 4500K, with the light source placed at (N,NW,SE,S,W,S,NE,W) from left to right then top down. Images are shown downsampled by 2.[]{data-label="fig:teaser"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image273_4500_W.jpg "fig:"){width="0.25\linewidth"}]{}
Dataset Description {#sec:introduction}
===================
Content
-------
VIDIT includes in total 390 different scenes, each of which is captured with 40 predetermined illumination settings, resulting in 15,600 images. The illumination settings are all the combinations of 5 color temperatures (2500K, 3500K, 4500K, 5500K and 6500K) and 8 light directions (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW), each of which is shown in Fig. \[fig:teaser\_full\] for a sample image from our dataset. The directions are equally-spaced azimuthal angles, with a fixed polar angle. The dataset includes both indoor and outdoor scenes, and miscellaneous objects with different surfaces and materials. All scenes are rendered with a resolution of $1024 \times 1024$ pixels, contain different materials such as metal, wood, stone, water, plant, fabric, smoke, fire, plastic, etc. The illumination settings as well as the depth information are recorded with each rendered images.
VIDIT is split into different mutually-exclusive sets; train (300 scenes), validation (45 scenes), and test (45 scenes). The test set is kept private for benchmarking purposes, while the train and validation sets are made public for both training and method evaluation.
------------ ----- -------------- -------------- -------- ---------
Light Color
Orientations Temperatures
Train 300 8 5 12,000 Public
Validation 45 8 5 1,800 Public
Test 45 8 5 1,800 Private
------------ ----- -------------- -------------- -------- ---------
: VIDIT content distribution. The dataset is split into train, validation, and test, the latter kept private for benchmarking. Each scene is captured under 40 different illumination settings, and is rendered with a $1024 \times 1024$ pixel resolution.
Acquisition
-----------
We use Unreal Engine 4 to render high-resolution and realistic scenes to build our dataset. The scenes are obtained from a variety of different virtual environments, which are scaled into a uniform reference space before running the illumination and rendering process. The selection of scenes (or fields of view) is done manually to avoid any duplicates or very similar content being captured accidentally by two images. The scene is illuminated with an omni-directional light source, with 5 color temperatures, and the source is positioned at the 8 different azimuthal angles illustrated in Fig. \[fig:scene\_capture\]. The fields of view with walls or large obstructive objects that do not permit proper illumination from all angles were manually removed from the dataset.
![We place a set of light sources above the hit point of the ray trace to keep the same light settings for each of our captured scenes. We automatically adjust to the environment’s scale by adapting our reference radius, reference offset, and reference camera distance. During capture, we turn on the light source corresponding to the selected cardinal direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW) and turn off all the others. We also vary the light source’s color temperature for 5 different captures.[]{data-label="fig:scene_capture"}](IMAGES/diagram.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Related Work
============
We list a series of recent work related to our dataset which we found relevant.\
**A Dataset of Multi-Illumination Images in the Wild** ICCV’19 [@murmann2019dataset].\
This paper presents a dataset of *interior* scenes only, mostly objects in small and controlled environments. Each scene is captured with a flash from 25 different orientations. The illuminant itself, however, does not vary across the dataset.\
**Underexposed Photo Enhancement Using Deep Illumination Estimation** CVPR’19 [@wang2019underexposed].\
This dataset contains pairs of underexposed images. In opposition to the MIT-Adobe FiveK dataset, which is geared towards general photo enhancement, the authors focus specifically on enhancing underexposed photos. The ground-truth enhanced images are created by photo experts using Adobe Lightroom.\
**Deep Image-Based Relighting from Optimal Sparse Samples** TOG’18 [@xu2018deep].\
This paper, similar to [@murmann2019dataset], also proposes a dataset of scenes with different light directions. The differences are that the images are rendered and that the light directions are randomized.\
**Single Image Portrait Relighting** TOG’19 [@sun2019single].\
This paper aims at relighting human portrait photos. The method is trained on a dataset consisting of 18 individuals captured under different directional light sources. The capture is under controlled settings, with the individual illuminated by a sphere with numerous lights. Specifically targeted at face relighting, the method does not extend to general scenes.\
**Deep Face Normalization** TOG’19 [@nagano2019deep].\
This paper partly addresses relighting. It aims at normalizing faces in portrait images, i.e., removing distortions and non-neutral facial expressions, and relighting to simulate an evenly-lit environment. It does not address relighting to different light sources or to a desired light direction.\
There is a rich recent body of literature on style transfer methods and on intrinsic image decomposition. To name a few, IIW [@bell2014intrinsic] and SAW [@kovacs2017shading] contain human-labeled reflectance and shading annotations, BigTime [@li2018learning] contains time-lapse data where the scenes are illuminated under varying lighting conditions. These works, however, do not provide pairs of scenes captured with the same lighting conditions (color temperature, direction) that allow a quantitative evaluation of illumination transfer from one photo to another as our dataset does.
Discussion and Applications
===========================
Our dataset can be used in different applications, both for learning and evaluation. It can be used to predict the orientation of the illuminant in a scene, as well as its color temperature. More interestingly, it can be employed in domain adaptation to transform any input image such that it matches the target domain’s illumination settings (which is an any-to-one illumination style transfer problem). An even more general and challenging application is what we call the any-to-any illumination style transfer, which consists of mapping an input image with certain illumination settings to match the illumination settings of another input guide image. Both the any-to-one and any-to-any problems can be addressed with a guide input image from the target domain, or with input illumination settings (orientation and color temperature). And all applications can be evaluated with objective metrics, since our dataset includes all of the different illumination settings for every single captured scene.
Some use cases of image relighting methods would be
- **Domain adaptation for data augmentation**: input scenes can be transformed into a variety of illumination settings and added to training datasets to improve the robustness of deep networks to light variation.
- **Domain adaptation for normalization**: input scenes can be transformed from many illumination settings into a single reference one, before they are fed into a pre-trained deep network or a search and retrieval method.
- **Photo editing and shadow manipulation**: a scene can be relit for aesthetic reasons, to match the desired result of the user.
- **Photo montage**: combining multiple images into one necessitates that they all match the same final illumination settings. This can be achieved using an image relighting method.
[ccccc]{} [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_2500_N.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_3500_N.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_4500_N.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_5500_N.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_6500_N.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}\
[![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_2500_NE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_3500_NE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_4500_NE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_5500_NE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_6500_NE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}\
[![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_2500_E.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_3500_E.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_4500_E.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_5500_E.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_6500_E.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}\
[![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_2500_SE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_3500_SE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_4500_SE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_5500_SE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_6500_SE.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}\
[![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_2500_S.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_3500_S.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_4500_S.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_5500_S.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_6500_S.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}\
[![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_2500_SW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_3500_SW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_4500_SW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_5500_SW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_6500_SW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}\
[![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_2500_W.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_3500_W.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_4500_W.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_5500_W.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_6500_W.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}\
[![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_2500_NW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_3500_NW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_4500_NW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_5500_NW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}& [![Example scene captured with 40 different illumination settings. From left to right the illuminant color temperature goes from 2500K to 6500K, and from top to bottom the light source position goes from N to NW.[]{data-label="fig:teaser_full"}](IMAGES/dataset_imgs/Image015_6500_NW.jpg "fig:"){width="0.2\linewidth"}]{}\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Define [*the Liouville function for $A$*]{}, a subset of the primes $P$, by $\lambda_{A}(n) =(-1)^{\Omega_A(n)}$ where $\Omega_A(n)$ is the number of prime factors of $n$ coming from $A$ counting multiplicity. For the traditional Liouville function, $A$ is the set of all primes. Denote $$L_A(n):=\sum_{k\leq n}\lambda_A(n)\quad\mbox{and}\quad R_A:=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{L_A(n)}{n}.$$ We show that for every $\alpha\in[0,1]$ there is an $A\subset P$ such that $R_A=\alpha$. Given certain restrictions on $A$, asymptotic estimates for $\sum_{k\leq n}\lambda_A(k)$ are also given. With further restrictions, more can be said. For [*character–like functions*]{} $\lambda_p$ ($\lambda_p$ agrees with a Dirichlet character $\chi$ when $\chi(n)\neq 0$) exact values and asymptotics are given; in particular $$\quad\sum_{k\leq n}\lambda_p(k)\ll \log n.$$ Within the course of discussion, the ratio $\phi(n)/\sigma(n)$ is considered.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6'
author:
- Peter Borwein
- 'Stephen K.K. Choi'
- Michael Coons
date: 'June 12, 2008'
title: 'Completely multiplicative functions taking values in $\{-1,1\}$'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $\Omega(n)$ be the number of distinct prime factors in $n$ (with multiple factors counted multiply). The Liouville $\lambda$–function is defined by $$\lambda(n) :=(-1)^{\Omega(n)}.$$ So $\lambda(1)=\lambda(4)=\lambda(6) = \lambda(9) =\lambda(10) =1$ and $\lambda(2) = \lambda(5)=\lambda(7) =\lambda(8) = -1.$ In particular, $\lambda (p)=-1$ for any prime $p$. It is well-known (e.g. See §22.10 of [@HW]) that $\Omega$ is completely additive, i.e, $\Omega (mn)=\Omega (m)+\Omega (n)$ for any $m$ and $n$ and hence $\lambda$ is completely multiplicative, i.e., $\lambda (mn)=\lambda (m)\lambda (n)$ for all $m,n\in\mathbb{N}$. It is interesting to note that on the set of square-free positive integers $\lambda(n)=\mu(n)$, where $\mu$ is the Möbius function. In this respect, the Liouville $\lambda$–function can be thought of as an extension of the Möbius function.
Similar to the Möbius function, many investigations surrounding the $\lambda$–function concern the summatory function of initial values of $\lambda$; that is, the sum $$L(x):=\sum_{n\leq x} \lambda(n).$$ Historically, this function has been studied by many mathematicians, including Liouville, Landau, Pólya, and Turán. Recent attention to the summatory function of the Möbius function has been given by Ng [@Ng2; @Ng1]. Larger classes of completely multiplicative functions have been studied by Granville and Soundararajan [@GS3; @GS1; @GS2].
One of the most important questions is that of the asymptotic order of $L(x)$; more formally, the question is to determine the smallest value of $\vartheta$ for which $$\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{L(x)}{x^{\vartheta}}=0.$$ It is known that the value of $\vartheta=1$ is equivalent to the prime number theorem [@Lan2; @Lan3] and that $\vartheta=\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon$ for any arbitrarily small positive constant $\varepsilon$ is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis [@BCRW] (The value of $\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon$ is best possible, as $\limsup_{x\to\infty}L(x)/\sqrt{x}>.061867$, see Borwein, Ferguson, and Mossinghoff [@BFM1]). Indeed, any result asserting a fixed $\vartheta\in \left(\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ would give an expansion of the zero-free region of the Riemann zeta function, $\zeta(s)$, to $\Re (s)\geq \vartheta$.
Unfortunately, a closed form for determining $L(x)$ is unknown. This brings us to the motivating question behind this investigation: [*are there functions similar to $\lambda$, so that the corresponding summatory function does yield a closed form?*]{}
Throughout this investigation $P$ will denote the set of all primes. As an analogue to the traditional $\lambda$ and $\Omega$, define [*the Liouville function for $A\subset P$*]{} by $$\lambda_{A}(n) =(-1)^{\Omega_A(n)}$$ where $\Omega_A(n)$ is the number of prime factors of $n$ coming from $A$ counting multiplicity. Alternatively, one can define $\lambda_{A}$ as the completely multiplicative function with $\lambda_{A}(p) = -1$ for each prime $p \in A$ and $\lambda_A(p)=1$ for all $p\notin A$. Every completely multiplicative function taking only $\pm 1$ values is built this way. The class of functions from $\mathbb{N}$ to $\{-1,1\}$ is denoted $\mathcal{F}(\{-1,1\})$ (as in [@GS1]). Also, define $$L_A:=\sum_{n\leq x}\lambda_A(n)\quad\mbox{and}\quad R_A:=\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ L_A(x)}{n}.$$
In this paper, we first consider questions regarding the properties of the function $\lambda_A$ by studying the function $R_A$. The structure of $R_A$ is determined and it is shown that for each $\alpha\in[0,1]$ there is a subset $A$ of primes such that $R_A=\alpha$. The rest of this paper considers an extended investigation on those functions in $\mathcal{F}(\{-1,1\})$ which are character–like in nature (meaning that they agree with a real Dirichlet character $\chi$ at nonzero values). Within the course of discussion, the ratio $\phi(n)/\sigma(n)$ is considered.
Properties of $L_A(x)$
======================
Define the [*generalized Liouville sequence*]{} as $$\mathfrak{L}_A:=\{\lambda_{A}(1), \lambda_{A}(2), \ldots \}.$$
The sequence $\mathfrak{L}_A$ is not eventually periodic.
Towards a contradiction, suppose that $\mathfrak{L}_A$ is eventually periodic, say the sequence is periodic after the $M$–th term and has period $k$. Now there is an $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for all $n\geq N$, we have $nk>M$. Since $A\neq \varnothing$, pick $p\in A$. Then $$\lambda_A(pnk)=\lambda_A(p)\cdot\lambda_A(nk)=-\lambda_A(nk).$$ But $pnk\equiv nk (\mbox{mod}\ k)$, a contradiction to the eventual $k$–periodicity of $\mathfrak{L}_A$.
If $A\subset P$ is nonempty, then $\lambda_A$ is not a Dirichlet character.
This is a direct consequence of the non–periodicity of $\mathfrak{L}_A$.
To get more acquainted with the sequence $\mathfrak{L}_A$, we study the partial sums $L_A(x)$ of $\mathfrak{L}_A$, and to study these, we consider the Dirichlet series with coefficients $\lambda_A(n)$.
Starting with singleton sets $\{p\}$ of the primes, a nice relation becomes apparent; for $\Re(s)>1$ $$\label{zetasum}
\frac{(1-p^{-s})}{(1+p^{-s})}\zeta(s)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_{\{p\}}(n)}{n^s},$$ and for sets $\{p,q\}$, $$\label{zetasum2}
\frac{(1-p^{-s})(1-q^{-s})}{(1+p^{-s})(1+q^{-s})} \zeta(s)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_{\{p,q\}}(n)}{n^s}.$$
For any subset $A$ of primes, since $\lambda_A$ is completely multiplicative, for $\Re (s) > 1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_A(s)&:=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_{A}(n)}{n^s}
= \prod_{p} \left( \sum_{l=0}^\infty \frac{\lambda_{A}(p^l)}{p^{ls}} \right) \nonumber \\
& = \prod_{p\in A} \left( \sum_{l=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^l}{p^{ls}}\right)\prod_{p\not\in A} \left( \sum_{l=0}^\infty \frac{1}{p^{ls}}\right) = \prod_{p\in A} \left( \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{p^s}}\right) \prod_{p\not\in A} \left( \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p^s}}\right) \nonumber \\
& = \zeta (s) \prod_{p\in A} \left( \frac{1-p^{-s}}{1+ p^{-s}}\right) . \label{zetasum3}\end{aligned}$$
This relation leads us to our next theorem, but first let us recall a vital piece of notation from the introduction.
For $A\subset P$ denote $$R_A:=\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ \lambda_{A}(1)+\lambda_{A}(2)+\ldots+\lambda_{A}(n)}{n}.$$
The existence of the limit $R_A$ is guaranteed by Wirsing’s Theorem. In fact, Wirsing in [@Wi] showed more generally that every real multiplicative function $f$ with $|f(n)|\le 1$ has a mean value, i.e, the limit $$\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{1}{x}\sum_{n \le x}f(n)$$ exists. Furthermore, in [@Win] Wintner showed that $$\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{1}{x}\sum_{n \le x}f(n) = \prod_{p} \left( 1+\frac{f(p)}{p} + \frac{f(p^2)}{p^2} +\cdots \right) \left( 1-\frac{1}{p}\right) \neq 0$$ if and only if $\sum_{p}|1-f(p)|/p$ converges; otherwise the mean value is zero. This gives the following theorem.
For the completely multiplicative function $\lambda_A(n)$, the limit $R_A$ exists and $$\label{ra}R_A=\begin{cases}\prod_{p\in A}\frac{p-1}{p+1} & \mbox{ if $\sum_{p \in A}p^{-1} < \infty$,} \\0 & \mbox{ otherwise.}\end{cases}$$
For any prime $p$, $R_{\{p\}} = \frac{p-1}{p+1}.$
To be a little more descriptive, let us make some notational comments. Denote by $\mathcal{P}(P)$ the power set of the set of primes. Note that $$\frac{p-1}{p+1}=1-\frac{2}{p+1}.$$ Recall from above that $R:\mathcal{P}(P)\to\mathbb{R}$, is defined by $$R_A:=\prod_{p\in A}\left(1-\frac{2}{p+1}\right).$$ It is immediate that $R$ is bounded above by 1 and below by 0, so that we need only consider that $R:\mathcal{P}(P)\to[0,1]$. It is also immediate that $R_\varnothing=1$ and $R_P=0$.
For an example of a subset of primes with mean value in $(0,1)$, consider the set $K$ of primes defined by $$K:=\left\{p_n\in P: p_n=\min_{q>n^3}\{q\in P\}\mbox{ for } n\in\mathbb{N}\right\}.$$ Since there is always a prime in the interval $(x,x+x^{5/8}]$ (see Ingham [@Ing1]), these primes are well defined; that is, $p_{n+1}>p_n$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. The first few values give $$K=\{ 11, 29, 67, 127, 223, 347, 521, 733, 1009, 1361,\ldots\}.$$ Note that $$\frac{p_n-1}{p_n+1}>\frac{n^3-1}{n^3+1},$$ so that $$R_k=\prod_{p\in K}\left(\frac{p-1}{p+1}\right)\geq\prod_{n=2}^\infty\left(\frac{n^3-1}{n^3+1}\right)=\frac{2}{3}.$$ Also $R_K<(11-1)/(11+1)=5/6,$ so that $$\frac{2}{3}\leq R_K<\frac{5}{6},$$ and $R_K\in(0,1)$.
There are some very interesting and important examples of sets of primes $A$ for which $R_A=0$. Indeed, results of von Mangoldt [@vMan1] and Landau [@Lan2; @Lan3] give the following equivalence.
The prime number theorem is equivalent to $R_P=0$.
We may be a bit more specific regarding the values of $R_A$, for $A\in\mathcal{P}(P)$. We will show that for each $\alpha\in (0,1)$, there is a set of primes $A$ such that $$R_A=\prod_{p\in A}\left(\frac{p-1}{p+1}\right)=\alpha.$$
\[allp\] Let $p_n$ denote the $n$th prime. For all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $R_{[k,\infty)}=0.$
Let $A=P\cap [k,\infty)$. For any $x \ge k$, we have $$\sum_{\substack{p \le x \\ p\in A}} \frac{1}{p} = \sum_{k \le p \le x} \frac{1}{p} = \log\log x + O_k(1).$$ Since this series diverges, so $R_A=0$ by .
\[allga\] The function $R:\mathcal{P}(P)\to[0,1]$ is surjective. That is, for each $\alpha\in [0,1]$ there is a set of primes $A$ such that $R_A=\alpha.$
Note first that $R_P=0$ and $R_\varnothing=1$. To prove the statement for the remainder of the values, let $\alpha\in(0,1)$. Then since $$\lim_{p\to\infty}R_{\{p\}}=\lim_{p\to\infty} \left(1-\frac{2}{p+1}\right)=1,$$ there is a minimal prime $q_1$ such that $$R_{\{q_1\}}=\left(1-\frac{2}{q_1+1}\right)>\alpha\qquad$$ i.e., $$\frac{1}{\alpha}\cdot R_{\{q_1\}}=\frac{1}{\alpha}\left(1-\frac{2}{q_1+1}\right)>1.$$ Similarly, for each $N\in\mathbb{N}$, we may continue in the same fashion, choosing $q_i>q_{i-1}$ (for $i=2\ldots N$) minimally, we have $$\frac{1}{\alpha}\cdot R_{\{q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_N\}}=\frac{1}{\alpha}\prod_{i=1}^N\left(1-\frac{2}{q_i+1}\right)>1.$$ Now consider $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{1}{\alpha}\cdot R_{\{q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_N\}}=\frac{1}{\alpha}\prod_{i=1}^\infty\left(1-\frac{2}{q_i+1}\right),$$ where the $q_i$ are chosen as before. Denote $A=\{q_i\}_{i=1}^\infty.$ We know that $$\frac{1}{\alpha}\cdot R_A=\frac{1}{\alpha}\prod_{i=1}^\infty\left(1-\frac{2}{q_i+1}\right)\geq 1.$$
We claim that $R_A=\alpha$. To this end, let us suppose to the contrary that $$\frac{1}{\alpha}\cdot R_A=\frac{1}{\alpha}\prod_{i=1}^\infty\left(1-\frac{2}{q_i+1}\right)>1.$$ Applying Lemma \[allp\], we see that $P\backslash A$ is infinite (here $P$ is the set of all primes). As earlier, since $$\lim_{\substack{p\to\infty\\ p\in A\backslash P}}R_{\{p\}}=\lim_{p\to\infty} \left(1-\frac{2}{p+1}\right)=1,$$ there is a minimal prime $q\in A\backslash P$ such that $$\frac{1}{\alpha}\cdot R_A\cdot R_{\{q\}}=\frac{1}{\alpha}\left[\prod_{i=1}^\infty\left(1-\frac{2}{q_i+1}\right)\right]\cdot \left(1-\frac{2}{q+1}\right)>1.$$ Since $q$ is a prime and $q\notin A$, there is an $i\in\mathbb{N}$ with $q_i<q<q_{i+1}$. This contradicts that $q_{i+1}$ was a minimal choice. Hence $$\frac{1}{\alpha}\cdot R_A=\frac{1}{\alpha}\prod_{i=1}^\infty\left(1-\frac{2}{q_i+1}\right)=1,$$ and there is a set $A$ of primes such that $R_A=\alpha$.
The following theorem gives asymptotic formulas for the mean value of $\lambda_A$ if certain condition on the density of $A$ in $P$ is assumed.
\[R\_A char\] Suppose $A$ be a subset of primes with density $$\label{1.2}\sum_{\substack{p\le x \\ p\in A}}\frac{\log p}{p} = \frac{1-\kappa}{2}\log x + O (1)$$ and $-1 \le \kappa \le 1$.
If $0 < \kappa \le 1$, then we have $$\sum_{n \le x}\frac{\lambda_A(n)}{n} = c_{\kappa} (\log x)^\kappa + O(1)$$ and $$\sum_{n \le x} \lambda_A(n) = (1+o(1))c_{\kappa}\kappa x(\log x)^{\kappa -1},$$ where $$\label{4} c_{\kappa} = \frac{1}{\Gamma (\kappa +1)}\prod_p \left( 1-\frac{1}{p}\right)^\kappa \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_A(p)}{p} \right)^{-1} .$$ In particular, $$R_A=\lim_{x\to \infty} \frac{1}{x} \sum_{n \le x} \lambda_A(n) = \begin{cases} c_1=\prod_{p\in A} \left( \frac{p-1}{p+1} \right) & \mbox{ if $\kappa =1$,} \\ 0 & \mbox{ if $0 < \kappa < 1$.}\end{cases}$$ Furthermore, $\mathcal{L}_A(s)$ has a pole at $s=1$ of order $\kappa$ with residue $c_\kappa \Gamma (\kappa +1)$, i.e., $$\mathcal{L}_A(s)=\frac{c_{\kappa}\Gamma (\kappa +1)}{(s-1)^{\kappa}} + \psi (s),\quad \Re (s) > 1,$$ for some function $\psi (s)$ analytic on the region $\Re (s) \ge 1$. If $-1 \le \kappa < 0$, then $\mathcal{L}_A(s)$ has zero at $s=1$ of order $-\kappa$, i.e., $$\mathcal{L}_A(s)=\frac{\zeta (2s)}{c_{-\kappa}\Gamma (-\kappa +1)}(s-1)^{-\kappa}(1 + \varphi (s))$$ for some function $\varphi (s)$ analytic on the region $\Re (s)\ge 1$ and hence $$\mathcal{L}_A(1)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_A(n)}{n}=0$$ and $$R_A=\lim_{x\to \infty} \frac{1}{x} \sum_{n \le x} \lambda_A(n) = 0.$$ If $\kappa = 0$, then $\mathcal{L}_A(s)$ has no pole nor zero at $s=1$. In particular, we have $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_A(n)}{n}=\alpha \neq 0$$ and $$R_A=\lim_{x\to \infty} \frac{1}{x} \sum_{n \le x} \lambda_A(n) = 0.$$
The proof of Theorem \[R\_A char\] will require the following result.
Suppose $f$ is a completely multiplicative function which satisfies $$\label{1.1}\sum_{n \le x}\Lambda (n) f(n) = \kappa \log x +O (1)$$ and $$\label{2}\sum_{n \le x}\left|f(n)\right| \ll \log x$$ with $0 \le \kappa \le 1$ where $\Lambda (n)$ is the von Mangoldt function. Then we have $$\label{3}\sum_{n \le x}f(n) = c_f(\log x)^\kappa + O (1)$$ where $$\label{3.1}c_f := \frac{1}{\Gamma (\kappa +1)}\prod_p \left( 1-\frac{1}{p}\right)^\kappa \left(\frac{1}{1-f(p)}\right)$$ where $\Gamma (\kappa )$ is the Gamma function.
This can be found in Theorem 1.1 at P.27 of [@IK] by replacing condition (1.89) by .
Suppose first that $0 < \kappa \le 1$. We choose $f(n)= \frac{\lambda_A(n)}{n}$ in Wirsing Theorem. Since $$\sum_{n \le x}\frac{\Lambda (n)}{n} = \sum_{p \le x}\frac{\log p}{p} + O(1) = \log x + O(1),$$ so $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n\le x}\frac{\Lambda (n)}{n}\lambda_A(n)& = & \sum_{p\le x}\frac{\log p}{p}\lambda_A(p) +O \left( \sum_{p^l \le x, l \ge 2}\frac{\log p}{p^l}\right) \\
& = & \sum_{p\le x}\frac{\log p}{p}\lambda_A(p) +O \left( \sum_{n \le x}\frac{\Lambda (n)}{n} - \sum_{p \le x}\frac{\log p}{p} \right) \\
& = & \sum_{p\le x}\frac{\log p}{p}\lambda_A(p) +O (1).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, from we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p\le x}\frac{\log p}{p}\lambda_A(p) & = & \sum_{p \le x}\frac{\log p}{p} -2\sum_{\substack{p \le x \\ p \in A}}\frac{\log p}{p} \\
& = & \kappa \log x + O (1).\end{aligned}$$ Hence we have $$\sum_{n \le x}\frac{\Lambda (n)}{n}\lambda_A(n) = \kappa \log x +O (1)$$ and condition is satisfied.
It then follows from and that $$\sum_{n \le x}\frac{\lambda_A(n)}{n} = c_{\kappa}(\log x)^\kappa + O(1).$$ From , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_A(s+1)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_A(n)}{n^{s+1}} & = & \int_1^\infty y^{-s} d\sum_{n \le y} \frac{\lambda_A(n)}{n} \\
& = & \int_1^\infty y^{-s} d\left( c_{\kappa} (\log y)^\kappa + O(1)\right) \\
& = & c_{\kappa}\kappa \int_1^\infty \frac{(\log y)^{\kappa -1}}{y^{s+1}}dy + \int_1^\infty y^{-s}d O (1) \\
& = & c_{\kappa} \Gamma (\kappa +1)s^{-\kappa} + \psi(s)\end{aligned}$$ for $\Re (s) >0$ because $$\int_1^\infty \frac{(\log y)^{\kappa -1}}{y^{s+1}}dy = \Gamma (\kappa )s^{-\kappa}.$$ Here $\psi (s)$ is an analytic function on $\Re (s)\ge 0$.
Therefore, $\mathcal{L}_A(s)$ has a pole at $s=1$ of order $0 < \kappa \le 1$. Now from a generalization of the Wiener-Ikehara theorem (e.g. Theorem 7.7 of [@BD]), we have $$\sum_{n \le x} \lambda_A(n) = (1+o(1)) c_{\kappa}\kappa x(\log x)^{\kappa -1}$$ and hence $$R_A=\lim_{x\to \infty} \frac{1}{x} \sum_{n \le x} \lambda_A(n) = \begin{cases} c_1 & \mbox{ if $\kappa =1$,} \\
0 & \mbox{ if $0 < \kappa < 1$.}
\end{cases}$$ However, $$c_1= \prod_p \left( 1-\frac{1}{p}\right) \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_A(p)}{p} \right)^{-1} =\prod_{p\in A} \left( \frac{1-p^{-1}}{1+p^{-1}} \right).$$
If $-1 \le \kappa < 0$, we denote the complement of $A$ by $\overline{A}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\overline{A}}(s) & = & \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_{\overline{A}}(n)}{n^s} = \zeta (s) \prod_{p\not\in A} \left(\frac{1-p^{-s}}{1+p^{-s}}\right) \\
& = & \frac{\zeta (2s)}{\zeta (s)}\prod_{p\in A} \left(\frac{1+p^{-s}}{1-p^{-s}}\right) = \frac{\zeta (2s)}{\mathcal{L}_A(s)}\end{aligned}$$ for $\Re (s) > 1$. Hence, for $\Re(s) > 0$, we have $$\label{7}\mathcal{L}_{\overline{A}}(s)\mathcal{L}_A(s) = \zeta(2s).$$
From , we have $$\sum_{\substack{p\le x \\ p\not\in A}}\frac{\log p}{p}=\sum_{p\le x}\frac{\log p}{p} - \sum_{\substack{p\le x \\ p\in A}}\frac{\log p}{p} = \frac{1+\kappa}{2} \log x + O (1)$$ and $$\sum_{n \le x}\frac{\Lambda (n)}{n}\lambda_{\overline{A}}(n) = - \kappa \log x + O (1).$$
We then apply the above case to $\mathcal{L}_{\overline{A}}(s)$ and deduce that $\mathcal{L}_{\overline{A}}(s)$ has a pole at $s=1$ of order $-\kappa$, then in view of , $\mathcal{L}_A(s)$ has a zero at $s=1$ of order $-\kappa$, i.e., $$\mathcal{L}_A(s)=\frac{\zeta (2s)}{c_{-\kappa}\Gamma (-\kappa +1)}(s-1)^{-\kappa}(1 + \varphi (s))$$ for some function $\varphi (s)$ analytic on the region $\Re (s)\ge 1$. In particular, we have $$\label{7.1}\mathcal{L}_A(1)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_A(n)}{n}=0.$$ This completes the proof of Theorem \[R\_A char\].
Recall that Theorem \[allga\] tells us that any $\alpha\in[0,1]$ is a mean value of a function in $\mathcal{F}(\{-1,1\})$. The functions in $\mathcal{F}(\{-1,1\})$ can be put into two natural classes: those with mean value $0$ and those with positive mean value.
Asymptotically, those functions with mean value zero are more interesting, and it is in this class which the Liouville $\lambda$–function resides, and in that which concerns the prime number theorem and the Riemann hypothesis. We consider an extended example of such functions in Section \[glp\]. Before this consideration, we ask some questions about those functions $f\in\mathcal{F}(\{-1,1,\})$ with positive mean value.
One question twice
==================
It is obvious that if $\alpha\notin \mathbb{Q}$, then $R_A\neq \alpha$ for any finite set $A\subset P$. We also know that if $A\subset P$ is finite, then $R_A\in\mathbb{Q}$.
Is there a converse to this; that is, for $\alpha\in\mathbb{Q}$ is there a finite subset $A$ of $P$, such that $R_A=\alpha$?
The above question can be posed in a more interesting fashion. Indeed, note that for any finite set of primes $A$, we have that $$R_A=\prod_{p\in A} \frac{p-1}{p+1} =\prod_{p\in A} \frac{\phi (p)}{\sigma (p)}=\frac{\phi(z)}{\sigma(z)}$$ where $z=\prod_{p\in A}p$, $\phi$ is Euler’s totient function and $\sigma$ is the sum of divisors function. Alternatively, we may view the finite set of primes $A$ as determined by the square–free integer $z$. In fact, the function $f$ from the set of square–free integers to the set of finite subsets of primes, defined by $$f(z)=f(p_1p_2\cdots p_r)=\{p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_r\},\qquad (z=p_1p_2\cdots p_r)$$ is bijective, giving a one–to–one correspondence between these two sets.
In this terminology, we ask the question as:
Is the image of $\phi(z)/\sigma(z):\{\mbox{square--free integers}\}\to\mathbb{Q}\cap(0,1)$ a surjection?
That is, for every rational $q\in(0,1)$, is there a square–free integer $z$ such that $\frac{\phi(z)}{\sigma(z)}=q\ ?$ As a start, we have Theorem \[allga\], which gives a nice corollary.
If $S$ is the set of square–free integers, then $$\left\{ x\in\mathbb{R}: x=\lim_{\substack{k\to\infty\\ (n_k)\subset S}}\frac{\phi(n_k)}{\sigma(n_k)}\right\}=[0,1].$$
Let $\alpha\in[0,1]$ and $A$ be a subset of primes for which $R_A=\alpha$. If $A$ is finite we are done, so suppose $A$ is infinite. Write $$A=\{a_1,a_2,a_3,\ldots\}$$ where $a_i<a_{i+1}$ for $i=1,2,3,\ldots$ and define $n_k=\prod_{i=1}^k a_i$. The sequence $(n_k)$ satisfies the needed limit.
The functions $\lambda_p(n)$ {#glp}
============================
We now turn our attention to those functions $\mathcal{F}(\{-1,1\})$ with mean value $0$; in particular, we wish to examine functions for which a sort of Riemann hypothesis holds: functions for which $\mathcal{L}_A(s)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\frac{\lambda_A(n)}{n^s}$ has a large zero–free region; that is, functions for which $\sum_{n\leq x}\lambda_A(n)$ grows slowly.
To this end, let $p$ be a prime number. Recall that the Legendre symbol modulo $p$ is defined as $$\left(\frac{q}{p}\right) =\begin{cases} 1 & \mbox{ if $q$ is a quadratic residue modulo $p$,} \\
-1 & \mbox{ if $q$ is a quadratic non-residue modulo $p$,}\\
0 & \mbox{ if $q\equiv 0 \pmod p$.} \end{cases}$$ Here $q$ is a quadratic residue modulo $p$ provided $q\equiv x^2 \pmod p$ for some $x\not\equiv 0 \pmod p$.
Define the function $\Omega_p(n)$ to be the number of prime factors, $q$, of $n$ with $\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)=-1$; that is, $$\Omega_p(n)=\#\left\{q:\mbox{$q$ is a prime, $q|n$, and $\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)=-1$}\right\}.$$
The modified Liouville function for quadratic non-residues modulo $p$ is defined as $$\lambda_p(n):=(-1)^{\Omega_p(n)}.$$
Analogous to $\Omega (n)$, since $\Omega_p(n)$ counts primes with multiplicities, $\Omega_p(n)$ is completely additive, and so $\lambda_p(n)$ is completely multiplicative. This being the case, we may define $\lambda_p(n)$ uniquely by its values at primes.
\[quad\] The function $\lambda_p(n)$ is the unique completely multiplicative function defined by $\lambda_p(p)=1$, and for primes $q\neq p$ by $$\lambda_p(q)=\left(\frac{q}{p}\right).$$
Let $q$ be a prime with $q|n$. Now $\Omega_p(q)=0$ or $1$ depending on whether $\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)=1$ or $-1$, respectively. If $\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)=1$, then $\Omega_p(q)=0$, and so $\lambda_p(q)=1$.
On the other hand, if $\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)=-1$, then $\Omega_p(q)=1$, and so $\lambda_p(q)=-1$. In either case, we have[^2] $$\lambda_p(q)=\left(\frac{q}{p}\right).$$
Hence if $n=p^km$ with $p\nmid m$, then we have $$\label{def2} \lambda_p(p^km)=\left(\frac{m}{p}\right).$$
Similarly, we may define the function $\Omega_p'(n)$ to be the number of prime factors $q$ of $n$ with $\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)=1$; that is, $$\Omega_p'(n)=\#\left\{q:\mbox{$q$ is a prime, $q|n$, and $\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)=1$}\right\}.$$
Analogous to Lemma \[quad\] we have the following lemma for $\lambda_p'(n)$ and theorem relating these two functions to the traditional Liouville $\lambda$-function.
The function $\lambda_p'(n)$ is the unique completely multiplicative function defined by $\lambda_p'(p)=1$ and for primes $q\neq p$, as $$\lambda_p'(q)=-\left(\frac{q}{p}\right).$$
\[llp\] If $\lambda(n)$ is the standard Liouville $\lambda$–function, then $$\lambda(n)=(-1)^k\cdot\lambda_p(n)\cdot \lambda_p'(n)$$ where $p^k\| n$, i.e., $p^k|n$ and $p^{k+1}\nmid n$.
It is clear that the theorem is true for $n=1$. Since all functions involved are completely multiplicative, it suffices to show the equivalence for all primes. Note that $\lambda(q)=-1$ for any prime $q$. Now if $n=p$, then $k=1$ and $$(-1)^1\cdot\lambda_p(p)\cdot \lambda_p'(p)=(-1)\cdot (1)\cdot (1)=-1=\lambda(p).$$ If $n=q\neq p$, then $$(-1)^0\cdot\lambda_p(q)\cdot \lambda_p'(q)=\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)\cdot\left(-\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)\right)=-\left(\frac{q^2}{p}\right)=-1=\lambda(q),$$ and so the theorem is proved.
To mirror the relationship between $L$ and $\lambda$, denote by $L_p(n)$, the summatory function of $\lambda_p(n)$; that is, define $$L_p(n):=\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda_p(n).$$ It is quite immediate that $L_p(n)$ is not positive[^3] for all $n$ and $p$. To find an example we need only look at the first few primes. For $p=5$ and $n=3$, we have $$L_5(3)=\lambda_5(1)+\lambda_5(2)+\lambda_5(3)=1-1-1=-1<0.$$ Indeed, the next few theorems are sufficient to show that there is a positive proportion (at least $1/2$) of the primes for which $L_p(n)<0$ for some $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
\[cor1\] Let $$n=a_0+a_1p+a_2p^2+\ldots +a_kp^k$$ be the base $p$ expansion of $n$, where $a_j \in \{ 0,1,2,\ldots ,p-1\}$. Then we have $$\label{2g}L_p(n):=\sum_{l=1}^n\lambda_p(l) = \sum_{l=1}^{a_0}\lambda_p(l)+\sum_{l=1}^{a_1}\lambda_p(l)+\ldots +\sum_{l=1}^{a_k}\lambda_p(l).$$ Here the sum over $l$ is regarded as empty if $a_j=0$.
Instead of giving a proof of Theorem \[cor1\] in this specific form, we will prove a more general result for which Theorem \[cor1\] is a direct corollary. To this end, let $\chi$ be a non-principal Dirichlet character modulo $p$ and for any prime $q$ let $$\label{f}
f(q):=\begin{cases} 1 & \mbox{ if $p=q$,} \\ \chi (q) & \mbox{ if $p\neq q$.} \end{cases}$$ We extend $f$ to be a completely multiplicative function and get $$\label{1}
f(p^lm)=\chi (m)$$ for $l\ge 0$ and $p\nmid m$.
\[thm 2.2\] Let $N(n,l)$ be the number of digits $l$ in the base $p$ expansion of $n$. Then $$\sum_{j=1}^n f(j) =\sum_{l=0}^{p-1} N(n,l)\left(\sum_{m\le l}\chi (m) \right).$$
We write the base $p$ expansion of $n$ as $$\label{8}
n=a_0+a_1p+a_2p^2+\ldots + a_kp^k$$ where $0 \le a_j \le p-1$. We then observe that, by writing $j=p^lm$ with $p\nmid m$, $$\sum_{j=1}^n f(j) = \sum_{l=0}^k\sum_{\substack{j=1 \\ p^l\| j}}^{n} f(j) = \sum_{l=0}^k \sum_{\substack{m \le n/p^l\\ (m,p)=1}} f(p^lm).$$ For simplicity, we write $$A:=a_0+a_1p+\ldots +a_lp^l \hspace{5mm} \mbox{ and } \hspace{5mm} B:=a_{l+1}+a_{l+2}p+\ldots +a_kp^{k-l-1}$$ so that $n=A+Bp^{l+1}$ in . It now follows from and that $$\sum_{j=1}^n f(j) = \sum_{l=0}^k \sum_{\substack{m \le n/p^l\\ (m,p)=1}} \chi (m)= \sum_{l=0}^k \sum_{m \le A/p^l+Bp} \chi (m) =\sum_{l=0}^k \sum_{m \le A/p^l} \chi (m)$$ because $\chi (p)=0$ and $\sum_{m=a+1}^{a+p} \chi (m) =0$ for any $a$. Now since $$a_l \le A/p^l=(a_0+a_1p+\ldots +a_lp^l)/p^l < a_l +1$$ so we have $$\sum_{j=1}^n f(j) = \sum_{l=0}^k \sum_{m \le a_l} \chi (m) = \sum_{l=0}^{p-1} N(n,l)\left(\sum_{m\le l}\chi (m) \right).$$ This proves the theorem.
In this language, Theorem \[cor1\] can be stated as follows.
\[theorem 2.2\] If $N(n,l)$ is the number of digits $l$ in the base $p$ expansion of $n$, then $$\label{*} L_p(n)=\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_p(j) =\sum_{l=0}^{p-1} N(n,l)\left(\sum_{m\le l}\left(\frac{m}{p}\right) \right).$$
As an application of this theorem consider $p=3$.
\[cor2\] The value of $L_3(n)$ is equal to the number of 1’s in the base 3 expansion of $n$.
Since $\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)=1$ and $\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)+\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)=0$, so if $n=a_0+a_13+a_23^2+\ldots +a_k3^k$ is the base $3$ expansion of $n$, then the right-hand side of (or equivalently, the right-hand side of ) is equal to $D_3(n)$. The result then follows from Theorem \[cor1\] (or equivalently Corollary \[theorem 2.2\]).
Note that $L_3(n)=k$ for the first time when $n=3^0+3^1+3^2+\ldots + 3^k$ and is never negative. This is in stark contrast to the traditional $L(n)$, which is negative more often than not. Indeed, we may classify all $p$ for which $L_p(n)\geq 0$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
\[thm3\] The function $L_p(n)\geq 0$ for all $n$ exactly for those odd primes $p$ for which $$\left(\frac{1}{p}\right)+\left(\frac{2}{p}\right)+\ldots +\left(\frac{k}{p}\right) \ge 0$$ for all $1\le k \le p$. \[theorem3\]
We first observe from that if $0 \le r <p$, then $$\sum_{l=1}^r \lambda_p(l)=\sum_{l=1}^r \left(\frac{l}{p}\right).$$ From theorem \[cor1\], $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l=1}^n \lambda_p(l)
& = & \sum_{l=1}^{a_0}\lambda_p(l)+\sum_{l=1}^{a_1}\lambda_p(l)+\ldots
+\sum_{l=1}^{a_k}\lambda_p(l) \\
& = & \sum_{l=1}^{a_0}\left(\frac{l}{p}\right)+\sum_{l=1}^{a_1}\left(\frac{l}{p}\right)+\ldots
+\sum_{l=1}^{a_k}\left(\frac{l}{p}\right)\end{aligned}$$ because all $a_j$ are between $0$ and $p-1$. The result then follows.
For $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we have $$0 \leq L_3(n) \leq [ \log_3n] +1.$$
This follows from Theorem \[thm3\], Application \[cor2\], and the fact that the number of 1’s in the base three expansion of $n$ is $\le [\log_3n]+1$.
As a further example, let $p=5$.
\[cor5\] The value of $L_5(n)$ is equal to the number of 1’s in the base 5 expansion of $n$ minus the number of 3’s in the base 5 expansion of $n$. Also for $n\ge 1$, $$\left| L_5(n)\right| \le [\log_5n]+1.$$
Recall from above, that $L_3(n)$ is always nonnegative, but $L_5(n)$ isn’t. Also $L_5(n)=k$ for the first time when $n=5^0+5^1+5^2+\ldots + 5^k$ and $L_5(n)=-k$ for the first time when $n=3\cdot 5^0+3\cdot 5^1+3\cdot 5^2+\ldots + 3\cdot 5^k$.
\[remp\]The reason for specific $p$ values in the proceeding two corollaries is that, in general, it’s not always the case that $|L_p(n)|\le [\log_pn]+1$.
We now return to our classification of primes for which $L_p(n)\geq 0$ for all $n\geq 1$.
Denote by $\mathcal{L}^+$, the set of primes $p$ for which $L_p(n)\geq 0$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
We have found, by computation, that the first few values in $\mathcal{L}^+$ are $$\mathcal{L}^+=\{3,7,11,23,31,47,59,71,79,83,103,131,151,167,191,199,239,251\ldots\}.$$ By inspection, $\mathcal{L}^+$ doesn’t seem to contain any primes $p$, with $p\equiv 1\pmod 4$. This is not a coincidence, as demonstrated by the following theorem.
If $p\in \mathcal{L}^+$, then $p\equiv 3 \pmod 4$.
Note that if $p\equiv 1\pmod 4$, then $$\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)=\left(\frac{-a}{p}\right)$$ for all $1\leq a\leq p-1$, so that $$\sum_{a=1}^{\frac{p-1}{2}}\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)=0.$$
Consider the case that $\left(\frac{(p-1)/2}{p}\right)=1$. Then $$\sum_{a=1}^{\frac{p-1}{2}}\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)=\sum_{a=1}^{\frac{p-1}{2}-1}\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)+\left(\frac{(p-1)/2}{p}\right)=\sum_{a=1}^{\frac{p-1}{2}-1}\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)+1,$$ so that $$\sum_{a=1}^{\frac{p-1}{2}-1}\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)=-1<0.$$
On the other hand, if $\left(\frac{(p-1)/2}{p}\right)=-1$, then since $\left(\frac{(p-1)/2}{p}\right)=\left(\frac{(p-1)/2+1}{p}\right)$, we have $$\sum_{a=1}^{\frac{p-1}{2}}\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)=\sum_{a=1}^{\frac{p-1}{2}+1}\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)-\left(\frac{(p-1)/2+1}{p}\right)=\sum_{a=1}^{\frac{p-1}{2}+1}\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)+1,$$ so that $$\sum_{a=1}^{\frac{p-1}{2}+1}\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)=-1<0.\qedhere$$
A bound for $|L_p(n)|$
======================
Above we were able to give exact bounds on the function $|L_p(n)|$. As explained in Remark \[remp\], this is not always possible, though an asymptotic bound is easily attained with a few preliminary results.
\[period\] For all $r,n\in\mathbb{N}$ we have $L_p(p^rn)=L_p(n)$.
For $i=1,\ldots,p-1$ and $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $\lambda_p(kp+i)=\lambda_p(i)$. This relation immediately gives for $k\in\mathbb{N}$ that $L_p(p(k+1)-1)-L_p(pk)=0$, since $L_p(p-1)=0$. Thus $$L_p(p^rn)=\sum_{k=1}^{p^{r}n} \lambda_p(k)=\sum_{k=1}^{p^{r-1}n} \lambda_p(pk)=\sum_{k=1}^{p^{r-1}n} \lambda_p(p)\lambda_p(k)=\sum_{k=1}^{p^{r-1}n} \lambda_p(k)=L_p(p^{r-1}n).$$ The lemma follows immediately.
\[Lmax\] The maximum value of $|L_p(n)|$ for $n<p^i$ occurs at $n=k\cdot\sigma(p^{i-1})$ with value $$\max_{n<p^i}|L_p(n)|=i\cdot \max_{n<p}|L_p(n)|,$$ where $\sigma(n)$ is the sum of the divisors of $n$.
This follows directly from Lemma \[period\].
\[Lpn\] If $p$ is an odd prime, then $ |L_p(n)| \ll\log n;$ furthermore, $$\max_{n\leq x}|L_p(x)| \asymp\log x.$$
[10]{}
Paul T. Bateman and Harold G. Diamond, *Analytic number theory*, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2004, An introductory course.
P. Borwein, S. Choi, B. Rooney, and A. Weirathmuller, *The [R]{}iemann [H]{}ypothesis: A [R]{}esource for the [A]{}fficionado and [V]{}irtuoso [A]{}like*, CMS Books in Mathematics, vol. 27, Springer, New York, 2008.
P. Borwein, R. Ferguson, and M.J. Mossinghoff, *Sign changes in sums of the [L]{}iouville function*, Math. Comp. (2007), to appear.
Andrew Granville and K. Soundararajan, *Motivating the multiplicative spectrum*, Topics in number theory (University Park, PA, 1997), Math. Appl., vol. 467, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1999, pp. 1–15.
Andrew Granville and K. Soundararajan, *The spectrum of multiplicative functions*, Ann. of Math. (2) **153** (2001), no. 2, 407–470.
Andrew Granville and K. Soundararajan, *Decay of mean values of multiplicative functions*, Canad. J. Math. **55** (2003), no. 6, 1191–1230.
G. H. Hardy and E. M. Wright, *An [I]{}ntroduction to the [T]{}heory of [N]{}umbers*, fifth ed., The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1979.
C. B. Haselgrove, *A disproof of a conjecture of [P]{}ólya*, Mathematika **5** (1958), 141–145.
A. E. Ingham, *[A note on the distribution of primes.]{}*, Acta arith. **1** (1936), 201–211.
Henryk Iwaniec and Emmanuel Kowalski, *Analytic number theory*, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. 53, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004.
Edmund Landau, *[N]{}euer [B]{}eweis der [G]{}leichung $\sum\frac{\mu(k)}{k}=0$*, Inaugural-Dissertation, Berlin, 1899.
Edmund Landau, *Über die Äquivalenz zweier [H]{}auptsätze der analytischen [Z]{}ahlentheorie*, Wien. Sitz. **120** (1911), 973–988.
Nathan Ng, *The distribution factor of values of the summatory function of the [M]{}öbius function*, Notes of the Canad. Math. Soc. **34** (2002), no. 5, 5–8.
Nathan Ng, *The distribution of the summatory function of the [M]{}öbius function*, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) **89** (2004), no. 2, 361–389.
Hans Carl Friedrich von Mangoldt, *[B]{}eweis der [G]{}leichung $\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{\mu(k)}{k}=0$*, Proc. Royal Pruss. Acad. of Sci. of Berlin (1897), 835–852.
Aurel Wintner, *The [T]{}heory of [M]{}easure in [A]{}rithmetical [S]{}emi-[G]{}roups*, publisher unknown, Baltimore, Md., 1944.
E. Wirsing, *Das asymptotische [V]{}erhalten von [S]{}ummen über multiplikative [F]{}unktionen. [II]{}*, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. **18** (1967), 411–467.
[^1]: Research supported in part by grants from NSERC of Canada and MITACS.
[^2]: Note that using the given definition $\lambda_p(p)=\left(\frac{p}{p}\right)=1.$
[^3]: For the traditional $L(n)$, it was conjectured by Pólya that $L(n)\geq0$ for all $n$, though this was proven to be a non-trivial statement and ultimately false (See Haselgrove [@Has1]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A mixed semiclassical initial value representation expression for spectroscopic calculations is derived. The formulation takes advantage of the time-averaging filtering and the hierarchical properties of different trajectory based propagation methods. A separable approximation is then introduced that greatly reduces (about an order of magnitude) the computational cost compared with a full Herman-Kluk time-averaging semiclassical calculation for the same systems. The expression is exact for the harmonic case and it is tested numerically for a Morse potential coupled to one or two additional harmonic degrees of freedom. Results are compared to full Herman-Kluk time-averaging calculations and exact quantum wavepacket propagations. We found the peak positions of the mixed semiclassical approximations to be always in very good agreement with full quantum calculations, while overtone peak intensities are lower with respect to the exact ones. Given the reduced computational effort required by this new mixed semiclassical approximation, we believe the present method to make spectroscopic calculations available for higher dimensional systems than accessible before.'
author:
- Max
- Frank
- Michele
title: 'Mixed Semiclassical Initial Value Representation Time-Averaging Propagator for Spectroscopic Calculations'
---
Introduction\[sec:Introduction\]
================================
Molecular spectra, and spectroscopic signals in general, contain all quantum mechanical information connected to molecular motion, even for increasingly complex systems. Most frequently, however, the full amount of information is not useful and not necessary. Actually, it would be convenient to be able to select with precision a certain amount of spectroscopic information that is related to a subset of degrees of freedom, which one is most interested in. In other words, since not all degrees of freedom are equally important, many relevant molecular properties of chemical systems can be rationalized in terms of few main degrees of freedom, usually called the “system”. These are coupled to an environment of many other degrees of freedom, the “bath”, which is not directly responsible for the physical properties in question.
In a time-dependent approach to spectroscopy, exact quantum mechanical methods to determine the dynamics of the complete dynamical system are inaccessible for most real-life applications. A common strategy therefore is to employ an accurate quantum propagator for the time-evolution of the system degrees of freedom and a lower accuracy propagation scheme for the bath ones. This should be done without enforcing any artificial and arbitrary decoupling between the system and the bath. Semiclassical Initial Values Representation (SC-IVR) molecular dynamics [@Miller_avd_74; @Miller_PNAS; @Kay_review; @Heller_IVR] is a valuable tool for exploiting this strategy, since it offers a hierarchy of semiclassical propagators at different levels of quantum accuracy. In the past, several groups have beaten this path in the search for a hybrid semiclassical propagator. For example, Zhang and Pollak, in their SC-IVR perturbative series method [@Pollak_perturbationSeries], treated the system variables with the Herman-Kluk (HK) prefactor [@Herman_Kluk_2] and the bath variables using a prefactor free propagation. This is obtained by forcing a unitary pre-exponential factor of the HK propagator, which is expensive to compute as the dimensionality of the problem increases [@Pollak_prefactorfree_05]. Earlier, Ovchinnikov and Apkarian focused on condensed phase spectroscopy by using second- and zeroth order approximations in stationary phase of the exact quantum propagator, respectively the van Vleck and a prefactor-free van Vleck propagator in Initial Value Representation (vV-IVR) [@Apkarian]. At about the same time, Sun and Miller introduced a mixed semiclassical-classical model, where the vV-IVR is either used in first or zeroth order approximation, according to the amount of quantum delocalization retained around each classical trajectory [@MIller_Sun_mixedSCclassical]. Also the Filinov smoothing can be used to tune the semiclassical propagator [@Miller336_GeneralizedFBSCIVR_01], as recently shown [@Nandini_mixed_quantum_classical]. In 2006, one of us (FG) implemented a similar idea for the Gaussian dressed semiclassical dynamics of the HK propagator [@Grossmann_hybrid_06]. More specifically, Gaussian wave packet propagation with the HK propagator is equivalent to a Thawed Gaussian wave packet dynamics (TGWD) [@Heller_thawedgaussian] if the phase space integral is approximated to second order in the exponent around the phase space center of the wave packet (linearization of the classical trajatories) [@Grossmann_thwg; @Deshpande_Ezra_2006-1]. If the transition from HK to TGWD is performed analytically only for a selected set of degrees of freedom, one obtains a semiclassical hybrid dynamics (SCHD) in the same spirit as described above. The HK propagator is quite accurate and definitely superior to a single trajectory TGWD, but computationally much more expensive for many degrees of freedom. However, the full HK propagator is not necessary to describe the dynamics for harmonic like modes, where the TGWD is already quite accurate[@Jiri_oligotiophenes_14; @Jiri_ammonia_2015; @Jiri_Miroslav_MolPHys_2012; @Pollak_Conte_TGWD]. The semiclassical hybrid propagation takes advantage of both methods when the system is treated at the level of HK and the bath with the TGWD.
For the pure HK propagator the method of time-averaging [@Kay-TA] has been shown to improve the numerical efficiency for the calculation of spectra, after the so-called separable approximation [@Alex_Mik]. The goal in the following is to apply the time-averaging idea together with the SCHD propagation scheme to produce a mixed semiclassical time-averaging propagator for spectroscopic calculations.
The paper is organized in the following way. Section \[sec:Time-averaging-SC-IVR\] recalls the time-averaging semiclassical method. Section \[sec:Mixed\] introduces a new mixed semiclassical progapator and Section \[sec:Sep-Mixed\] presents a computationally cheap version of this propagator based on a separable approximation. In Section \[sec:Results\] results for the Caldeira-Leggett model Hamiltonian are presented and compared with exact quantum wave packet propagations. After a discussion of the results in Section \[sec:Results\], Conclusions are drawn in Section \[sec:Conclusions\].
The time-averaging SC-IVR method for power spectra calculations\[sec:Time-averaging-SC-IVR\]
============================================================================================
This paper focuses on spectroscopic calculations. More specifically, we want to calculate the power spectra components $I\left(E\right)$ of a given reference state $\left|\chi\right\rangle $ subject to the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{I}\left(E\right)= & \sum_{i}\left|\left\langle \chi\left|\right.\psi_{i}\right\rangle \right|^{2}\delta(\mbox{E}-\mbox{E}_{i}),\label{eq:spectrum1}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{i}$ are the eigen-energies that we are interested in and $\left|\psi_{i}\right\rangle $ are the associated eigen-functions of the Hamiltonian. By representing the Dirac-delta in terms of a Fourier integral, Eq. (\[eq:spectrum1\]) can be written as [@Heller_review_autocorrel]
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{I}(E)= & \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\int\limits _{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{d}t\:\text{e}^{\text{i}Et/\hbar}\left\langle \chi\left|\text{e}^{-\text{i}\hat{H}t/\hbar}\right|\chi\right\rangle \label{eq:spectrum2}\end{aligned}$$
In semiclassical dynamics, the time evolution of Eq. (\[eq:spectrum2\]) can be calculated using the HK propagator$2F-$dimensionalven by the direct product of one dimensional coherent states
[@Ceotto_1traj; @Ceotto_MCSCIVR; @Ceotto_eigenfunctions; @Ceotto_cursofdimensionality_11; @Ceotto_david; @Ceotto_acceleratedSCIVR; @Ceotto_NH3; @Ceotto_Zhang_JCTC],$\left|\chi\right\rangle =\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\text{states}}}\left|\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq}}^{i},\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq}}^{i}\right\rangle $ is written as a combination of coherent states placed nearby the classical phase space points $\left(\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq}}^{i},\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq}}^{i}\right)$, where $\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq}}^{i}$ is an equilibrium position and $\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq}}^{i}$ corresponds, in a harmonic fashion, to excited vibrational states, i.e. $\left(p_{i,\text{eq}}\right)^{2}/2m=\hbar\omega_{i}\left(n+1/2\right)$. In this way, one can reduce the number of trajectories to a few “eigen-trajectories”, one for each coherent state location, corresponding to the harmonic sequence of eigenvalues. The Gaussian delocalization showed to alleviate the shortcomings of a global harmonic approximation, that one would perform if just a single trajectory was used, and to fully provide anharmonic effects. MC-SC-IVR has been successfully applied to gas phase spectra calculations of the $\mbox{H}_{2}\mbox{O}$ molecule [@Ceotto_MCSCIVR], and $\mbox{CO}$ molecules chemisorbed on a $\mbox{Cu}(100)$ surface using a pre-computed potential [@Ceotto_david]. Using a direct *ab initio* approach, vibrational energies for $\mbox{CO}{}_{2}$ [@Ceotto_MCSCIVR; @Ceotto_1traj], $\mbox{H}{}_{2}\mbox{CO}$ [@Ceotto_cursofdimensionality_11] and the ammonia umbrella inversion [@Ceotto_NH3], as well as $\mbox{CO}{}_{2}$ vibrational eigenfunctions [@Ceotto_eigenfunctions], have been calculated. The MC-SC-IVR computational time is dramatically reduced when the method is implemented for GPU architectures [@Ceotto_GPU].
A mixed semiclassical power spectrum method\[sec:Mixed\]
========================================================
The idea of the SCHD is based on a mixed semiclassical propagator approach. We partition the $2F$ phase space variables into $2F_{\text{hk}}$ for the system phase space and $2F_{\text{tg}}$ for the bath phase space. The HK level of accuracy is reserved for the system only, indicated by the subscript hk, whereas the bath phase space variables are treated on the thawed Gaussian level (subscript tg). The reference state is chosen as $\left|\chi\right\rangle =\left|\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq}}\left(0\right),\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq}}\left(0\right)\right\rangle $ as explained above, and the initial phase space coordinate vectors are subdivided as $$\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq}}\left(0\right)\equiv\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{hk}}\left(0\right)\\
\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)
\end{array}\right);\;\;\;\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq}}\left(0\right)\equiv\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{hk}}\left(0\right)\\
\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:initial_mixed_coord}$$ where the bath starting coordinates are always assumed to be at the equilibrium positions. This phase space variable partitioning is motivated by considering that the TGWD exactly reproduces the full harmonic spectrum, as shown in Appendix \[sec:Appendix-A:TWD\]. The partitioning should be well suited for a harmonic-like motion of the bath degrees of freedom.
Following [@Grossmann_hybrid_06], we approximate the evolution of the phase space coordinates in (\[eq:initial\_mixed\_coord\]) at each time step as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{q}(t)\equiv\left(\begin{matrix}\mathbf{q}_{\text{hk}}\left(t\right)\\
\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}\left(t\right)
\end{matrix}\right) & = & \mathbf{q}_{\text{eq}}\left(t\right)+\mathbf{m}_{22}\left(t\right)\delta\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}+\mathbf{m}_{21}\left(t\right)\delta\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}\label{eq:HYB-qt}\\
\mathbf{p}(t)\equiv\left(\begin{matrix}\mathbf{p}_{\text{hk}}\left(t\right)\\
\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}\left(t\right)
\end{matrix}\right) & = & \mathbf{p}_{\text{eq}}\left(t\right)+\mathbf{m}_{12}\left(t\right)\delta\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}+\mathbf{m}_{11}\left(t\right)\delta\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}\label{eq:HYB-pt}\end{aligned}$$ where the trajectory coordinates are linearly expanded for the bath DOFs only. The matrices $$\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{m}_{11}\left(t\right)=\frac{\partial\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},}\left(t\right)}{\partial\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)};\;\;\;\mathbf{m}_{12}\left(t\right)=\frac{\partial\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},}\left(t\right)}{\partial\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)};\\
\mathbf{m}_{21}\left(t\right)=\frac{\partial\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},}\left(t\right)}{\partial\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)};\;\;\;\mathbf{m}_{22}\left(t\right)=\frac{\partial\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq}}\left(t\right)}{\partial\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)};
\end{array}\label{eq:HYB-mij-1}$$ are non-square $F\times F_{\text{tg}}$ dimensional and the displacements $$\begin{array}{c}
\delta\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}=\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}\left(0\right)-\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)\\
\delta\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}=\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}\left(0\right)-\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)
\end{array}\label{eq:displac_vec}$$ are $F_{\text{tg}}$ dimensional. To apply this approximation to Eq. (\[eq:sep\_approx\]), we express it as
We now express all quantities appearing in (\[eq:sep\_approx-2\]) in terms of the trajectory in Eqs. (\[eq:HYB-qt\]) and (\[eq:HYB-pt\]). The classical action becomes $$\begin{aligned}
S_{t}\left(\mathbf{p}\left(0\right),\mathbf{q}\left(0\right)\right) & = & S_{t}\left(\mathbf{p}_{\text{hk}}\left(0\right),\mathbf{q}_{\text{hk}}\left(0\right),\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right),\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)\right)\label{eq:HYB-action-1}\\
& & +\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq}}^{\text{T}}(t)\mathbf{m}_{21}\left(t\right)\delta\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}+\left(\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq}}^{\text{T}}(t)\mathbf{m}_{22}\left(t\right)-\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:0,\:\text{tg}}^{\text{T}}\right)\delta\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{2}\delta\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{m}_{11}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\mathbf{m}_{21}\left(t\right)\delta\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}+\frac{1}{2}\delta\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{m}_{12}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\mathbf{m}_{22}\left(t\right)\delta\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}\nonumber \\
& & +\delta\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{m}_{12}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\mathbf{m}_{21}\left(t\right)\delta\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ up to the second order in fluctuations for the bath subspace[@Grossmann_hybrid_06]. In the same fashion, we insert (\[eq:HYB-qt\]) and (\[eq:HYB-pt\]) into the coherent states overlap, retain the terms up to the second order and obtain three approximated exponential terms. By inserting these terms and Eq. (\[eq:HYB-action-1\]) into the power spectrum expression (\[eq:sep\_approx-2\]), we obtain the mixed semiclassical power spectrum approximationwhere we have introduced the $F_{\text{tg}}\times F_{\text{tg}}$ diagonal matrices $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\text{tg}}$ and the $F_{\text{hk}}\times F_{\text{hk}}$ diagonal matrices $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\text{hk}}$ comprising the respective width parameters. In the last exponential of (\[eq:sep\_approx-3\]), the terms have been collected according to the respective power of $\delta\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}$ and $\delta\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}$. The zeroth order terms are $$\begin{aligned}
c_{t} & = & \frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}S_{t}\left(\mathbf{p}_{\text{hk}}\left(0\right),\mathbf{q}_{\text{hk}}\left(0\right),\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right),\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)\right)\label{eq:c_t}\\
& & -\frac{1}{4}\left(\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(t\right)-\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)\right)^{\text{T}}\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\text{tg}}\left(\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(t\right)-\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)\right)\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{4\hbar^{2}}\left(\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(t\right)-\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)\right)^{\text{T}}\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{\text{tg}}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(t\right)-\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)\right)\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\text{i}}{2\hbar}\left(\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)-\mathbf{q}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(t\right)\right)^{\text{T}}\left(\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(t\right)+\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}\left(0\right)\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and the coefficients of the second order terms are collected in the matrix $\mathbf{A}\left(t\right)$ composed of the following $F_{\text{tg}}\times F_{\text{tg}}$ blocks $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A}_{11}\left(t\right) & = & \frac{1}{4}\mathbf{m}_{21}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\mathbf{m}_{21}\left(t\right)+\frac{1}{4\hbar^{2}}\mathbf{m}_{11}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^{-1}\mathbf{m}_{11}\left(t\right)\label{eq:A_matrix}\\
\mathbf{A}_{12}\left(t\right) & = & \frac{1}{4}\mathbf{m}_{21}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\boldsymbol{\gamma}\mathbf{m}_{22}\left(t\right)+\frac{1}{4\hbar^{2}}\mathbf{m}_{11}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{-1}\mathbf{m}_{12}\left(t\right)\nonumber \\
\mathbf{A}_{21}\left(t\right) & = & \frac{1}{4}\mathbf{m}_{22}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\boldsymbol{\gamma}\mathbf{m}_{21}\left(t\right)+\frac{1}{4\hbar^{2}}\mathbf{m}_{12}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{-1}\mathbf{m}_{11}\left(t\right)+\frac{\text{i}}{2\hbar}\nonumber \\
\mathbf{A}_{22}\left(t\right) & = & \frac{1}{4}\mathbf{m}_{22}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\boldsymbol{\gamma}\mathbf{m}_{22}\left(t\right)+\frac{1}{4\hbar^{2}}\mathbf{m}_{12}^{\text{T}}\left(t\right)\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^{-1}\mathbf{m}_{12}\left(t\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients of the first order terms in $\delta\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}$ and $\delta\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}$ are collected in a $2F_{\text{tg}}$ dimensional vector of the type $$\mathbf{b}_{t}\equiv\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{b}_{1,t}\\
\mathbf{b}_{2,t}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:B_definition}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{b}_{1,t}^{\text{T}} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbf{q}\left(t\right)-\mathbf{q}\left(0\right)\right)^{\text{T}}\left[\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\mathbf{m}_{21}\left(t\right)+\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\mathbf{m}_{11}\left(t\right)\right]\label{eq:b1}\\
& & -\frac{1}{2\hbar^{2}}\left(\mathbf{p}\left(t\right)-\mathbf{p}\left(0\right)\right)^{\text{T}}\left[\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^{-1}\mathbf{m}_{11}\left(t\right)-\text{i}\hbar\mathbf{m}_{21}\left(t\right)\right]\nonumber \\
\mathbf{b}_{2,t}^{\text{T}} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbf{q}\left(t\right)-\mathbf{q}\left(0\right)\right)^{\text{T}}\left[\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\mathbf{m}_{22}\left(t\right)+\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\mathbf{m}_{12}\left(t\right)\right]\label{eq:b2}\\
& & -\frac{1}{2\hbar^{2}}\left(\mathbf{p}\left(t\right)-\mathbf{p}\left(0\right)\right)^{\text{T}}\left[\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^{-1}\mathbf{m}_{12}\left(t\right)-\text{i}\hbar\mathbf{m}_{22}\left(t\right)\right]-\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\mathbf{p}_{\text{eq},\:\text{tg}}^{\text{T}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To carry out the Gaussian integration in $\delta\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}$ and $\delta\mathbf{q}_{\text{tg}}$ in (\[eq:sep\_approx-3\]), we first unravel the modulus squared, then change the coordinates in the bath subspace from the phase space ones to the displacement ones of (\[eq:displac\_vec\]) and obtain
Separable approximations for the mixed semiclassical power spectrum method\[sec:Sep-Mixed\]
===========================================================================================
The double time integration of (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]) can be quite computationally demanding and the advantage of the approximated thawed Gaussian dynamics for the bath coordinates is diminished by this double integration. To recover a separable approximation of the type of the original time-averaging SC-IVR expression of (\[eq:sep\_approx\]) for the mixed semiclassical expression of Eq. (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]), we approximate the exponential part as follows $$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{1}{4}\left(\mathbf{b}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{b}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)^{\text{T}}\left(\mathbf{A}\left(t_{1}\right)+\mathbf{A}^{*}\left(t_{2}\right)\right)^{-1}\left(\mathbf{b}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{b}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)\label{eq:separableB}\\
& & \approx\frac{1}{4}\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t_{1}}^{\text{T}}\left(\mathbf{A}\left(t_{1}\right)+\mathbf{A}^{*}\left(t_{1}\right)\right)^{-1}\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t_{1}}+\frac{1}{4}\left[\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t_{2}}^{\text{T}}\left(\mathbf{A}\left(t_{2}\right)+\mathbf{A}^{*}\left(t_{2}\right)\right)^{-1}\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t_{2}}\right]^{*},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ while the other exponential terms are naturally separable. The modified vector $\mathbf{b}_{\mbox{m},t}$ is defined as $$\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{b}_{1,t}\\
\mathbf{b}_{2,t}+\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\mathbf{p}_{\text{tg}}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:modified_bt}$$ The pre-exponential square root term is also not separable, and we approximate it in the fashion of a geometric average by $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\det\left(\mathbf{A}\left(t_{1}\right)+\mathbf{A}^{*}\left(t_{2}\right)\right)}}\approx\left(\frac{1}{\det\left(\mathbf{A}\left(t_{1}\right)+\mathbf{A}^{*}\left(t_{1}\right)\right)}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{1}{\det\left(\mathbf{A}\left(t_{2}\right)+\mathbf{A}^{*}\left(t_{2}\right)\right)}\right)^{1/4}\label{eq:pre-exp_approx}$$ Using Eq.s (\[eq:separableB\]) and (\[eq:pre-exp\_approx\]), the expression for the power spectrum is greatly simplifiedand much less computationally demanding since only a single time-integration is now requested. Eq. (\[eq:sep\_B\]) still retains the full dimensional classical evolution and the thawed Gaussian approximation for the bath degrees of freedom only. However, the time-averaging part of the thawed Gaussian dynamics is less accurate than that one in Eq. (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]).
Appendix A shows how the TGWD is exact for the power spectrum calculations of the harmonic oscillator, including all vibrational levels. This level of accuracy is preserved by our approximation. We demonstrate that the peak positions of the spectrum are indeed reproduced correctly in Appendix B. This is very important since the harmonic contribution is often the main contribution for the potential energy surface of bound systems.
Results and Discussion\[sec:Results\]
=====================================
To test the accuracy of the power spectrum expression of Eq. (\[eq:sep\_B\]), we consider a model system of a Morse oscillator coupled bilinearly (the Caldeira-Leggett (CL) model [@CaldeiraLeggett_1983]) to one, respectively two harmonic oscillators. We intentionally keep the number of the bath modes low, since in this way we have exact quantum wavepacket results available for comparison. The CL Hamiltonian in atomic units is $$H=H_{\text{s}}+\sum_{i=1}^{F_{\text{bath}}}\left\{ \frac{p_{i}^{2}}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left[\omega_{i}y_{i}+\frac{c_{i}}{\omega_{i}}\left(s-s_{\text{eq}}\right)\right]^{2}\right\} \label{eq:Caldeira-Leggett_H}$$ where $s$ is the system variable and $s_{\text{eq}}$ its equilibrium position, and $y_{\text{i}}$ are the bath coordinates and the bath masses are unitary. We choose bath parameters corresponding to an Ohmic density with exponential cutoff, where the normalization factor $c_{i}/\omega_{i}$ and a system-bath coupling strength $\eta$ are defined as in [@Goletz_2009].
The system Hamiltonian $H_{s}$ is that of a Morse potential $$V_{\text{s}}\left(r\right)=D_{\text{e}}\left(1-\text{e}^{-\alpha\left(r-r_{\text{e}}\right)}\right)^{2}\label{eq:Morse_pot}$$ where $D_{\text{e}}=0.057\:\mbox{a.u.}$, $r_{\text{e}}=0\:\mbox{a.u.}$, and $\alpha=0.983\:\mbox{a.u.}.$The mass of the Morse oscillator has been set to $M_{\text{r}}=1.165\times10^{5}\:\mbox{a.u.}$ and the Morse frequency is $\omega_{\text{s}}=9.724\times10^{-4}\:\mbox{a.u.}$, in order to reproduce the vibration of the $\mbox{I}_{2}$ molecule.
We will look at two different effective coupling strengths $\eta_{\text{eff}}=\eta/\left(m_{\text{s}}\omega_{\text{s}}\right)$ and three different cutoff frequencies $\omega_{\text{c}}$. Note that $\omega_{\text{c}}$ is identical with the bath frequency for the two dimensional case; in the three dimensional calculations there is one additional bath oscillator of lower frequency. In one case, we intentionally choose a bath frequency that is resonant with the Morse potential’s harmonic approximation, and another that is much lower than $\omega_{\text{s}}$, and a third one in between. In the resonant case, one might expect that the hybrid method is quite poor, because the system, which is anharmonic, might drive the harmonic bath into anharmonic dynamics, which is not accounted for by TGWD part of the mixed semiclassical propagator.
The initial conditions are chosen in harmonic approximation as $(p\left(0\right),q\left(0\right))=\left(\sqrt{m_{\text{s}}\omega_{\text{s}}},0\right)$for the system. Also the bath is initially at its equilibrium position with harmonic zero point kinetic energy. We use $10^{4}$ trajectories for the two-dimensional, and $5\times10^{4}$ trajectories for the three-dimensional calculations. While this is enough to get the main peak positions correctly, tight convergence of the hk result needs more trajectories, as shown exemplary in Table \[tab:Number-of-trajectories\]. The time step is $\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/20$ (where $T_{s}=2\pi/\omega_{\text{s}}$), and the total number of (semiclassical) time steps is $2^{14}$, except for Eq. (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]) where we use only $2^{13}$ steps because we have to do two time integrations in that case. The reference quantum calculations are performed with the WavePacket software [@SchmidtLorenz2011].
[l>p[2cm]{}>p[2cm]{}c]{} & & & [\
]{} & TA HK sep (\[eq:sep\_approx\]) & TA mixed (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]) & TA mixed-sep (\[eq:sep\_B\])[\
]{}\[\] trajectories & $2\times10^{5}$ & $1\times10^{4}$ & $1\times10^{4}$[\
]{} time steps & $2^{14}$ & $2^{13}$ & $2^{14}$[\
]{}computational time & 10 hours & 33 hours & 40 min[\
]{} & & & [\
]{}
For a better comparability between spectra, we always substract the uncoupled bath ground state energy in our plots, i. e., $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\text{plot}} & = & E-\sum\limits _{i=0}^{F_{\text{bath}}}\omega_{i}/2.\end{aligned}$$
![\[fig:2D\]Two dimensional power spectra calculation at different level of semiclassical accuracy for different cutting frequency and bath friction values.](2D)
Figure \[fig:2D\] shows the power spectra comparison for the two-dimensional simulations. For each plot, exact quantum wavepacket propagation is compared with the HK SC-IVR calculations at different levels of approximation. The “hk” label is for the Herman-Kluk SC-IVR propagator, the “mixed” is for Eq. (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]) and the “ mixed-sep” is for Eq. (\[eq:sep\_B\]). To better appreciate the different levels of approximation, the results should be read in a hierarchical order by comparing the “mixed-sep” with the “mixed”, the “mixed” with the “hk” and the “hk” with the exact “qm”. It is quite surprising that independently of the coupling and of the system frequency, the separable approximation of Eq. (\[eq:sep\_B\]), labeled “mixed-sep”, faithfully reproduces the spectral profile of the original approximation of Eq. (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]), the “mixed” one. Peaks locations are also well reproduced by the “mixed” approximation with respect to the original “hk” one. However, the peak intensities are not well reproduced in the different approximations. Thus, the approximations described in Sections \[sec:Mixed\] and \[sec:Sep-Mixed\] are suitable for locating the vibrational eigenvalues but it introduces some inaccuracy in the spectral intensities. Finally, the difference between the “hk” spectrum and the exact one are only for peak intensities and the different time propagation. In fact, the “hk” is employing long simulation times to exploit the time-averaging filter, while the quantum wave packet simulations are stopped at some computationally feasible time. All three cases show a blueshift of the system frequency (very clear in the middle panel) and a redshift of the bath frequency. For the stronger coupling, the blueshift tendency of the system is enhanced.
We now turn to the three-dimensional calculations shown in Fig. \[fig:3D\].
![\[fig:3D\]As in Fig.(\[fig:2D\]), but for three dimensional calculations.](3D)
Here, the spectroscopic features are much more complex and the simulation is quite more challenging than the previous one. Nevertheless, the “mixed” approximation is able to reproduce the “hk” results quite faithfully, since the peak positions are correct both in the resonant and off-resonance case. The most severe “mixed-sep” approximation is also reproducing both the “hk” and “mixed” results, even if it introduces some inaccuracyin the peak intensity and a few highly excited overtones are missing. Also in three dimensions, for the resonant case $\omega_{\text{c}}=\omega_{\text{s}}$, the resonant bath frequencies are strongly red shifted ,while the blue shift of the system is further enhanced.
Considering the drastic computational effort reduction introduced by the Gaussian integration in Eq. (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]), where a phase space integral is approximated by a single phase space trajectory, we think that the results in Fig.s (\[fig:2D\]) and (\[fig:3D\]) are quite satisfying. Even when the coupling between the system and the bath is resonant, the peak position is still quite accurate. The main drawback of the approximations “mixed” and “mixed-sep” is represented by the loss of intensity for some peaks. However, for complex systems this limitation could help for a better peak interpretation because the “mixed-sep” approximation mainly suppresses bath excitations in the spectrum, as we show in Appendix B.
On one hand, the “mixed” approximation is more computational expensive per trajectory than the time averaged HK calculation because of the double time-integration. On the other hand, the number of trajectories needed for converging the phase space integral is reduced with respect to the full dimensional HK integration, because the integration is limited to the system’s phase space. Table 1 shows that the “hk” calculation might still be faster than the full “mixed” one in spite of the reduction in the number of trajectories needed for convergence because of the unfavorable scaling of the “mixed” approximation with the number of time steps and because the calculation of the classical trajectories does not take much time in this example. For a realistic problem where the potential is not given analytically and the trajectory is simulated on-the-fly [@Ceotto_1traj; @Ceotto_acceleratedSCIVR; @Ceotto_cursofdimensionality_11; @Ceotto_MCSCIVR; @Ceotto_NH3], the trajectory calculation will take much longer and make the “mixed” approach the more efficient one. The “mixed-sep” approximation, on the other hand, combines the single time integration of “hk” with the reduced number of trajectories, which results in an impressive speedup of the computations, as shown in Table 1. The inaccuracy that comes with this additional approximation is only in peak intensity, but not peak position, as discussed before.
Conclusions\[sec:Conclusions\]
==============================
We have developed a new semiclassical method for the calculation of vibrational spectra of molecular systems that is based on the combination of the time-averaging idea with the semiclassical hybrid methodology. After partitioning the phase space variables into system and bath ones, we could apply a lower accuracy semiclassical propagation scheme based on a thawed Gaussian approximation to the bath degrees of freedom only, while preserving the full HK semiclassical propagator accuracy for the system time evolution. The resulting expression of the power spectrum intensity of Eq. (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]) was then approximated to further reduce the computational effort. In this way, the separabale approximation, that is at the heart of the time-averaging method, was implemented and lead to the final working formula, given in Eq. (\[eq:sep\_B\]). In the harmonic case, this additional approximation has been shown to give identical peak positions in the spectrum, as can be seen by comparing the results in Appendix A and Appendix B. Numerical examples have been shown for a Morse oscillator coupled to one or two harmonic oscillators with different frequencies and coupling strengths. Even in the case of only one additional harmonic degree of freedom, compared to full Herman-Kluk time-averaging results, the numerical effort was shown to be reduced by more than an order of magnitude. Considering different system-bath couplings and including the resonant scenario, we found peak positions to be always in very good agreement with full quantum calculations, that are still feasible in the cases considered.In the future, we are planning to apply this semiclassical method to more realistic systems, where the harmonic bath is replaced by a realistic solvent, such as rare gas matrices [@Buchholz_2011; @BiharyApkarian_2001] or even water molecules.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
Michele Ceotto acknowledges support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No [\[]{}647107[\]]{} SEMICOMPLEX ERC-2014-CoG). M.C. acknowledges also the CINECA and the Regione Lombardia award under the LISA initiative (grant SURGREEN) for the availability of high performance computing resources and the Chemistry Department of the University of Milan for funding through the Development Plan of Athenaeum grant line B1 (UNIAGI 17777). FG gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through Grant No. GR 1210/4-2.
Appendix A: The Harmonic Spectrum using a Thawed Gaussian Wavepacket\[sec:Appendix-A:TWD\] {#appendix-a-the-harmonic-spectrum-using-a-thawed-gaussian-wavepacketsecappendix-atwd .unnumbered}
==========================================================================================
In this appendix, we show that the thawed Gaussian approximation (TGA) as an exact solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the harmonic oscillator leads to the exact harmonic spectrum. The wavepacket in the TGA [@Heller_thawedgaussian] is written as the coherent state $$\psi\left(x,t\right)=\left(\frac{\gamma_{0}}{\pi}\right)^{1/4}\exp\left\{ -\frac{\gamma_{t}}{2}\left(x-q_{t}\right)^{2}+\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}p_{t}\left(x-q_{t}\right)+\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\delta_{t}\right\} ,\label{eq:wavepacket_TWGD}$$ where the parameters $\gamma_{t}$ and $\delta_{t}$ evolve with time according to the differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
-\text{i}\hbar\dot{\gamma}_{t} & = & -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{m}\gamma_{t}^{2}+\frac{\text{d}{}^{2}}{\text{d}q_{t}^{2}}V\left(q_{t},t\right)\label{eq:gamma_TWGD}\\
\dot{\delta}_{t} & = & \frac{p_{t}^{2}}{2m}-V\left(q_{t},t\right)-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m}\gamma_{t}.\label{eq:delta_TWGD}\end{aligned}$$ For the harmonic oscillator motion where the potential is $V\left(q_{t}\right)=m\omega^{2}q{}_{t}^{2}/2$, (\[eq:gamma\_TWGD\]) and (\[eq:delta\_TWGD\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
-\text{i}\hbar\dot{\gamma}_{t} & = & -\frac{\hbar^{2}}{m}\gamma_{t}^{2}+m\omega^{2}\label{eq:gamma2_TWDG}\\
\delta_{t} & = & S_{t}\left(p_{0},q_{0}\right)-\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}t,\label{eq:delta2_TWDG}\end{aligned}$$ and $\gamma\left(t\right)$ is constant for the arbitrary and convenient choice of $\gamma\left(0\right)=m\omega/\hbar$. In this case, (\[eq:wavepacket\_TWGD\]) becomes $$\psi\left(x,t\right)=\left(\frac{\gamma_{0}}{\pi}\right)^{1/4}\exp\left\{ -\frac{\gamma_{0}}{2}\left(x-q_{t}\right)^{2}+\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}p_{t}\left(x-q_{t}\right)+\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}S_{t}-\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\left(\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\right)t\right\} .\label{eq:wavepacket_t_TWGD}$$ The power spectrum is thus given by $$\begin{aligned}
I(E) & = & \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\text{d}t\text{e}^{\text{i}Et/\hbar}\left\langle \psi\left(0\right)|\psi\left(t\right)\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\text{d}t\text{e}^{\text{i}Et/\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\psi^{*}\left(x,0\right)\psi\left(x,t\right)\text{d}x\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\text{d}t\exp\left\{ \frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\left(E-\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\right)t\right\} \label{eq:AppendixA_PowerSpectrum_I(E)}\\
& & \times\exp\left\{ -\frac{\gamma_{0}}{4}\left(q_{t}-q_{0}\right)^{2}-\frac{1}{4\hbar^{2}\gamma_{0}}\left(p_{t}-p_{0}\right)^{2}+\frac{\text{i}}{2\hbar}\left(q_{0}p_{t}-q_{t}p_{0}\right)\right\} .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ After inserting the harmonic oscillator solutions $$\begin{aligned}
p_{t} & = & p_{0}\cos\omega t-m\omega q_{0}\sin\omega t\label{eq:AppendixA_ptHO}\\
q_{t} & = & q_{0}\cos\omega t+\frac{p_{0}}{m\omega}\sin\omega t,\label{eq:AppendixA_qtHO}\end{aligned}$$ choosing $\gamma_{0}=m\omega/\hbar$ and doing a power series expansion of the second part of the exponential, the time integration in (\[eq:AppendixA\_PowerSpectrum\_I(E)\]) can be done analytically to yield $$\begin{aligned}
I(E) & = & \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{d}t\ \exp\left\{ \frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\left[\left(E-\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\right)t\right]+\frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{m^{2}\omega^{2}}+q_{0}^{2}\right)\left(\text{e}^{-\text{i}\omega t}-1\right)\right\} \label{eq:AppendixA_PowerSpectrum_I(E)_1}\\
& = & \exp\left\{ -\frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}q_{0}^{2}-\frac{1}{2m\omega\hbar}p_{0}^{2}\right\} \label{eq:AppendixA_PowerSpectrum_I(E)_2}\\
& & \times\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{2^{k}k\text{!}}\left(\frac{m\omega}{\hbar}q_{0}^{2}+\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{m\omega\hbar}\right)^{k}\frac{1}{2\pi\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{d}t\ \exp\left\{ \frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\left[\left(E-\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}-\hbar\omega k\right)t\right]\right\} \nonumber \\
& = & \exp\left\{ -\frac{m\omega q_{0}^{2}}{2\hbar}-\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{2m\omega\hbar}\right\} \sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{2^{k}k\text{!}}\left(\frac{m\omega q_{0}^{2}}{\hbar}+\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{m\omega\hbar}\right)^{k}\delta\left(E-\hbar\omega\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right),\label{eq:AppendixA_PowerSpectrum_I(E)_3}\end{aligned}$$ which is the full harmonic spectrum, i.e. all vibrational levels are exactly reproduced.
Appendix B: The Harmonic Spectrum From the Hybrid Expressions\[sec:Appendix-B:TWD-separable\] {#appendix-b-the-harmonic-spectrum-from-the-hybrid-expressionssecappendix-btwd-separable .unnumbered}
=============================================================================================
We demonstrate in this appendix how the approximations of the TG part leading from the original mixed semiclassical expression (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]) to the simplified formula (\[eq:sep\_B\]) affect the harmonic oscillator spectrum. In order to do so, we first go through the basic steps of calculating the spectrum (\[eq:AppendixA\_PowerSpectrum\_I(E)\_3\]) from Eq. (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]). To keep it simple, we show this for one harmonic oscillator DOF that is treated with the TGA. The expression for the spectrum then emerges as a limiting case of Eq. (\[eq:sep\_approx-5\]) and reads $$\begin{aligned}
I\left(E\right) & = & \frac{1}{2\hbar}\frac{\text{Re}}{\pi\hbar T}\int_{0}^{T}\text{d}t_{1}\int_{t_{1}}^{T}\text{d}t_{2}\ \text{e}^{\text{i}\left[E\left(t_{1}-t_{2}\right)+\phi_{t_{1}}\left(p_{0},q_{0}\right)-\phi_{t_{2}}\left(p_{0},q_{0}\right)\right]/\hbar}\nonumber \\
& \times & \sqrt{\frac{1}{\det\left(\mathbf{A}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{A}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)}}\mbox{exp}\left\{ \frac{1}{4}\left(\mathbf{b}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{b}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)^{\text{T}}\left(\mathbf{A}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{A}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)^{-1}\left(\mathbf{b}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{b}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)+c_{t_{1}}+c_{t_{2}}^{*}\right\} .\label{eq:sep_approx-5-1D}\end{aligned}$$ Using $p_{t}$ and $q_{t}$ from (\[eq:AppendixA\_ptHO\]) and (\[eq:AppendixA\_qtHO\]) and calculating the respective derivatives, the matrix $\mathbf{A}_{t}$ from equation (\[eq:A\_matrix\]) becomes a constant in time $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1/(4m\omega\hbar) & \text{i}/(4\hbar)\\
\text{i}/(4\hbar) & m\omega/(4\hbar)
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and the determinant from the prefactor is $$\begin{aligned}
\det\left(\mathbf{A}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{A}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right) & = & \frac{1}{4\hbar^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The vector $\mathbf{b}_{t}$, defined in (\[eq:B\_definition\]), (\[eq:b1\]), and (\[eq:b2\]), has components $$\begin{aligned}
b_{1,t} & = & \frac{1}{2\hbar}\left(\text{e}^{-\text{i}\omega t}-1\right)\left(\frac{p_{0}}{m\omega}+\text{i}q_{0}\right)\\
b_{2,t} & = & -\text{i}\frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\left(\text{e}^{-\text{i}\omega t}-1\right)\left(\frac{p_{0}}{m\omega}+\text{i}q_{0}\right)-\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}p_{0},\end{aligned}$$ making the first term of the exponent in (\[eq:sep\_approx-5-1D\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4}\left(\mathbf{b}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{b}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)^{\text{T}}\left(\mathbf{A}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{A}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)^{-1}\left(\mathbf{b}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{b}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right) & = & \frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{m^{2}\omega^{2}}+q_{0}^{2}\right)\label{eq:AppendixB_exponent_bAb}\\
& & \times\left(\text{e}^{\text{i}\omega\left(t_{2}-t_{1}\right)}-\text{e}^{-\text{i}\omega t_{1}}-\text{e}^{\text{i}\omega t_{2}}+1\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ With the harmonic oscillator action $$\begin{aligned}
S_{t} & = & \left(\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{2m\omega}-\frac{1}{2}m\omega q_{0}^{2}\right)\cos\omega t\sin\omega t-p_{0}q_{0}\sin^{2}\omega t,\end{aligned}$$ the scalar $c_{t}$ from equation (\[eq:c\_t\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
c_{t} & = & \frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{m^{2}\omega^{2}}+q_{0}^{2}\right)\left(\text{e}^{-\text{i}\omega t}-1\right).\label{eq:AppendixB_exponent_ct}\end{aligned}$$ Adding $c_{t_{1}}+c_{t_{2}}^{*}$ to (\[eq:AppendixB\_exponent\_bAb\]), the total exponent in (\[eq:sep\_approx-5-1D\]) is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4}\left(\mathbf{b}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{b}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)^{\text{T}}\left(\mathbf{A}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{A}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)^{-1}\left(\mathbf{b}_{t_{1}}+\mathbf{b}_{t_{2}}^{*}\right)+c_{t_{1}}+c_{t_{2}}^{*} & = & \frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{m^{2}\omega^{2}}+q_{0}^{2}\right)\\
& & \times\left(\text{e}^{\text{i}\omega\left(t_{2}-t_{1}\right)}-1\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account the phase of the prefactor $\phi(t)=-\hbar\omega t/2$ for the harmonic oscillator, the total expression for the spectrum takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
I\left(E\right) & = & \frac{\text{Re}}{\pi\hbar T}\int_{0}^{T}\text{d}t_{1}\int_{t_{1}}^{T}\text{d}t_{2}\ \exp\left\{ \frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\left[E\left(t_{1}-t_{2}\right)-\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\left(t_{1}-t_{2}\right)\right]\right\} \\
& & \times\exp\left\{ \frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{m^{2}\omega^{2}}+q_{0}^{2}\right)\left(\text{e}^{-\text{i}\omega\left(t_{1}-t_{2}\right)}-1\right)\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ Changing variables to $\tau\equiv t_{2}-t_{1}$ yields after integration over $\tau_{2}=t_{1}$ $$\begin{aligned}
I\left(E\right) & = & \frac{\text{Re}}{\pi\hbar T}\int_{0}^{T}\text{d}\tau\ \exp\left\{ -\frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\left[\left(E-\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\right)\tau\right]+\frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{m^{2}\omega^{2}}+q_{0}^{2}\right)\left(\text{e}^{\text{i}\omega\tau}-1\right)\right\} ;\label{eq:AppendixB_I(E)_1DHO_full}\end{aligned}$$ a series expansion of the second part of the exponent and another integration in the limit $T\rightarrow\infty$ reproduces (\[eq:AppendixA\_PowerSpectrum\_I(E)\_1\]).
Second, we consider the simplified hybrid approximation (\[eq:sep\_B\]), which has the 1D TGA form $$\begin{aligned}
I\left(E\right) & = & \frac{1}{2\hbar}\frac{1}{2\pi\hbar T}\left|\int_{0}^{T}\text{d}t\:\text{e}^{\text{i}\left[Et+\phi_{t}\left(p_{0},q_{0}\right)\right]/\hbar}\right.\label{eq:Appendix_B_I(E)_1DHO_approx_1}\\
& & \times\frac{1}{\left[\det\left(\mathbf{A}_{t}+\mathbf{A}_{t}^{*}\right)\right]^{1/4}}\left.\exp\left\{ \frac{1}{4}\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t}^{\text{T}}\left(\mathbf{A}_{t}+\mathbf{A}_{t}^{*}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t}+c_{t}\right\} \right|^{2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The prefactor phase $\phi_{t}$ and scalar term in the exponent $c_{t}$ obviously stay the same as in the full expression. Due to its time independence for the harmonic oscillator, the terms containing $\mathbf{A}_{t}$ do not change either. This makes the approximation of the determinant (\[eq:pre-exp\_approx\]) an exact identity. Comparing (\[eq:AppendixB\_exponent\_ct\]), (\[eq:AppendixB\_I(E)\_1DHO\_full\]) and (\[eq:Appendix\_B\_I(E)\_1DHO\_approx\_1\]), we see that $c_{t}$ is the only contribution we need for the exponent. Consequently, the modified vector $\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t}$, where the second component no longer contains the constant imaginary part, $$\begin{aligned}
b_{\text{m},2,t}^{\text{T}} & = & -\text{i}\frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\left(\text{e}^{-\text{i}\omega t}-1\right)\left(\frac{p_{0}}{m\omega}+\text{i}q_{0}\right),\end{aligned}$$ is designed such that the contributions from the two components of $\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t}$ in the exponent cancel each other, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4}\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t}^{\text{T}}\left(\mathbf{A}_{t}+\mathbf{A}_{t}^{*}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{b}_{\text{m},t} & = & 0,\end{aligned}$$ and the power spectrum resulting from these approximations $$\begin{aligned}
I\left(E\right) & = & \frac{1}{2\pi\hbar T}\left|\int_{0}^{T}\text{d}t\:\exp\left\{ \frac{\text{i}}{\hbar}\left(Et-\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}t\right)+\frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}\left(\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{m^{2}\omega^{2}}+q_{0}^{2}\right)\left(\text{e}^{-\text{i}\omega t}-1\right)\right\} \right|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ has a time integrand that is identical to the one in the full expression from Eq. (\[eq:AppendixB\_I(E)\_1DHO\_full\]). After a series expansion of the exponential as before, unfolding the modulos into the double integral $2\text{Re}\int_{0}^{T}dt_{1}\int_{t_{1}}^{T}dt_{2}$ and changing variables as suggested above, the result after time integration is $$\begin{aligned}
I\left(E\right) & = & \exp\left\{ -\frac{m\omega q_{0}^{2}}{\hbar}-\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{m\omega\hbar}\right\} \sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{(k!)^{2}}\left(\frac{m\omega q_{0}^{2}}{2\hbar}+\frac{p_{0}^{2}}{2m\omega\hbar}\right)^{2k}\delta\left(E-\hbar\omega\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ All harmonic oscillator peaks are placed at the right positions. Only the relative peak weight is the squared value compared to the correct result, thus damping peaks from higher (bath) excitations.
[References]{} (a) W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. **53**, 3578 (1970); (b) *ibidem* **53**, 1949 (1970); (c) W. H. Miller, J. Phys. Chem. A **105**, 2942 (2001).
\(a) E. J. Heller, J. Chem. Phys. **62**, 1544 (1975); (b) *ibidem* **75**, 2923 (1981); (c) ibidem **[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">94</span>]{}**, 2723 (1991).
W. H. Miller, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. **102**, 6660 (2005).
K. G. Kay, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. **56**, 255 (2005).
S. S. Zhang and E. Pollak, J. Chem. Phys. **121**, 3384 (2004).
M. F. Herman, J. Chem. Phys. 85, 2069 (1986); E. Kluk, M. F. Herman and H. L. Davis, J. Chem. Phys. 84, 326 (1986)
S. Zhang and E. Pollak, J. Chem. Theory Comput. **1**, 345 (2005).
M. Ovchinnikov and V. A. Apkarian, J. Chem. Phys. 105 (23), 10312 (1996); *ibidem* 106 (13), 5775 (1997); *ibidem* 108 (6), 2277 (1998).
X. Sun and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. **130**106 (3), 916 (1997).
M. Thoss, H. Wang and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. **114**, 9220 (2001)
S. V. Antipov, Z. Ye, and N. Ananth, J. Chem. Phys. **142**, 184102 (2015)
F. Grossmann, J. Chem. Phys. **125**, 014111 (2006).
E. J. Heller, J. Chem. Phys. **62**, 1544 (1975).
F. Grossmann, Comments At. Mol. Phys. **34**, 141 (1999).
S. A. Deshpande, G. S. Ezra, J. Phys. A 39, 5067 (2006).
M. Wehrle, M. Sulc, J. Vanicek, J. Chem. Phys. **140**, 244114 (2014)
M. Wehrle, S. Oberli, J. Vanicek, J. Phys. Chem A **119**, 5685 (2015)
S. Miroslav and J. Vanicek, Molecular Physics **110**, 945 (2012)
R. Conte and E. Pollak, Phys. Rev. E **81**, 036704 (2010).
Y. Elran and K. G. Kay, J. Chem. Phys. ** **110**, 3653 (1999); *ibidem* **110**, 8912 (1999).
A. L. Kaledin and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. **118**, 7174 (2003); A. L. Kaledin and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. **119**, 3078 (2003).
E. J. Heller, Acc. Chem. Res. **14**, 368 (1981)
E. J. Heller, J. Chem. Phys. 75, 2923 (1981).
\(a) K. G. Kay, J. Chem. Phys. **100**, 4377 (1994); (b) *ibidem* **100**, 4432 (1994).; (c) K. G. Kay, J. Chem. Phys. **101**, 2250 (1994).
F. Grossmann and A. L. Xavier, Phys. Lett. 243, 243 (1998).
\(a) A. R. Walton, D. E. Manolopoulos, Mol. Phys. **87**, 961 (1996); (b) A. R: Walton, D. E. Manolopoulos, Chem. Phys. Lett*.* **244**, 448 (1995); (c) M. L. Brewer, J. S. Hulme, D. E. Manolopoulos, J. Chem. Phys*.* **106**, 4832 (1997).
S. Bonella, D. Montemayor , and D. F. Coker, Proc. Natl. Am. Soc*.* **102**, 6715 (2005).
\(a) H. Ushiyama and K. Takatsuka, J. Chem. Phys. **122**, 224112 (2005); (b) S. Takahashi and K. Takatsuka, J. Chem. Phys. **127**, 084112 (2007).
B. B. Issack and P. N. Roy, J. Chem. Phys. **127**, 054105 (2007).
\(a) E. Pollak and E. Martin-Fierro, J. Chem. Phys. **126**, 164107 (2007); (b) E. Martin-Fierro and E. Pollak, J. Chem. Phys. **125**, 164104 (2006).
\(a) H. Wang, X. Sun, and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. **108**, 9726 (1988); (b) T. Yamamoto, H. Wang, and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. **116**, 7335 (2002); (c) T. Yamamoto, W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. **118**, 2135 (2003).
G. Tao and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. **135**, 024104 (2011); *ibidem* **137**, 124105 (2012); G. Tao and W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. **137**, 124105 (2012)
S. Y. Y. Wong, D. M. Benoit, M. Lewerenz, A. Brown, and P.-N. Roy, J. Chem. Phys. **134**, 094110 (2011)
N. T. Maitra, J. Chem. Phys. **112**, 531 (2000).
J. Liu, Int. J. of Quantum Chemistry, **115** (11), 657 (2015)
G. Tao, J. Phys. Chem. A **117**, 58215825 (2013)
J.C. Burant and V.S. Batista, J. Chem. Phys. **116**, 27482756 (2002)
M. Ceotto, S. Atahan, G. F. Tantardini, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, ** J. Chem. Phys. **130**, 234113, (2009).
M. Ceotto, S. Atahan, S. Shim, G. F. Tantardini, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys*.* **11**, 3861 (2009).
M. Ceotto, S. Valleau, G. F. Tantardini, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, J. Chem Phys. **134**, 234103 (2011).
M. Ceotto, G. F. Tantardini, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, J. Chem. Phys. **135**, 214108 (2011).
M. Ceotto, D. dell’Angelo, and G. F. Tantardini, J. Chem. Phys. **133**, 054701 (2010).
M. Ceotto, Y. Zhuang, and W. L. Hase, J. Chem. Phys. **138**, 054116 (2013).
R. Conte, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and M. Ceotto, *J. Phys. Chem. Lett.* **4**, 3407 (2013)
Y. Zhuang, M. R. Siebert, W. L. Hase, K. G. Kay, and M. Ceotto, J. Chem. Theory and Comput **9**, 54 (2013)
D. Tamascelli, F. S. Dambrosio, R. Conte, and M. Ceotto, J. Chem. Phys. **140**, 174109 (2014)
A. O. Cladeira and A. J. Leggett, Physica A **121**, 587 (1983)
C. Goletz, and F. Grossmann, J. Chem. Phys. **130**, 244107 (2009)
B. Schmidt and U. Lorenz, WavePacket 4.7.3, available via http://sourceforge.net/projects/wavepacket/ (2011)
M. Buchholz, C. Goletz, F. Grossmann, B. Schmidt, J. Heyda, and P. Jungwirth, J. Phys. Chem. A, **116**, 11199 (2012)
Z. Bihary, R. B. Gerber, and V. A. Apkarian, J. Chem. Phys. **115**, 2695 (2001)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We describe a deep learning based method for estimating 3D facial expression coefficients. Unlike previous work, our process does not relay on facial landmark detection methods as a proxy step. Recent methods have shown that a CNN can be trained to regress accurate and discriminative 3D morphable model (3DMM) representations, directly from image intensities. By foregoing facial landmark detection, these methods were able to estimate shapes for occluded faces appearing in unprecedented in-the-wild viewing conditions. We build on those methods by showing that facial expressions can also be estimated by a robust, deep, landmark-free approach. Our ExpNet CNN is applied directly to the intensities of a face image and regresses a 29D vector of 3D expression coefficients. We propose a unique method for collecting data to train this network, leveraging on the robustness of deep networks to training label noise. We further offer a novel means of evaluating the accuracy of estimated expression coefficients: by measuring how well they capture facial emotions on the CK+ and EmotiW-17 emotion recognition benchmarks. We show that our ExpNet produces expression coefficients which better discriminate between facial emotions than those obtained using state of the art, facial landmark detection techniques. Moreover, this advantage grows as image scales drop, demonstrating that our ExpNet is more robust to scale changes than landmark detection methods. Finally, at the same level of accuracy, our ExpNet is orders of magnitude faster than its alternatives.'
author:
- |
Feng-Ju Chang^1^, Anh Tuan Tran^1^, Tal Hassner^2,3^, Iacopo Masi^1^, Ram Nevatia^1^, Gerard Medioni^1^\
^1^ Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, USC, CA, USA\
^2^ Information Sciences Institute, USC, CA, USA\
^3^ The Open University of Israel, Israel\
[{fengjuch,anhttran,iacopoma,nevatia,medioni}@usc.edu, hassner@openu.ac.il]{}
- |
Anonymous FG 2018 submission\
Paper ID\
title: '**ExpNet: Landmark-Free, Deep, 3D Facial Expressions** '
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Successful methods for single view 3D face shape modeling were proposed nearly two decades ago [@blanz2002face; @blanz2003face; @paysan09basel; @romdhani2003efficient]. These methods, and the many that followed, often claimed high fidelity reconstructions and offered parameterizations for facial expressions besides the underlying 3D facial shape.
![ [*Deep 3D face modeling with expressions*]{}. We propose to regress 3DMM expression coefficients without facial landmark detection, directly from image intensities. We show this approach to be highly robust to extreme appearance variations, including out-of-plane head rotations (top row), scale changes (middle), and even ages (bottom). []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](figure/teaser3.png){width="\linewidth"}
Despite their impressive results, they and others since [@blanz2002face; @blanz2003face; @chu2014; @paysan09basel; @romdhani2003efficient; @tang2008real; @yang2011expression] suffered from prevailing problems when it came to processing face images taken under unconstrained viewing conditions. Many of these methods relied to some extent on facial landmark detection, performed either prior to reconstruction or concurrently, as part of the reconstruction process. By involving landmark detection, these methods are sensitive to face pose and, aside from a few recent exceptions (e.g., 3DDFA [@zhu2015]), could not operate well on faces viewed in extreme out of plane rotations (e.g., near profile). Scale and occlusions are also problems: Whether because landmarks are too small to accurately localize or altogether invisible due to occlusions, accurate detection and consequent 3D reconstruction is not handled well.
In addition to these problems, many methods applied iterative steps of [*analysis-by-synthesis*]{} [@Bas:accvw16; @huber:3dmm; @romdhani2005estimating]. These methods were not only computationally expensive, but also hard to distribute and run in parallel on dedicated hardware such as the ubiquitous graphical processing units (GPU).
Very recently, some of these problems were addressed by two papers, which are both relevant to this work. First, Tran et al. [@tran16_3dmm_cnn] proposed to use a deep CNN to estimate the 3D shape and texture of faces appearing in unconstrained images. Their CNN regressed 3D morphable face model (3DMM) parameters directly. To test the extent to which their estimates were robust and discriminative, they then used these 3DMM parameters as face representations in challenging, unconstrained face recognition benchmarks, including the Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW) [@LFWTech] and the IARPA Janus Benchmark A (IJB-A) [@Klare_2015_CVPR]. By doing so, they showed that their estimated 3DMM parameters were nearly as discriminative as opaque deep features extracted by deep networks trained specifically for recognition.
Chang et al. [@chang17fpn] extended this work by showing that 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) pose can also be estimated using a similar deep, landmark free approach. Their proposed FacePoseNet (FPN) essentially performed face alignment in 3D, directly from image intensities and without the need for facial landmarks which are usually used for these purposes.
Our paper uses similar techniques to model 3D facial expressions. Specifically, we show how facial expressions can be modeled directly from image intensities using our proposed deep neural network: ExpNet. To our knowledge, this is the first time that a CNN is shown to estimate 3D expression coefficients directly, without requiring or involving facial landmark detection.
We provide a multitude of face reconstruction examples, visualizing our estimated expressions on faces appearing in challenging unconstrained conditions (see, e.g., Fig. \[fig:teaser\]). We know of few previous method who offered this many examples of their capabilities.
We go beyond previous work, however, by additionally offering [*quantitative*]{} comparisons of our facial expression estimates. To this end, we propose to measure how well different expression regression methods capture facial emotions on the Extended Cohn-Kanade (CK+) [@lucey2010extended] and EmotiW-17 benchmarks [@dhall2017individual]. Both benchmarks contain face images labeled for emotion categories, allowing us to focus on how well emotions are captured by our method and others. We show that not only does our deep approach provide more meaningful expression representations, it is more robust to scale changes than methods which rely on landmarks for this purpose. Finally, to promote reproduction of our results, [*our code and deep models are publicly available.*]{}[^1]
Related Work {#sec:relatedwork}
============
Expression Estimation
---------------------
We first emphasize the distinction between the related, yet different tasks of [*emotion classification*]{} vs. [*expression regression*]{}. The former seeks to classify images or videos into discrete sets of facial emotion classes [@dhall2017individual; @lucey2010extended] or action unites [@fabian2016emotionet; @zafeiriou2016facial]. This problem was often addressed by considering the locations of facial landmarks. In recent years a growing number of state of the art methods have instead adopted deep networks [@kosti2017emotion; @levi2015emotion; @zhang2016gender], applying them directly to image intensities rather than estimating landmark positions as a proxy step.
Methods for expression regression attempt to extract parameters for face deformations. These parameters are often expressed in the form of active appearance models (AAM) [@lucey2010extended] and Blendshape model coefficients [@richardson2016learning; @zhu2015; @zhu2015high]. In this work we focus on estimating 3D expression coefficients, using the same representation described by 3DDFA [@zhu2015]. Unlike 3DDFA, however, we completely decouple expression coefficient regression from facial landmark detection. Our tests demonstrate that by doing so, we obtain a method which is more robust to changing image scales.
Facial Landmark Detection
-------------------------
There has been a great deal of work dedicated to accurately detecting facial landmarks, and not only due to their role in expression estimation. Face landmark detection is a general problem which has applications in numerous face related systems. Landmark detectors are very often used to align face images by applying rigid [@eidinger2013age; @Everingham06a; @wolf:YTF] and non-rigid transformations [@hassner2013viewing; @jeni2015dense; @zhu2015] transformations in 2D and 3D [@hassner2015effective; @Masi:18:learning; @masi2014pose; @masi2017rapid; @masi16dowe].
Generally speaking, landmark detectors can be divided into two broad categories: [*Regression based*]{} [@burgos2013robust; @king2009dlib; @wu2017facial] and [*Model based*]{} [@baltruvsaitis2016openface; @zadeh2016deep; @zhu2015] techniques. Regression based methods estimate landmark locations directly from facial appearance while model based methods explicitly model both the shape and appearance of landmarks. Regardless of the approach, landmark estimation can fail whenever faces are viewed in extreme out-of-plane rotations (far from frontal), low scale, or when the face bounding box differs significantly from the one used to develop the landmark detector.
To address the problem of varying 3D poses, the recent 3DDFA [@zhu2015], related to our own, learns the parameters of a 3DMM representations using a CNN. Unlike us, however, they prescribe an iterative, analysis-by-synthesis approach. Also related to us is the recent CE-CLM [@zadeh2016deep]. CE-CLM introduces a convolution expert network to capture very complex landmark appearance variations and thereby achieving state-of-the-art landmark detection accuracy.
The exact locations of facial landmarks were once considered subject-specific information which can be used for face recognition [@edwards1998face]. Today, however, such attempts are all but abandoned. The reason for turning to other face representations may be due to the real-word imaging conditions typically assumed by modern face recognition systems [@Klare_2015_CVPR] where even state of the art landmark detection accuracy is insufficient to discriminate between individuals based solely on the locations of their detected facial landmarks. In other applications, however, facial landmarks prevail. This work follows recent attempts, most notably Chang [*et al.*]{} [@chang17fpn], by proposing landmark free alternatives for face understanding tasks. This effort is intended to allow for accurate expression estimation on images which defy landmark detection techniques, in similar spirit to the abandonment of landmarks as a means for representing identities. To our knowledge, [*such a direct, landmark free, deep approach to expression modeling was never previously attempted*]{} .
Deep, 3D Expression Modeling {#sec:deepexpr}
============================
We propose to estimate facial expression coefficients using a CNN applied directly to image intensities. A chief concern when training such deep networks is the availability of labeled training data. For our purposes, training labels are 29D real-valued vectors of expression coefficients. These labels do not have a natural interpretations that can easily be used by human operators to manually collect and label training data. We next explain how 3D shapes and their expressions are represented and how ample data may be collected to effectively train a deep network for our purpose.
Representing 3D Faces and Expressions {#sec:background}
-------------------------------------
We assume a standard 3DMM face representation [@blanz2002face; @blanz2003face; @chu2014; @hu2016face; @paysan09basel]. Given an input face photo $\mbf{I}$, standard methods for estimating its 3DMM representation typically detect facial feature points and then use those as constraints when estimating the optimal 3DMM expression coefficients (see, for example, the recent 3DDFA method [@zhu2015]). Instead, we propose to estimate expression parameters by directly regressing 3DMM expression coefficients, decoupling shape and texture from pose and from expression.
Specifically, we model a 3D face shape using the following, standard, linear 3DMM representation (for now, ignoring parameters representing facial texture and 6DoF pose): $$\mbf{S}^{\prime} = \widehat{\mbf{s}} + \mbf{S} \boldsymbol{\alpha} + \mbf{E} \boldsymbol{\eta}
\label{eq:3DMM}$$ where $\widehat{\mbf{s}}$ represents the average 3D face shape. The second term provides shape variations as a linear combination of shape coefficients $\boldsymbol{\alpha} \in \mathbb{R}^s$ with $\mbf{S}\in \mathbb{R}^{3n\times s}$ principal components. 3D expression deformations are provided as an additional linear combination of expression coefficients $\boldsymbol{\eta}\in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ and expression components $\mbf{E}\in \mathbb{R}^{3n\times m}$. Here, $3n$ represents the 3D coordinates for the $n$ pixels in $\mbf{I}$. The numbers of components, $s$, for shape and for expression, $m$, provide the dimensionality of the 3DMM coefficients. Our representation uses the BFM 3DMM shape components [@paysan09basel], where $s=99$ and the expression components defined by 3DDFA [@zhu2015], with $m=29$.
The vectors $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ control the intensity of deformations provided by the principal components. Given estimates for $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{\eta}$, it is therefore possible to reconstruct the 3D face shape of the face appearing in the input image using Eq. (\[eq:3DMM\]).
Generating 3D Expression Data {#sec:gen_data}
-----------------------------
To our knowledge, there is no publicly available data set containing sufficiently many face images labeled with their 29D expression coefficients. Presumably, one way of mitigating this problem is to use a 3D facial expressions database such as BU-4DFE [@yin2008high] as a training data set. BU-4DFE faces, however, are viewed under constrained conditions and this would therefore limit application of the network to constrained settings. Furthermore, BU-4DFE contains only 101 subjects and six facial expressions and can thus limit the range of expression coefficients our network predicts.
Another way of addressing the training data problem is by utilizing a face landmark detection benchmark. That is, taking the face images in existing landmark detection benchmarks and computing their expression coefficients using their ground truth landmark annotations in order to obtain 29D ground truth expression labels. Existing landmark detection benchmarks, however, are limited in their sizes: The number of images in the training and testing splits of the popular 300W landmark detection data set [@sagonas2015300], for example, is 3,026. This is far too small to train a deep CNN to regress 29D real valued vectors.
Given the absence of sufficiently large and rich 3D expression training sets, we propose a simple method for generating ample examples of faces in thew wild, coupled with 29D expression coefficients labels. We begin by estimating 99D 3DMM coefficients for the 0.5 million face images in the CASIA WebFace collection [@yi2014learning]. 3DMM shape parameters were estimated following the state of the art method of [@tran16_3dmm_cnn], giving us, for every CASIA image, an estimate of its shape coefficients, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$. We assume that all images belonging to the same subject should have the same, single 3D shape. We therefore apply the shape coefficients pooling method of [@tran16_3dmm_cnn] to average the 3DMM shape estimates for all images belonging to the same subject, thereby obtaining a single 3DMM shape estimate per subject.
Poses were additionally estimated for each image using FPN [@chang17fpn]. We then use standard techniques [@hartley2003multiple] to compute a projection matrix $\boldsymbol{\Pi}$ from the 6DoF provided by that method.
Given a projection matrix $\boldsymbol{\Pi}$ that maps from the recovered 3D shape, $\mbf{S}^{\prime}$, to the 2D points of an input image, we can solve the following optimization problem to get expression coefficients: $$\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\star} = \arg\min_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} || \mbf{p} - \boldsymbol{\Pi} \mbf{S}^{\prime} ||_2, \\
\text{subject to} \quad |\boldsymbol{\eta}_j| \leq 3~{\delta}_{\mbf{E}_j},
\end{split}
\label{eq:expr_fitting}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ in $\mbf{S}^{\prime}$ (Eq. \[eq:3DMM\]) is estimated by [@tran16_3dmm_cnn]. ${\delta}_{\mbf{E}_j}$ is the standard deviation of the j-th principal components of the 3DMM expression; $\mbf{p}$ is a set of 2D facial landmarks detected in the input image by a standard facial landmark detection method, in our experiments, CLNF [@baltrusaitis2013constrained]. We solve for $\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\star}$ in Eq. (\[eq:expr\_fitting\]) via standard Gauss-Newton optimization.
Training ExpNet to Predict Expression Coefficients {#sec:training}
--------------------------------------------------
We use the expression coefficients obtained from Eq. (\[eq:expr\_fitting\]) as ground truth labels when training our ExpNet. In practice, ExpNet employs a ResNet-101 deep network architecture [@He_2016_CVPR]. We did not experiment with smaller network structures, and so a more compact network may well work just as well for our purposes. Our ExpNet is trained to regress a parametric function $f(\{\mbf{W},\mbf{b}\}, \mbf{I}) \mapsto \boldsymbol{\eta}$, where $\{\mbf{W},\mbf{b}\}$ represent the parametric filters and weights of the CNN. We use a standard $\ell_2$ reconstruction loss between ExpNet predictions and its expression coefficients training labels.
ExpNet is trained using Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) with a mini-batch size of 144, momentum of 0.9, and weight decay of 5e-4. The network weights are updated with learning rate set to 1e-3. When the validation loss saturates, we decrease learning rates by an order of magnitude until the validation loss stops decreasing. No data augmentation is performed during training: that is, we use the plain images in the CASIA set since they are already roughly aligned [@yi2014learning]. In order to make training easier, we removed the empirical mean from all the input faces.
We note that our approach is similar to the one used by Tran et al. [@tran16_3dmm_cnn], and in particular, we use the same network architecture used in their work to regress 3DMM shape and texture parameters. They, however, explicitly assume a unique shape representations for all images of the same subject. This assumption allowed them to better regularize their network, by presenting it with multiple images with varying nuisance but the same underlying label (i.e. shape coefficients do not vary within the images of a subject). Here, this is not the case and expression parameters vary from one image to the next, regardless of subject identity.
Estimating Expressions Coefficients with ExpNet {#sec:predict}
-----------------------------------------------
Existing methods for expression estimation often take an analysis-by-synthesis approach to optimizing facial landmark locations. Contrary to them, our expressions are obtained in a single forward pass of our CNN. To estimate an expression coefficients vector, $\boldsymbol{\eta}_t$, we evaluate $\mbf{I}_t$ $f(\{\mbf{W},\mbf{b}\}, \mbf{I}_t)$ for test image, $\mbf{I}_t$. We preprocess test images using the face detector of Yang et al. [@yang2016multi] and increasing its returned face bounding box by a scale of $\times 1.25$ of its size. This scaling was manually determined to bring face bounding boxes to roughly the same size as the loose bounding boxes of CASIA faces.
Experimental Results {#sec:expt}
====================
We evaluated our method both qualitatively and quantitatively. It is important to note that few previous methods for 3D expression estimation performed quantitative tests; instead, most offered only qualitative results. We provide an extensive number of figures demonstrating the quality of our expression estimation method (Sec. \[sec:qual\]) In addition, we offer quantitative tests, designed to capture the extent to which our expressions reflect facial emotions (Sec. \[sec:quant\]).
Quantitative Tests {#sec:quant}
------------------
[[**Benchmark settings**]{}.]{} Aside from 3DDFA [@zhu2015], we know of no previous method which directly estimates 29D expression coefficients vectors. Instead, previous work relied on facial landmark detectors and used their detected landmarks to estimate facial expressions. We therefore compare the expressions estimated by our ExpNet to those obtained from state of the art landmark detectors. Because no benchmark exists with ground truth expression coefficients, we compare these methods on the related task of facial emotion classification. Our underlying assumption here is that better expression estimation implies better emotion classification.
We use benchmarks containing face images labeled for discrete emotion classes. For each image we estimate its expression coefficients, either directly using our ExpNet and 3DDFA, or using detected landmarks by solving Eq. (\[eq:expr\_fitting\]) as described in Sec. \[sec:gen\_data\]. We then attempt to classify the emotions for test images using the exact same classification pipeline applied to these 29D expression representations.
Our tests utilize the Extended Cohn-Kanade (CK+) dataset [@lucey2010extended] and the Emotion Recognition in the Wild Challenge (EmotiW-17) dataset [@dhall2017individual]. The CK+ dataset is a constrained set, with frontal images taken in the lab, while the EmotiW-17 dataset contains highly challening video frames collected from 54 movie DVDs [@dhall2012collecting].
The CK+ dataset contains 327 face video clips labeled for seven emotion classes: anger (An), contempt (Co), disgust (Di), fear (Fe), happy (Ha), sadness (Sa), surprise (Su). From each clip, we take the peak frame (the end of video)– the frame assigned with an emotion label – and use it for classification. The EmotiW-17 dataset, on the other hand, offers 383 face video clips labeled for 7 emotion classes: anger (An), disgust (Di), fear (Fe), happy (Ha), neutral (Ne), sadness (Sa), surprise (Su). We estimate 29D expression representations for every frame and apply average pooling of the per-frame estimates across all frames of each video.
Following the protocol used by [@lucey2010extended], we ran a leave-one clip-out test protocol to assess performance. We also evaluate the robustness of different methods to scale changes. Specifically, we tested all methods on multiple version of the CK+ and EmotiW-17 benchmarks, each version with all images scaled down to $\times$0.8, 0.6, 0.4, and 0.2 their sizes.
[[**Emotion classification pipeline**]{}.]{} The same simple classification method was used for all methods in all our tests. We preferred a simple classification method rather than a state of the art technique, in order to prevent obscuring the quality of the landmark detector / emotion estimation by using an elaborate classifier. We therefore use a simple kNN classifier with $K=5$. It is important to note that the results obtained by all of the tested methods are far from the state of the art on this set; our goal is not to outperform state of the art emotion classification methods, but only to compare expression coefficient estimation techniques.
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
[[**Baseline methods**]{}.]{} We compare our approach to widely used, state-of-the-art face landmark detectors. These are DLIB [@king2009dlib], CLNF [@baltrusaitis2013constrained], OpenFace [@baltruvsaitis2016openface], CE-CLM [@zadeh2016deep], RCPR [@burgos2013robust], and 3DDFA [@zhu2015]. Note that CLNF is the method used to produce our training labels.
[[**Results**]{}.]{} Fig. \[fig:exp\_conf\] and \[fig:exp\_conf\_emotiw17\] report the emotion classification confusion matrices on the original CK+ and EmotiW-17 datasets (unscaled) for our method (Fig. \[fig:exp\_rec\_conf\_us\] and \[fig:exp\_rec\_conf\_us\_emotiw17\]), comparing it to the other methods, 3DDFA (Fig. \[fig:exp\_rec\_conf\_3ddfa\]) and CE-CLM / CLNF (Fig. \[fig:exp\_rec\_conf\_dclm\] / \[fig:exp\_rec\_conf\_clnf\_emotiw17\]).
On CK+, our expression coefficients were able to capture well surprise (Su), happy (Ha), and disgust (Di) emotions, all emotions which are well defined by facial expressions. On EmotiW-17, our method performed well on neutral (Ne), happy (Ha), sad (Sa), and angry (An), but less so on disgust (Di), fear (Fe), and surprise (Su). From our observations, these last emotions are visually similar to angry (An), which could explain why they challenged our system. On the whole, however, our representation was noticeably better at capturing all emotion classes than its baselines.
Fig. \[fig:exp\_rec\_scale\] reports emotion classification performances of all methods on scaled versions of the CK+ (Fig. \[fig:exp\_rec\_scale\](a)) and EmotiW-17 sets (Fig. \[fig:exp\_rec\_scale\](b)). These results measure the sensitivity of different methods to the input image resolution: The x-axis reports the downsizing factor, proportional to the original scale. A scale of 1 therefore represents the original image sizes (640x490 for CK+; 720x576 for EmotiW-17), scale of 0.2 implies 128x98 for CK+ and 144x115 for EmotiW-17, and so fourth.
Results in Fig. \[fig:exp\_rec\_scale\] clearly show our approach to be the most accurate in terms of emotion recognition accuracy. It is additionally far more robust to scale changes compared than the other landmark detection based methods. Note also the difference in emotion recognition between deep methods—ours and [@zhu2015]—and landmark based approaches.
Importantly, our method outperforms CLNF [@baltrusaitis2013constrained] by a wide margin in all tests. This result is significant, as CLNF was the method used to generate our expression labels in Sec. \[sec:gen\_data\]. Our improved performance suggests that the network learned to generalize from its training data and thus performed better on a wider range of viewing conditions and challenges.
[[**Runtime**]{}.]{} Tab. \[tab:timings\] reports runtimes for the methods tested. All tests were performed on a machine with an NVIDIA, GeForce GTX TITAN X and an Intel Xeon CPU E5-2640 v3 @ 2.60GHz. The only exception was 3DDFA [@zhu2015], which required a Windows system and was tested using an Intel Core i7-4820K CPU @ 3.70GHz with 8 CPUs.
We compare landmark based approaches with deep, direct method such as 3DDFA and our ExpNet. ExpNet is at least one order of magnitude faster than any of its alternatives. Note that, landmark based expression fitting methods generally follow a three-step process: (i) facial landmark detection, (ii) head pose estimation, and (iii) expression fitting. Their total processing time is therefore the sum of these steps. Although some landmark detection methods (e.g. DLIB) are extremely efficient (0.009s), they are still required to solve the optimization problem of Eq. (\[eq:expr\_fitting\]), in order to translate these detections to an expression coefficients estimate. This process is much slower than our proposed method.
As for deep methods for expression estimation, the software package provided by 3DDFA [@zhu2015] does not allow testing on the GPU; in their paper, they report GPU runtime to be 0.076 seconds, which is similar to our runtime, which was measured on a GPU. Other facial landmarks detector based methods, including the code used to solve Eq. (\[eq:expr\_fitting\]), are all intrinsically implemented on the CPU. Though they may conceivably be expedited significantly by porting them to the GPU, we are unaware of any such implementation.
![ [*Expression estimation failures.*]{} Our method is less able to handle extreme facial expressions. Other methods, by comparison, appear to either exaggerate the expression (3DDFA) or are inconsistent across scales (CE-CLM). []{data-label="fig:qual_fail"}](figure/qual_ckp_horiz_no_3dmm_fail.png){width="\linewidth"}
Qualitative Results {#sec:qual}
-------------------
Fig. \[fig:qual\] and \[fig:qual\_emotiw17\] provide qualitative renderings of the 3D expressions estimated on CK+ and EmotiW-17 images. Each result was obtained on the original, input image scale (scale 1) and also at our lowest resolution (scale 0.2). All the results in these figures use the same 3D shape provided by 3DMM-CNN [@tran16_3dmm_cnn]. Additional, mid level facial details can possibly be added using, e.g., [@tran2017extreme], but to emphasize expressions, rather than details, we used only course facial shapes.
These figures visualize expressions estimated with our ExpNet compared with the recent deep method for joint estimation of shape and expression [@zhu2015], and the top performing landmark detectors CE-CLM [@zadeh2016deep], and CLNF [@baltrusaitis2013constrained]. For reference, we provide also the shape 3D face shape [@tran16_3dmm_cnn] estimated before expressions were added.
Our expression estimates appear to be much better at capturing expression nuances: This is clear from the subtle expressions, fear and anger, rendered in Fig. \[fig:qual\]. This is consistent with the improvement shown in the confusion matrices in Fig.\[fig:exp\_conf\]. 3DDFA appears inconsistent across the same expression (happy) and tends to either exaggerate the expression or underestimate it. Both CE-CLM and CLNF seem sensitive to input image resolutions: They both estimate different expressions for the same input image offered at different scales.
Finally, Fig. \[fig:qual\] demonstrates a weaknesses of our ExpNet to strong intensity expressions such as surprise. 3DDFA, by comparison, produces somewhat over-exaggerated estimates on these images. Although CE-CLM produces visually suitable estimates, its predictions are inconsistent across scales.
Conclusions {#sec:conclu}
===========
We present a method for deep, 3D expression modeling and show it to be far more robust than than facial landmark detection methods widely used for this task. Our approach estimates expressions without the use of facial landmarks, suggesting that facial landmark detection methods may be redundant for this task. This conclusion is consistent with recent results demonstrating deep, [*landmark free*]{} 3D face shape estimation [@chang17fpn] and 6DoF head alignment [@tran16_3dmm_cnn]. The significance of these results is that by avoiding facial landmark detection, we can process face images obtained in extreme viewing condition which can be challenging for landmark detection methods.
[10]{}=-1pt
T. Baltrusaitis, P. Robinson, and L.-P. Morency. Constrained local neural fields for robust facial landmark detection in the wild. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition Workshops*]{}, pages 354–361. IEEE, 2013.
T. Baltru[š]{}aitis, P. Robinson, and L.-P. Morency. Openface: an open source facial behavior analysis toolkit. In [*Winter Conf. on App. of Comput. Vision*]{}, 2016.
A. Bas, W. A. P. Smith, T. Bolkart, and S. Wuhrer. Fitting a [3D]{} morphable model to edges: [A]{} comparison between hard and soft correspondences. , abs/1602.01125, 2016.
V. Blanz, S. Romdhani, and T. Vetter. Face identification across different poses and illuminations with a 3d morphable model. In [*Int. Conf. on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition*]{}, pages 192–197, 2002.
V. Blanz and T. Vetter. Face recognition based on fitting a 3d morphable model. , 25(9):1063–1074, 2003.
X. P. Burgos-Artizzu, P. Perona, and P. Doll[á]{}r. Robust face landmark estimation under occlusion. In [*Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Vision*]{}, pages 1513–1520. IEEE, 2013.
F.-J. Chang, A. Tran, T. Hassner, I. Masi, R. Nevatia, and G. Medioni. ace[P]{}ose[N]{}et: Making a case for landmark-free face alignment. In [*Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Vision Workshops*]{}, 2017.
B. Chu, S. Romdhani, and L. Chen. -aided face recognition robust to expression and pose variations. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, 2014.
A. Dhall et al. Collecting large, richly annotated facial-expression databases from movies. 2012.
A. Dhall, R. Goecke, S. Ghosh, J. Joshi, J. Hoey, and T. Gedeon. From individual to group-level emotion recognition: Emotiw 5.0. In [*Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction*]{}, pages 524–528. ACM, 2017.
G. J. Edwards, T. F. Cootes, and C. J. Taylor. Face recognition using active appearance models. In [*European Conf. Comput. Vision*]{}, pages 581–595. Springer, 1998.
E. Eidinger, R. Enbar, and T. Hassner. Age and gender estimation of unfiltered faces. , 9(12), 2014.
M. Everingham, J. Sivic, and A. Zisserman. “[H]{}ello! [M]{}y name is... [Buffy]{}” – automatic naming of characters in [TV]{} video. In [*Proc. British Mach. Vision Conf.*]{}, 2006.
C. Fabian Benitez-Quiroz, R. Srinivasan, and A. M. Martinez. Emotionet: An accurate, real-time algorithm for the automatic annotation of a million facial expressions in the wild. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, pages 5562–5570, 2016.
R. Hartley and A. Zisserman. . Cambridge university press, 2003.
T. Hassner. Viewing real-world faces in [3D]{}. In [*Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Vision*]{}, pages 3607–3614. IEEE, 2013. Available: [www.openu.ac.il/home/hassner/projects/poses](www.openu.ac.il/home/hassner/projects/poses).
T. Hassner, S. Harel, E. Paz, and R. Enbar. Effective face frontalization in unconstrained images. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, 2015.
K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, June 2016.
G. Hu, F. Yan, C.-H. Chan, W. Deng, W. Christmas, J. Kittler, and N. M. Robertson. Face recognition using a unified [3D]{} morphable model. In [*European Conf. Comput. Vision*]{}. Springer, 2016.
G. B. Huang, M. Ramesh, T. Berg, and E. Learned-Miller. Labeled faces in the wild: A database for studying face recognition in unconstrained environments. Technical Report 07-49, UMass, Amherst, October 2007.
P. Huber, G. Hu, R. Tena, P. Mortazavian, W. Koppen, W. Christmas, M. Rätsch, and J. Kittler. A multiresolution [3D]{} morphable face model and fitting framework. In [*Int. Conf. on Computer Vision Theory and Applications*]{}, 2016.
L. A. Jeni, J. F. Cohn, and T. Kanade. Dense [3D]{} face alignment from [2D]{} videos in real-time. In [*Int. Conf. on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition*]{}, volume 1. IEEE, 2015.
D. E. King. Dlib-ml: A machine learning toolkit. , 10(Jul):1755–1758, 2009.
B. F. Klare, B. Klein, E. Taborsky, A. Blanton, J. Cheney, K. Allen, P. Grother, A. Mah, M. Burge, and A. K. Jain. Pushing the frontiers of unconstrained face detection and recognition: [IARPA]{} [J]{}anus [B]{}enchmark-[A]{}. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, 2015.
R. Kosti, J. M. Alvarez, A. Recasens, and A. Lapedriza. Emotion recognition in context. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, 2017.
G. Levi and T. Hassner. Emotion recognition in the wild via convolutional neural networks and mapped binary patterns. In [*Int. Conf. on Multimodal Interaction*]{}, pages 503–510. ACM, 2015.
P. Lucey, J. F. Cohn, T. Kanade, J. Saragih, Z. Ambadar, and I. Matthews. The extended cohn-kanade dataset (ck+): A complete dataset for action unit and emotion-specified expression. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition Workshops*]{}, pages 94–101. IEEE, 2010.
I. Masi, F. J. Chang, J. Choi, S. Harel, J. Kim, K. Kim, J. Leksut, S. Rawls, Y. Wu, T. Hassner, W. AbdAlmageed, G. Medioni, L. P. Morency, P. Natarajan, and R. Nevatia. Learning pose-aware models for pose-invariant face recognition in the wild. , PP(99):1–1, 2018.
I. Masi, C. Ferrari, A. Del Bimbo, and G. Medioni. Pose independent face recognition by localizing local binary patterns via deformation components. In [*Int. Conf. on Pattern Recognition*]{}, pages 4477–4482, 2014.
I. Masi, T. Hassner, A. T. Tran, and G. Medioni. Rapid synthesis of massive face sets for improved face recognition. In [*Int. Conf. on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition*]{}, pages 604–611. IEEE, 2017.
I. Masi, A. Tran, T. Hassner, J. T. Leksut, and G. Medioni. Do [W]{}e [R]{}eally [N]{}eed to [C]{}ollect [M]{}illions of [F]{}aces for [E]{}ffective [F]{}ace [R]{}ecognition? In [*European Conf. Comput. Vision*]{}, 2016. Available [www.openu.ac.il/home/hassner/projects/augmented\_faces](www.openu.ac.il/home/hassner/projects/augmented_faces).
P. Paysan, R. Knothe, B. Amberg, S. Romhani, and T. Vetter. A [3D]{} face model for pose and illumination invariant face recognition. In [*Int. Conf. on Advanced Video and Signal based Surveillance*]{}, 2009.
E. Richardson, M. Sela, R. Or-El, and R. Kimmel. Learning detailed face reconstruction from a single image. , 2016.
S. Romdhani and T. Vetter. Efficient, robust and accurate fitting of a [3D]{} morphable model. In [*Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Vision*]{}, 2003.
S. Romdhani and T. Vetter. Estimating [3D]{} shape and texture using pixel intensity, edges, specular highlights, texture constraints and a prior. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, volume 2, pages 986–993, 2005.
C. Sagonas, E. Antonakos, G. Tzimiropoulos, S. Zafeiriou, and M. Pantic. 300 faces in-the-wild challenge: Database and results. , 2015.
H. Tang, Y. Hu, Y. Fu, M. Hasegawa-Johnson, and T. S. Huang. Real-time conversion from a single 2d face image to a [3D]{} text-driven emotive audio-visual avatar. In [*Int. Conf. on Multimedia and Expo*]{}, pages 1205–1208. IEEE, 2008.
A. Tran, T. Hassner, I. Masi, and G. Medioni. Regressing robust and discriminative [3D]{} morphable models with a very deep neural network. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, 2017.
A. T. Tran, T. Hassner, I. Masi, E. Paz, Y. Nirkin, and G. Medioni. Extreme [3D]{} face reconstruction: Looking past occlusions. , 2017.
L. Wolf, T. Hassner, and I. Maoz. Face recognition in unconstrained videos with matched background similarity. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, 2011.
Y. Wu, T. Hassner, K. Kim, G. Medioni, and P. Natarajan. Facial landmark detection with tweaked convolutional neural networks. , 2017.
F. Yang, J. Wang, E. Shechtman, L. Bourdev, and D. Metaxas. Expression flow for [3D]{}-aware face component transfer. , 30(4):60, 2011.
Z. Yang and R. Nevatia. A multi-scale cascade fully convolutional network face detector. In [*Int. Conf. on Pattern Recognition*]{}, pages 633–638, 2016.
D. Yi, Z. Lei, S. Liao, and S. Z. Li. Learning face representation from scratch. , 2014. Available: <http://www.cbsr.ia.ac.cn/english/CASIA-WebFace-Database.html>.
L. Yin, X. Chen, Y. Sun, T. Worm, and M. Reale. A high-resolution 3d dynamic facial expression database. In [*Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition, 2008. FG’08. 8th IEEE International Conference on*]{}, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2008.
A. Zadeh, T. Baltru[š]{}aitis, and L.-P. Morency. Convolutional experts constrained local model for facial landmark detection. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition Workshops*]{}, 2017.
S. Zafeiriou, A. Papaioannou, I. Kotsia, M. Nicolaou, and G. Zhao. Facial affect“in-the-wild”. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition Workshops*]{}, pages 36–47, 2016.
K. Zhang, L. Tan, Z. Li, and Y. Qiao. Gender and smile classification using deep convolutional neural networks. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition Workshops*]{}, pages 34–38, 2016.
X. Zhu, Z. Lei, X. Liu, H. Shi, and S. Li. Face alignment across large poses: A [3D]{} solution. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, Las Vegas, NV, June 2016.
X. Zhu, Z. Lei, J. Yan, D. Yi, and S. Z. Li. High-fidelity pose and expression normalization for face recognition in the wild. In [*Proc. Conf. Comput. Vision Pattern Recognition*]{}, pages 787–796, 2015.
[^1]: Available: [github.com/fengju514/Expression-Net](github.com/fengju514/Expression-Net)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Dynamic environments are challenging for visual SLAM since the moving objects occlude the static environment features and lead to wrong camera motion estimation. In this paper, we present a novel dense RGB-D SLAM solution that simultaneously accomplishes the dynamic/static segmentation and camera ego-motion estimation as well as the static background reconstructions. Our novelty is using optical flow residuals to highlight the dynamic semantics in the RGB-D point clouds and provide more accurate and efficient dynamic/static segmentation for camera tracking and background reconstruction. The dense reconstruction results on public datasets and real dynamic scenes indicate that the proposed approach achieved accurate and efficient performances in both dynamic and static environments compared to state-of-the-art approaches.'
author:
- 'Tianwei Zhang$^{1}$, Huayan Zhang$^{2}$, Yang Li$^{1}$, Yoshihiko Nakamura$^{1}$ and Lei Zhang$^{1,2}$ [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: ' FlowFusion: Dynamic Dense RGB-D SLAM Based on Optical Flow'
---
Introduction {#1}
============
Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) method for a robot is to acquire the information from the unknown environment, build up the map and locate the robot itself on that map. Dynamic environment is a big problem for the real scene implementation of SLAM in both robotics and computer vision research fields. The reason is that most of the existed SLAM approaches and Visual Odometry(VO) solutions guarantee their robustness and efficiencies based on the static environment assumption. When the dynamic obstacles occur or the observed environment changes, these methods cannot extract enough reliable static visual features, so as to insufficient feature associations, which lead to the motion estimation failures between different camera poses.
To deal with the dynamic environments, one straightforward idea for visual SLAM is to extract the dynamic components from the input data and filter them as exceptions to apply the existed robust static SLAM frameworks. Recently, the fast development of deep learning-based image segmentation and object detection methods have gained greatly in both efficiency and accuracy. Many researchers try to handle the dynamic environments via involving semantic labeling or object detection pre-processing to remove the potential dynamic objects. These methods have shown very effective results in particular scenes dealing with particular dynamic objects. However, their robustness may drop down when unknown dynamic objects turn up. Considering more generalized dynamic features, flow approaches are explored to describe all kinds of dynamic objects, the scene flow in 3D point clouds and the optical flow in 2D images. The flow approaches are to estimate the pixel motions between the given image pair or point clouds data. These methods are sensitive to slight motions and have advantages when tracking the moving non-rigid surfaces. Nevertheless, flow methods need complex penalty setting and suffered from the unclear segmentation boundaries. In this paper, to get rid of the pre-known dynamic object hypothesis, we deal with the dynamic SLAM problem via flow based dynamic/static segmentation. Different from the existed methods, we provide an novel optical flow residuals based dynamic segmentation and dense fusion RGB-D SLAM scheme. Through improving the dynamic factor influence, in our approach, the dynamic segments are efficiently extracted in current RGB-D frame, the static environments are then accurately reconstructed. Moreover, demonstrations on the real challenging humanoid robot SLAM scenes indicate that the proposed approach outperforms the other state-of-the-art dynamic SLAM solutions.
Related Works {#2}
=============
{width="1.8\columnwidth"}
Saputra [*et al. *]{}summary the dynamic SLAM methods by the year of 2017 in [@dynamicSLAM-survey]. Most of these approaches are dedicated to specialized scenes. For human living environments, benefit from the economic RGB-D sensors and the computational power improvement from economical graphics processing units(GPU), the dense RGB-D fusion based approaches, KinectFusion [@kf] and ElasticFusion(EF) [@ef], made real-time static indoor environments reconstruction come true with high robustness and accuracy. Many researchers tried to extend these frameworks to dynamic scenes:
The motion segmentation problem can be treated as a semantic labeling problem. For instance, R. Martin [*et al. *]{}proposed Co-Fusion(CF) in [@cf] and Xu [*et al. *]{}proposed Mid-Fusion in [@mid-f]. CF is a real-time object segmentation and tracking method which combined the hierarchical deep learning based segmentation method from [@cf-seg] and the static dense reconstruction framework of EF.
Besides the semantic labeling solutions, some people insisted to find out the dynamic point clouds as outliers from the dense RGB-D fusion scheme. Such as J, Mariano [*et al. *]{}provided a joint motion segmentation and scene flow estimation method(JF) in [@jf], R. Scona [*et al. *]{}proposed a static backgrounds reconstruction approach in StaticFusion(SF) [@sf].
In addition, with the help of deep learning based object detection approaches, some works deal with the dynamic environment problem by involving object detection pre-processing and remove the potential dynamic objects, then reconstruct the environments via static SLAM frameworks. Zhang [*et al. *]{}proposed the human object detection and background reconstruction method PoseFusion(PF) [@pf]; C. Yu [*et al. *]{}in [@ds] applied SegNet [@segnet] to detect and remove foreground humans and then estimate the camera motions with ORB-SLAM2 [@orb2] framework.
More than that, some researchers tried to define the environment dynamic properties as a semantic concept and solve it with SLAM tools. The environment rigidity is firstly defined as a semantics instead of the particular object classification in [@rigidity]. In which, the environment rigidity refers to the static background point clouds set, which is stationary, as opposed to the moving objects. Then, in [@lvzhaoyang], Lv [*et al. *]{}proposed a deep learning based 3D scene flow estimation approach, which combines two deep learning networks: the optical flow approach from [@pwc], and another net for static background rigidity learning.
Optical Flow based Joint Dynamic Segmentation and Dense Fusion
==============================================================
This Section describes how does the proposed VO keep its robustness in dynamic environments. The flowchart of the proposed approach is shown in Fig.\[chart\]. Our approach takes two RGB-D Frames A and B as input, the RGB images are fed into PWC to estimate the optical flow(yellow arrows). Meanwhile, the intensity and depth pairs of A and B are fed to the robust camera ego-motion estimator to estimate an initial camera motion $\xi$ (introduced in Section \[sec:robustEgo\]). We then warp frame A to A’ with $\xi$ and obtain the projected 2D scene flow(in Section \[sec:of\]) for dynamic segmentation. After several iterations(Section \[sec:seg\], the green arrows), the static backgrounds are achieved for the following environment reconstruction. As the proposed method applied optical flow residuals for dynamic segmentation, we name it as FlowFusion (FF).
Visual Odometry in Dense RGB-D Fusion {#sec:robustEgo}
-------------------------------------
Following the RGB-D fusion frameworks [@ef] and [@jf], our VO front-end is formulated as an optimizing problem of the color(photometric) and depth(geometric) alignment errors. Given RGB-D camera frames $A$ and $B$, If we denote intensity image as $I$, depth image as $D$, $I_{A} \in \mathbb{R}^2$ and $D_{A} \in \mathbb{R}^2$ are the intensity and depth images on the 2D image plane of camera frame $A$. The 3D Point Clouds Data(PCD) can be generated from ($I_A, D_A$) via pinhole camera model. We first over segment the PCD of $A$ into $N$ clusters $\mathcal{V} =\Sigma_{i=1}^N V_i $ according to supervoxel clustering [@sv] and obtain the adjacency graph $\mathcal{G}\{\mathcal{V}, E_{ij}\}$ (similar to JF and SF, for efficiency, we use intensity distance instead of RGB distance for clustering). As each cluster $V_i$ is composed of similar point clouds, we treat each cluster as a rigid body. Then, we define $\xi \in \mathfrak{se}(3)$ as the initial rigid motion guess of the that frame. Assume that the robot starts to move in a static environment, $\xi$ can be solved from the formulated energy function considering photometric and depth residuals: $$\xi = {arg~min}_{\xi} \{ \sum_{p=1}^{N}[C(\alpha_Iw_I^p r^p_I(\xi)) + C(w_D^pr^p_D(\xi))]
\}
\label{eq:minimize}$$ in which, $\alpha_I $ is a scale factor to make the intensity item be comparable to the depth term. The $w_D$ and $w_I$ pre-weight the depth and intensity terms according to their measurement noise. The photometric residuals $r_I$ can be computed as: $$r^p_I(\mathbf{\xi}) = I_B(\mathcal{W}(\mathbf{x}^p,\mathbf{\xi})) - I_A(\mathbf{x}^p)$$ and the geometric residuals $r_D$ are obtained from the Depth measurements. $$r^p_D(\xi) = D_B(\mathcal{W}(\mathbf{x}^p,\xi))- |T(\xi)\pi^{-1}(\mathbf{x}^p, D_A(\mathbf{x}^p))|_D$$ the transformation is denoted as $T(\xi) \in {SE}(3)$, which is the transformation of $\xi \in \mathfrak{se}(3)$, it is composed by the camera rotation and translation between the $A$ and $B$ frames. In addition, the $\mathcal{W}$ stands for an image warping operation: $$\mathcal{W}(\mathbf{x},\xi) = \pi(T(\xi)\pi^{-1}(\mathbf{x}, D_A(\mathbf{x})))$$ in which, the $\mathbf{x}^p$ stands for the pixel coordinates on the 2D image of $p$. $|\cdot|_D$ indicates the depth value on the depth image. We denote $\pi$ as the projecting from a world coordinate point to camera plane, and we denote the extrinsic parameters as $T(\xi)$. $$\pi:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2 :$$ the function of $\pi$ is depending on the sensors types (such as pinhole camera, stereo camera, and laser scanners). In this paper, we deal with RGB-D PCD, thus it is a pinhole camera model here.
![The projected 2D scene flow in image planes. $x^p$ is an object point project pixel in frame A and $x^q$ is the same 3D point (belong to the moving object) on frame B. The red arrow indicates the scene flow, which is the world space motion, the blue arrows are the optical flows $x_{A->B}^{of}$, the green arrows are the projected 2D scene flows $x^{sf}$ on image planes, the yellow vectors are the ego flows $x^e$ resulted from camera ego-motions. []{data-label="fig:of"}](pptsfw.jpg){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
Finally, the function of $C(r)$ is a robust penalty to balance the optimization computation’s robustness and convergence. For RGB-D visual odometry, refers to [@jf; @sf], the Cauchy robust penalty is usually adopted since it’s more robust than $L_1/L_2$ norms: $$C(r) =\frac{c^2}{2} log(1+(\frac{r}{c})^2)$$ in which, the $c$ is the inflection point of $F(r)$, which can be tuned according to the residual levels. Equation \[eq:minimize\] is high nonlinear, we solve it via coarse-to-fine scheme using the iterative re-weighted least-square solver provided by [@robust]. This VO estimator works well in static environments but loses its robustness in dynamic cases. The reason is that, in Eq.\[eq:minimize\], the depth and intensity residuals contribute to the VO estimator based on the environment’s rigid motion hypothesis. To deal with the dynamic objects, we define the optical flow residuals which directly indicates the non-rigid environment motions.
Optical Flow Residual Estimated by Projecting the Scene Flow {#sec:of}
------------------------------------------------------------
[0.5]{}
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{}
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{}
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{}
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Theoretically, we can distinguish a cluster $V_i$ is dynamic or static via $\xi$. As ($I_A, D_A$) are warped using $\xi$ then we compute the average residuals of each cluster, the real backgrounds do not move, their pixel clusters move along with the camera motion $\xi$, thus their residuals are low. The dynamic clusters which move along with the dynamic objects should contain high residuals since their motions don’t coincide with the camera motion $\xi$. Therefore, the dynamic clusters can be extracted by setting the thresholds for high and low $r_I, r_D$ residuals. However, in the real cases, the intensity and depth residuals are not good metrics, the reasons are:
- The depth and intensity images are obtained from different lens, they cannot be registered perfectly since the time delay.
- The depth measurement is discrete on the boundary regions, which results in wrong alignment.
- The depth measurement errors grow along with the range.
To deal with these problems, we want to find a concept that directly indicate the pixel or point clouds’ dynamic level. The Scene flow method is to estimate the moving 3D points, but it cannot be obtained directly (in JF, the scene flows were obtained after several VO estimation iterations). On the other hand, optical flows which can be easily obtained from image pairs are often applied to describe the moving objects captured by static cameras. Therefore, to get rid of the camera ego-motions, inspired by [@lvzhaoyang], we involve the concept of optical flow residual, which is defined as projected 2D scene flow, to highlight the pixel’s dynamic property.
Specifically, to estimate the optical flow between time $t$ and $t+1$:
$$\begin{split}
\delta \mathbf { x } _ { t \rightarrow t + 1 } ^ { o f } =~
& \pi \left( T _ { t + 1 } (\mathbf { x } _ { t } + \delta \mathbf { x } _ { t \rightarrow t + 1 }, D\left( \mathbf { x } _ { t } + \delta \mathbf { x } _ { t \rightarrow t + 1 } \right)\right) \\
&- \pi \left( T _ { t } (\mathbf {x}_{ t }, D(x_t)) \right)
\end{split}
\label{eq:of}$$
See Figure \[fig:of\], $x^p$ is an pixel of an object point in frame A and $x^q$ is the same object point seen in frame B. The red arrow indicates the scene flow, which is a 3D motion in world space. The blue arrows are the optical flows $x^{of}$, the green arrows are the projected 2D scene flows $x^{sf}$ on image planes, the yellow vectors are the camera ego-motion flows $x^e$.
The optical flows are defined as the pixel motions on the image coordinates, as shown in Figure \[fig:2dflow\] (b), in which, the colors indicate flow direction and the intensity indicate the pixel displacement. In the real scene of (a), the robot was moving leftwards and the human was moving rightwards. Thus the blue flows were resulted from camera ego-motion. We define such kind of flow as the camera ego flow $\delta \textbf{x}^e$, which means the observed optical flow was purely resulted from camera motion (without moving objects). If we subtract the ego flows from the optical flows, the scene flow components on the image plane can be obtained, as shown in (c) and (d).
For one 2D pixel $x$ of frame $A$, given the camera motion $\xi \in \mathfrak{se}(3)$, the camera ego-motion flow can be computed as: $$\delta \textbf{x}^e_{ A \rightarrow B } = \mathcal{W}(\mathbf{x}, \xi)
- \mathbf { x }$$
The projected scene flow on the image plane can be computed as: $$\delta \mathbf {x} _ {A\rightarrow B} ^ {sf} = \delta \mathbf {x} _ { A \rightarrow B } ^ { o f } - \delta \mathbf { x } _ { A \rightarrow B } ^ {e}
\label{sceneflow}$$
For the static pixels, Equation \[sceneflow\] is close to zero, since its optical flow comes from the camera motions. For the dynamic pixels, the 2D scene flows are non-zero, and their absolute values grow along with the moving speed. Therefore, we define the flow residual $r_F(x^p)$ as its corresponding $\delta \mathbf {x} _ {A\rightarrow B} ^ {sf}$. As the dense optical flow computation is time-consuming, instead of using Equation \[eq:of\], we apply a GPU speed-up dense optical flow estimation method PWC-net [@pwc].
Dynamic Clusters Segmentation {#sec:seg}
-----------------------------
By now, we have projected the frame $A$ using the VO $\xi$, we have defined three residuals, $r_I, r_D$ and $ r_F$, relative to the intensity, depth and optical flow, respectively. We proposed to distinguish a cluster is static or not according to its average residuals. This will be done in two procedures. Firstly, we compute a metric to combine these three residuals, secondly, we compose a minimizing function to qualify the dynamic level of clusters.
To combine the residuals, an average residual $\delta_i$ of the cluster $i$ is defined as: $$\delta_i = \Sigma_{n=1}^{S_i}(\alpha_Ir_I^n + r_D^n/D_i + \alpha_Fr_F^n)$$ in which $S_i$ is cluster size, $D_i$ is the cluster’s average depth, $\alpha_F$ and $\alpha_I$ control the flow and intensity weights. For each cluster, we compute its dynamic level $b_i \in [0,1]$ $b_i = 0$ means cluster $i$ is definitely belong to static segments.
Then we formulate the energy function of clusters $\textbf{b}$: $$E(\textbf{b}) = E_{\delta}(\textbf{b}) + E_G(\textbf{b})
\label{E(b)}$$ in which, $E_{\delta}(\textbf{b})$ stands for the relationship between $b_i$ and the threshold. Let’s set top and bottom average residuals as $\theta_t, \theta_b$, then, $$E_{\delta}(\textbf{b}) = \Sigma_{n=1}^{N}w(\delta_i)(b_i - g(\delta_i))^2$$ respect to the assignment function: $$g \left( \delta _ { i } \right) = \left\{ \begin{array} { l l } { 0 } & { \delta _ { i } < \theta _ { b } } \\ { \left( \delta _ { i } - \theta _ { b } \right) / \left( \theta _ { t } - \theta _ { b } \right) } & { \theta_ { b } \leq \delta _ { i } \leq \theta _ { t } } \\ { 1 } & { \delta _ { i } > \theta _ { t } } \end{array} \right.$$
To increase the contribution of high residual parts, the weight $w_\delta$ is defined as: $$w \left( \delta _ { i } \right) = \sqrt { \left( \frac { \delta _ { i } - \theta _ { b } } { \theta _ { t } - \theta _ { b } } \right) ^ { 2 } + 1 }$$
Refer to SF [@sf], to enhance the connectivity of adjacent clusters and push the similar clusters to the same dynamic/static segments, we form $E_G$: $$E _ { G } ( \boldsymbol { b } ) = \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { N } \sum _ { j = i + 1 } ^ { N } G _ { i j } \left( b _ { i } - b _ { j } \right) ^ { 2 }$$ with the supervoxel adjacency graph: $\mathcal{G}\{\mathcal{V}, E_{ij}\}$. $G_{ij} = 0$ if $E_{ij} = 0$, otherwise $G_{ij} = 1$.
As $E_G(b)$ is convex, since it is designed with all squared items. Thus the Equation \[E(b)\] could be solved respect to $\textbf{b}$. Once obtaining $\textbf{b}$, we then modify the Equation \[eq:minimize\] to considering the dynamic-static segmentation: $$\xi = {arg~min}_{\xi}
\{\sum_{p=1}^M(1-b_i(p))[C(\alpha_Iw_I^p r^p_I(\xi)) + C(w_D^pr^p_D(\xi))]
\}
\label{eq:final}$$ in which, $b_i(p)$ is the dynamic score of cluster $i$ which contains the pixel $x^p$. $M$ is the size of static pixels. We can solve this Equation \[eq:final\] with the solved $\textbf{b}$ using the iteratively re-weighted least-square solver provided by [@dual; @robust].
{width="1.5\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{} {width="\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{} {width="0.9\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{} {width="\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{} {width="\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{} {width="\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{} {width="\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{} {width="\columnwidth"}
[0.5]{} {width="\columnwidth"}
TUM $\alpha_F$ 0.022
--------- --------------- -------
TUM $\alpha_I$ 0.9
TUM Max Iteration 8
HRPSlam $\alpha_F$ 0.018
HRPSlam $\alpha_I$ 0.88
HRPSlam Max Iteration 8
: Experimental Parameters List
\[tab:para-list\]
Dynamic SLAM Experiments and Evaluations {#sec:exp}
========================================
{width="1.9\columnwidth"}
To evaluate the proposed FlowFusion dynamic segmentation and dense reconstruction approach, we compare the VO and mapping results of FF to state-of-the-art dynamic SLAM methods SF, JF and PF in the public TUM [@tum] and HRPSlam [@hrpslam] datasets. The former provides widely accepted SLAM evaluation metrics: Absolute Trajectory Error (ATE) and Relative Pose Error (RPE).
[p[2.4cm]{}p[1cm]{}p[1cm]{}p[1cm]{}p[1cm]{}]{} **Sequence** & JF & SF & FF & PF\
fr1/xyz & 0.051& **0.017** &0.020 &0.020\
fr1/desk2 & 0.15& 0.051 & 0.034& **0.023**\
fr3/walk\_xyz& 0.51 & 0.21 & 0.12 & **0.041**\
fr3/walking\_static & 0.35 & 0.037 &**0.028**& 0.072\
HRPSlam2.1 & 0.51 & 0.25 &0.23 &**0.21**\
HRPSlam2.4 & **0.32** & 0.44 &0.49 & 0.47\
HRPSlam2.6 & 0.21 & 0.18 &**0.11** &0.15\
[p[2.4cm]{}p[1cm]{}p[1cm]{}p[1cm]{}p[1cm]{}]{} **Sequence** & JF & SF & FF & PF\
fr1/xyz & 0.021& **0.012** &0.023 &0.019\
fr1/desk2 & 0.084& 0.041 & 0.038& **0.031**\
fr3/walk\_xyz& 0.68 & 0.29 & 0.21 & **0.13**\
fr3/walking\_static & 0.18 & 0.097 &**0.030**& 0.072\
HRPSlam2.1 & 0.35 & 0.32 &**0.28** &0.31\
HRPSlam2.4 & **0.31** & 0.63 &0.59 & 0.41\
HRPSlam2.6 & 0.12 & 0.11 &**0.060** &0.10\
To compute the ATE of one trajectory, firstly align it to the ground truth using the least-square method, and then directly compares the distances between the estimated positions and the ground truth at the same timestamps. The RPE is the relative pose error at timestamp over a time interval. Our experiments are implemented on a desktop that has Intel Xeon(R) CPU E5-1620 v4 @ 3.50 GHz $\times$ 8, 64 GiB System memory and dual GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GPUs. The experimental setting of FF is given in Tab.\[tab:para-list\]. We set the image pyramid levels as 4, each level at max 2 iterations, thus, the total iteration times limitation is 8. For the comparison experiments, we adopt their default parameters.
We first evaluate the proposed dynamic segmentation method on TUM RGB-D dynamic sequence fr3/walking\_xyz, which contains 827 RGB-D images, including two moving humans and slightly object motions (the chairs are slightly moved by the people). See Figure \[fig:tumseg\], which indicates the dynamic segmentation performances of JF, SF, PF and FF. The first row is input RGB frames, the other rows are the dynamic/static segments of each method, the last column shows the background reconstruction results(except JF, since their open source version didn’t provide reconstruction function). See Tab.\[tab1\] and Tab.\[tab2\] for the comparison results. In which, in the static sequences $fr1/xyz$ and $fr1/desk2$, the VO performances of these four methods are similar, because SF, PF and FF are all basing on EF framework. EF is dedicated to static(or slightly dynamic) local areas reconstruction, thus in static sequences, these three methods are all converge to EF’s performance.
In the highly dynamic sequences, these four methods show different pros and cons. Our previous work PF achieves very small errors in the scenes which only contain human objects. Depending on the deep learning based detection method, PF detect both dynamic and static human objects with clear segment boundaries(see the fourth row in Fig.\[fig:tumseg\]). However, the drawback is that PF always tends to segments the PCDs attached to the humans into foreground segments, see the wrong segmentation on table and chairs areas close to the humans objects. Furthermore, as PF’s object detection front-end OpenPose [@op] doesn’t work well if the input image has no head, PF dropped its performances in HRPSlam sequences(Because in HRPSlam datasets, the camera was mounted on a 151 cm high humanoid robot, who cannot smooth inspect human faces). JF and SF detect the moving objects by jointly minimize the intensity and depth energy function, but these energy functions lack of items with dynamic property, which leads to wrong dynamic/static segmentation in the 2nd and 3rd rows of Fig.\[fig:tumseg\]. As the proposed FF involved the optical flow residuals which greatly indicate the pixel’s moving status, FF achieved dynamic object extraction in frame 4 and 606 and reduced the wrong static background segmentation as shown in frame 184, 506 and 606.
Images in Fig.\[fig:tumplot\] plot the ATE and RPE of the fr3/walking\_xyz sequence. In which, PF achieved the smallest trajectory errors. Amongst the module-free dynamic SLAM methods, the proposed FF outperforms the others. PF achieved very small trajectory errors, root-mean-square-error (rmse) 4.1 cm, while FF gets 12 cm. These results indicate that the proposed optical flow residuals based static/dynamic semantic segmentation method achieved efficient dynamic foreground PCDs extraction performances in RGB-D benchmarks. Similar to PF, FF performs as similar as EF in the static scenes. The advantage of FF is not relying on object modules. FF can extract different kinds of moving objects, while PF can only detect human objects. The disadvantage of FF (same to the other model-free methods, SF, JF) is non-sensitive to slight motions, neither very fast motions, such as robot falling down. As shown in Figure \[fig:hrpslam\], since very fast motions usually result in wrong optical flow estimations.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we provided a novel dense RGB-D SLAM algorithm that jointly figures out the dynamic segments and reconstructs the static environments. The newly provided dynamic segmentation and dense fusion formulation applied the advanced dense optical flow estimator, which enhanced the dynamic segmentation performance in both accuracy and efficiency. The demonstrations on both online datasets and real robotics application scenes showed competitive performances in both static and dynamic environments.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) 17H06291. We thank Dr. Raluca Scona for opening source the codes of StaticFusion. The discussion with her is very helpful.
[^1]: $^{1}$ Department of Mechano-Informatics, School of Information Science and Technology, the University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan. {zhang, nakamura}@ynl.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp, liyang@mi.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
[^2]: $^{2}$ School of Electrical and Information Engineering, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, No.1 Zhanlanguan Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, China. {hyzhang, leizhang}@bucea.edu.cn
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
An overview of the author’s results is given. Property C stands for completeness of the set of products of solutions to homogeneous linear Sturm-Liouville equations. The inverse problems discussed include the classical ones (inverse scattering on a half-line, on the full line, inverse spectral problem), inverse scattering problems with incomplete data, for example, inverse scattering on the full line when the reflection coefficient is known but no information about bound states and norming constants is available, but it is a priori known that the potential vanishes for $x<0$, or inverse scattering on a half-line when the phase shift of the $s$-wave is known for all energies, no bound states and norming constants are known, but the potential is a priori known to be compactly supported. If the potential is compactly supported, then it can be uniquely recovered from the knowledge of the Jost function $f(k)$ only, or from $f'(0,k)$, for all $k\in \Delta$, where $\Delta$ is an arbitrary subset of $(0,\infty)$ of positive Lebesgue measure.
Inverse scattering problem for an inhomogeneous Schrödinger equation is studied.
Inverse scattering problem with fixed-energy phase shifts as the data is studied.
Some inverse problems for parabolic and hyperbolic equations are investigated.
A detailed analysis of the invertibility of all the steps in the inversion procedures for solving the inverse scattering and spectral problems is presented.
An analysis of the Newton-Sabatier procedure for inversion of fixed-energy phase shifts is given.
Inverse problems with mixed data are investigated.
Representation formula for the $I$-function is given and properties of this function are studied.
Algorithms for finding the scattering data from the $I$-function, the $I$-function from the scattering data and the potential from the $I$-function are given.
A characterization of the Weyl solution and a formula for this solution in terms of Green’s function are obtained.
address: |
Mathematics Department, Kansas State University,\
Manhattan, KS 66506-2602, USA
author:
- 'A.G. Ramm'
title: ' Property C for ODE and applications to inverse problems.'
---
Table of Contents {#table-of-contents .unnumbered}
=================
1. [2.1 Uniqueness of the solution to inverse scattering problem with the data $I$-function.]{}
2. [2.2 Uniqueness of the solution to inverse scattering problem on the half-line.]{}
3. [2.3 Compactly supported potentials are uniquely determined by the phase shift of $s$-wave.]{}
4. [2.4 Recovery of $q\in L_{1,1}(\R)$ from the reflection coefficient alone.]{}
5. [2.5 Inverse scattering with various data.]{}
<!-- -->
1. [7.1 Three-dimensional inverse scattering problem. Property C. Stability estimates.]{}
2. [7.2 Approximate inversion of fixed-energy phase shifts.]{}
<!-- -->
1. [13.1. Representation of the products of solutions to Schrödinger equation (1.1).]{}
2. [13.2. Characterization of Weyl’s solutions.]{}
3. [13.3. Representation of the Weyl solution via the Green function.]{}
Property C for ODE
==================
In this paper a review of the author’s results is given and some new results are included. The bibliography is not complete. Only the papers and books used in the work on this paper are mentioned. The contents of this paper are clear from the table of contents.
The results presented in this paper include:
1. Property C for ordinary differential equations (ODE), that is, theorems about completeness of the sets of products of solutions to homogeneous ODE.
2. Uniqueness theorems for finding the potential
a\) from the $I$-function (which equals the Weyl function),
b\) from the classical scattering data for the half-axis problem (a new very short proof which does not use the Marchenko method),
c\) from the phase shift of $s$-wave in the case when the potential $q$ is compactly supported and no bound states or norming constants are known,
d\) from the reflection coefficient only (when $q=0$ for $x<x_0$),
e\) from mixed data: part of the set of eigenvalues and the knowledge of $q(x)$ on a part of a finite interval,
f\) from overdetermined Cauchy data,
g\) [*from part of the fixed-energy phase shifts*]{},
h\) from various type of data which are typical in PDE problems,
i\) from $f(k)$ or $f^\prime(0,k)$ when $q$ is compactly supported,
j\) from the scattering data for a solution to an inhomogeneous Schrödinger equation.
3. Reconstruction algorithms for finding the potential from overdetermined Cauchy data, for finding $f(k)$ and $f'(0,k)$ from the scattering data, for finding the scattering data from the $I$-function and the $I$-function from the scattering data.
4. Properties of the $I$-function and a representation formula for it.
5. Stability estimate for the solution of the inverse scattering problem with fixed-energy data. Example of two compactly supported real-valued piecewise-constant potentials which produce practically the same phase shifts for all values of $\ell$.
6. Discussion of the Newton-Sabatier procedure for inversion of the fixed-energy phase shifts. Proof of the fact that this procedure cannot recover generic potentials, for example, compactly supported potentials.
7. Detailed analysis and proof of the invertibility of each of the steps in the inversion schemes of Marchenko and Gelfand-Levitan.
8. Representation of the Weyl solution via the Green function and a characterization of this solution by its behavior for large complex values of the spectral parameter and $x$ running through a compact set.
Completeness of the set of products of solutions to ODE has been used for inverse problems on a finite interval in the works of Borg [@B] and Levitan [@Lt2], [@Lt3].
Completeness of the set of products of solutions to homogeneous partial differential equations (PDE) was introduced and used extensively under the name property C in [@R9]-[@R14], and [@R]. Property C in these works differs essentially from the property C defined and used in this paper: while in [@R9]-[@R14], and [@R] property C means completeness of the set of products of solutions to homogeneous PDE with fixed value of the spectral parameter, in this paper we prove and use completeness of the sets of products of solutions to homogeneous ordinary differential equations (ODE) with variable values of the spectral parameter. Note that the dimension of the null-space of a homogeneous PDE (without boundary conditions) with a fixed value of the spectral parameter is infinite, while the dimension of the null-space of a homogeneous ODE (without boundary conditions) with a fixed value of the spectral parameter is finite. Therefore one cannot have property C for ODE in the sense of [@R9]-[@R14], and [@R], because the set of products of solutions to homogeneous ODE with fixed value of the spectral parameter is finite-dimensional.
In this paper property C for ordinary differential equations is defined, proved and used extensively. Earlier papers are [@RP] and [@R1].
Let $$\l u:= u''+k^2u-q(x)u=0, \qquad x\in \R=(-\infty,\infty).
\tag{1.1}$$
Assume $$q\in L_{1,1},
\quad L_{1,m} := \{ q:q= \overline{q},
\int^\infty_{-\infty} (1+|x|)^m |q(x)|\, dx < \infty \}.
\tag{1.2}$$
It is known [@M], [@R] that there is a unique solution (the Jost solution) to (1.1) with the asymptotics $$f(x,k)= e^{ikx}+ o(1), \quad x\to +\infty.
\tag{1.3}$$ We denote $f_+(x,k): = f(x,k)$, $f_-(x,k): = f(x,-k)$, $k\in\R$. The function $f(0,k)=f(k)$ is called the Jost function. The function $f(k)$ is analytic in $\C_+: =\{k: Imk> 0\}$ and has at most finitely many zeros in $\C_+$ which are located at the points $ik_j, k_j>0$, $1\leq j\leq J$. The numbers $-k_j^2$ are the negative eigenvalues of the selfadjoint operator defined by the differential expression $L_q:=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+q(x)$ and the boundary condition $u(0)=0$ in $L^2(\R_+)$, $\R_+=(0,\infty)$. The function $f(k)$ may have zero at $k=0$. This zero is simple: if $f(0)=0$ then $\dot f(0)\not= 0$, $\dot f:=\frac{\partial f}{\partial k}$.
Let $\varphi$ and $\psi$ be the solutions to (1.1) defined by the conditions $$\varphi(0,k)=0, \quad\varphi'(0,k)=1;
\quad \psi(0,k)=1, \quad\psi'(0,k)=0,
\tag{1.4}$$ where $\varphi':= \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial x}$. It is known [@M], [@R], that $\varphi(x,k)$ and $\psi(x,k)$ are even entire functions of $k$ of exponential type $\leq|x|$.
Let $g_\pm(x,k)$ be the unique solution to (1.1) with the asymptotics $$g_\pm(x,k)= e^{\pm ikx} +o(1),
\quad x\to -\infty
\tag{1.5}$$
Let $p(x)\in L_{1,1} (\R_+)$ and assume $$\int^\infty_0 p(x) f_1(x,k) f_2(x,k)\, dx=0,
\qquad\forall k>0,
\tag{1.6}$$ where $f_j(x,k)$ is the Jost solution to (1.1) with $q(x)=q_j(x)$, $j=1,2$. If (1.6) implies $p(x)=0$, then we say that the pair $\{L_1,L_2\}, L_j:=L_{q_j}: = -\frac{d^2}{dx^2} +q_j(x)$ has property $C_+$.
If $p\in L_{1,1} (\R_-)$ and $$\int^0_{-\infty} p(x) g_1(x,k) g_2(x,k)dx=0
\qquad\forall k>0,
\tag{1.7}$$ implies $p(x)=0$, then we say that the pair $\{L_1,L_2\}$ has property $C_-$.
In (1.7) $g_j:=g_{j+}(x,k)$.
Fix an arbitrary $b>0$. Assume that $$\int^b_0 p(x)\varphi_1(x,k)\varphi_2(x,k)dx=0
\qquad\forall k>0 \tag{1.8}$$ implies $p(x)=0$. Then we say that the pair $\{L_1,L_2\}$ has property $C_{\varphi}$ and similarly $C_{\psi}$ is defined, $\psi_j$ replacing $\varphi_j$ in (1.8).
The pair $\{L_1,L_2\}$, where $L_j:=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2} +q_j(x)$, $q_j\in L_{1,1} (\R_+), j=1,2$, has properties $C_+, C_{\varphi}$ and $C_{\psi}$. If $q_j\in L_{1,1} (\R_-)$, then $\{L_1, L_2\}$ has property $C_-$.
Proof can be found in [@R1]. We sketch only the idea of the proof of property $C_+$.
Using the known formula $$f_j(x,k)=e^{ikx}+\int^\infty_x A_j(x,y)e^{iky}dy,
\quad j=1,2,
\tag{1.9}$$ where $A_j(x,y)$ is the transformation kernel corresponding to the potential $q_j(x)$, $j=1,2,$ see also formula (2.17) below, and substituting (1.9) into (1.6), one gets after a change of order of integration a homogeneous Volterra integral equation for $p(x)$. Thus $p(x)=0$.
The reason for taking $b<\infty$ in (1.8) is: when one uses the formula $$\varphi_j(x,k)=\frac{\sin (kx)}{k} + \int^x_0K_j(x,y)
\frac{\sin(ky)}{k}dy, \quad j= 1,2,
\tag{1.10}$$ for the solution $\varphi_j$ to (1.1) (with $q=q_j$) satisfying first two conditions (1.4), then the Volterra-type integral equation for $p(x)$ contains integrals over the infinite interval $(x,\infty)$. In this case the conclusion $p(x)=0$ does not hold, in general. If, however, the integrals are over a finite interval $(x, b )$, then one can conclude $p(x)=0$.
The same argument holds when one proves property $C_\psi$, but formula (1.10) is replaced by $$\psi_j(x,k)= \cos(kx)+ \int^x_0 \widetilde{K_j}(x,y) \cos(ky)dy,
\quad j=1,2, \tag{1.11}$$ with a different kernel $\widetilde{K_j}(x,y)$.
Applications of property C
==========================
Uniqueness of the solution inverse scattering problem with the data I-function.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The I-function $I(k)$ is defined by the formula $$I(k):= \frac{f'(0,k)}{f(k)}. \tag{2.1 }$$ This function is equal to the [*Weyl function*]{} $m(k)$ which is defined as the function for which $$W(x,k):= \psi(x,k) + m(k)\varphi(x,k)\in L^2(\R_+), \quad Im k>0,
\tag{2.2}$$ where $W(x,k)$ is the Weyl solution, $W(0,k)=1$, $W^\prime(0,k)=m(k)$. Note that $W(x,k)=\frac{f(x,k)}{f(k)}$, as follows from formulas (1.3), (2.1) and from formula (2.3) which says $I(k)=m(k)$.
To prove that $$I(k) = m(k), \tag{2.3}$$ one argues as follows. If $q\in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$, then there is exactly one, up to a constant factor solution to (1.1) belonging to $L^2(\R_+)$ when $Im k>0$.
Since $f(x,k)$ is such a solution, one concludes that $$f(x,k)=c(k)[\psi(x,k)+m(k)\varphi(x,k)],
\quad c(k)\neq 0. \tag{2.4}$$ Therefore, $$I(k)= \frac{\psi^\prime (0,k)+m(k)
\varphi^\prime (0,k)}{\psi(0,k)+m(k)\psi(0,k)}=m(k),
\notag$$ as claimed.
In sections 11 and 12 the $I$-function is studied in more detail.
The inverse problem (IP1) is:
[*Given $I(k)$ for all $k>0$, find $q(x)$.* ]{}
The IP1 has at most one solution.
Theorem 2.1 can be proved in several ways. One way [@R2] is to recover the spectral function $\rho(\lambda)$ from $I(k)$, $k=\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}$. This is possible since $Im\, I(k)=\frac{k}{|f(k)|^2}$, $k>0$, and $$d\rho(\lambda)=
\begin{cases}\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}\,d\lambda}{\pi |f(\sqrt{\lambda})|^2},
& \lambda>0, \\
\sum^J_{j=1}\, c_j\delta(\lambda+k^2_j)\,d\lambda,
& \lambda<0,\ k_j>0, \end{cases}
\tag{2.5}$$
where $-k^2_j$ are the bound states of the Dirichlet operator $L_q=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + q(x)$ in $L^2(\R_+), f(ik_j)=0$, $\delta(\lambda)$ is the delta-function, and $$c_j= -\frac{2ik_j f^\prime (0,ik_j)}{\dotf (ik_j)},
\qquad \dotf:=\frac{\partial f}{\partial k}.
\tag{2.6}$$ Note that $ik_j$ and the number $J$ in (2.5) can be found as the simple poles of $I(k)$ in $\C_+$ and the number of these poles, and $$c_j = -2ik_j \operatorname*{Res}_{k=k_j} I(k)=2k_jr_j,
\tag{2.7}$$ where $ir_j:=\operatorname*{Res}_{k=k_j}I(k)$, so $r_j=\frac{c_j}{2k_j}$.
It is well known that $d\rho(\lambda)$ determines $q(x)$ uniquely [@M], [@R]. An algorithm for recovery of $q(x)$ from $d\rho$ is known (Gelfand-Levitan). In [@R2] a characterization of the class of $I$-functions corresponding to potentials in $C^m_{loc}(\R_+)$, $m\geq 0$ is given.
Here we give a very [*simple new proof of Theorem 2.1*]{} (cf [@R1]):
Assume that $q_1$ and $q_2$ generate the same $I(k)$, that is, $I_1 (k) = I_2 (k):=I(k)$. Subtract from equation (1.1) for $f_1(x,k)$ this equation for $f_2 (x,k)$ and get: $$L_1w=pf_2, \quad p(x):=q_1(x)-q_2(x),
\quad w:=f_1(x,k)-f_2(x,k).
\tag{2.8}$$ Multiply (2.8) by $f_1$ and integrate by parts: $$\begin{align}
\int^\infty_0 p(x)f_2(x,k)f_1(x,k)dx
& = (w^\prime f_1 - wf_1^\prime ) \big|^\infty_0
= (f_1f_2^\prime -f_1^\prime f_2) \big|_{x=0} \notag \\
& = f_1f_2(I_1{(k)} - I_2(k)) = 0 \qquad \forall k>0,
\tag{2.9} \end{align}$$ where we have used (1.3) to conclude that at infinity the boundary term vanishes. From (2.9) and property $C_+$ (Theorem 1.1) it follows that $p(x)=0$. Theorem 2.1 is proved.
Uniqueness of the solution to inverse scattering problem on the half axis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a classical problem [@M], [@R]. The scattering data are $${\mathcal S} = \left\{S(k),\ k_j,\ s_j,\ 1\leq j \leq J \right\}.
\tag{2.10}$$ Here $$S(k):= \frac {f(-k)}{f(k)} \tag{2.11}$$ is the S-matrix, $k_j>0$ are the same as in section 2.1, and the norming constants $s_j$ are the numbers $$s_j:= -\frac {2ik_j}{\dot f(ik_j)f^\prime (0,ik_j)} >0.
\tag{2.12}$$ Note that (2.6) implies $$c_j = s_j[f^\prime (0,ik_j)]^2 .\tag{2.13}$$
Data (2.10) determine $q(x)\in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$ uniquely.
This result is due to Marchenko [@M]. We give a [*new short proof based on property C*]{} ([@R1]). We prove that data (2.10) determine $I(k)$ uniquely, and then Theorem 2.2 follows from Theorem 2.1. To determine $I(k)$ we determine $f(k)$ and $f^\prime (0,k)$ from data (2.10).
First, let us prove that data (2.10) determine uniquely $f(k)$. Suppose there are two different functions $f(k)$ and $h(k)$ with the same data (2.10). Then $$\frac{f(k)}{h(k)} = \frac{f(-k)}{h(-k)}, \qquad \forall k\in \R.
\tag{2.14}$$
The left-hand side in (2.14) is analytic in $\C_+$ since $f(k)$ and $h(k)$ are, and the zeros of $h(k)$ in $\C_+$ are the same as these of $f(k)$, namely $ik_j$, and they are simple. The right-hand side of (2.14) has similar properties in $\C_-$. Thus $\frac{f(k)}{h(k)}$ is an entire function which tends to 1 as $|k|\to \infty$, so, $\frac{f(k)}{h(k)} = 1$ and $f(k)=h(k)$. The relation $$\lim_{|k|\to\infty, k\in\C_+} f(k)=1
\tag{2.15}$$ follows from the representation $$f(k) = 1+ \int^\infty_0 A(0,y)e^{iky}dy,
\quad A(0,y)\in L_1(\R_+).
\tag{2.16}$$ Various estimates for the kernel $A(x,y)$ in the formula $$f(x,k)= e^{ikx} + \int^\infty_x A(x,y)e^{iky}dy
\tag{2.17}$$ are given in [@M]. We mention the following: $$|A(x,y)| \leq c \sigma \left(\frac{x+y}{2}\right),
\quad \sigma (x):= \int^\infty_x|q(t)|dt,
\tag{2.18}$$ $$\left|\frac{\partial A(x,y)}{\partial x} + \frac{1}{4}
q\left( \frac {x+y}{2} \right) \right|
\leq c \sigma(x) \sigma \left( \frac{x+y}{2} \right),
\tag{2.19}$$ $$\left| \frac{\partial A(x,y)}{\partial y} + \frac{1}{4}q
\left( \frac {x+y}{2} \right)\right|
\leq c \sigma(x)\sigma \left( \frac{x+y}{2} \right),
\tag{2.20}$$
where $c>0$ here and below stands for various estimation constants.
From (2.17) and (2.18) formula (2.16) follows.
Thus, we have proved $${\mathcal S} \Rightarrow f(k).
\tag{2.21}$$
Let us prove $${\mathcal S} \Rightarrow f^\prime (0,k) .
\tag{2.22}$$
We use the Wronskian: $$f^\prime (0,k) f(-k) - f^\prime (0,-k) f(k) = 2ik,
\quad k\in \R.
\tag{2.23}$$
The function $f(k)$ and therefore $f(-k)=\overline{f(k)}$, where the overbar stands for complex conjugate, we have already uniquely determined from data (2.10). Assume there are two functions $f^\prime (0,k)$ and $h^\prime (0,k)$ corresponding to the same data (2.10). Let $$w(k):=f^\prime (0,k)-h^\prime (0,k).
\tag{2.24}$$
Subtract (2.23) with $h^\prime (0,\pm k)$ in place of $f^\prime (0,\pm k)$ from equation (2.23) and get $$w(k) f(-k) - w(-k)f(k)=0,
\notag$$ or $$\frac {w(k)}{f(k)} = \frac {w(-k)}{f(-k)} \qquad \forall k\in \R
\tag{2.25}$$
$\frac {w(k)}{f(k)}$ is analytic in $\C_+$ and vanishes at infinity and $\frac {w(-k)}{f(-k)}$ is analytic in $\C_-$ and vanishes at infinity.
If this claim holds, then $\frac {w(k)}{f(k)}\equiv 0, k\in \C$, and therefore $w(k)\equiv 0$, so $f^\prime (0,k)=h^\prime (0,k)$.
To complete the proof, let us prove the claim.
From (2.17) one gets: $$f^\prime (0,k)=ik -A(0,0) + \int^\infty_0 A_x(0,y)e^{iky}dy.
\tag{2.26}$$
Taking $k \rightarrow +\infty$ in (2.16), integrating by parts and using (2.20), one gets: $$f(k)=1 -\frac {A(0,0)}{ik} -\frac{1}{ik}\int^\infty_0 A_y(0,k)e^{iky}\,dy.
\tag{2.27}$$ Thus $$A(0,0) = -\lim_{k\to\infty} ik[f(k) -1].
\tag{2.28}$$
Since $f(k)$ is uniquely determined by data (2.10), so is the constant A(0,0) (by formula (2.28)).
Therefore (2.24) and (2.28) imply: $$\lim_{|k|\to\infty,\ k\in\C_+} w(k)=0.
\tag{2.29}$$
It remains to be checked that (2.10) implies $$w(ik_j)=0.
\tag{2.30}$$ This follows from formula (2.12): if $f(k)$ and $s_j$ are the same, so are $f^\prime (0,ik_j)$, and $w(ik_j) = 0$ as the difference of equal numbers $$h^\prime (0,ik_j)=f^\prime (0,ik_j) = -\frac{2ik_j}{\dot f(ik_j) s_j}.
\notag$$
Theorem 2.2 is proved.
In this section we have proved that the scattering data (2.10) determines the $I$-function (2.1) uniquely. The converse is also true: implicitly it follows from the fact that both sets of data (2.1) and (2.10) determine uniquely the potential and are determined by the potential uniquely. A direct proof is given in section 12 below.
Compactly supported potential is uniquely determined by the phase shift of $s$-wave.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the inverse scattering on half-line and assume $q(x)=0$ for $x>a>0$, where $a>0$ is an arbitrary fixed number.
The phase shift of s-wave is denoted by $\delta(k)$ and is defined by the formula $$f(k) = |f(k)|e^{-i\delta(k)},
\tag{2.31}$$ so the S-matrix can be written as $$S(k) = \frac{f(-k)}{f(k)}=e^{2i\delta(k)}.
\tag{2.32}$$ If $q(x)$ is real-valued, then $$\delta(-k)=-\delta(k),
\quad k \in \R,
\tag{2.33}$$ and if $q\in L_{1,1} (\R_+)$, then $$\delta(\infty) = 0 .
\tag{2.34}$$ Note that S-matrix is unitary: $$S(-k) = \overline{S(k)}, \quad|S(k)| = 1\ \hbox{if}\ k \in \R.
\tag{2.35}$$ Define index of $S(k)$: $$\nu:= ind \,S(k): = \frac{1}{2\pi i}
\int^\infty_{-\infty} d \ln S(k) =
\frac{1}{2 \pi} \Delta_{\R} arg\, S(k).
\tag{2.36}$$
From (2.32), (2.33) and (2.34) one derives a formula for the index: $$\begin{align}
\nu = & \frac{1}{\pi} \Delta_{\R} \delta(k)
= \frac{1}{\pi}
[\delta(-0)-\delta(-\infty)+\delta(+\infty)-\delta(+0)] \notag \\
= & -\frac {2}{\pi} \delta(+0)
= \begin{cases} -2J & \hbox{if $f(0)\not= 0$}, \\
-2J-1 & \hbox{if $f(0)=0$} .\end{cases}
\notag\end{align}
\tag{2.37}$$
Here we have used the formula: $$\frac 1{\pi} \delta(+0) = \ \#\{ \hbox{zeros of $f(k)$ in}\ \C_+\}
+\frac 12 \delta_0,
\tag{2.38}$$ which is the argument principle. Here $\delta_0:=0$ if $f(0)\neq 0$ and $\delta_0:=1$ if $f(0)=0$.
The zero of $f(k)$ at $k=0$ is called a resonance at zero energy.
Let us prove the following result [@R5]:
If $q \in L_{1,1} (\R_+)$ decays faster than any exponential: $|q(x)| \leq ce^{-c|x|^\gamma}$, $ \gamma> 1$, then the data $\left\{\delta(k)\ \forall k>0 \right\}$ determines $q(x)$ uniquely.
Our proof is new and short. We prove that, if $q$ is compactly supported or decays faster than any exponential, e.g. $|q(x)| \leq ce^{-c|x|^\gamma}$, $ \gamma > 1$, then $\delta(k)$ determines uniquely $k_j$ and $s_j$, and, by Theorem 2.2, $q(x)$ is uniquely determined.
We give the proof for compactly supported potentials. The proof for the potentials decaying faster than any exponentials is exactly the same. The crucial point is: under both assumptions the Jost function is an entire function of $k$.
If $q(x)$ is compactly supported, $q(x)=0$ for $x \geq a$, then $f(k)$ is an entire function of exponential type $\leq 2a$, that is $|f(k)| \leq ce^{2a|k|}$ ([@R p. 278]). Therefore $S(k)$ is meromorphic in $\C_+$ (see (2.32)). Therefore the numbers $k_j$, $1\leq j\leq J$, can be uniquely determined as the only poles of $S(k)$ in $\C_+$. One should check that $$f(-ik_j) \neq 0\ \hbox{ if}\ f(ik_j) = 0.
\tag{2.39}$$
This follows from (2.23): if one takes $k=ik_j$ and uses $f(ik_j)=0$, then (2.23) yields $$f^\prime (0,ik_j)f(-ik_j) = -2k_j < 0.
\tag{2.40}$$ Thus $f(-ik_j) \neq 0$. Therefore $\delta(k)$ determines uniquely the numbers $k_j$ and $J$.
To determine $s_j$, note that $$\operatorname*{Res}_{k=ik_j}
\ S(k)= \frac {f(-ik_j)}{\dot f(ik_j)} = \frac{1}{i} s_j,
\tag{2.41}$$ as follows from (2.12) and (2.40). Thus the data (2.10) are uniquely determined from $S(k)$ if $q$ is compactly supported, and Theorem 2.2 implies Theorem 2.3.
If $q(r)\in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$ is compactly supported, then the knowledge of $f(k)$ on an arbitrary small open subset of $\R_+$ (or even on an infinite sequence $k_n>0$, $k_n\not=k_m$ if $m\not= n$, $k_n\to k$ as $n\to\infty$, $k>0$) determines $q(r)$ uniquely.
In section 4 we prove a similar result with the data $f^\prime(0,k)$ in place of $f(k)$.
Recovery of $q \in L_{1,1} (\R)$ from the reflection coefficient alone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the scattering problem on the full line: $u$ solves (1.1) and $$u \sim t(k)e^{ikx}, \quad x \rightarrow +\infty,
\tag{2.42}$$ $$u \sim e^{ikx} + r(k) e^{-ikx}, \quad x \rightarrow -\infty.
\tag{2.43}$$
The coefficients $t(k)$ and $r(k)$ are called the transmission and reflection coefficients (see [@M] and [@R]). In general $r(k)$ alone cannot determine $q(x)$ uniquely.
We assume $$q(x)=0 \ \hbox{for}\ x < 0,
\tag{2.44}$$ and give a short proof, based on property C, of the following:
If $q \in L_{1,1} (\R)$ and (2.44) holds, then $r(k),\ \forall k > 0$, determines $q(x)$ uniquely.
We claim that $r(k)$ determines uniquely $I(k)$ if (2.44) holds. Thus, Theorem 2.4 follows from Theorem 2.1. To check the claim, note that $u(x,k)=t(k)f(x,k)$, so $$I(k)= \frac {u^\prime (0,k)}{u(0,k)},
\tag{2.45}$$ and use (2.44), (2.43) to get $u=e^{ikx} +r(k)e^{-ikx}$ for $x<0$, so $$\frac {u^\prime (0,k)}{u(0,k)} = \frac {ik(1- r(k))}{1 +r(k)}.
\tag{2.46}$$ From (2.45) and (2.46) the claim follows. Theorem 2.4 is proved.
Inverse scattering with various data
------------------------------------
Consider scattering on the full line (1.1), (2.42)-(2.43), assume $q(x)=0$ if $x \not\in [0,1]$, and take as the scattering data the function $$u(0,k): = u_0 (k), \qquad \forall k > 0.
\tag{2.47}$$
Data (2.47) determine $q(x)$ uniquely.
If $q=0$ for $x <0$, then $u(x,k) = e^{ikx} + r(k)e^{-ikx}$ for $x < 0$, $u(0,k)= 1+r(k)$, so data (2.47) determine $r(k)$ and, by Theorem 2.4, $q(x)$ is uniquely determined. Theorem 2.5 is proved. Of course, this theorem is a particular case of Theorem 2.4.
Other data can be considered, for example, $u^\prime (0,k):=v(k)$. Then $u^\prime (0,k) = ik[1-r(k)]$, and again $v(k)$ determines $r(k)$ and, by Theorem 2.4, $q(x)$ is uniquely determined.
However, if the data are given at the right end of the support of the potential, the inverse problem is more difficult. For example, if $u(1,k):=u_1(k)$ is given for all $k>0$, then $u_1(k)=t(k)e^{ik}$, so $t(k)$ is determined by the data uniquely.
The problem of determining $q(x)$ from $t(k)$ does not seem to have been studied. If $q(x) \geq 0$, then the selfadjoint operator $L_q= -\frac{d^2}{dx^2} +q(x)$ in $L^2(\R)$ does not have bound states (negative eigenvalues).
In this case the relation $|r^2 (k)| + |t^2(k)|=1$ allows one to find $$|r(k)| = \sqrt{1-|t(k)|^2},\quad k\in\R.
\notag$$ Define $$a(k):= exp \left\{ -\frac{1}{\pi i} \int^\infty_{-\infty}
\frac {\ln|t(s)|}{s-k}ds \right\}.
\tag{2.48}$$
The function (2.48) has no zeros in $\C_+$ if $L_q$ has no bound states. If $q$ is compactly supported then $r(k)$ and $t(k)$ are meromorphic in $\C$.
Let us note that $$f(x,k):=f_+(x,k) = b(k)g_- (x,k) + a(k) g_+(x,k)
\tag{2.49}$$ $$g_- (x,k) = c(k)f_+(x,k) + d(k)f_- (x,k).
\tag{2.50}$$ It is known [@M], [@R], that $$a(-k) = \overline{a(k)}, \quad b(-k)= \overline{ b(k)},
\quad k\in\R,
\tag{2.51}$$ $$c(k) = - b (-k), \quad d(k) = a(k),
\tag{2.52}$$ $$a(k) = -\frac{1}{2ik} [f(x,k),g_-(x,k)], \quad b(k) = \frac{1}{2ik}
[f_+(x,k), g_+(x,k)],
\tag{2.53}$$ where $[f,g]:=fg^\prime -f^\prime g$ is the Wronskian, $$|a(k)|^2 = 1+ | b (k)|^2,
\tag{2.54}$$ $$r (k) = \frac{b(k)}{a(k)}, \quad t(k) = \frac{1}{a(k)}.
\tag{2.55}$$
The function $a(k)$ is analytic in $\C_+$. One can prove [@M p.288] $$a(k)=1 - \frac{\int^\infty_{-\infty} q(x)\, dx}{2ik}
+ o \left( \frac{1}{k} \right), \quad k \to\infty,
\tag{2.56}$$ and $$b (k) = o \left( \frac{1}{k} \right), \quad k \rightarrow \infty.
\tag{2.57}$$
The function $r(k)$ does not allow, in general, an analytic continuation from the real axis into the complex plane. However, if $q(x)=0$ for $x<0$, then $b(k)$ admits an analytic continuation from the real axis into $\C_+$ and $r(k)$ is meromorhic in $\C_+$.
If $q(x)$ is compactly supported the functions $f_\pm (x,k)$ and $g_\pm (x,k)$ are entire functions of $k$ of exponential type, so that $r(k)$ and $t(k)$ are meromorphic in $\C$. From (2.54) one can find $|b(k)|$ since $a(k)$ is found from formula (2.48) (assuming no bound states).
The conclusion is: recovery of a compactly supported potential from the transmission coefficient is an open problem.
Inverse problems on a finite interval with mixed data
=====================================================
Consider equation (1.1) on the interval \[0,1\]. Take some selfadjoint boundary conditions, for example: $$-u^{\prime\prime} + q(x)u- \lambda u=0,\quad 0\leq x\leq 1;
\quad u(0) = u(1)=0, \quad \lambda = k^2.
\tag{3.1}$$ Assume $q\in L^1[0,1], q=\overline q$. Fix $ b \in (0,1)$ arbitrary. Suppose $q(x)$ is known on the interval $[ b ,1]$ and the subset $\{\lambda_{m(n)}\}$ of the eigenvalues of the problem (3.1) is known, $n=1,2,\dots$ where $m(n)$ is a sequence with the property $$\frac{m(n)}{n} = \frac{1}{\sigma}(1+\varepsilon_n),\quad
\varepsilon_n \rightarrow 0, \quad\sigma >0.
\tag{3.2}$$
The data $\{\lambda_{m(n)}, n= 1,2,...; q(x), b \leq x\leq 1 \}$ determine uniquely $q(x), 0 \leq x \leq b $, if $\sigma >2 b $. If $\sigma = 2 b $ and $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |\varepsilon| < \infty$, then the above data determine $q(x), 0 \leq x \leq b $, uniquely.
First, assume $\sigma > 2 b $. If there are $q_1$ and $q_2$ which produce the same data, then as above, one gets $$G(\lambda):=g(k):= \int^ b_0 p(x) \varphi_1 (x,k) \varphi_2 (x,k)\, dx
= (\varphi_1 w^\prime - \varphi_1^\prime w)\Big|^ b_0
= (\varphi_1 w^\prime -\varphi_1^\prime w )\Big|_{x=b }
\tag{3.3}$$ where $w:= \varphi_1-\varphi_2$, $p:=q_1 - q_2$, $k= \sqrt \lambda$. Thus $$g(k) = 0\ \hbox{at}\ k
= \pm \sqrt{\lambda_{m(n)}}: = \pm k_n.
\tag{3.4}$$
The function $G(\lambda)$ is an entire function of $\lambda$ of order $\frac{1}{2}$ (see formula (1.10) with $k=\sqrt\lambda$), and is an entire even function of $k$ of exponential type $\leq 2 b $. One has $$|g(k)| \leq c \frac{e^{2 b |Imk|}}{1+|k|^2}.
\tag{3.5}$$ The indicator of $g$ is defined by the formula $$h(\theta):=h_g (\theta):=
\overline{\lim_{r\to\infty}}
\frac {\ln|g (r e^{i\theta})| }{r},
\tag{3.6}$$ where $k=r e^{i \theta}$. Since $|Imk| = r|\sin \theta|$, one gets from (3.5) and (3.6) the following estimate $$h(\theta) \leq 2b |\sin \theta|.
\tag{3.7}$$
It is known [@L formula (4.16)] that for any entire function $g(k) \not\equiv 0$ of exponential type one has: $$\lim_{\overline{r\to\infty}}
\frac{n(r )}{r } \leq \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int^{2 \pi}_0 h_g
(\theta)\, d \theta,
\tag{3.8}$$ where $n(r )$ is the number of zeros of $g(k)$ in the disk $|k| \leq r $. From (3.7) one gets $$\frac {1}{2\pi} \int ^{2\pi}_0 h_g(\theta)\, d\theta \leq
\frac {2 b}{2 \pi} \int^{2 \pi}_0 |\sin \theta|\,d\theta
= \frac{4 b }{\pi}
\tag{3.9}$$ From (3.2) and the known asymptotics of the Dirichlet eigenvalues: $$\lambda_n = (\pi n)^2 + c + o(1),
\quad n \rightarrow\infty, \quad c=const,
\tag{3.10}$$ one gets for the number of zeros the estimate $$n(r) \geq 2 \sum_{ \frac{n\pi}{\sigma}
\left[ 1+0 \left( \frac{1}{n^2} \right) \right] <r}
1=2\frac{\sigma r }{\pi}[1+o(1)],
\quad r \rightarrow \infty.
\tag{3.11}$$
From (3.8), (3.9) and (3.11) it follows that $$\sigma \leq 2 b.
\tag{3.12}$$
Therefore, if $\sigma > 2 b $, then $g(k) \equiv 0$. If $g(k) \equiv 0$ then, by property $C_\varphi$ (Theorem 1.1), $p(x)=0$. Theorem 3.1 is proved in the case $\sigma > 2 b $.
Assume now that $\sigma = 2 b $ and $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty |\varepsilon_n| < \infty.
\tag{3.13}$$ We [*claim*]{} that if an entire function $G(\lambda)$ in (3.3) of order $\frac{1}{2}$ vanishes at the points $$\lambda_n = \frac{n^2 \pi^2}{\sigma^2} (1+\varepsilon_n),
\tag{3.14}$$ and (3.13) holds, then $G(\lambda) \equiv 0$. If this is proved, then Theorem 3.1 is proved as above.
Let us prove the claim. Define $$\Phi(\lambda):=\prod^\infty_{n=1} \left( 1-\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_n}\right)
\tag{3.15}$$ and recall that $$\Phi_0(\lambda):=\frac{\sin(\sigma\sqrt{\lambda})}{\sigma\sqrt{\lambda}}
=\prod^\infty_{n=1} \left( 1-\frac{\lambda}{\mu_n}\right),\quad
\mu_n:=\frac{n^2\pi^2}{\sigma^2}.
\tag{3.16}$$
Since $ G(\lambda_n) = 0$, the function $$w(\lambda): = \frac {G(\lambda)}{\Phi(\lambda)}
\tag{3.17}$$ is entire, of order $\leq\frac{1}{2}$. Let us use a Phragmen-Lindelöf lemma.
[@L Theorem 1.22] If an entire function $w(\lambda)$ of order $<1$ has the property $sup_{-\infty<y<\infty} |w(iy)| \leq c$, then $w(\lambda) \equiv c$. If, in addition $w(iy) \rightarrow 0$ as $y \rightarrow +\infty$, then $w(\lambda) \equiv 0.$
We use this lemma to prove that $w(\lambda) \equiv 0$. If this is proved then $G(\lambda) \equiv 0$ and Theorem 3.1 proved.
The function $w(\lambda)$ is entire of order $\frac{1}{2} < 1$.
Let us check that $$\sup_{-\infty<y<\infty} |w(iy)| < \infty,
\tag{3.18}$$ and that $$|w(iy)| \rightarrow 0\ \hbox{as}\ y \rightarrow +\infty.
\tag{3.19}$$
One has, using (3.5), (3.15), (3.16) and taking into account that $\sigma = 2 b $: $$\begin{align}
|w(iy)| = &
\left| \frac{G(iy)}{\Phi(iy)} \frac{\Phi_0 (iy)}{\Phi_0(iy)} \right|
\leq \frac{ e^{2b|Im\sqrt{iy}|} }{ (1+|y|)}
\left(\frac{ e^{\sigma|Im\sqrt{iy}|} }{ 1+|y|^{\frac{1}{2}} }\right)^{-1}
\left( \prod^\infty_{h=1}
\frac{ 1+\frac{y^2}{\mu^2_n} }{ 1+\frac{y^2}{\lambda^2_n} }
\right)^{ \frac{1}{2} } \notag \\
\leq &
\frac{c}{ 1+|y|^{\frac{1}{2}} }
\left( \prod_{ \{n:\mu_n\leq\lambda_n\} }
\frac{\lambda_n^2}{\mu^2_n} \right)^{ \frac{1}{2} }
\leq \frac{c}{ 1+|y|^{\frac{1}{2}} }
\prod_{ \{n:\mu_n\leq\lambda_n\} }
\left( 1+|\varepsilon_n|\right)
\leq \frac{c_1}{ 1+|y|^{\frac{1}{2}} }\ . \notag\end{align}
\tag{3.20}$$
Here we have used elementary inequalities: $$\frac {1+a}{1+ d} \leq \frac {a}{ d }\quad \hbox{if}\quad
a \geq d> 0;
\quad \frac {1+a}{1+ d} \leq 1\quad \hbox{if}\quad 0\leq a \leq d ,
\tag{3.21}$$ with $a:=\frac {y^2}{\mu_n^2}$, $d:= \frac {y^2}{\lambda_n^2}$, and the assumption (3.13).
We also used the relation: $$\left| \frac{\sin(\sigma \sqrt{iy})}{\sigma \sqrt{iy}} \right|
\sim \frac {e^{\sigma |Im \sqrt{iy}|}}{2 \sigma |\sqrt{iy}|}
\quad \hbox{as}\quad y \rightarrow +\infty.
\notag$$
Estimate (3.20) implies (3.18) and (3.19). An estimate similar to (3.20) has been used in the literature (see e.g.[@D]).
Theorem 3.1 is proved.
Theorem 3.1 yields several results obtained in [@D], and an earlier result of Hochstadt-Lieberman which says that the knowledge of all the Dirichlet eigenvalues and the knowledge of $q(x)$ on $\left[\frac{1}{2},1 \right]$ determine uniquely $q(x)$ on $\left[ 0,\frac{1}{2}\right]$.
In this case $ b = \frac{1}{2}$, $\sigma = 1$.
One can also obtain the classical result of Borg [@B] and its generalization due to Marchenko [@M]:
Two spectra (with the same boundary conditions on one of the ends of the interval and two different boundary conditions on the other end) determine $q(x)$ and the boundary conditions uniquely.
Property C and inverse problems for some PDE
============================================
-
Consider the problem $$u_t = u_{xx}-q(x)u,\quad 0 \leq x \leq 1,\quad t > 0,
\tag{4.1}$$ $$u(x,0) = 0,
\tag{4.2}$$ $$u(0,t) = 0, \quad u(1,t) = a(t).
\tag{4.3}$$
Assume the $a(t) \not\equiv 0$ is compactly supported, $a(t) \in L^1(0,\infty)$, $q(x) \in L^1 [0,1]$, problem (4.1) - (4.3) is solvable, and one can measure the data $$u^\prime (1,t):=u_x(1,t):= b (t) \qquad \forall t>0.
\tag{4.4}$$
The inverse problem (IP1) is:
[*Given $\{a(t), b(t),\ \forall t > 0 \}$ find $q(x)$.*]{}
IP1 has at most one solution.
Laplace-transform (4.1) - (4.3) to get $$v^{\prime\prime}-\lambda v - q(x)v=0 \quad 0 \leq x \leq 1,
\quad v:= \int^\infty_0 e^{-\lambda t} u(x,t)\, dt,
\tag{4.5}$$ $$v(0,\lambda) = 0, \quad v(1,\lambda)
= A(\lambda): = \int^\infty_0 e^{-\lambda t} a(t)\,dt.
\tag{4.6}$$ $$v^\prime (1,\lambda) = B (\lambda):= \int^\infty_0
b (t) e^{-\lambda t}\,dt.
\tag{4.7}$$
Assume that there are $q_1 (x)$ and $q_2 (x)$ which generate the same data $\{A(\lambda), B(\lambda)$, $\forall \lambda > 0 \}$. Let $p(x): = q_1(x)-q_2 (x), w:= v_1-v_2$. Subtract from equation (4.5) with $v=v_1, \, q=q_1$, similar equations with $v=v_2, \, q = q_2$, and get $$\l_1w:=w^{\prime\prime} - \lambda w - q_1 w= p\, v_2,
\tag{4.8}$$ $$w(0,\lambda) = 0,
\quad w(1,\lambda) = w^\prime (1,\lambda) = 0.
\tag{4.9}$$
Multiply (4.8) by $\varphi_1 (x,\lambda)$, where $\l_1 \varphi_1 = 0$, $\varphi_1(0,\lambda) = 0$, $\varphi^\prime _1
(0,\lambda) = 1$, integrate over $[0,1]$ and then by parts on the left-hand side, using (4.9). The result is: $$\int^1_0 p(x) v_2 (x,\lambda) \varphi_1 (x,\lambda)dx = 0
\qquad \forall \lambda > 0. \tag{4.10}$$
Note that $\varphi_1(x,\lambda)$ is an entire function of $\lambda$.
Since $a(t) \not\equiv 0$ and is compactly supported, the function $A(\lambda)$ is an entire function of $\lambda$, so it has a discrete set of zeros. Therefore $v_2(x, \lambda) = c(\lambda) \varphi_2 (x,\lambda)$ where $c(\lambda)\neq 0$ for almost all $\lambda \in \R_+$.
Property $C_\varphi$ (Theorem 1.1) and (4.10) imply $p(x)=0$. Theorem 4.1 is proved.
One can consider different selfadjoint homogeneous boundary conditions at $x=0$, for example, $u^\prime (0,t) = 0$ or $u^\prime (0,t)-h_0 u(0,t) = 0$, $h_0=const>0$.
A different method of proof of a result similar to Theorem 4.1 can be found in [@R1] and in [@De]. In [@De] some extra assumptions are imposed on $q(x)$ and $a(t)$.
-
Consider the problem: $$u_{tt} = u_{xx} - q(x)u, \quad x \geq 0, \quad t \geq 0,
\tag{4.11}$$ $$u=u_t = 0 \ \hbox{at}\ t=0,
\tag{4.12}$$ $$u(0,t) = \delta (t),
\tag{4.13}$$ where $\delta(t)$ is the delta-function. Assume that $$q(x) = 0\quad \hbox{if}\quad x >1,
\quad q=\overline q,\quad q \in L^1 [0,1].
\tag{4.14}$$ Suppose the data $$u(1,t):= a(t) \tag{4.15}$$ are given for all $t>0$.
The inverse problem (IP2) is:
[*Given $a(t) \ \forall t > 0$, find q(x).*]{}
The IP2 has at most one solution.
Fourier-transform (4.11)-(4.13), (4.15) to get $$v^{\prime\prime} + k^2v-q(x)v = 0,
\quad x \geq 0,
\tag{4.16}$$ $$v(0,k) = 1, \tag{4.17}$$ $$v(1,k) = A(k):= \int^\infty_0 a(t) e^{ikt}dt, \tag{4.18}$$ where $$v(x,k) = \int^\infty_0 u(x,t) e^{ikt}dt. \tag{4.19}$$ It follows from (4.19) and (4.16) that $$v(x,k)=c(k) f(x,k),
\tag{4.20}$$ where $f(x,k)$ is the Jost solution to (4.16). From (4.20) and (4.17) one gets $$v(x,k) = \frac{f(x,k)}{f(k)},
\tag{4.21}$$ where $f(k) = f(0,k)$. From (4.21) and (4.18) one obtains $$f(k) = \frac{f(1,k)}{A(k)}.
\tag{4.22}$$ From (4.14) and (4.16) one concludes $$f(x,k) = e^{ikx}\ \hbox{for}\ x \geq 1.
\tag{4.23}$$ From (4.23) and (4.22) one gets $$f(k) = \frac {e^{ik}}{A(k)}.
\tag{4.24}$$
Thus $f(k)$ is known for all $k > 0$.
Since $q(x)$ is compactly supported, the data $\{f(k),\ \forall k = 0\}$ determine $q(x)$ uniquely by Theorem 2.3. Theorem 4.2 is proved.
One can consider other data at $x=1$, for example, the data $u_x (1,t)$ or $u_x (1,t) + hu(1,t)$. The argument remains essentially the same.
However, the argument needs a modification if (4.13) is replaced by another condition, for example, $u_x(0,t) = \delta(t)$. In this case $v(x,k)=\frac{f(x,k)}{f^\prime (0,k)}$, and in place of $f(k)$ one obtains $f^\prime (0,k)\ \forall k > 0$ from the data (4.18).
The problem of finding a compactly supported $q(x)$ from the data $\{f^\prime (0,k)\ \forall k > 0 \}$ was not studied, to our knowledge. We state the following:
The data $f^\prime (0,k)$ known on an arbitrary small open subset of $(0,\infty)$ or even on an infinite sequence of distinct positive numbers $k_n$ which has a limit point $k>0$, determines a compactly supported $q(r) \in L^1(\R_+)$ uniquely.
Our approach to this problem is based on formula (2.23). If $f^\prime (0,k)$ is known for all $k>0$, then $f^\prime (0,-k)
= \overline{f^\prime (0,k)}$ is known for all $k>0$, and (2.23) can be considered as the Riemann problem for finding $f(k)$ and $f(-k)$ from (2.23) with the coefficients $f^\prime (0,k)$ and $f^\prime (0,-k)$ known. If $q(x) \in L_1 (\R_+)$ is compactly supported then $f^\prime (0,k)$ is an entire function of $k$. Thus the data determine $f^\prime(0,k)$, for all $k>0$.
We want to prove that (2.23) defines $f(k)$ uniquely if $f^\prime (0,k)$ is known for all $k > 0$. Assume the contrary. Let $f(k)$ and $h(k)$ be two solutions to (2.23), and $w: = f-h, \, w(k) \to 0$ as $|k| \to \infty, \, k \in \C_+$. Then (2.23) implies $$\frac{w(k)}{f^\prime (0,k)} = \frac{w(-k)}{f^\prime (0,-k)}
\qquad \forall k \in \R.
\tag{4.25}$$
The function $f^\prime(0,k)$ has at most finitely many zeros in $\C_+$. All these zeros are at the points $i\kappa_j$, $1 \leq j \leq J_1$, where $-\kappa_j^2$ are the negative eigenvalues of the Neumann operator $L_q := -\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + q(x)$ in $L^2(\R_+), \, u^\prime (0) =0$.
Also $f^\prime(0,0)$ may vanish. From (2.23) one concludes that $w(i\kappa_j)=0$ if $f^\prime(0,i\kappa_j)=0$. Indeed, one has $w(i\kappa_j) f^\prime(0,-i\kappa_j)
= w(-i\kappa_j)f^\prime(0,i\kappa_j)$. If $f^\prime(0,i\kappa_j)=0$ then $f^\prime(0,-i\kappa_j) \neq 0$ as follows from (2.23). Therefore $w(i\kappa_j)=0$ as claimed, and the function $\frac{w(k)}{f^\prime(0,k)}$ is analytic in $\C_+$ and vanishes at infinity in $\C_+$. Similary, the right-hand side of (4.25) is analytic in $\C_-$ and vanishes at infinity in $\C_-$. Thus, by analytic continuation, $\frac{w(k)}{f^\prime (0,k)}$ is an entire function which vanishes at infinity and therefore vanishes identically. Therefore $w(k) \equiv 0$ and $f(k) = h(k)$. Thus, the data $\{f^\prime (0,k),\ \forall k>0 \}$ determines uniquely $\{f(k), \ \forall k>0\}$.
Since $q(x)$ is compactly supported, Theorem 2.3 implies that $q(x)$ is uniquely determined by the above data. The claim is proved.
Invertibility of the steps in the inversion provedures in the inverse scattering and spectral problems
======================================================================================================
Inverse spectral problem
------------------------
Consider a selfadjoint operator $L_q$ in $L^2(\R_+)$ generated by the differential expression $L_q = -\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + q(x)$, $q(x) \in L^1_{loc} (\R_+), q(x) =
\overline {q(x)}$, and a selfadjoint boundary condition at $x=0$, for example, $u(0)=0$. Other selfadjoint conditions can be assumed. For instance: $u^\prime (0)=h_0u(0), h_0 = const > 0$.
We assume that $q(x)$ is such that the equation (1.1) with $Im \lambda >0$, $\lambda: = k^2$, has exactly one solution which belongs to $L^2(\R_+)$ (the limit-point case at infinity).
In this case there is exactly one spectral function $\rho(\lambda)$ of the selfadjoint operator $L_q$. Denote $$\varphi_0 (x, \lambda): =
\frac{\sin(\sqrt{\lambda} x)}{\sqrt{\lambda}}.
\tag {5.1}$$ Let $h(x) \in L^2_0 (\R_+)$, where $L^2_0 (\R_+)$ denotes the set of $L^2(\R_+)$ functions vanishing outside a compact interval (this interval depends on $h(x)$). Denote $$H(\lambda):= \int^\infty_0 h(x) \varphi_0 (x, \lambda)\, dx.
\tag{5.2}$$ [*Assume that for every $h\in L^2_0 (\R_+)$ one has:*]{} $$\int^\infty_{-\infty} H^2(\lambda)\, d\rho (\lambda)=0\Rightarrow h(x)=0.
\tag{5.3}$$ Denote by ${\mathcal P}$ the set of nondecreasing functions $\rho (\lambda)$, of bounded variation, such that if $\rho_1, \rho_2 \in {\mathcal P}$, $\nu : = \rho_1-\rho_2$, and $${\mathcal H} := \left\{ H(\lambda): h\in C^\infty_0 (\R_+) \right\},
\tag{5.4}$$ where $H(\lambda)$ is given by (5.2), then $$\left\{ \int^\infty_{-\infty} H^2 (\lambda)\, d\nu (\lambda) = 0
\qquad\forall h\in {\mathcal H} \right\}
\Rightarrow \nu (\lambda) = 0.
\tag{5.5}$$
Spectral functions of the operators $L_q$, in the limit- point at infinity case, belong to ${\mathcal P}$.
Let $ b> 0$ be arbitrary, $f\in L^2(0, b )$, $f=0$ if $x> b $. Suppose $$\int^\infty_{-\infty} H^2(\lambda)\, d\nu (\lambda)
= 0 \qquad \forall h \in {\mathcal H}.
\tag{5.6}$$ Denote by $I+V$ and $I+W$ the transformation operators corresponding to potentials $q_1$ and $q_2$ which generate spetral functions $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$, $\nu =\rho_1 - \rho_2$. Then $$\varphi_0 = (I+V) \varphi_1 = (I+W)\varphi_2, \tag{5.7}$$ where $V$ and $W$ are Volterra-type operators. Condition (5.6) implies: $$\Vert (I+V^\ast )f \Vert = \Vert(I+W^\ast )f \Vert
\qquad\forall f \in L^2(0, b ),
\tag{5.8}$$ where $V^\ast $ is the adjoint operator and the norm in (5.8) is $L^2(0,b)$-norm. Note that $$Vf:= \int^x_0 V(x,y) f(y) \, dy,
\tag{5.9}$$ and $$V^\ast f= \int^ b_s V(y,s) f(y) \, dy.
\tag{5.10}$$ From (5.8) it follows that $$I+V^\ast = U(I+W^\ast ), \tag {5.11}$$ where $U$ is a unitary operator in the Hilbert space $H=L^2 (0,b)$.
If $U$ is unitary and $V,W$ are Volterra operators then (5.11) implies $V=W$.
This is proved in Lemma 5.1 below. If $V=W$ then $\varphi_1(x,\lambda)=
\varphi_2(x,\lambda)$, therefore $q_1=q_2$ and $\rho_1(\lambda)=\rho_2(\lambda)$. Here we have used the assumption about $L_q$ being in the limit-point at infinity case: this assumption implies that the spectral function is uniquely determined by the potential (in the limit-circle case at infinity there are many spectral functions corresponding to the given potential). Thus if $q_1=q_2$, then $\rho_1(\lambda)=\rho_2(\lambda)$. Theorem 5.1 is proved.
Assume that $U$ is unitary and $V,W$ are Volterra operators in $H=L^2(0, b )$. Then (5.11) implies $V=W$.
From (5.11) one gets $I+V = (I+W)U^\ast $ and, using $U^\ast U=I$, one gets $$(I+V)(I+V^\ast ) = (I+W)(I+W^\ast ).
\tag{5.12}$$ Denote $$(I+V)^{-1} = I+V_1, \quad (I+W)^{-1} = I+W_1,
\tag{5.13}$$ where $V_1, W_1$ are Volterra operators. From (5.12) one gets: $$(I+V^\ast )(I+W_1^\ast ) = (I+V_1)(I+W),
\tag{5.14}$$ or $$V^\ast +W^\ast _1+V^\ast W^\ast _1 = V_1+W+V_1W.
\tag{5.15}$$ Since the left-hand side in (5.15) is a Voleterra operator of the type (5.10) while the right-hand side is a Volterra operator of the type (5.9), they can be equal only if each equals zero: $$V^\ast +W_1^\ast +V^\ast W_1^\ast = 0,
\tag{5.16}$$ and $$V_1+W+V_1W = 0. \tag{5.17}$$ From (5.17) one gets $$V_1(I+W) = -W, \tag{5.18}$$ or $ [(I+V)^{-1} -I] (I+W) = -W$. Thus $(I+V)^{-1}(I+W) =I$ and $V=W$ as claimed. Lemma 5.1 is proved.
The inverse spectral problem consists of finding $q(x)$ given $\rho(\lambda)$. The uniqueness of the solution to this problem was proved by Marchenko [@M] while the reconstruction algorithm was given by Gelfand and Levitan [@Lt1] (see also [@R]).
Let us prove first the uniqueness theorem of Marchenko following [@R3]. In this theorem there is no need to assume that $L_q$ is in the limit-point at infinity case: if it is not, the spectral function determines the potential uniquely also, but the potential does not determine the spectral function uniquely.
The spectral function determines $q(x)$ uniquely.
If $q_1$ and $q_2$ have the same spectral function $\rho(\lambda)$ then $$\Vert f \Vert^2 = \int^\infty_{-\infty} |F_1(\lambda)|^2 d\rho (\lambda)=
\int^\infty_{-\infty} |F_2 (\lambda)|^2 d\rho (\lambda) = \Vert g \Vert^2
\tag{5.19}$$ for any $f \in L^2 (0, b ), b < \infty$, where $$F_j (\lambda):= \int^ b_0 f(x) \varphi_j (x, \lambda)\, dx,
\quad j= 1,2,
\tag{5.20}$$ the function $\varphi_j (x, \lambda)$ solves equation (1.1) with $q=q_j$, and $k^2=\lambda$, satisfies first two conditions (1.4), and $$g:=(I+K^\ast )f,
\tag{5.21}$$ where $I+K$ is the transformation operator: $$\varphi_2 = (I+K) \varphi_1
= \varphi_1 + \int^x_0 K(x,y) \varphi_1(y,\lambda)\, dy.
\tag{5.22}$$
Note that $$F_2 (\lambda) = \int^ b_0 f(x) (I+K) \varphi_1 dx = \int^ b_0
g(x) \varphi_1 (x, \lambda) \, dx.
\tag{5.23}$$ From (5.19) it follows that $$\Vert f \Vert = \Vert (I+K^\ast )f\Vert
\qquad \forall f \in L^2 (0, b ):= H.
\tag{5.24}$$
Since Range $(I+K^\ast ) = H$, equation (5.24) implies that $I+K$ is unitary (an isometry whose range is the whole space $H$). Thus $$I+K = (I+K^\ast )^{-1} = I +T^\ast,
\tag{5.25}$$ where $T^\ast $ is a Volterra operator of the type (5.10).
Therefore $K=T^\ast$ and this implies $K=T^\ast=0$. Therefore $\varphi_1 =
\varphi_2$ and $q_1 = q_2$. Theorem 5.2 is proved.
Let $d\rho_j(\lambda), j=1,2,$ be the spectral functions corresponding to the operators $L_{q_j}$. Assume that $d\rho_1(\lambda)=cd\rho_2(\lambda),$ where $c>0$ is a constant. The above argument can be used with a minor change to prove that this assumption implies: $c=1$ and $q_1=q_2$. Indeed, the above assumption implies unitarity of the operator $\sqrt{c}(I+K)$. Therefore $c(I+K)=I+T^*$. Thus $c=1$ and $K=T^*=0$, as in the proof of Theorem 5.2. Here we have used a simple claim:
[*If $bI+Q=0$, where $b=const$ and $Q$ is a linear compact operator in $H$, then $b=0$ and $Q=0$.*]{}
To prove this claim, take an arbitrary orthonormal basis $\{u_n\}$ of the Hilbert space $H$. Then $||Qu_n||\to 0$ as $n\to \infty$ since $Q$ is compact. Note that $||u_n||=1$, so $b=||bu_n||=||Qu_n||\to 0$ as $n\to \infty$. Therefore $b=0$ and consequently $Q=0$. The claim is proved.
The Gelfand-Levitan (GL) reconstruction procedure is: $$\rho (\lambda) \Rightarrow L(x,y) \Rightarrow K(x,y) \Rightarrow q(x).
\tag{5.26}$$ Here $$L(x,y):= \int^\infty_{-\infty} \varphi_0 (x,\lambda) \varphi_0 (y,\lambda)
d\sigma (\lambda), \quad d\sigma = d \rho - d\rho_0,
\tag{5.27}$$ $$d\rho_0 = \begin{cases}
\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}\, d \lambda}{\pi}, & \lambda >0, \\
0 & \lambda <0. \end{cases}
\tag{5.28}$$
Compare (5.28) and (2.5) and conclude that $\rho_ 0$ is the spectral function corresponding to the Dirichlet operator $\l_q = -\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+q(x)$ in $L^2 (\R_+)$ with $q(x) = 0$.
The function $K(x,y)$ defines the transformation operator (cf. (1.10)) $$\varphi (x, \lambda) = \varphi_0 (x, \lambda)
+ \int^x_0 K(x,y)\varphi_0(y, \lambda)\, dy,\quad
\varphi_0: = \frac{\sin(x \sqrt{\lambda})}{\sqrt {\lambda}},
\tag{5.29}$$ where $\varphi$ solves (1.1) with $k^2 = \lambda$ and satisifies first two conditions (1.4).
One can prove (see [@Lt1], [@R]), that $K$ and $L$ are related by the Gelfand-Levitan equation: $$K(x,y) + L(x,y) + \int^x_0 K(x,t) L(t,y)\, dt = 0, \quad
0 \leq y \leq x.
\tag{5.30}$$
Let us assume that the data $\rho(\lambda)$ generate the kernel $L(x,y)$ (by formula (5.27)) such that equation (5.30) is a Fredholm-type equation in $L^2 (0,x)$ for $K(x,y)$ for any fixed $x>0$.
Then, one can prove that assumption (5.3) implies the unique solvability of the equation (5.30) for $K(x,y)$ in the space $L^2(0,x)$.
Indeed, the homogeneous equation (5.30) $$h(y) + \int^x_0 L(t,y) h(t)\, dt = 0, \quad 0\leq y \leq x,
\tag{5.31}$$ implies $h=0$ if (5.3) holds. To see this, multiply (5.21) by $h$ and integrate over $(0,x)$ (assuming without loss of generaity that $h=\overline h$, since the kernel $L(t,y)$ is real-valued). The result is: $$0= \Vert h \Vert^2 + \int^\infty_{-\infty}
|H(\lambda)|^2 d\rho (\lambda) -\int^\infty_{-\infty}
|H(\lambda)|^2 d \rho_0(\lambda),
\notag$$ or, by Parseval’s equality, $$\int^\infty_{-\infty} |H(\lambda)|^2 d\rho (\lambda) = 0.
\tag{5.32}$$ From (5.32) and (5.2) it follows that $h(y) = 0$. Therefore, by Fredholm’s alternative, equation (5.30) is uniquely solvable.
If $K(x,y)$ is its solution, then $$q(x) = 2 \frac{d K(x,x)}{dx}. \tag{5.33}$$
If $K(x,x)$ is a $C^{m+1}$ function then $q(x)$ is a $C^m$-function.
[*One has to prove that potential (5.22) generate the spectral function $\rho(\lambda)$ with which we started the inversion procedure (5.26).*]{}
We want to prove more, namely the following:
Each step in the diagram (5.26) is invertible, so $$\rho \Leftrightarrow L \Leftrightarrow K \Leftrightarrow q.
\tag{5.34}$$
1\) Step $\rho \Rightarrow L$ is done by formula (5.27).
Let us prove $L \Rightarrow \rho$. Assume there are $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ corresponding to the same $L(x,y)$. Then $$0= \int^\infty_{-\infty} \varphi_0 (x,\lambda)\varphi_0 (y,\lambda)\,d\nu
\qquad \forall x, y \in \R. \tag{5.35}$$ Therefore $$0= \int^\infty_{-\infty} H^2(\lambda)\, d\nu
\qquad\forall h \in C^\infty_0 (\R_+).
\tag{5.36}$$ By Theorem 5.1 relation (5.36) implies $\nu(\lambda) =0$, so $\rho_1 = \rho_2$.
2\) Step $L \Rightarrow K$ is done by solving equation (5.30) for $K(x,y)$. The unique solvability of this equation for $K(x,y)$ has been proved below formula (5.30).
Let up prove $K \Rightarrow L$. From (5.27) one gets $$L(x,y) = \frac{L(x+y) - L(x-y)}{2},
\quad L(x):= \int^\infty_{-\infty}
\frac{1-\cos (x \sqrt{\lambda})}{\lambda} d\sigma(\lambda).
\tag{5.37}$$ Let $y=x$ in (5.30) and write (5.30) as $$L(2x) + \int^x_0 K(x,t)[L(x+t)-L(t-x)] dt = -2K(x,x),
\quad x \geq 0.
\tag{5.38}$$ Note that $L(-x)=L(x)$. Thus (5.38) can be written as: $$L(2x) + \int^{2x}_x K(x, s-x) L(s)ds -\int^x_0 K(x,x-s)L(s)
ds=-2K(x,x), \quad x>0.
\tag{5.39}$$
This is a Volterra integral equation for $L(s)$. Since it is uniquely solvable, $L(s)$ is uniquely recovered from $K(x,y)$ and the step $K \Rightarrow L$ is done.
3\) Step $K \Rightarrow q$ is done by equation (5.33).
The converse step $q \Rightarrow K$ is done by solving the Goursat problem: $$K_{xx} - q(x)K = K_{yy}
\quad 0 \leq y \leq x, \tag{5.40}$$ $$K(x,x) = \frac{1}{2} \int^x_0 q(t)dt,
\quad K(x,0) = 0.
\tag{ 5.41}$$ One can prove that any twice differentiable solution to (5.30) solves (5.40)-(5.41) with $q(x)$ given by (5.33). The Goursat problem (5.40)-(5.41) is known to have a unique solution. Problem (5.40)-(5.41) is equivalent to a Volterra equation ([@M], [@R]).
Namely if $\xi = x+y$, $\eta = x-y$, $K(x,y):= B(\xi,\eta)$, then (5.40)-(5.41) take the form $$B_{\xi \eta} = \frac{1}{4}q (\frac{\xi + \eta}{2}) B (\xi, \eta),
\quad B (\xi, \eta) = \frac{1}{2} \int^{\frac{\xi}{2}}_0 q(t)\,dt,
\quad B (\xi, \xi)=0.
\tag{5.42}$$ Therefore $$B (\xi,\eta)= \frac{1}{4} \int^\xi _\eta q\left(\frac{t}{2}\right)\,dt
+ \frac{1}{4} \int^\eta_0 q \left( \frac{t+s}{2}\right) B (t,s)\, ds.
\tag{5.43}$$
This Volterra equation is uniquely solvable for $q$.
Theorem 5.3 is proved.
Inverse scattering problem on the half-line.
--------------------------------------------
This problem consists of finding $q(x)$ given the data (2.10). Theorem 2.2 guarantees the uniqueness of the solution of this inverse problem in the class $L_{1,1}: = L_{1,1} (\R_+)$ of the potentials.
The characterization of the scattering data (2.10) is known ([@M], [@R]), that is, necessary and sufficient conditions on ${\mathcal S}$ for ${\mathcal S}$ to be the scattering data corresponding to a $q(x) \in L_{1,1}$. We state the result without proof. A proof can be found in [@R]. A different but equivalent version of the result is given in [@M].
For the data (2.10) to be the scattering data corresponding to a $q \in L_{1,1}$ it is necessary and sufficient that the following conditions hold: $$\begin{align}
\hbox{i)}\qquad
& \ ind\ S(k) = -\kappa \leq 0,
\quad \kappa= 2J \quad \hbox{or} \quad \kappa= 2J +1,
\tag{5.44}\\
\hbox{ii)}\qquad
&\ k_j > 0,\quad s_j >0,\quad 1 \leq j \leq J, \tag{5.45} \\
\hbox{iii)}\qquad
&\ \overline{S(k)}=S(-k)=S^{-1}(k),
\ S(\infty)=1,\ k\in\R,\tag{5.46}\\
\hbox{iv)}\qquad
&\ \Vert F(x) \Vert_{L^\infty (\R_+)}
+ \Vert F(x) \Vert_{L^1 (\R_+)} +
\Vert x F^\prime(x)\Vert_{L^1(\R_+)} < \infty.
\tag{5.47} \end{align}$$ Here $\kappa = 2J +1$ if $f(0) =0$ and $\kappa = 2J$ if $f(0) \neq 0$, and $$F(x): = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int^\infty_{-\infty} [1-S(k)] e^{ikx} dk +
\sum^J_{j=1} s_j e^{-k_jx}.
\tag{5.48}$$
The following estimates are useful (see [@M], p.209, [@R], [@R19], p.569 ): $$|F(2x)+A(x,x)|<c\int_x^{\infty}|q(x)|dx,\quad
|F(2x)|<c\int_x^{\infty}|q(x)|dx,$$ $$|F'(2x)-\frac {q(x)}4|<c(\int_x^{\infty}|q(x)|dx)^2,$$ where $c>0$ is a constant. The Marchenko inversion procedure for finding $q(x)$ from ${\mathcal S}$ is described by the following diagram $${\mathcal S} \Rightarrow F(x) \Rightarrow A(x,y) \Rightarrow q(x).
\tag{5.49}$$
The step ${\mathcal S} \Rightarrow F$ is done by formula (5.48).
The step $F \Rightarrow A$ is done by solving the Marchenko equation for $A(x,y)$: $$A(x,y) + F(x+y) + \int^\infty_x A(x,t) F(t+y)\, dt = 0,
\quad y \geq x \geq 0.
\tag{5.50}$$ The step $A \Rightarrow q$ is done by the formula $$q(x) = -2 \frac{dA(x,x)}{dx}. \tag{5.51}$$
[*It is important to check that the potential $q(x)$ obtained by the scheme (5.49) generates the same data ${\mathcal S}$ with which we started the inversion scheme (5.49).*]{}
Assuming $q \in L_{1,1}$ we prove:
Each step of the diagram (5.49) is invertible: $${\mathcal S} \Leftrightarrow F \Leftrightarrow A \Leftrightarrow q.
\tag{5.52}$$
1\. The step ${\mathcal S} \Rightarrow F$ is done by formula (5.48) as we have already mentioned.
The step $F \Rightarrow {\mathcal S}$ is done by finding $k_j$, $s_j$ and $J$ from the asymptotics of the function (5.48) as $x \to -\infty$. As a result, one finds the function $$F_d (x):= \sum^J_{j=1} s_j e^{-k_jx}.
\tag{5.53}$$ If $F(x)$ and $F_d (x)$ are known, then the function $$F_S (x):= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int^\infty_{-\infty}
[1-S(k)] e^{ikx} dk \tag{5.54}$$ is known. Now the function $S(k)$ can be found by the formula $$S(k) = 1-\int^\infty_{-\infty} F_S (x) e^{-ikx} dx.
\tag{5.55}$$ So the step $F \Rightarrow {\mathcal S}$ is done.
2\. The step $F \Rightarrow A$ is done by solving equation (5.50) for $A(x,y)$. This step is discussed in the literature in detail, (see [@M], [@R]). If $q \in L_{1,1}$ (actually a weaker condition $\int^\infty_0 x|q(x)| dx < \infty$ is used in the half-line scattering theory), then one proves that conditions i) - iv) of Theorem 5.4 are satisified, that the operator $$Tf: = \int^\infty_x F(y+t) f(t)\, dt,
\quad y\geq x\geq 0,
\tag{5.56}$$ is compact in $L^1(x,\infty)$ and in $L^2(x,\infty)$ for any fixed $x\geq 0$, and the homogeneous version of equation (5.50): $$f + Tf = 0, \quad y \geq x \geq 0,
\tag{5.57}$$ has only the trivial solution $f=0$ for every $x \geq 0$. Thus, by the Fredholm alternative, equation (5.50) is uniquely solvable in $L^2(x,\infty)$ and in $L^1(x,\infty)$. The step $F \Rightarrow A$ is done.
Consider the step $A(x,y) \Rightarrow F(x)$. Define $$A(y):= \begin{cases} A(0,y), & y\geq 0,\\ 0, & y<0. \end{cases}\
\tag{5.58}$$
The function $A(y)$ determines uniquely $f(k)$ by the formula: $$f(k) = 1 + \int^\infty_0 A(y)e^{iky} dy, \tag{5.59}$$ and consequently it determines the numbers $ik_j$ as the only zeros of $f(k)$ in $\C_+$, the number $J$ of these zeros, and $S(k) = \frac{f(-k)}{f(k)}$. To find $F(x)$, one has to find $s_j$. Formula (2.12) allows one to calculate $s_j$ if $f(k)$ and $f^\prime (0,ik_j)$ are known. To find $f^\prime (0,ik_j)$, use formula (2.26) and put $k=ik_j$ in (2.26). Since $A(x,y)$ is known for $y \geq x \geq 0$, formula (2.26) allows one to calculate $f^\prime (0,ik_j)$. Thus $S(k), k_j, s_j, 1\leq j \leq J$, are found and $F(x)$ can be calculated by formula (5.48). Step $A \Rightarrow F$ is done.
The above argument proves that the knowledge of two functions $A(0,y)$ and $A_x(0,y)$ for all $y\geq 0$ determines $q(x)\in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$ uniquely.
Note that:
a\) we have used the following scheme $A \Rightarrow {\mathcal S}\Rightarrow F$ in order to get the implication $A \Rightarrow F$,
and
b\) since $ \{F(x), x\geq 0 \} \Rightarrow A$ and $A \Rightarrow \{F(x), -\infty < x < \infty \}$, we have proved also the following non-trivial implication $\{F(x), x\geq 0 \} \Rightarrow \{F(x), -\infty < x < \infty
\}$.
3\. Step $A \Rightarrow q$ is done by formula (5.51). The converse step $q \Rightarrow A$ is done by solving the Goursat problem: $$A_{xx} - q(x)A = A_{yy},\quad y \geq x \geq 0,
\tag{5.60}$$ $$A(x,x) = \frac{1}{2} \int^\infty_x q(t)\, dt, \quad A(x,y) \to 0
\ \hbox{as}\ x+y \to \infty.
\tag{5.61}$$ Problem (5.60)-(5.61) is equivalent to a Volterra integral equation for $A(x,y)$ (see [@R p.253]). $$A(x,y) = \frac{1}{2} \int^\infty_{\frac{x+y}{2}} q(t) \,dt
+ \int^\infty_{\frac{x+y}{2}}
ds\int^{\frac{y-x}{2}}_0\, dt q(s-t)A(s-t,s+t).
\tag{5.62}$$
One can prove that any twice differentiable solution to (5.50) solves (5.60)-(5.61) with $q(x)$ given by (5.51).
A proof can be found in [@M], [@Lt1] and [@R].
Theorem 5.5 is proved.
It follows from Theorem 5.5 that the potential obtained by the scheme (5.49) generates the scattering data ${\mathcal S}$ with which the inversion procedure (5.49) started.
Similarly, Theorem 5.3 shows that the potential obtained by the scheme (5.26) generates the spectral function $\rho(\lambda)$ with which the inversion procedure (5.26) started.
[*The last conclusion one can obtain only because of the assumption that $q(x)$ is such that the limit-point case at infinity is valid*]{}.
If this is not the case then there are many spectral function corresponding to a given $q(x)$, so one cannot claim that the $\rho(\lambda)$ with which we started is the (unique) spectral function which is generated by $q(x)$, it is just one of many such spectral functions.
In [@R3] the following new equation is derived: $$F(y) +A(y) + \int^\infty_0 A(t) F(t+y)dt = A(-y),
\quad -\infty < y < \infty,
\tag{5.63}$$ which generalizes the usual equation (5.50) at $x=0$: $$F(y) + A(y) + \int^\infty_0 A(t) F(t+y)dt = 0,
\quad y \geq 0.
\tag{5.64}$$ Since $A(-y) = 0$ for $y>0$ (see (5.58)), equation (5.64) follows from (5.63) for $y>0$. For $y=0$ equation (5.64) follows from (5.63) by taking $y \to +0$ and using (5.58).
Let us prove that [*equations (5.63) and (5.64) are equivalent*]{}. Note that equation (5.64) is uniquely soluble if the data (2.10) correspond to a $q \in L_{1,1}$. Since any solution of (5.63) in $L^1(\R_+)$ solves (5.64), any solution to (5.63) equals to the unique solution $A(y)$ of (5.64) for $y>0$.
Since we are looking for the solution $A(y)$ of (5.63) such that $A=0$ for $y<0$ (see (5.58)) one needs only to check that (5.63) is satisfied by the unique solution of (5.64).
Equation (5.63) and (5.64) are equivalent in $L^1(\R_+)$.
Clearly, every $L^1(\R_+)$ solution to (5.63) solves (5.64). Let us prove the converse. Let $A(y) \in L^1(\R_+)$ solve (5.64). Define $$f(k):=1+ \int^\infty_0 A(y) e^{iky}dy: = 1+ \widetilde A (k). \tag{5.65}$$
We wish to prove that $A(y)$ solves equation (5.63). Take the Fourier transform of (5.63) in the sense of distributions. From (5.48) one gets $$\widetilde F(\xi)=\int^\infty_{-\infty} F(x) e^{i\xi x}dx
=1-S(-\xi)+2\pi \sum^J_{j=1} s_j\, \delta(\xi+ik_j),
\tag{5.66}$$ and from (5.63) one obtains: $$\widetilde F(\xi) + \widetilde A (\xi) + \widetilde A (-\xi)
\widetilde F(\xi) = \widetilde A (-\xi).
\tag{5.67}$$ Add $1$ to both sides of (5.67) and use (5.65) to get $$f(\xi) + \widetilde F (\xi) f(-\xi) = f(-\xi).
\tag{5.68}$$ From (5.66) and (5.68) one gets: $$f(\xi) =
\left[ S(-\xi) - 2\pi \sum^J_{j=1} s_j \delta(\xi + ik_j) \right]
f(-\xi) = f(\xi)-2 \pi f(-\xi) \sum^J_{j=1} s_j \delta(\xi + ik_j) = f(\xi).
\tag {5.69}$$ Equation (5.69) is equivalent to (5.63) since all the transformations which led from (5.63) to (5.69) are invertible. Thus, equations (5.63) and (5.69) hold (or fail to hold) simultaneously. Equation (5.69) clearly holds because $$f(-\xi) \sum^j_{j=1} s_j \delta(\xi +ik_j)
= \sum^J_{j=1} s_j f(ik_j) = 0, \tag{5.70}$$ since $ik_j$ are zeros of $f(k)$.
Lemma 5.2 is proved.
The results and proofs in this section are partly new and partly are based on the results in [@R3] and [@R].
Inverse problem for an inhomogeneous Schrödinger equation
=========================================================
Consider the problem $$u^{\prime\prime}+ k^2u-q(x)u = -\delta(x), \quad -\infty < x < \infty,
\tag{6.1}$$ $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial |x|} - iku \to 0
\ \hbox{as}\ |x| \to \infty.
\tag{6.2}$$ Assume $$q=\overline q, \quad q = 0
\ \hbox{for}\ |x| >1,\quad q \in L^1[-1,1].
\tag{6.3}$$ Suppose the data $$\{u(-1,k),u(1,k)\}_{\forall k > 0}
\tag{6.4}$$ are given.
The inverse problem (IP6) is:
[*Given data (6.4), find $q(x)$.*]{}
Let us also assume that
(A): [*The operator $L_q= -\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + q(x)$ in $L^2 (\R)$ has no negative eigenvalues.*]{}
This is so if, for example, $q(x) \geq 0$.
The results of this section are taken from [@R4]
If (6.3) and (A) hold then the data (6.4) determine $q(x)$ uniquely.
The solution to (6.1)-(6.2) is $$u=\begin{cases} \frac{g(k)}{[f,g]}\ f(x,k), & \quad x>0,\\
\frac{f(k)}{[f,g]}\ g(x,k), & x<0, \end{cases}
\tag{6.5}$$
where $f=f_+(x,k)$, $g=g_-(x,k)$, $g(k):=g_-(0,k)$, $f(k):=f(0,k)$, $[f,g]:=fg^\prime -f^\prime g=-2ik a(k)$, $a(k)$ is defined in (2.53), $f$ is defined in (1.3) and $g$ is defined in (1.5).
The functions $$u(1,k) = \frac{g(k) f(1,k)}{-2ik a(k)},\quad u(-1,k) =
\frac{f(k) g(-1,k)}{-2ik a(k)}
\tag{6.6}$$ are the data (6.4).
Since $q=0$ when $x \not\in [-1,1]$, condition (6.2) implies $f(1,k)= e^{ik}$, so one knows $$h_1(k):= \frac{g(k)}{a(k)}, \quad h_2 (k):= \frac{f(k)}{a(k)},
\qquad \forall k>0.
\tag{6.7}$$ From (6.7), (2.49) and (2.50) one derives $$a(k) h_1(k) = - b (-k) f(k) +a(k) f(-k)
= - b(-k) h_2 (k)a(k) +h_2(-k) a(-k) a(k),
\tag{6.8}$$ and $$a(k)h_2(k) = b (k) a(k) h_1(k) + a(k) h_1 (-k) a(-k).
\tag{6.9}$$ From (6.8) and (6.9) one gets $$- b (-k) h_2(k) + a(-k) h_2 (-k) = h_1(k),
\tag{6.10}$$ and $$b (k) h_1(k) + a (-k) h_1 (-k) = h_2(k).
\tag{6.11}$$ Eliminate $ b (-k)$ from (6.10) and (6.11) to get $$a(k) = m(k) a(-k) + n(k), \qquad \forall k \in \R,
\tag{6.12}$$ where $$m(k):= -\frac{h_1(-k) h_2(-k)}{h_1(k) h_2(k)},
\quad n(k):= \frac{h_1(-k)}{h_2(k)}+ \frac{h_2(-k)}{h_1(k)}.
\tag{6.13}$$
Problem (6.12) is a [*Riemann problem*]{} for the pair $\{a(k), a(-k)\}$, the function $a(k)$ is analytic in $\C_+ :=\{k : k \in \C$, $Imk>0\}$ and $a(-k)$ is analytic in $\C_-$. The functions $a(k)$ and $a(-k)$ tend to one as $k$ tends to infinity in $\C_+$ and, respectively, in $\C_-$, see equation (2.55).
The function $a(k)$ has finitely many simple zeros at the points $ik_j, 1 \leq j \leq J$, $ k_j > 0$, where $-k_j^2$ are the negative eigenvalues of the operator $\l$ defined by the differential expression $\l u = -u^{\prime\prime} + q(x)u$ in $L^2(\R)$.
The zeros $ik_j$ are the only zeros of $a(k)$ in the upper half-plane $k$.
Define $$ind\ a(k) := \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int^\infty_{-\infty} d \ln a(k).
\notag$$ One has $$ind\ a = J,
\tag{6.14}$$ where $J$ is the number of negative eigenvalues of the operator $\ell$, and, using (6.14) and (6.15), one gets $$ind\ m(k) = -2[ind\ h_1(k) + ind\ h_2(k)]
=-2[ind\ g(k) + ind\ f(k) - 2J].
\tag{6.15}$$
Since $\ell$ has no negative eigenvalues by the assumption (A), it follows that $J=0$.
In this case $ind\ f(k) = ind\ g(k) = 0$ (see Lemma 1 below), so $ind\ m(k) = 0$, and [*$a(k)$ is uniquely recovered from the data*]{} as the solution of (6.12) which tends to one at infinity. If $a(k)$ is found, then $b(k)$ is uniquely determined by equation (6.11) and so the reflection coefficient $r(k) := \frac{b(k)}{a(k)}$ is found. The reflection coefficient determines a compactly supported $q(x)$ uniquely by Theorem 2.4.
If $q(x)$ is compactly supported, then the reflection coefficient $r(k) := \frac{b(k)}{a(k)}$ is meromorphic. Therefore, its values for all $k>0$ determine uniquely $r(k)$ in the whole complex $k$-plane as a meromorphic function. The poles of this function in the upper half-plane are the numbers $ik_j = 1,2,\dots,J$. They determine uniquely the numbers $k_j$, $1 \leq j \leq J$, which are a part of the standard scattering data $\{r(k)$, $k_j$, $s_j$, $1 \leq j \leq J \}$, where $s_j$ are the norming constants.
Note that if $a(ik_j) = 0$ then $b(ik_j) \neq 0$, otherwise equation (2.49) would imply $f(x, ik_j) \equiv 0$ in contradiction to (1.3).
If $r(k)$ is meromorphic, then the norming constants can be calculated by the formula $s_j = -i\frac{b(ik_j)}{\dot a(ik_j)}
= -i \operatorname*{Res}_{k=ik_j} r(k)$, where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to $k$, and $\operatorname*{Res}$ denotes the residue. So, for compactly supported potential the values of $r(k)$ for all $k>0$ determine uniquely the standard scatering data, that is, the reflection coefficient, the bound states $-k_j^2$, and the norming constants $s_j,1 \leq j \leq J$. These data determine the potential uniquely.
Theorem 6.1 is proved.
If $J=0$ then $ind\ f=ind\ g= 0$.
We prove $ind\ f = 0$. The proof of the equation $ind\ g=0$ is similar. Since $ind\ f(k)$ equals to the number of zeros of $f(k)$ in $\C_+$, we have to prove that $f(k)$ does not vanish in $\C_+$. If $f(z)= 0, z \, \in \C_+$, then $z= ik$, $k>0$, and $-k^2$ is an eigenvalue of the operator $\l$ in $L^2(0, \infty)$ with the boundary condition $u(0) = 0$.
From the variational principle one can find the negative eigenvalues of the operator $\l$ in $L^2(\R_+)$ with the Dirichlet condition at $x=0$ as consequitive minima of the quadratic functional. The minimal eigenvalue is: $$\operatorname*{inf}_{u\in\oH1 (\R_+)}
\int^\infty_0 [u^{\prime 2}+ q(x)u^2]\, dx := \kappa_0,
\quad u \in \oH1(\R_+),\quad \Vert u \Vert_{L^2(\R_+)} = 1,
\tag{6.16}$$ where $\oH1
(\R_+)$ is the Sobolev space of $H^1(\R_+)$-functions satisfying the condition $u(0) = 0$.
On the other hand, if $J=0$, then $$0\leq \operatorname*{inf}_{u\in H^1(\R)}
\int^\infty_{-\infty} [u^{\prime 2}+q(x)u^2]\, dx := \kappa_1,
\quad u \in H^1(\R),\quad \Vert u \Vert_{L^2(\R)} = 1.
\tag{6.17}$$
Since any element $u$ of $\oH1 (\R_+)$ can be considered as an element of $H^1(\R)$ if one extends $u$ to the whole axis by setting $u=0$ for $x<0$, it follows from the variational definitions (6.16) and (6.17) that $\kappa_1 \leq \kappa_0$. Therefore, if $J=0$, then $\kappa_1 \geq 0$ and therefore $\kappa_0 \geq 0$. This means that the operator $\l$ on $L^2(\R_+)$ with the Dirichlet condition at $x=0$ has no negative eigenvalues. Therefore $f(k)$ does not have zeros in $\C_+$, if $J=0$. Thus $J=0$ implies $ind\ f(k) =0$.
Lemma 6.1 is proved.
The above argument shows that in general $$ind\ f \leq J\quad \hbox{and}\quad ind\ g \leq J,
\tag{6.18}$$ so that (6.15) implies $$ind\ m(k) \geq 0.
\tag{6.19}$$
Therefore the Riemann problem (2.17) is always solvable. It is of interest to study the case when assumption (A) does not hold.
Inverse scattering problem with fixed energy data
=================================================
Three-dimensional inverse scattering problem. Property C
--------------------------------------------------------
The scattering problem in $\R^3$ consists of finding the scattering solution $u:=u(x, \alpha, k)$ from the equation $$\left[\nabla^2 + k^2 - q(x) \right] \psi = 0 \ \hbox{in}\ \R^3
\tag {7.1}$$ and the radiation condition at infinity: $$\psi = \psi_0 + v, \quad \psi_0 := e^{ik \,\alpha\cdot x},
\quad \alpha \in S^2,
\tag{7.2}$$ $$\lim_{r \to \infty} \int_{|s|=r}
\left| \frac{\partial v}{\partial |x|}- ik\,v \right|^2 ds = 0.
\tag{7.3}$$
Here $k>0$ is fixed, $S^2$ is the unit sphere, $\alpha \in S^2$ is given. One can write $$v=A(\alpha^\prime, \alpha, k) \frac{e^{ikr}}{r} + o
\left( \frac{1}{r} \right) \ \hbox{as}\ r=|x|\to\infty,
\quad \frac{x}{r} = \alpha^\prime.
\tag{7.4}$$
The coefficient $A(\alpha^\prime, \alpha, k)$ is called the scattering amplitude. In principle, it can be measured. We consider its values for $\alpha^\prime$, $\alpha \in S^2$ and a fixed $k>0$ as the scattering data. Below we take $k=1$ without loss of generality.
Assume that $$q \in Q_a := \left\{q: q= \overline q,
\quad q=0\ \hbox{for}\ |x| >a, \quad q \in L^p (B_a) \right\},
\tag{7.5}$$ where $a>0$ is an arbitrary large fixed number, $B_a = \{x: |x|\leq a \}$, $p > \frac{3}{2}$.
It is known (even for much larger class of the potentials $q$) that problem (7.1)-(7.3) has the unique solution.
Therefore the map $q \to A(\alpha^\prime$, $\alpha):=
A_q (\alpha^\prime, \alpha)$ is well defined, $$A(\alpha^\prime,\alpha):= A(\alpha^\prime, \ \alpha, k)|_{k=1}.
\notag$$
(IP7) [*The inverse scattering problem with fixed-energy data consists of finding $q(x) \in Q_a$ from the scattering data $A(\alpha^\prime, \alpha) \ \forall \alpha^\prime$, $\alpha \in S^2$.*]{}
Uniqueness of the solution to IP7 for $q \in Q_a$ (with $p=2$) was first announced in [@R10] and proved in [@R11] by the method, based on property C for pairs of differential operators. The essence of this method is briefly explained below. This method was introduced by the author [@R9] and applied to many inverse problems [@R10]-[@R14], [@R7], [@R1] [@R].
In [@R] and [@R8] a characterization of the fixed-energy scattering amplitudes is given.
Let $\{L_1, L_2\}$ be two linear formal differential expressions, $$L_j u= \sum^{M_j}_{|m|=0} a_{mj} (x) \partial^m u(x),
\quad x \in \R^n, \quad n>1, \quad j=1,2,
\tag{7.6}$$ where $$\partial^m := \frac{\partial^{|m|}}{\partial x^{m_1}_1\dots x^{m_n}_n},
\quad |m| = m_1 +\dots+m_n.
\notag$$ Let $$N_j := N_j (D) := \{w: L_j w=0\ \hbox{in}\ D\subset R^n\}
\tag{7.7}$$ where $D$ is an abitrary fixed bounded domain and the equation in (7.7) is understood in the sense of distributions.
Suppose that $$\int_D f(x) w_1(x) w_2(x)\, dx = 0,
\quad w_j \in N_j, \quad f\in L^2(D),
\tag{7.8}$$ where $w_j \in N_j$ run through such subsets of $N_j$, $j=1,2$, that the products $w_1 w_2 \in L^2(D)$, and $f\in L^2(D)$ is an arbitrary fixed function.
The pair $\{L_1, L_2\}$ has property C if (7.8) implies $f(x) = 0$, that is, the set $\{w_1, w_2\}_{\forall w_j \in N_j,\ w_1w_2 \in L^2(D)}$ is complete in $L^2(D)$.
In [@R14] a necessary and sufficient condition is found for a pair $\{L_1,L_2\}$ with constant coefficients, $a_{mj}(x) = a_{mj} = const$, to have property C (see also [@R]).
In [@R11] it is proved that the pair $\{L_1,L_2\}$ with $L_j = -\nabla^2 +
q(x)$, $ q_j \in Q_a$, has property C.
The basic idea of the proof of the uniqueness theorem for inverse scattering problem with fixed-energy data, introduced in [@R10], presented in detail in [@R11], and developed in [@R], [@R12]-[@R14], is simple. Assume that there are two potentials, $q_1$ and $q_2$ in $Q_a$ which generate the same scattering data, that is, $A_1 = A_2$, where $A_j := A_{q_j} (\alpha^\prime, \alpha)$, $j= 1,2$.
We prove that [@R p.67] $$-4\pi (A_1 - A_2) = \int_{B_a} [q_1(x) -q_2(x)] \psi_1 (x, \alpha)
\psi_2(x, -\alpha^\prime)\, dx
\qquad \forall \alpha, \alpha^\prime \in S^2,
\tag{7.9}$$ where $\psi_j (x, \alpha)$ is the scattering solution corresponding to $q_j$, $j=1,2$.
If $A_1 = A_2$, then (7.9) yields an orthogonality relation: $$\int_D p(x) \psi_1(x,\alpha) \psi_2 (x, \beta)\,dx = 0
\qquad \forall \alpha,\beta \in S^2,
\quad p(x) := q_1 - q_2.
\tag{7.10}$$
Next we prove [@R p.45] that $$\hbox{span}_{\alpha \in S^2} \{\psi (x, \alpha)\}
\ \hbox{is dense in}\ L^2(D)\ \hbox{in}\ N_j (D) \cap H^2(D),
\tag{7.11}$$ where $H^m(D)$ is the Sobolev space. Thus (7.10) implies $$\int_D p(x) w_1(x)w_2(x)\, dx = 0
\quad \forall w_j \in N_j(D) \cap H^2(D).
\tag{7.12}$$
Finally, by property C for a pair $\{L_1, L_2\}$, $L_j = -\nabla^2 + q_j$, $q_j \in Q_a$, one concludes from (7.11) that $p(x) = 0$, i.e. $q_1=q_2$. We have obtained
The data $A(\alpha^\prime, \alpha) \quad \forall \alpha^\prime$, $\alpha \in S^2$ determine $q \in Q_a$ uniquely.
This is the uniqueness theorem for the solution to (IP7). In fact this theorem is proved in [@R] in a stonger form: the data $A_1(\alpha^\prime, \alpha)$ and $A_2 (\alpha^\prime, \alpha)$ are asumed to be equal not for all $\alpha^\prime, \alpha \in S^2$ but only on a set $\widetilde{S}^2_1 \times \widetilde{S}^2_2$, where $\widetilde{S}^2_j$ is an arbitrary small open subset of $S^2$.
In [@R7] the stability estimates for the solution to (IP7) with noisy data are obtained and an algorithm for finding such a solution is proposed.
The noisy data is an arbitrary function $A_\varepsilon(\alpha^\prime, \alpha)$, not necessarily a scattering amplitude, such that $$\sup_{\alpha^\prime, \alpha \in S^2}
\left| A(\alpha^\prime,\alpha)-A_{\varepsilon} (\alpha^{\prime},
\alpha) \right|< \varepsilon.
\tag{7.13}$$ Given $A_\varepsilon (\alpha^\prime, \alpha)$, an algorithm for computing a quantity $\widehat{q}_{\varepsilon}$ is proposed in [@R7], such that $$\sup_{\xi\in\R^3}
\left| \widehat{q}_{\varepsilon} -\widetilde{q} (\xi)\right|
< c \frac{(\ln |\ln \varepsilon|)^2}{|\ln \varepsilon |}.
\tag{7.14}$$ where $c>0$ is a constant depending on the potential but not on $\varepsilon$, $$\widetilde{q} (\xi): = \int_{B_a} e^{i \xi\cdot x} q(x)\,dx .
\tag{7.15}$$
The constant $c$ in (7.14) can be chosen uniformly for all potentials $q \in Q_a$ which belong to a compact set in $L^2 (B_a)$.
The right-hand side of (7.14) tends to zero as $\varepsilon \to 0$, but very slowly.
The author thinks that the rate (7.14) cannot be improved for the class $Q_a$, but this is not proved.
However, in [@ARS] an example of two spherically symmetric piecewise-constant potentials $q(r)$ is constructed such that $|q_1-q_2|$ is of order $1$, maximal value of each of the potentials $q$ is of order 1, the two potentials are quite different but they generate the set of the fixed-energy $(k=1)$ phase shifts $\left\{\delta^{(j)}_\l \right\}_{\l =0,1,2,\dots}$, $j=1,2$, such that $$\delta^{(1)}_\l = \delta^{(2)}_\l,
\quad 0 \leq \l \leq 4,
\quad \left|\delta^{(1)}_\l-\delta^{(2)}_\l\right|
\leq 10^{-5}, \qquad \forall \l \geq 5.
\tag{7.16}$$
In this example $\varepsilon \sim 10^{-5}$, $(\ln|\ln \varepsilon|)^2\sim 2.59$, $|\ln \varepsilon|\sim 5$, so the right-hand side of (7.14) is of order $1$ if one assumes $c$ to be of order $1$.
[*Our point is: there are examples in which the left and the right sides of estimate (7.14) are of the same order of magnitude. Therefore estimate (7.14) is sharp.*]{}
Approximate inversion of fixed-energy phase shifts.
---------------------------------------------------
Let us recall that $q(x) = q(r)$, $r=|x|$ if and only if $$A(\alpha^\prime, \alpha, k) = A(\alpha^\prime\cdot\alpha,k) .
\tag{7.17}$$ It was well known for a long time that if $q=q(r)$ then (7.17) holds. The converse was proved relatively recently in [@R15] (see also [@R]).
If $q=q(r)$ then $$A(\alpha^\prime, \alpha) = \sum^\infty_{\l=0} A_\l Y_\l (\alpha^\prime)
\overline{Y_\l(\alpha)},
\tag{7.18}$$ where $Y_\l$ are orthonormal in $L^2(S^2)$ spherical harmonics, $Y_\l = Y_{\l m}$, $-\l \leq m \leq \l$, summation with respect to $m$ is understood in (7.18) but not written for brevity, the numbers $A_\l$ are related to the phase shifts $\delta_\l$ by the formula $$A_\l = 4\pi e^{i\delta_\l} \sin (\delta_\l) \quad (k=1),
\tag{7.19}$$ and the $S$-matrix is related to $A(\alpha^\prime, \alpha,k)$ by the formula $$S = I - \frac{k}{2\pi i} A.
\notag$$
If $q=q(r)$, $r=|x|$, then the scattering solution $\psi(x,\alpha, k)$ can be written as $$\psi(x, \alpha , k) = \sum^\infty_{\l=0} \frac{4\pi}{k}\, i^\l \,
\frac{\psi_\l(r,k)}{r}\, Y_\l (x^0)\, \overline{Y_\l (\alpha)},
\quad x^0 := \frac{x}{r}.
\tag{7.20}$$
The function $\psi_\l(r,k)$ solves (uniquely) the equation $$\psi_\l(r,k) = u_\l(kr) - \int^\infty_0 g_\l (r, \rho)q(\rho)
\psi_\l(\rho, k)\, d\rho,
\tag{7.21}$$ where $$u_\l (kr) := \sqrt{\frac{\pi kr}{2}} J_{\ell+1/2} (kr), \quad
v_\l := \sqrt {\frac{\pi kr}{2}} N_{\ell+1/2} (kr) .
\tag{7.22}$$ Here $J_\l$ and $N_\l$ are the Bessel and Neumann functions, and $$g_\l(r,\rho):=\begin{cases}
\frac{\varphi_{0\l}(k\rho)f_{0\l}(kr)}{F_{0\l}(k)}, & r\geq\rho, \\
\frac{\varphi_{0\l}(kr) f_{0\l}(k\rho)}{F_{0\l}(k)}, & r\leq\rho,
\end{cases}
\tag{7.23}$$ $$F_{0\l} (k) = \frac{ e^{\frac{i\l \pi}{2} }}{k^\l} ,
\tag{7.24}$$ $\psi_{0\l}$ and $f_{0\l}$ solve the equation $$\psi^{\prime\prime}_{0\l} + k^2 \psi_{0\l} -
\frac{\l(\l+1)}{r^2} \psi_{0\l} = 0,
\tag{7.25}$$ and are defined by the conditions $$f_{0\l} \sim e^{ikr}\ \hbox{as}\ r \to +\infty,
\tag{7.26}$$ so $$f_{0\l} (kr) = i\,e^{ \frac{i\l\pi}{2} } (u_\l + iv_\l),
\tag{7.27}$$ where $u_\l$ and $v_\l$ are defined in (7.22), and $$\varphi_{0\l} (kr) := \frac{u_\l (kr)}{k^{\l+1}} .
\tag{$7.27^\prime$}$$
In [@RSch] an approximate method was proposed recently for finding $q(r)$ given $\{\delta_\l\}_{\l=0,1,2,\dots}$. In [@RSm] numerical results based on this method are described.
In physics one often assumes $q(r)$ known for $r \geq a$ and then the data $\{\delta_\l \}_{\l=0,1,2,\dots }$ allow one to calculate the data $\psi_\l (a), \l=0,1,2,\dots $, by solving the equation $$\psi^{\prime\prime}_\l + \psi_\l - \frac{\l(\l +1)}{r^2}
\psi_\l-q(r) \psi_\l = 0, \quad r>a
\tag{7.28}$$ together with the condition $$\psi_\l \sim e^{i\delta_\l} \sin(r - \frac{\l\pi}{2} +
\delta_\l), \quad r \to +\infty, \quad k=1,
\tag{7.29}$$ and assuming $q(r)$ known for $r>a$.
Problem (7.28) and (7.29) is a Cauchy problem with Cauchy data at infinity. Asymptotic formula (7.29) can be differentiated. If the data $\psi_\l (a)$ are calculated and $\psi_\l (r)$ for $r \geq a$ is found, then one uses the equation $$\psi_\l (r) = \psi_\l^{(0)} (r) - \int^a_0 g_\l (r,\rho)
q(\rho) \psi_\l (\rho)\, d\rho, \quad 0 \leq r \leq a,
\tag{7.30}$$ where $g_\l$ is given in (7.23), $$\psi^{(0)}_\l (r) := u_\l (r) - \int^\infty_a g_\l
(r,\rho)q(\rho) \psi_\l (\rho)\, d \rho ,
\tag{7.31}$$ and $u_\l (r)$ is given in (7.22).
Put $r=a$ in (7.30) and get $$\int^a_0 g_\l (a, \rho) \psi_\l (\rho) q(\rho)\, d\rho =
\psi_\l^{(0)} (a) - \psi_\l (a):= b_\l, \quad
\l = 0,1,2 .
\tag{7.32}$$
The numbers $b_\l$ are known. If $q(\rho)$ is small or $\l$ is large then following approximation is justified: $$\psi_\l (\rho) \approx \psi_\l^{(0)} (\rho).
\tag{7.33}$$ Therefore, an approximation to equation (7.32) is: $$\int^a_0 f_\l (\rho) q(\rho)\, d\rho = b_\l,
\quad \l = 0,1,2,\dots,
\tag{7.34}$$ where $$f_\l (\rho) := g_\l (a, \rho) \psi^{(0)}_\l (\rho).
\tag{7.35}$$ The system of functions $\{ f_\l (\rho) \}$ is linearly independent.
Equations (7.34) constitute a moment problem which can be solved numerically for $q(\rho)$ ([@R p.209], [@RSm]).
A uniqueness theorem for inversion of fixed-energy phase shifts.
================================================================
From Theorem 7.1 it follows that if $q=q(r) \in Q_a$ then the data $$\{\delta_\l \} \quad \forall \l = 0,1,2, \dots \quad k=1
\tag{8.1}$$ determine $q(r)$ uniquely [@R11].
Suppose a part of the phase shifts is known (this is the case in practice).
[*What part of the phase shifts is sufficient for the unique recovery of $q(r)$?* ]{}
In this section we answer this question following [@R6]. Define $${\mathcal L} := \left\{
\l : \sum_{\substack{\l\not= 0\\ \l\in{\mathcal L} }}
\frac{1}{\l} = \infty
\right\}
\tag{8.2}$$ to be any subset of nonnegative integers such that condition (8.2) is satisfied.
For instance, ${\mathcal L}=\{ 2\l \}_{\l=0,1,2,\dots }$ or ${\mathcal L}=\{2\l + 1\}_{\l = 0,1,2,\dots }$ will be admissible.
Our main result is
\[[@R6]\]If $q(r) \in Q_a$ and $L$ satisfies (8.2) then the set of fixed-energy phase shifts $\{\delta_\l\}_{\forall \l \in {\mathcal L}}$ determine $q(r)$ uniquely.
Let us outline basic steps of the proof.
Derivation of the orthogonality relation:
If $q_1,q_2 \in Q_a$ generate the same data then $p(r): = q_1-q_2$ satisfies the relation $$\int^a_0 p(r) \psi^{(1)}_\l (r) \psi^{(2)}_\l (r)\, dr =
0 \quad \forall \l \in {\mathcal L}.
\tag{8.3}$$ Here $\psi^{(j)}_\l (r)$ are defined in (7.20) and correspond to $q=q_j$, $j=1,2$. Note that Ramm’s Theorem 7.1 yields the following conclusion: if $$\int^a_0 p(r) \psi^{(1)}_\l (r) \psi^{(2)}_\l (r)\, dr = 0
\qquad \forall \l \in {\mathcal L},
\tag {8.4}$$ then $p(r)=0$, and $q_1=q_2$.
Since $\psi^{(j)}_\l = c^{(j)}_\l \varphi^{(j)}_\l(r)$, where $c^{(j)}_\l$ are some constants, relation (8.3) is equivalent to $$\int^a_0 p(r) \varphi^{(1)}_\l (r) \varphi^{(2)}_\l (r)\,dr = 0
\qquad \forall \l \in {\mathcal L}.
\tag{8.5}$$
Here $\varphi^{(j)}_\l (r)$ is the solution to (7.28) with $q=q_j$, which satisfies the conditions: $$\varphi^{(j)}_\l = \frac{r^{\l + 1}}{(2\l + 1)!!} +
o(r^{\l + 1}), \qquad r \to 0 ,
\tag{8.6}$$ and $$\varphi^{(j)}_\l = |F^{(j)}_\l| \sin (r - \frac{\l \pi}{2} +
\delta^{(j)}_\l) +o(1), \qquad r \to +\infty,
\tag{8.7}$$ where $|F^{(j)}_\l|\neq 0$ is a certain constant, and $\delta^{(j)}_\l$ is the fixed-energy $(k=1)$ phase shift, which does not depend on $j$ by our assumption: $\delta^{(1)}_\l = \delta^{(2)}_\l\quad \forall \l \in {\mathcal L}$.
We want to derive from (8.5) the relation (7.10). Since $q(x)=q(r)$, $r=|x|$ in this section, relation (7.10) is equivalent to relation (8.12) (see below). The rest of this section contains this derivation of (8.12).
We prove existence of the transformation kernel $K(r, \rho)$, independent of $\l$, which sends functions $u_\l (r)$, defined in (7.22), into $\varphi_\l (r)$: $$\varphi_\l (r) = u_\l (r) + \int^r_0 K(r,\rho) u_\l (\rho)
\frac{d \rho}{\rho^2}, \qquad K(r,0)=0.
\tag{8.8}$$ Let $$\gamma_\l := \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \Gamma \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)
2^{\l +\frac{1}{2}} \Gamma(\l + 1) ,
\tag{8.9}$$ where $\Gamma (z)$ is the gamma function, $$H(\l) := \gamma^2_\l \int^a_0 p(r) u^2_\l(r)\, dr,
\tag{8.10}$$ and $$h(\l) := \gamma^2_\l \int^a_0 p(r) \varphi^{(1)}_\l (r)
\varphi^{(2)}_\l (r)\, dr .
\tag{8.11}$$
We prove that: $$\left\{
h(\l) = 0 \qquad \forall \l \in {\mathcal L}\right\}
\Rightarrow \left\{h(\l) = 0
\quad \forall \l = 0,1,2,\dots \right\}.
\tag{8.12}$$ If $h(\l) = 0, \quad \forall \l = 0,1,2,\dots $, then (8.4) holds, and, by theorem 7.1, $p(r) = 0$.
Thus, Theorem 8.1 follows.
The main claims to prove are:
1\) Existence of the representation (8.8) and the estimate $$\int^r_0 |K(r,\rho)| \frac{d \rho}{\rho}<c(r)<\infty \qquad \forall r>0.
\tag{8.13}$$
2\) Implication(8.12).
Representation (8.8) was used in the physical literature ([@CS], [@N]) but, to our knowledge, without any proof. Existence of transformation operators with kernels depending on $\l$ was proved in the literature [@V]. For our purposes it is important to have $K(r,\rho)$ independent of $\l$.
Implication (8.12) will be estblished if one checks that $h(\l)$ is a holomorphic function of $\l$ in the half-plane $\prod_+ := \{\l:\l\in\C, \quad Re\,\l > 0 \}$ which belongs to N-Class (Nevanlinna class).
A function $h(\l)$ holomorphic in $\prod_+$ belongs to N-class $iff$ $$\sup_{0<r<1} \int^\pi_{-\pi} \ln^+
\left |h \left( \frac{1-re^{i\varphi} }{1+re^{i\varphi} } \right) \right|
\,d\varphi < \infty.
\tag{8.14}$$
Here $$u^+ :=\begin{cases} u\ \hbox{if}\ u\geq 0,\\ 0\ \hbox{if}\ u<0.\end{cases}
\notag$$ The basic result we need in order to prove (8.12) is the following uniqueness theorem:
If $h(\l)$ belongs to N-class then (8.12) holds.
This is an immediate consequence of the following:
[*Theorem ([@Ru p.334]): If $h(z)$ is holomorphic in $D_1 := \{ z:|z| <1, \quad z \in \C \}$, $h(z)$ is of N-class in $D_1$, that is: $$\sup_{0<r<1} \int^\pi_{-\pi} \ln^+
|h(re^{i \varphi})|\, d\varphi < \infty,
\tag{8.15}$$ and $$h(z_n) = 0, \qquad h=1,2,3,\dots ,
\tag{8.16}$$ where $$\sum^\infty_{h=1} (1-|z_n|) = \infty ,
\tag{8.17}$$ then $h(z) \equiv 0$.* ]{}
The function $z=\frac{1-\l}{1+\l}$ maps conformally $\prod_+$ onto $D_1$, $\l=\frac{1-z}{1+z}$ and if $h(\l)=0 \quad\forall \l \in {\mathcal L}$, then $f(z):= h(\frac{1-z}{1+z})$ is holomorphic in $D_1$, $f(z_\l)=0$ for $\l\in{\mathcal L}$ and $z_\l:= \frac{1-\l}{1+\l}$, and $$\sum_{\l \in {\mathcal L}}
\left( 1- \left| \frac{1-\l}{1+\l} \right| \right)
\leq 1+\sum_{\l \in {\mathcal L}} \left( 1-\frac{\l-1}{\l+1} \right)
= 1 + 2\sum _{\l \in {\mathcal L}} \frac{1}{\l+1} = \infty.
\tag{8.18}$$
From (8.18) and the above Theorem Proposition 8.1 follows.
Thus we need to check that function (8.11) belongs to N-class, that is, (8.14) holds.
So step 2, will be completed if one proves (8.8), (8.13) and (8.14).
Assuming (8.8) and (8.13), one proves (8.14) as follows:
i\) First, one checks that (8.14) holds with $H(\l)$ in place of $h(\l)$.
ii\) Secondly, using (8.8) one writes $h(\l)$ as:
$$\begin{align}
h(\l) & = H(\l) + \gamma^2_\l \int^r_0 [K_1(r, \rho) + K_2(r, \rho)]\,
u_\l(\rho)u_\l(r) \frac{d \rho}{\rho^2}+ \notag\\
& + \gamma^2_\l \int^r_0 \int^r_0 \frac{ds}{s^2}
\frac{dt}{t^2} K_1(r,t)K_2(r,s) u_\l(t) u_\l(s).
\notag \end{align}
\tag{8.19}$$
Let us now go through i) and ii) in detail.
In [@GR 8.411.8] one finds the formula: $$\gamma_\l u_\l(r) = r^{\l+1} \int^1_{-1} (1-t^2)^\l e^{irt}\,dt,
\tag{8.20}$$ where $\gamma_\l$ is defined in (8.9).
From (8.20) and (8.10) one gets: $$|H(\l)| \leq \int^a_0 dr |p(r)| r^{2\l+2}
\left|\int^1_{-1} (1-t^2)^\l e^{irt}\,dt \right|^2
\leq c\, a^{2 \sigma},
\ \l=\sigma + i\tau, \ \sigma \geq 0.
\tag{8.21}$$
One can assume $a>1$ without loss of generality. Note that $$\ln^+ (ab) \leq \ln^+a + \ln^+b \quad \hbox {if}\quad a,b > 0
\tag{8.22}$$
Thus (8.21) implies $$\begin{align}
\int^\pi_{-\pi} & \ln^+ \left| H
\left( \frac{1-re^{i\varphi}}{1+re^{il}} \right)
\right|\,d\varphi
\leq \int^\pi_{-\pi} \ln^+
\left| ca^{2Re \frac{1-re^{i\varphi}}{1+re^{i\varphi}}}
\right|\,d\varphi
\tag {8.23}\\
& \leq |\ln c| +2\ln a \int^\pi_{-\pi}
\left| Re \frac{1-re^{i\varphi}}{1+re^{i\varphi}} \right|\,d\varphi
\notag \\
&\leq |\ln c|+2\ln a\int^\pi_{-\pi}\frac{1-r^2}{1+2r\cos\varphi+r^2}
\,d\varphi
\leq |\ln c| +4\pi \ln a < \infty. \notag
\end{align}$$
Here we have used the known formula: $$\int^\pi_{-\pi} \frac{d \varphi}{1+2r\cos\varphi + r^2}
= \frac{2 \pi}{1-r^2}, \quad 0<r<1 .
\tag{8.24}$$
Thus, we have checked that $H(\l)\in N(\prod_+)$, that is (8.14) holds for $H(\l)$.
Consider the first integral, call it $I_1(\l)$, in (8.19). One has, using (8.20) and (8.13), $$\begin{align}
|I_1(\l)| & \leq \int^r_0 d\rho \rho^{-1}
(| K_1 (r, \rho)| + |K_2 (r, \rho)|) r^{\l+1} \rho^\l
\leq c(a) a^{2 \sigma},\notag \\
&\qquad \l = \sigma + i\tau, \qquad\sigma\geq 0 . \tag{8.25}
\end{align}\notag$$
Therefore one checks that $I_1 (\l)$ satisfies (8.14) (with $I_1$ in place of $h$) as in (8.23).
The second integral in (8.19), call it $I_2 (\l)$, is estimated similarly: one uses (8.20) and (8.13) and obtains the following estimate: $$|I_2 (\l)| \leq c(a) a^{2 \sigma}, \qquad \l= \sigma + i\tau,
\qquad \sigma \geq 0 .
\tag{8.26}$$
Thus, we have proved that $h(\l) \in N(\prod_+)$.
To complete the proof one has to derive (8.4) and check (8.13).
Subtract from (7.28) with $q=q_1$ this equation with $q=q_2$ and get: $$w^{\prime\prime} + w- \frac{\l(\l + 1)}{r^2} w-q_1 w= p \psi^{(2)}_\l,
\tag{8.27}$$ where $$p: = q_1-q_2, \qquad w:= \psi_\l^{(1)} (r) - \psi_\l^{(2)} (r).
\tag{8.28}$$ Multiply (8.27) by $\psi^{(1)}_\l (r)$, integrate over $[0,\infty)$, and then by parts on the left, and get $$\left( w^\prime\psi^{(1)}_\l - w \psi^{(1)^\prime}_\l \right)
\bigg\vert^\infty_0
=\qquad \int^a_0 p \psi^{(2)}_\l \psi^{(1)}_\l\, dr,
\qquad \l\in{\mathcal L}.
\tag{8.29}$$
By the assumption $\delta^{(1)}_\l = \delta^{(2)}_\l$ if $\l\in{\mathcal L}$, so $w$ and $w^\prime$ vanish at infinity. At $r=0$ the left-hand side of (8.29) vanishes since $$\psi^{(j)}_\l (r) = O(r^{\l +1})\quad \hbox{as}\ r \to 0 .
\tag{8.30}$$ Thus (8.29) implies (8.4).
One can prove [@R6] that the kernel $K(r, \rho)$ of the transformation operator must solve the Goursat-type problem $$r^2K_{rr}(r,\rho) - \rho^2 K_{\rho \rho}(r,\rho)
+ [r^2-r^2 q(r)-\rho^2] K(r,\rho) = 0,
\qquad 0 \leq \rho \leq r ,
\tag{8.31}$$ $$K(r,r) = \frac{r}{2} \int^r_0 sq(s)\, ds := g(r) ,
\tag{8.32}$$ $$K(r,0) = 0,
\tag{8.33}$$ and conversely: the solution to this Goursat-type problem is the kernel of the transformation operator (8.8).
The difficulty in a study of the problem comes from the fact that the coefficients in front of the second derivatives degenerate at $\rho = 0$, $r = 0$.
To overcome this difficulty let us introduce new variables: $$\xi = \ln r + \ln \rho, \qquad \eta = \ln r-\ln \rho .
\tag{8.34}$$ Put $$K(r,\rho):=B(\xi, \eta) .
\tag{8.35}$$ Then (8.31)-(8.33) becomes $$B_{\xi \eta} -\frac{1}{2} B_\eta + Q(\xi, \eta)B=0,
\qquad \eta \geq 0,
\qquad -\infty < \xi < \infty,
\tag{8.36}$$ $$B(\xi, 0) = g(e^{\frac{\xi}{2}}) := G(\xi),
\tag{8.37}$$ $$B(-\infty, \eta) = 0, \qquad \eta \geq 0 ,
\tag{8.38}$$ where $g(r)$ is defined in (3.32) and $$Q(\xi, \eta):= \frac{1}{4} \left[ e^{\xi+\eta}-e^{\xi+\eta}
q \left( e^{\frac{\xi+\eta}{2}} \right) -e^{\xi-\eta} \right].
\tag{8.39}$$ Note that $$\sup_{-\infty < \xi < \infty} e^{-\frac{\xi}{2}} G(\xi) < c,
\tag{8.40}$$ $$\sup_{0 \leq \eta \leq B} \int^A_{-\infty} |Q(s,\eta)|\,ds\leq c(A,B),
\tag{8.41}$$ for any $A\in \R$ and any $B>0$, where $c(A,B) > 0$ is some constant.
Let $$L(\xi, \eta) := B(\xi, \eta) e^{-\frac{\xi}{2}}
\tag{8.42}$$
Write (8.36)-(8.38) as $$L_{\xi \eta} +Q(\xi, \eta) L = 0,
\qquad \eta \geq 0, \qquad-\infty < \xi < \infty
\tag{8.43}$$ $$L(\xi,0) = e^{-\frac{\xi}{2}} G(\xi) := b(\xi);
\qquad L(-\infty, \eta) = 0, \qquad \eta \geq 0 .
\tag{8.44}$$ Integrate (8.43) with respect to $\eta$ and use (8.44), and then integrate with respect to $\xi$ to get: $$L=VL + b,\qquad VL:= -\int^\xi_{-\infty}\,ds \int^\eta_0 dt\,Q(s,t)L(s,t).
\tag{8.45}$$
Consider (8.45) in the Banch space $X$ of continous function $L(\xi, \eta)$ defined for $\eta \geq 0, -\infty < \xi < \infty$, with the norm $$\Vert L \Vert := \Vert L \Vert_{AB}
:= \sup_{\substack{0\leq t\leq B \\-\infty<s\leq A}}
\left( e^{-\gamma t} |L(s,t)| \right) < \infty,
\tag{8.46}$$ where $\gamma = \gamma (A,B) > 0$ is chosen so that the operator $V$ is a contraction mapping in $X$. Let us estimate $\Vert V \Vert$: $$\begin{align}
\Vert VL \Vert
&\leq
\sup_{\buildrel{-\infty<\xi\leq A}\over{0\leq \eta\leq B}}
\int^\xi_{-\infty} ds \int^\eta_0 dt
|Q(s,t)| e^{-\gamma(\eta-t)} e^{-\gamma t} |L(s,t)|
\tag{8.47}\\
&\leq \Vert L\Vert
\sup_{\buildrel{-\infty<\xi\leq A}\over{0\leq \eta\leq B}}
\int^\xi_{-\infty} ds \int^\eta_0 dt
\left( 2e^{s+t}+e^{s+t}
\left|q \left(e^{\frac{s+t}{2}} \right)\right| \right)
e^{-\gamma (\eta - t)} \leq\frac{c}{\gamma} \Vert L \Vert ,
\notag\end{align}
\notag$$ where $c>0$ is a constant which depends on $A,B$, and on $\int^a_0 r|q(r)|\, dr$.
If $\gamma >c$ then $V$ is a contraction mapping in $X$ and equation (8.45) has a unique solution in $X$ for any $-\infty <A < \infty$ and $B>0$.
Let us now prove that estimate (8.13) holds for the constructed function $K(r, \rho)$.
One has $$\int^r_0 |K(r, \rho)| \rho^{-1} d\rho
= r \int^\infty_0 |L(2\ln r - \eta, \eta)|
e^{-\frac{\eta}{2}} d\eta < \infty
\tag{8.48}$$
The last inequality follows from the estimate: $$|L(\xi, \eta)| \leq c e^{(2+ \varepsilon_1)[\eta \mu_1 (\xi + \eta)]^
{\frac{1}{2} + \varepsilon_2}}
\tag{8.49}$$ where $\varepsilon_1$ and $\varepsilon_2 > 0$ are arbitrarily small numbers, $$\mu_1(\xi) := \int^\xi_{-\infty}\, ds \mu (s),
\qquad \mu (s) := \frac{e^s}{2}
\left( 1 + \left| q \left( e^{\frac{s}{2}}\right) \right| \right)
\tag{8.50}$$
The proof of Theorem 8.1 is complete when (8.49) is proved.
Estimate (8.49) holds.
From (8.45) one gets $$m(\xi, \eta) \leq c + Wm
\tag{8.57}$$ where $$c_0:= \sup_{-\infty<\xi<\infty}|b(\xi)|\leq\frac{1}{2}\int^a_0 s(q(s)\,ds,
\qquad m(\xi, \eta):= |L(\xi, \eta)|,
\tag{8.52}$$ and $$Wm := \int^\xi_{-\infty} ds \int^\eta_0 dt\, \mu(s+t) m(s,t) .
\tag{8.53}$$ Without loss of generality we can take $c_0 =1$ in (8.51): If (8.49) is derived from (8.51) with $c_0=1$, it will hold for any $c_0>0$ (with a different $c$ in (8.49)). Thus, consider (8.51) with $c_0=1$ and solve this inequality by iterations.
One has $$W1= \int^\xi_{-\infty} ds \int^\eta_0 \mu(s+t)\,dt = \int^\eta_0
\mu_1 (\xi + t)\,dt \leq \eta \mu_1 (\xi + \eta) .
\tag{8.54}$$
One can prove by induction that $$W^n1 \leq \frac{\eta^n}{h!} \frac{\mu_1^n (\xi + \eta)}{n!} .
\tag{8.55}$$ Therefore (8.57) with $c_0 = 1$ implies $$m(\xi, \eta) \leq 1 + \sum^\infty_{h=1} \frac{\eta^n}{n!}
\frac{\mu^n_1(\xi + \eta)}{n!} .
\tag{8.56}$$
Consider $$F(z) := 1+\sum^\infty_{n=1} \frac{z^n}{(n!)^2} .
\tag{8.57}$$
This is an entire function of order $\frac{1}{2}$ and type 2.
Thus $$|F(z)| \leq c e^{(2+ \varepsilon_1)|z|^{\frac{1}{2} +\varepsilon_2} }.
\tag{8.58}$$ From (8.56) and (8.58) estimate (8.49) follows.
Lemma 8.1 is proved.
Theorem 8.1 is proved.
Discussion of the Newton-Sabatier procedure for recovery of $q(r)$ from the fixed-energy phase shifts
=====================================================================================================
In [@CS] and [@N] the following procedure is proposed for inversion of the fixed-energy phase shifts for $q(r)$. We take $k=1$ in what follows.
. Given $\{\delta_\l \}_{\forall \l = 0,1,2,\dots} $ one solves an infinite linear algebraic system ((12.2.7) in [@CS]) $$\tan \delta_\l = \sum^\infty_{\l^\prime = 0}
M_{\l\l^\prime}
(1 +\tan \delta_\l\tan \delta_{\l^\prime}) a_{\l^\prime}
\tag{9.1}$$ for constants $a_\l$. Here $$M_{\l\l^\prime} =
\begin{cases} 0\ \ \hbox{if\ \ $|\l-\l^\prime|$
is even or zero},\notag\\
\frac{1}{\left(\l^\prime+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2
- \left( \l+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2} \quad\hbox{if\quad
$|\l-\l^\prime|$ is odd}.
\end{cases}
\tag{9.2}$$ [*Assuming that (9.1) is solvable and $a_\l$ are found*]{}, one calculates (see formula (12.2.8) in [@CS]) $$c_\l = a_\l \left( 1 + \tan^2 \delta_\l \right)
\left\{ 1-\frac{\pi a_\l \left(1+ \tan^2 \delta_\l \right)}{4\l + 2}
- \sum^\infty_{\l^\prime=0} M_{\l \l^\prime}
a_{\l^\prime}(\tan \delta_{\l^\prime}-\tan \delta_\l) \right\}^{-1}
\tag{9.3}$$
. If $c_\l$ are found, one solves the equation for $K(r,\rho)$ (see formula (12.1.12) in [@CS]) $$K(r, s) = f(r,s)-\int^r_0 K(r,t) f(t,s) t^{-2}\, dt,
\tag{9.4}$$ where $$f(r,s) := \sum^\infty_{\l=0} c_\l u_\l(r) u_\l (s)
\tag{9.5},$$ and $u_\l (r)$ are defined in (7.22).
Note that in this section the notations from [@CS] are used and by this reason the kernel $K(r,t)$ in formulas (9.4) and (9.6) differs by sign from the kernel $K(r,\rho)$ in formula (8.8). This explains the minus sign in formula (9.6).
[*Assuming that (9.4) is solvable for all $r>0$*]{}, one calculates $$q(r) = -\frac{2}{r}\ \frac{d}{dr}\quad \frac{K(r,r)}{r} .
\tag{9.6}$$ Note that if (9.4) is not solvable for some $r=r > 0$, then the procedure breaks down because the potential (9.6) is no longer locally integrable in $(0, \infty)$. In [@N] it is argued that for sufficiently small $a$ equation (9.4) is uniquely solvable by iterations for all $0<r<a$, but no discussion of the global solvability, that is, solvability for all $r>0$, is given. It is assumed in [@CS] and [@N] that the sequence $\{c_\l\}$ in (9.3) does not grow fast. In ([@CS (12.2.2)]) the following is assumed: $$\sum^\infty_{\l=1} |c_\l| \l^{-2} < \infty.
\tag{9.7}$$
Under this assumption, and also under much weaker assumption $$|c_\l| \leq ce^{b\l}
\tag{$\hbox{9.7}^\prime$}$$ for some $b>0$ arbitrary large fixed, one can prove that the kernel (9.5) is an entire function of $r$ and $s$. This follows from the known asymptotics of $u_\l (r)$ as $\l \to \infty$: $$u_\l (r) = \sqrt{\frac{r}{2}}
\left( \frac{er}{2 \l +1} \right)^{\frac{2\l+1}{2}}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\l+1}} [1 + o(1)], \qquad \l \to +\infty.
\tag{9.8}$$
Thus, equation (9.4) is a Fredholm-type equation with kernel which is an entire function of $r$ and $s$. Since $K(r,0)=0$ and $f(r,s)=f(s,r) = 0$ at $s=0$, equation (9.4) is a Fredholm equation in the space of continuous functions $C(0,r)$ for any $r>0$.
If (9.4) is uniquely solvable for all $r>0$, then one can prove the following:
[*$K(r,s)$ is an analytic function of $r$ and $s$ in a neighborhood $\Delta$ of the positive semiaxis $(0,\infty)$ on the complex plane of the variables $r$ and $s$.*]{}
This claim is proved below, at the end of this section.
Therefore the potential (9.6) has to have the following:
[*Property P: $q(r)$ is an analytic function in $\Delta$ with a possible simple pole at $r=0$.*]{}
Most of the potentials do not have this property. Therefore, if one takes any potential which does not have property $P$, for example, a compactly supported potential $q(r)$, and if it will be possible to carry through the Newton-Sabatier procedure, that is, [*(9.1) will be solvable for $a_\l$*]{} and generate $c_\l$ by formula (9.3) such that (9.7) or ($\hbox{9.7}^\prime$) hold, and (9.4) [*will be uniquely solvable for all $r>0$ then the potential (9.6), which this procedure yields, cannot coincide with the potential with which we started.*]{}
An important open question is: assuming that the Newton-Sabatier procedure can be carried through, is it true that the reconstructed potential (9.6) generates the scattering data, that is, the set of the fixed-energy phase shifts $\{\delta_\l \}$ with which we started.
In [@CS pp.203-205] it is claimed that this is the case. But the arguments in [@CS] are not convincing. In particular, the author was not able to verify equation (12.3.12) in [@CS] and in the argument on p.205 it is not clear why $A^\prime_\l$ and $\delta^\prime_\l$ satisfy the same equation (12.2.5) as the orginal $A_\l$ and $\delta_\l$.
In fact, it is claimed in [@CS (12.5.6)] that $\delta^\prime_\l = O(\frac{1}{\l})$, while it is known [@RAI] that if $q(r) = 0$ for $r>a$ and $q(r)$ does not change sign in some interval $(a-\varepsilon, a)$, $q \neq 0$ if $r \in (a- \varepsilon, a)$, where $\varepsilon >0$ is arbitrarily small fixed number, then $$\lim_{\l \to \infty}
\left( \frac{2\l}{e} \left|\delta_\l \right|^{\frac{1}{2\l}} \right)
= a.
\tag{9.9}$$
It follows from (9.9) that for the above potentials the phase shifts decay very fast as $\l \to \infty$, much faster that $\frac{1}{\l}$. Therefore $\delta^\prime_\l$ decaying at the rate $\frac{1}{\l}$ cannot be equal to $\delta_\l$, as it is claimed in [@CS p.205], because formula (9.9) implies: $$|\delta_\l|\sim\left( \frac{ea[1+o(1)]}{2\l}\right)^{2\l}.
\notag$$
It is claimed in [@CS], p.105, that the Newton-Sabatier procedure leads to “one (only one) potential which decreases faster that $r^{-\frac 32}$” and yields the original phase shifts. However, if one starts with a compactly supported integrable potential (or any other rapidly decaying potential which does not have property $P$ and belongs to the class of the potentials for which the uniqueness of the solution to inverse scattering problem with fixed-energy data is established), then the Newton-Sabatier procedure will not lead to this potential as is proved in this section. Therefore, either the potential which the Newton-Sabatier procedure yields does not produce the original phase shifts, or there are at least two potentials which produce the same phase shifts.
A more detailed analysis of the Newton-Sabatier procedure is given by the author in [@ARS].
The idea of the proof is to consider $r$ in (9.4) as a parameter and to reduce (9.4) to a Fredholm-type equation with constant integration limits and kernel depending on the parameter $r$. Let $t=r\tau$, $s = r \sigma$, $$\frac{K(r, r\tau)}{\tau} := b(\tau; r), \quad
\frac{f(r \tau, r \sigma)}{r \tau \sigma} := a(\sigma, \tau, r),
\qquad \frac{f(r, \sigma)}{\sigma} := g(\sigma; r)
\tag{9.10}$$ Then (9.4) can be written as: $$b(\sigma;r) = g(r;\sigma) -
\int^1_0 a(\sigma, \tau ;r) b(\tau; r)\, d\tau.
\tag{9.11}$$ Equation (9.11) is equivalent to (9.4), it is a Fredholm-type equation with kernel $a(\sigma,\tau;r)$ which is an entire function of $\sigma$ and of the parameter $r$. The free term $g(r,\sigma)$ is an entire function of $r$ and $\sigma$. This equation is uniquely solvable for all $r>0$ by the assumption. Therefore its solution $b(\sigma;r)$ is an analytic function of $r$ in a neighborhood of any point $r>0$, and it is an entire function of $\sigma$ [@R18]. Thus $K(r,r)=b(1,r)$ is an analytic function of $r$ in a a neighborhood of the positive semiaxis $(0,\infty)$.
Reduction of some inverse problems to an overdetermined Cauchy problem
======================================================================
Consider, for example, the classical problem of finding $q(x)$ from the knowledge of two spectra. Let $u$ solve (1.1) on the interval \[0,1\] and satisfy the boundary conditions $$u(0) = u(1) = 0,
\tag{10.1}$$ and let the corresponding eigenvalues $k_n^2 := \lambda_n$, $ n=1,2,\dots ,$ be given. If $$u(0) = u^\prime(1) + hu(1) =0, \quad
\tag{10.3}$$ then the corresponding eigenvalues are $\mu_n, \quad n=1,2,\dots $.
The inverse problem (IP10) is:
[*Given the two spectra $\{\lambda_n \} \cup\{ \mu_n \}$, $n=1,2,3,\dots$, find $q(x)$ (and $h$ in (10.3)).*]{}
Let us reduce this problem to an overdetermined Cauchy problem. Let $$u(x,k) = \frac{\sin (kx)}{k} + \int^x_0 K(x,y) \frac{\sin (ky)}{k}\,dy:=
(I + K) \left( \frac{\sin (kx)}{k} \right)
\tag{10.4}$$ solve (1.1). Then (10.1) and (10.2) imply: $$0= \frac{\sin \sqrt{\lambda_n}}{\sqrt{\lambda_n}} + \int^1_0 K(1,y)
\frac{\sin (\sqrt{\lambda_n}y)}{\sqrt{\lambda_n}}\, dy,
\quad n=1,2,\dots
\tag{10.5}$$ and $$0= \cos \sqrt{\mu_n} + K(1,1) \frac{\sin \sqrt {\mu_n}}{\sqrt{\mu_n}} +
\int^1_0 K_x (1,y) \frac{\sin (\sqrt {\mu_n} y)}{\sqrt{\mu_n}}\,dy,
\quad n=1,2,\dots
\tag{10.6}$$ It is known [@M] that $$\lambda_n = (n \pi)^2 + c_0 + o(1), \quad n \to \infty,
\tag{10.7}$$ and $$\mu_n = \pi^2 \left(n + \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 + c_1 + o(1),
\quad n \to \infty,
\tag{10.8}$$ where $c_0$ and $c_1$ can be calculated explicitly, they are proportional to $\int^1_0 q(x)\, dx$.
Therefore, $$\sqrt{\lambda_n} = \pi n \left[1 + O \left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right)\right],
\quad \sqrt{\mu_n} =
\pi \left( n +\frac{1}{2} \right)
\left[1 + O\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right)\right], \quad n \to \infty.
\tag{10.9}$$
It is known [@L] that if (10.9) holds then each of the systems of functions: $$\{\sin (\sqrt{\lambda_n }x)\}_{n=1,2,\dots } ,
\quad \{\sin (\sqrt{\mu_n }x)\}_{n=1,2,\dots }
\tag{10.10}$$ is complete in $L^2[0,1]$.
Therefore equation (10.5) determines uniquely $\{K(1,y)\}_{0 \leq y \leq 1}$ and can be used for an efficient numerical procedure for finding $K(1,y)$ given the set $\{\lambda_n\}_{n=1,2,\dots }$ Note that the system $\{\sin(\sqrt{\lambda_n}x)\}_{n=1,2,\dots}$ forms a Riesz basis of $L^2[0,1]$ since the operator $I+K$, defined by (10.4) is boundedly invertible and the system $\{u(x, \sqrt{\lambda_n})\}_{n=1,2,\dots }$ forms an orthornormal basis of $L^2(0,1)$.
Equation (10.6) determines uniquely $\{K_x(1,y)\}_{0 \leq y \leq 1}$ if $\{\mu_n\}_{n=1,2,\dots }$ are known. Indeed, the argument is the same as above. The constant $K(1,1)$ is uniquely determined by the data $\{\mu_n\}_{n=1,2,\dots }$ because, by formula (5.41), $$K(1,1) = \frac{1}{2} \int^1_0 q(x)\, dx .
\tag{10.11}$$
We have arrived at the following
*overdetermined Cauchy problem:*
Given the Cauchy data $$\{K(1,y), K_x(1,y) \}_{0 \leq y \leq 1}
\tag{10.12}$$ and the equations (5.40) - (5.41), find $q(x)$.
It is easy to derive [@R5 eq. (4.36)] for the unknown vector function $$U := \begin{pmatrix}q(x)\\K(x,y)\end{pmatrix}
\tag{10.13}$$ the following equation $$U = W(U) + h,
\tag{10.14}$$ where $$W(U) :=\begin{pmatrix}-2\int^1_x q(s) K(s,2x-s)\,ds\\
\frac{1}{2} \int_{D_{xy}} q(s)K(s,t)\,ds\,dt\end{pmatrix},
\tag{10.15}$$ $D_{xy}$ is the region bounded by the straight lines on the $(s,t)$ plane: $s=1, \quad t-y=s-x$ and $t-y=-(s-x)$, and $$h:= \begin{pmatrix}f\\g\end{pmatrix},
\tag{10.16}$$ $$f(x) := 2[K_y(1, 2x-1) + K_x(1,2x-1)],
\tag{10.17}$$ $$g(x) := \frac{K(1,y+x -1) + K(1, y-x+1)}{2}\ - \frac{1}{2}
\int^{y-x+1}_{y+x-1}K_s(1,t)\,dt.
\tag{10.18}$$
Note that $f$ and $g$ are computable from data (10.12), and (10.14) is a nonlinear equation for $q(x)$ and $K(x,y)$.
Consider the iterative process: $$U_{n+1}= W(U_n) + h, \quad U_0 = h.
\tag{10.19}$$
Assume that $$q(x) = 0\ \hbox{for}\ x>1,
\quad q=\overline{q}, \quad q \in L^\infty [0,1].
\tag{10.20}$$
Let $x_0 \in (0,1)$ and define the space of functions: $$L(x_0) := L^\infty (x_0, 1) \times L^\infty (\Delta_{x_0}),
\tag{10.21}$$ where $$\Delta_{x_0} := \{ x,y : x_0 \leq x \leq 1, \quad 0 \leq |y| \leq x\}.
\tag{10.22}$$ Denote $$\Vert u \Vert := \operatorname*{esssup}_{x_0\leq x\leq 1} |q(x)|
+ \sup_{x,y \in \Delta_{xo}} |K(x,y)|.
\tag{10.23}$$ Let $$\Vert h \Vert \leq R.
\tag{10.24}$$
Let (10.17), (10.18), (10.20), and (10.24) hold, and choose any $\tildeR >R$. Then process (10.19) converges in $L(x_0)$ at the rate of a geometrical progression for any $x_0 \in (1-\mu, 1)$, where $$\mu := min \left( \frac{8 (\tildeR-R)}{5\tildeR^2},
\frac{2}{5\tildeR} \right).
\notag$$
One has $$\lim_{n \to \infty} U_n = \begin{pmatrix}q(x)\\K(x,y)\end{pmatrix},
x,y \in \Delta_{x_0}.
\tag{10.25}$$ If one starts with the data $$\{K(x_0, y), \quad K_x(x_0, y) \}_{0 \leq |y| \leq x_0},
\tag{10.26}$$ replaces in (10.19) $h$ by $h_0 := \left( \begin{smallmatrix}f_0\\g_0 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$, where $f_0$ and $g_0$ are calculated by formulas (1.17) and (1.18) in which the first argument in $K(1,y), x=1$, is replaced by $x=x_0$, then the iterative process (10.19) with the new $h=h_0$, in the new space $$L(x_1) := L^\infty (x_1, x_0) \times L^\infty (\Delta_{x_1}),
\notag$$ with $$\Delta_{x_1} = \{x,y : x_1 \leq x \leq x_0,
\qquad 0 \leq |y| \leq x\},
\notag$$ converges to $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}q(x)\\K(x,y)\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ in $L(x_1)$.
In finite number of steps one can uniquely reconstruct $q(x)$ on \[0,1\] from the data (10.12) using (10.19).
First, we prove convergence of the process (10.19) in $L(x_0)$.
The proof makes it clear that this process will converge in $L(x_1)$ and that in final number of steps one recovers $q(x)$ uniquely on \[0,1\]. Let $B(R) := \{U: \Vert U \Vert \leq \tildeR$, $U \in L(x_0)\}$, $\tildeR>R$.
Let us start with
The map $U \in W(U) +h$ maps $B(\tildeR)$ into itself and is a contraction on $B(\tildeR)$ if $x_0 \in (1-\mu, 1)$, $\mu := min \left( \frac{8 (\tildeR-R)}{5\tildeR^2} ,
\frac{2}{5\tildeR}\right)$.
Let $U=\left( \begin{smallmatrix}q_1\\K_1\end{smallmatrix} \right)$, $V= \left( \begin{smallmatrix}q_2\\K_2\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ One has: $$\begin{align}
\Vert W (U) - W(V)\Vert & \leq \left\Vert
\begin{array}{l}
2\int^1_x \left( |q_1-q_2|\,|K_1|+|q_2|\,|K_1-K_2| \right)\,ds
\\
\frac{1}{2}\int_{D_{xy}} \left( |q_1-q_2|\,|K_1|+|q_2|\,|K_1-K_2|
\right)\,ds\,dt
\end{array} \right\Vert
\notag \\
& \leq \Vert U-V\Vert
\left[2(1-x_0) \tildeR +\frac{\tildeR}{2} (1-x_0)^2 \right]
\leq \Vert U-V\Vert (1-x_0) \frac{5}{2} \tildeR.
\tag{10.27}\end{align}$$
Here we have used the estimate $(1-x_0)^2 < 1-x_0$ and the assumption $\Vert U \Vert \leq \tildeR$, $\Vert V \Vert \leq \tildeR$.
If $$1-x_0 < \frac{2}{5\tildeR},
\tag{10.28}$$ then $W$ is a contraction on $B(\tildeR)$.
Let us check that the map $T(U) = W(U)+h$ maps $B(\tildeR)$ into itself if $1-x_0<\mu$.
Using the inequality $ab \leq \frac{\tildeR^2}{4}$ if $a+b=\tildeR$, $a,b \geq 0$, one gets: $$\begin{align}
&\Vert W(U) +h \Vert \leq \Vert W(U) \Vert + \Vert h \Vert \notag\\
& \quad \leq 2(1-x_0)\frac{\tildeR^2}{4}+\frac{1}{2} (1-x_0)^2
\frac{\tildeR^2}{4} +R \notag\\
&\leq \frac{5}{2}
(1-x_0) \frac{\tildeR^2}{4} +R < \tildeR
\quad \hbox{if}\quad 1-x_0 < \frac{8(\tildeR-R)}{5\tildeR^2}.
\notag\end{align}
\tag{10.29}$$
Thus if $$\mu = min \left( \frac{8(\tildeR-R)}{5\tildeR^2},
\quad\frac{2}{5\tildeR} \right)
\tag{10.30}$$ then the map $U \to W(U) + h$ is a contraction on $B(\tildeR)$ in the space $L(x_0)$. Lemma 10.1 is proved.
From Lemma 10.1 it follows that process (10.19) converges at the rate of geometrical progression with common ratio (10.30). The solution to (10.14) is therefore unique in $L(x_0)$.
Since for the data $h$ which comes from a potential $q\in L^\infty (0,1)$ the vector $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}q(x)\\K(x,y)\end{smallmatrix} \right)$ solves (10.14) in $L(x_0)$, it follows that this vector satisfies (10.25). Thus, process (10.19) allows one to reconstruct $q(x)$ on the interval from data (10.12), $x_0 = 1-\mu$, where $\mu$ is defined in (10.30).
If $q(x)$ and $K(x,y)$ are found on the interval $(x_0, 1)$, then $K(x_0,y)$ and $K_x(x_0,y)$ can be calculated for $0 \leq |y| \leq x_0$. Now one can repeat the argument for the interval $(x_1, x_0), \quad x_0-x_1 < \mu$, and in finite number of the steps recover $q(x)$ on the whole interval \[0,1\].
Note that one can use a fixed $\mu$ if one chooses $R$ so that (10.24) holds for $h$ defined by (10.16) and (10.17) with any $x\in L^\infty [0,1]$. Such $R$ does exist if $q\in L^\infty[0,1]$.
Theorem 10.1 is proved.
Other inverse problems have been reduced to the overdetermined Cauchy problem studied in this section (see [@RS], [@R5], [@R]). The idea of this reduction was used in [@RS] for a numerical solution of some inverse problems.
Representation of I-function
============================
The $I(k)$ function (2.1) equals to the Weyl function (2.3). Our aim in this section is to derive the following formula ([@R2]): $$I(k) =ik + \sum^J_{j=0} \frac{ir_j}{k-ik_j} + \widetilde a,
\qquad \widetilde a:=\int^\infty_0 a(t)e^{ikt}\,dt,
\tag{11.1}$$ where $k_0 := 0, \quad r_j = const>0$, $1 \leq j \leq J$, $ r_0>0\ iff\ f(0) = 0$, $a(t) = \overline{a(t)}$ is a real-valued function, $$a(t) \in L^1(\R_+)\ \hbox{if}\ f(0) \neq 0
\ \hbox{and}\ q(x) \in L_{1,1} (\R_+),
\tag{11.2}$$ $$a(t) \in L^1(\R_+)\ \hbox{if}\ f(0)=0\ \hbox{and}\ q\in L_{1,3}(\R_+).
\tag{11.3}$$
We will discuss the inverse problem of finding $q(x)$ given $I(k)\ \forall k>0$. Uniqueness of the solution to this problem is proved in Theorem 2.1. Here we discuss a reconstruction algorithm and give examples. Formula (11.1) appeared in [@R2].
Using (2.17) and (2.1) one gets $$I(k) = \frac{ik-A(0) + \int^\infty_0 A_1(y)e^{iky}\,dy}
{1+ \int^\infty_0 e^{iky} A(y)\, dy},
\quad A(y) := A(0,y), \quad A_1(y) := A_x(0,y).
\tag{11.4}$$ The function $$f(k) = 1 + \int^\infty_0 A(y)e^{iky}\,dy = f_0(k)
\frac{k}{k+i} \prod^J_{j=1}
\frac{k-ik_j}{k+ik_j},
\tag{11.5}$$ where $f_0(k)$ is analytic in $\C_+, \quad f_0 (\infty) = 1$ in $\C_+$, that is, $$f_0(k) \to 1\ \hbox{as}\ |k| \to \infty, \quad\ \hbox{and}\
f_0(k) \neq 0, \quad \forall k \in \overline{\C}_+ := \{k : Im k \geq 0 \}.
\tag{11.6}$$
Let us prove
If $f(0) \neq 0$ and $q \in L_{1,1} (\R_+)$ then $$f_0(k) = 1 + \int^\infty_0 b_0 (t) e^{ikt}\,dt := 1+\widetilde b_0,
\quad b_0 \in W^{1,1} (\R_+).
\tag{11.7}$$
Here $W^{1,1}(\R_+)$ is the Sobolev space of functions with the finite norm $$\Vert b_0 \Vert_{W^{1,1}} := \int^\infty_0 (|b_0(t)| +
|b_0^\prime (t)|)\, dt < \infty.
\notag$$
It is sufficient to prove that, for any $1 \leq j \leq J$, the function $$\frac{k+ik_j}{k-ik_j} f(k) = 1+ \int^\infty_0 g_j (t) e^{ikt}\, dt, \quad
g_j \in W^{1,1} (\R_+).
\tag{11.8}$$ Since $\frac{k+ik_j}{k-ik_j} = 1+ \frac{2ik_j}{k-ik_j}$, and since $A(y) \in W^{1,1} (\R_+)$ provided that $q \in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$ (see (2.18), (2.19)), it is sufficient to check that $$\frac{f(k)}{k-ik_j} = \int^\infty_0 g(t)e^{ikt}\,dt,
\quad g \in W^{1,1} (\R_+).
\tag{11.9}$$ One has $f(ik_j)=0$, thus $$\begin{align}
\frac{f(k)}{k-ik_j}& = \frac{f(k) -f(ik)}{k-ik_j}
= \int^\infty_0 dy A(y)
\frac{e^{i(k-ik_j)y}-1}{k-ik_j} e^{-k_jy}\,dy \notag \\
& = \int^\infty_0 A(y)e^{-k_jy} i\int^y_0 e^{i(k-ik_j)s}\, ds
= \int^\infty_0 e^{iks} h_j(s)\,ds \tag{11.10} \end{align}
\notag$$ where $$h_j(s) :=
i \int^\infty_s A(y)e^{-k_j(y-s)}\,dy=i\int^\infty_0 A(t+s)e^{-k_jt}\,dt
\tag{11.11}$$ From (11.11)one obtains (11.9) since $A(y) \in W^{1,1}(\R_+)$.
Lemma 11.1 is proved.
If $f(0)=0$ and $q\in L_{1,2} (\R_+)$, then (11.7) holds.
The proof goes as above with one difference : if $f(0)=0$ then $k_0 =0$ is present in formula (11.1) and in formulas (11.10) and (11.11) with $k_0 =0$ one has $$h_0 (s) = i \int^\infty_0 A(t+s)\, dt.
\tag{11.12}$$
Thus, using (2.18), one gets $$\begin{align}
&\int^\infty_0 | h_0(s)|\,ds \leq c\int^\infty_0\,ds \int^\infty_0\, dt
\int^\infty_{\frac{t+s}{2}} |q(u)|\, du \notag \\
&\quad = 2c\int^\infty_0\, ds
\int^\infty_{\frac{s}{2}}\, dv
\int^\infty_v |q(u)|\, du
\leq 2c \int^\infty_0\, ds
\int^\infty_{\frac{s}{2}} | q(u)| u\,du \tag{11.13} \\
&\quad = 4c\int^\infty_0 u^2 |q(u)|\, du < \infty
\quad\ \hbox{if}\ \quad q \in L_{1,2}(\R_+), \notag\end{align}
\notag$$
where $c>0$ is a constant. Similarly one checks that $h_0^\prime (s) \in L^1(\R_+)$ if $q \in L_{1,2}(\R_+)$.
Lemma 11.2 is proved.
Formula (11.1) holds.
Write $$\frac{1}{f(k)} = \frac{\frac{k+i}{k}
\prod^J_{j=1}\frac{k+ik_j}{k-ik_j}} {f_0(k)}.
\tag{11.14}$$ Clearly $$\frac{k+i}{k} \prod^J_{j=1} \frac{k+ik_j}{k-ik_j}
= 1 + \sum^J_{j=0} \frac{c_j}{k-ik_j},\quad k_0 :=0, \quad k_j>0.
\tag{11.15}$$
By the Wiener-Levy theorem [@GRS §17], one has $$\frac{1}{f_0(k)} = 1 + \int^\infty_0 b(t)e^{ikt}\,dt,
\quad b(t) \in W^{1,1} (\R_+).
\tag{11.16}$$
Actually, the Wiener-Levy theorem yields $b(t) \in L^1(\R_+)$.
[*However, since $b_0 \in W^{1,1}(\R_+)$, one can prove that $b(t) \in W^{1,1} (\R_+)$.*]{}
Indeed, $\widetilde{b}$ and $\widetilde b_0$ are related by the equation: $$(1 + \widetilde b_0)(1+ \widetilde{b}) = 1, \quad \forall k\in \R,
\tag{11.17}$$ which implies $$\widetilde{b} = -\widetilde b_0 -\widetilde b_0 \widetilde{b},
\tag{11.18}$$ or $$b(t) = -b_0(t) - \int^t_0 b_0(t-s) b(s)\, ds := -b_0 -b_0 \ast b,
\tag{11.19}$$ where $\ast$ is the convolution operation.
Since $b^\prime_0 \in L^1(\R_+)$ and $b\in L^1(\R_+)$ the convolution $b_0^\prime \ast b \in L^1 (\R_+)$. So, differentiating (11.19) one sees that $b^\prime \in L^1 (\R_+)$, as claimed.
From (11.16), (11.15) and (11.4) one gets: $$I(k) = (ik-A(0) + \widetilde A_1) (1+ \widetilde{b})
\left(1 + \sum^J_{j=0}\frac{c_j}{k-ik_j}\right)
= ik+c + \sum^J_{j=0} \frac{a_j}{k-ik_j} + \widetilde{a},
\tag{11.20}$$ where $c$ is a constant defined in (11.24) below, the constants $a_j$ are defined in (11.25) and the function $\widetilde{a}$ is defined in (11.26). We will prove that $c=0$ (see (11.28)).
To derive (11.20), we have used the formula: $$ik\widetilde{b} = ik
\left[ \frac{e^{ikt}}{ik}b(t) \bigg|^\infty_0 - \frac{1}{ik}
\int^\infty_0 e^{ikt} b^\prime(t) dt\right] =-b(0) -\widetilde b^\prime,
\tag{11.21}$$ and made the following transformations: $$\begin{align}
& I(k) = ik-A(0)-b(0)-\widetilde b^\prime+\widetilde A_1-A(0)\widetilde{b}
+\widetilde A_1 \widetilde{b}
\sum^J_{j=0} \frac{c_j ik}{k-ik_j}
\tag{11.22} \\
&-\sum^J_{j=0} \frac{c_j[A(0) + b(0)]}{k-ik_j} + \sum^J_{j=0}
\frac{\widetilde{g}(k) - \widetilde{g} (ik_j)}{k-ik_j} c_j
+ \sum^J_{j=0}
\frac{\widetilde{g}(ik_j)c_j}{k-ik_j},
\notag\end{align}$$ where $$\widetilde{g}(k) := -\widetilde b^\prime + \widetilde A_1 - A(0)
\widetilde{b} + \widetilde A_1\widetilde{b}.
\tag{11.23}$$ Comparing (11.22) and (11.20) one concludes that $$c := -A(0) -b(0) +i\sum^J_{j=0} c_j,
\tag{11.24}$$ $$a_j := -c_j\left[k_j + A(0) + b(0) -\widetilde{g} (ik_j)\right],
\tag{11.25}$$ $$\widetilde{a}(k) := \widetilde{g}(k) + \sum^J_{j=0}
\frac{\widetilde{g} (k)-\widetilde{g} (ik_j)}{k-ik_j} c_j.
\tag{11.26}$$
To complete the proof of Lemma 11.3 one has to prove that $c=0$, where $c$ is defined in (11.24). This is easily seen from the asymptotics of $I(k)$ as $k \to \infty$. Namely, one has, as in (11.21): $$\widetilde{A}(k) = -\frac{A(0)}{ik} - \frac{1}{ik} \widetilde A^\prime
\tag{11.27}$$ From (11.27) and (11.4) it follows that $$\begin{align}
I(k) &= (ik-A(0) + \widetilde A_1)
\left[1-\frac{A(0)}{ik} + o\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)\right]^{-1}
\notag\\
& =(ik-A(0) + \widetilde A_1)
\left(1+ \frac{A(0)}{ik} + o\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)\right)
=ik+o(1), \quad k \to +\infty.
\tag{11.28} \end{align}$$ From (11.28) and (11.20) it follows that $c=0$.
Lemma 11.3 is proved.
One has $a_j=ir_j$, $r_j>0$, $1 \leq j \leq J$, and $r_0=0 $ if $f(0) \neq 0$, and $r_0>0$ if $f(0)=0$.
One has $$a_j=\operatorname*{Res}_{k=ik_j} I(k) = \frac{f^\prime (0,ik_j)}
{\dotf(ik_j)}.
\tag{11.29}$$ From (2.7) and (11.29) one gets: $$a_j= -\frac{c_j}{2ik_j} = i \frac{c_j}{2k_j} := ir_j ,
\quad r_j :=\frac{c_j}{2k_j} >0, \quad j>0.
\tag{11.30}$$ If $j=0$, then $$a_0= \operatorname*{Res}_{k=0} I(k)
:= \frac{f^\prime (0,0)}{\dotf(0)}.
\tag{11.31}$$ Here by $\operatorname*{Res}_{k=0}I(k)$ we mean the right-hand side of (11.31) since $I(k)$ is, in general, not analytic in a disc centered at $k=0$, it is analytic in $\C_+$ and, in general, cannot be continued analytically into $\C_-$.
Let us assume $q(x)\in L_{1,2}(\R_+)$. In this case $f(k)$ is continuously differentiable in $\overline{\C}_+$.
From the Wronskian formula $$\frac{f^\prime (0,k)f(-k) - f^\prime (0-k)f(k)}{k} = 2i
\tag{11.32}$$ taking $k \to 0$, one gets $$f^\prime (0,0) \dotf(0) = -i.
\tag{11.33}$$ Therefore if $q\in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$ and $f(0)=0$, then $\dotf(0)\not=0$ and $f^\prime(0,0)\not=0$. One can prove [@M pp.188-190], that if $q\in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$, then $\frac{k}{f(k)}$ is bounded as $k\to 0$, $k\in\C_+$.
From (11.31) and (11.33) it follows that $$a_j= -\frac{i}{\left[ \dotf(0) \right]^2} = ir_0,
\quad r_0 := -\frac{1}{[\dotf(0)]^2}.
\tag{11.34}$$ From (2.17) one gets: $$\dotf(0) = i \int^\infty_0 A(y) \,y \,dy.
\tag{11.35}$$
Since $A(y)$ is a real-valued function if $q(x)$ is real-valued (this follows from the integral equation (5.62), formula (11.35) shows that $$\left[\dotf(0) \right]^2 <0, \tag{11.36}$$ and (11.34) implies $$r_0 >0. \tag{11.37}$$
Lemma 11.4 is proved.
One may be interested in the properties of function $a(t)$ in (11.1). These can be obtained from (11.26), (11.16) and (11.7) as in the proof of Lemmas 11.1 and 11.2.
In particular (11.2) and (11.3) can be obtained.
Note that even [*if $q(x) \not\equiv 0$ is compactly supported, one cannot claim that $a(t)$ is compactly supported*]{}.
This can be proved as follows.
Assume for simplicity that $J=0$ and $f(0) \neq 0$. Then if $a(t)$ is compactly supported then $I(k)$ is an entire function of exponential type. It is proved in [@R p.278] that if $q(x) \not\equiv 0$ is compactly supported, $q \in L^1(\R_+)$, then $f(k)$ has infinitely many zeros in $\C$. The function $f^\prime (0,z) \neq 0$ if $f(z) = 0$. Indeed, if $f(z) =0$ and $f^\prime (0,z) =0$ then $f(x,z) \equiv 0$ by the uniqueness of the solution of the Cauchy problem for equation (1.1) with $k=z$. Since $f(x,z) \not\equiv 0$ (see (1.3)), one has a contradiction, which proves that $f^\prime (0,z) \neq 0$ if $f(z) =0$. Thus $I(k)$ cannot be an entire function if $q(x) \not\equiv 0$, $q(x) \in L^1 (\R_+)$ and $q(x)$ is compactly supported.
Let us consider the following question:
[*What are the potentials for which $a(t) =0$ in (11.1)?*]{}
In other words, suppose $$I(k) = ik + \sum^J_{j=0} \frac{ir_j}{k-ik_j},
\tag{11.38}$$ find $q(x)$ corresponding to $I$-function (11.38), and describe the decay properties of $q(x)$ as $x \to +\infty$.
We now show two ways of doing this.
By definition $$f^\prime (0,k) = I(k) f(k), \quad f^\prime (0,-k) = I(-k)f(-k),
\quad k \in \R.
\tag{11.39}$$ Using (11.39) and (2.23) one gets $$[I(k) -I(-k)] f(k)f(-k) = 2ik,
\notag$$ or $$f(k)f(-k) = \frac{k}{Im I(k)}, \quad \forall k \in \R.
\tag{11.40}$$
By (2.5), (2.6) and (11.30) one can write (see [@R2]) the spectral function corresponding the $I$-function (11.38) $(\sqrt{\lambda} = k)$: $$d\rho(\lambda)=\begin{cases}
\frac{Im\,I(\lambda)}{\pi}\, d\lambda, & \lambda\geq 0,\\
\sum^J_{j=1} 2k_jr_j \delta(\lambda+k^2_j)\,d\lambda, & \lambda<0, \end{cases}
\tag{11.41}$$ where $\delta(\lambda)$ is the delta-function.
Knowing $d\rho (\lambda)$ one can recover $q(x)$ algorithmically by the scheme (5.26).
Consider an example. Suppose $f(0) \neq 0, \quad J=1$, $$I(k) = ik + \frac{ir_1}{k-ik_1} = ik + \frac{ir_1(k+ik_1)}{k^2+k_1^2}=
i \left(k+ \frac{r_1k}{k^2+k^2_1}\right) - \frac{r_1k_1}{k^2+k^2_1}.
\tag{11.42}$$ Then (11.41) yields: $$d\rho (\lambda) = \begin{cases}
\frac{d\lambda}{\pi} \left( \sqrt{\lambda}
+ \frac{r_1\sqrt{\lambda}}{\lambda+k^2_1} \right), & \lambda>0, \\
2k_1r_1\delta(\lambda +k^2_1)\,d\lambda, & \lambda<0.
\end{cases}\tag{11.43}$$ Thus (5.27) yields: $$L(x,y)=\frac{1}{\pi} \int^\infty_0 d\lambda \frac{r_1 \sqrt{\lambda}}
{\lambda + k^2_1} \frac{\sin \sqrt{\lambda}x}{\sqrt{\lambda}}
\frac{\sin \sqrt{\lambda} y}{\sqrt{\lambda}}
+ 2k_1r_1\frac{sh(k_1x)}{k_1} \frac{sh(k_1y)}{k_1},
\tag{11.44}$$ and, setting $\lambda = k^2$ and taking for simplicity $2k_1r_1=1$, one finds: $$\begin{align}
L_0(x,y)
& := \frac{2r_1}{\pi} \int^\infty_0 \frac{dk k^2}{k^2 + k^2_1}
\frac{\sin (kx) \sin (ky)}{k^2}
\notag \\
&= \frac{2r_1}{\pi} \int^\infty_0
\frac{dk \sin (kx) \sin (ky)}{k^2 + k^2_1}
\tag{11.45}\\
& = \frac{r_1}{\pi} \int^\infty_0
\frac{dk[\cos k (x-y) - \cos k(x+y)]}{k^2 +k^2_1}
\notag \\
& = \frac{r_1}{2k_1} \left(e^{-k_1|x-y|} -e^{-k_1(x+y)}\right),
\quad k_1 >0,
\notag \end{align}$$ where the known formula was used: $$\frac{1}{\pi}\int^\infty_0 \frac{\cos kx}{k^2+a^2}\,dk
=\frac{1}{2a}\, e^{-a|x|},\qquad a>0, \qquad x\in \R.
\tag{11.46}$$ Thus $$L(x,y)=\frac{r_1}{2k_1} \left[ e^{-k_1|x-y|} -e^{-k_1(x+y)} \right]
+ \frac{sh (k_1x)}{k_1}\ \frac{sh(k_1y)}{k_1}.
\tag{11.47}$$
Equation (5.30) with kernel (11.47) is not an integral equation with degenerate kernel: $$\begin{align}
K(x,y) &+\int^x_0 K(x,t)
\left[ \frac{ e^{-k_1|t-y|} -e^{-k_1(t+y)}}{2k_1/r_1}
+ \frac{sh(k_1t)}{k_1} \frac{sh(k_1y)}{k_1} \right]\, dt
\tag{11.48}\\
&= -\frac{e^{-k_1|x-y|} -e^{-k_1(x+y)} }{2k_1/r_1} -
\frac{sh(k_1x)}{k_1} \frac{sh(k_1y)}{k_1}.
\notag \end{align}
\notag$$
This equation can be solved analytically [@R17], but the solution requires space to present. Therefore we do not give the theory developed in [@R17] but give another approach to a study of the properties of $q(x)$ given $I(k)$ of the form (11.42). This approach is based on the theory of the Riemann problem [@G].
Equations (11.40) and (11.42) imply $$f(k)f(-k)=\frac{k^2+k^2_1}{k^2+\nu^2_1},
\qquad \nu^2_1:=k^2_1+r_1.
\tag{11.49}$$ The function $$f_0(k):= f(k)\, \frac{k+ik_1}{k-ik_1} \not=0
\quad\hbox{in}\quad \C_+.
\tag{11.50}$$
Write (11.49) as $$f_0(k) \frac{k-ik_1}{k+ik_1} f_0(-k) \frac{k+ik_1}{k-ik_1}
=\frac{k^2+k^2_1}{k^2+\nu^2_1}.
\notag$$ Thus $$f_0(k)=\frac{k^2 +k^2_1}{k^2+\nu^2_1}\,h
\qquad h(k):=\frac{1}{f_0(-k)}.
\tag{11.51}$$ The function $f_0(-k)\not= 0$ in $\C_-$, $f_0(\infty)=1$ in $\C_-$, so $h:=\frac{1}{f_0(-k)}$ is analytic in $\C_-$.
Consider (11.51) as a Riemann problem. One has $$ind_{\R} \frac{k^2+k^2_1}{k^2+\nu^2_1}:= \frac{1}{2\pi i}
\int^\infty_{-\infty} d\ln \frac{k^2+k^2_1}{k^2+\nu^2_1}=0.
\tag{11.52}$$ Therefore (see [@G]) problem (11.51) is uniquely solvable. Its solution is: $$f_0(k)=\frac{k+ik_1}{k+i\nu_1},\qquad
h(k)=\frac{k-i\nu_1}{k-ik_1},
\tag{11.53}$$ as one can check.
Thus, by (11.50), $$f(k)=\frac{k-ik_1}{k+i\nu_1}.
\tag{11.54}$$
The corresponding $S$-matrix is: $$S(k)=\frac{f(-k)}{f(k)}=
\frac{(k+ik_1)(k+i\nu_1)}{(k-ik_1)(k-i\nu_1)}
\tag{11.55}$$
Thus $$F_S(x):=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int^\infty_{-\infty} [1-S(k)]
e^{ikx} dk=O\left(e^{-k_1x}\right) \quad\hbox{for}\quad x>0,
\tag{11.56}$$ $$F_d(x)=s_1\,e^{-k_1x},
\notag$$ and $$F(x)=F_S(x)+F_d(x)=O\left(e^{-k_1x}\right).
\tag{11.57}$$ Equation (5.50) implies $A(x,x)=O\left(e^{-2k_1x}\right)$, so $$q(x)=O\left(e^{-2k_1x}\right),
\qquad x\to +\infty.
\tag{11.58}$$
Thus, if $f(0)\not=0$ and $a(t)=0$ then $q(x)$ decays exponentially at the rate determined by the number $k_1$, $k_1=\ds\operatorname*{min}_{1\leq j\leq J} k_j$.
If $f(0)=0$, $J=0$, and $a(t)=0$, then $$I(k)=ik+\frac{ir_0}{k},
\tag{11.59}$$ $$f(k)f(-k) =\frac{k^2}{k^2+r_0}, \qquad r_0>0.
\tag{11.60}$$
Let $f_0(k)=\frac{(k+i)f(k)}{k}$. Then equation (11.60) implies: $$f_0(k)f_0(-k)= \frac{k^2+1}{k^2+\nu^2_0} ,
\qquad \nu^2_0:=r_0,
\tag{11.61}$$ and $f_0(k)\not= 0\quad\hbox{in}\quad \C_+$.
Thus, since $ind_\R\frac{k^2+1}{k^2+\nu^2_0}=0$, $f_0(k)$ is uniquely determined by the Riemann problem (11.61).
One has: $$f_0(k)=\frac{k+i}{k+i\nu_0},\qquad f_0(-k)=\frac{k-i}{k-i\nu_0},
\notag$$ and $$f(k) =\frac{k}{k+i\nu_0},
\quad S(k)=\frac{f(-k)}{f(k)}
=\frac{k+i\nu_0}{k-i\nu_0},
\tag{11.62}$$ $$F_S(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int^\infty_{-\infty}
\left( 1-\frac{k+i\nu_0}{k-i\nu_0}\right)
e^{ikx}dk=\frac{-2i\nu_0}{2\pi} \int^\infty_{-\infty}
\frac{e^{ikx}dk}{k-i\nu_0}
=2\nu_0 e^{-\nu_0x},
\quad x>0,
\notag$$ and $F_d(x)=0$.
So one gets: $$F(x)=F_S(x)=2\nu_0 e^{-\nu_0x},\qquad x>0.
\tag{11.63}$$ Equation (5.50) yields: $$A(x,y)+2\nu_0 \int^\infty_x A(x,t) e^{-\nu_0(t+y)} dt
= -2\nu_0 e^{-\nu_0(x+y)}, \qquad y\geq x\geq 0.
\tag{11.64}$$ Solving (11.64) yields: $$A(x,y)=- 2\nu_0 e^{-\nu_0(x+y)} \frac{1}{1+ e^{-2\nu_0x}} .
\tag{11.65}$$ The corresponding potential (5.51) is $$q(x)= O\left(e^{-2\nu_0x}\right),\qquad x\to\infty.
\tag{11.66}$$ If $q(x)=O\left(e^{-kx}\right)$, $k>0$, then $a(t)$ in (11.1) decays exponentially. Indeed, in this case $b^\prime(t)$, $A_1(y)$, $b(t)$, $A_1\ast b$ decay expenentially, so, by (11.23), $g(t)$ decays exponentially, and, by (11.26), the function $\frac{\widetilde g(k)-\widetilde g(ik_j)}{k-ik_j}:=\widetilde h$ with $h(t)$ decaying exponentially. We leave the details to the reader.
Algorithms for finding $q(x)$ from $I(k)$
=========================================
One algorithm, discussed in section 11, is based on finding the spectral function $\rho (\lambda)$ from $I(k)$ by formula (11.41) and then finding $q(x)$ by the method (5.26).
The second algorithm is based on finding the scattering data (2.10) and then finding $q(x)$ by the method (5.49).
In both cases one has to find $k_j$, $1 \leq j \leq J$, and the number $J$. In the second method one has to find $f(k)$ and $s_j$ also, and $S(k) = \frac{f(-k)}{f(k)}$.
If $k_j$ and $f(k)$ are found then $s_j$ can be found from (2.12). Indeed, by (11.1) $$ir_j := \operatorname*{Res}_{k=ik_j} I(k)
= \frac{f^\prime(0, ik_j)}{\dotf(ik_j)}.
\tag{12.1}$$ From (12.1) and (2.12) one finds $$s_j = -\frac{2ik_j}{ir_j [\dotf (ik_j)]^2}
=-\frac{2k_j}{r_j[\dotf (ik_j)]^2}.
\tag{12.2}$$
If $k_j$ are found, then one can find $f(k)$ from $I(k)$ as follows. Since $f^\prime(0,k) = f(k) I(k)$, equation (2.23) implies equation (11.40): $$f(k) f(-k) = \frac{k}{Im I(k)}.
\tag{12.3}$$ Define $$w(k) := \prod^J_{j=1} \frac{k-ik_j}{k+ik_j}\quad \hbox{if}\quad
I(0) < \infty,
\tag{12.4}$$ and $$w(k) := \frac{k}{k+i} \prod^J_{j=1} \frac{k-ik_j}{k+ik_j}
\quad \hbox{if}\quad I(0) =\infty.
\tag{12.5}$$ One has $I(0) < \infty$ if $f(0) \neq 0$ and $I(0) = \infty$ if $f(0) =0$. Note that if $q \in L_{1,2} (\R_+)$ and $f(0) =0$ then $f^\prime(0,0) \neq 0$ and $\dotf (0) \neq 0$.
Define $$h(k) := \frac{f(k)}{w(k)}.
\tag{12.6}$$
Then $h(k)$ is analytic in $\C_+$, $h(k) \neq 0$ in $ \overline{\C}_+$, and $h(\infty) = 1$ in $\overline{\C}_+$, while $h(-k)$ has similar properties in $\C_-$. Denote $\frac{1}{h(-k)} := h_- (k)$. This function is analytic in $\C_-, \quad h_- (k) \neq 0$ in $\overline{\C}_-$ and $h_-(\infty) = 1$ in $\overline{C}_-$. Denote $h(k) := h_+(k)$.
Write (12.3) as the Riemann problem: $$h_+ (k) = g(k) h_-(k),
\tag{12.7}$$ where $$g(k) = \frac{k}{Im I(k)}\quad \hbox{if}\quad I(0) < \infty,
\tag{12.8}$$ and $$g(k) = \frac{k}{Im\,I(k)} \frac{k^2 + 1}{k^2} \quad\hbox{if}\quad
I(0) = \infty.
\tag{12.9}$$ We claim that the function $g(k)$ is positive for all real $k$, bounded in a neighborhood of $k=0$ and has a finite limit at $k=0$ even if $I(0)=0$. Indeed, if $I(0)=0$, then $f(0)=0$ and one can prove that the function $\frac{k}{Im\,I(k)} \frac{1}{k^2}$ is bounded. Thus the validity of the claim is verified.
The Riemann problem (12.7) can be solved analytically: $\ln h_+ (k) - \ln h_-(k) = \ln g(k)$ and since $h_+(k)$ and $h_-(k)$ do not vanish in $\overline{\C}_+$ and $\overline{\C}_-$ respectively, $\ln h_+(k)$ and $\ln h_-(k)$ are analytic in $\C_+$ and $\C_-$ respectively. Therefore $$h(k) = exp \left( \frac{1}{2 \pi i}
\int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{\ln g(t)}{t-k} \,dt\right),
\tag{12.10}$$ $$h(k) = h_+(k)\quad \hbox{if}\quad Im\, k>0,
\quad h(k) = h_-(k) \quad\hbox{if}\quad Im \,k<0,
\tag{12.11}$$ and $$f(k) = w(k)h(k), \quad Im \,k \geq 0.
\tag{12.12}$$
Finally, let us explain how to find $k_j$ and $J$ given $I(k)$.
From (11.1) it follows that $$\frac{1}{2\pi} \int^\infty_{-\infty} (I(k) -ik)e^{-ikt}\, dk
= -\sum^J_{j=1}
r_je^{k_jt} -\frac{r_0}{2}\quad \hbox{for}\quad t<0.
\tag{12.13}$$
Taking $t \to -\infty$ in (12.13) one can find step by step the numbers $r_0$, $k_1$, $r_1$, $ k_2$, $r_2\dots$, $ r_J$, $k_J$. If $I(0) < \infty$, then $r_0 =0$.
Remarks.
========
Representation of the products of the solution to (1.1)
-------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we follow [@Lt2]. Consider equation (1.1) with $q=q_j$, $j=1,2$. The function $u(x,y) := \varphi_1 (x,k) \varphi_2 (y,k)$ where $\varphi_j$, $j=1,2$, satisfy the first two conditions (1.4), solves the problem $$\left[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} - q_1(x)\right]u (x,y) =
\left[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} - q_2 (y)\right] u(x,y),
\tag{13.1}$$ $$u(0,y) =0, \quad u_x(0,y) = \varphi_2 (y,k),
\tag{13.2}$$ $$u(x,0) =0, \quad u_y (x,0) = \varphi_1(x,k).
\tag{13.3}$$
Let us write (13.1) as $$\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}
- \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}
\right) u(x,y) = [q_1(x) - q_2(y)] u(x,y)
\tag{13.4}$$ and use the known D’Alembert’s formula to solve (13.3)-(13.4): $$u(x,y) = \frac{1}{2} \int_{D_{xy}} [q_1(s) - q_2(t)]
u(s,t)\, ds\,dt
+ \frac{1}{2}\int^{x+y}_{x-y} \varphi_1(s)\, ds,
\tag{13.5}$$ where $D_{xy}$ is the triangle $0<t<y$, $ x-y+t < s < x+y-t$.
Function (13.5) satifies (13.3) and (13.1). Equation (13.5) is uniquely solvable by iterations: $$u(x,y) = \sum^\infty_{m=0} u_m (x,y),
\quad u_0 (x,y) := \frac{1}{2}
\int^{x+y}_{x-y} \varphi_1 (s,x)\,ds,
\tag{13.6}$$ $$u_{m+1} (x,y) = \frac{1}{2}
\int_{D_{xy}}[q_1(s)-q_2(t)] u_m(s,t)\,ds\,dt.
\tag{13.7}$$ Note that $$u_m(x,y) = \frac{1}{2} \int^{x+y}_{x-y} w_m(x,y,s) \varphi_1(s)\,ds.
\tag{13.8}$$
If $m=0$ this is clear from (13.6). If it is true for some $m>0$, then it is true for $m+1$: $$\begin{align}
u_{m+1} (x,y) &= \frac{1}{2}
\int^y_0 dt \int^{x+y-t}_{x-y+t}\, ds
[q_1(s)-q_2 (t)] \frac{1}{2}
\int^{s+t}_{s-t} w_m(s,t \sigma) \varphi_1(\sigma)\,d\sigma
\notag \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int^y_0 \,dt
\int^{x+y}_{x-y} d\sigma\varphi_1 (\sigma)
\widetilde{w}_m (x,y,t,\sigma)
\tag{13.9}\\
& = \frac{1}{2} \int^{x+y}_{x-y}\,d\sigma \varphi_1 (\sigma)
w_{m+1} (x,y, \sigma),
\notag \end{align}
\notag$$
where $\widetilde{w}_m$ and $w_{m+1}$ are some functions.
Thus, by induction, one gets (13.8) for all $m$, and (13.6) implies $$u(x,y) = \frac{1}{2}
\int^{x+y}_{x-y} w(x,y,s) \varphi_1 (s)\, ds,
\tag{13.10}$$ where $$w(x,y,s) := \sum^\infty_{m=0} w_m (x,y,s).
\tag{13.11}$$ To satisfy (13.2) one has to satisfy the equations: $$\begin{align}
0&= \int^y_{-y} w (0,y,s) \varphi_1 (s,k) \,ds,
\notag\\
\varphi _2 (y,k)& = \frac{1}{2} [w(0,y,y) \varphi_1(y) - w(0,y,-y)
\varphi_1 (-y)]
\tag{13.12}\\
&\quad + \frac{1}{2} \int^y_{-y} w_x (0,y,s) \varphi_1 (s) \,ds.
\notag\end{align}
\notag$$ Formula (13.10) yields $$\varphi_1 (x,k) \varphi_2 (y,k) = \frac{1}{2} \int^{x+y}_{x-y} w(x,y,s)
\varphi_1 (s,k) \,ds.
\tag{13.13}$$ If $x=y$, then $$\varphi_1(x,k) \varphi_2 (x,k) = \frac{1}{2}
\int^{2x}_0 w(x,x,s) \varphi_1(s,k)\,ds.
\tag{13.14}$$ Therefore, if $$\int^a_0 h(x) \varphi_1 (x,k) \varphi_2 (x,k)\,dx = 0
\quad \forall k>0,
\notag$$ then $$\begin{align}
0&= \int^a_0 h(x) \int^{2x}_0 w(x,x,s) \varphi_1 (s,k)\,ds\,dx
\notag\\
&= \int^{2a}_0\, ds
\varphi_1(s,k) \int^a_{\frac{s}{2}}\, dx h(x) w(x,x,s)
\quad \forall k>0.
\notag\end{align}$$ Since the set $\{\varphi_1(s,k)\}_{\forall k>0}$ is complete in $L^2(0,2a)$, it follows that $0= \int^a_{\frac{s}{2}}\, dx h(x) w(x,x,s)$ for all $s\in[0,2a]$. Differentiate with respect to $s$ and get $$w\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2},s\right)
\frac{1}{2}h \left( \frac{s}{2} \right)
- \int^a_{\frac{s}{2}}\, ds h(x) w_s (x,x,s)=0.
\tag{13.15}$$
From Volterra equation (13.15) it follows $h(x)=0$ if the kernel $w_s(x,x,s) w^{-1}\left( \frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2},s\right) := t(x,s)$ is summable. From the definition (13.11) of $w$ it follows that if $\int^b_0 |q(x)|\, dx < \infty$ $\forall b>0$, then $w_s(x,y,s)$ is summable. The function $w(x,y,s)$ has $m$ summable derivatives with respect to $x,y$ and $s$ if $q(x)$ has $m-1$ summable derivatives. Thus one can derive from (13.15) that $h(x)=0$ if $w\left( \frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2},s \right)>0$ for all $s\in[0,2a]$.
If the boundary conditions at $x=0$ are different, for example, $\varphi_j^\prime (0,k) - h_0 \varphi_j (0,k) =0$, $j=1,2,$ then conditions $$u_x - h_0 u \big|_{x=0} =0, \quad u_y - h_0 u \big|_{y=0} =0, \quad
h_0 = const>0
\tag{13.16}$$ replace the first conditions (13.2) and (13.3). One can normalize $\varphi_j(x,k)$ by setting $$\varphi_j (0,k) =1.
\tag{13.17}$$ Then $$\varphi^\prime_j (0,k) = h_0,
\tag{13.18}$$ $$u(0,y) = \varphi_2(y,k), \quad u(x,0) = \varphi_1(x,k),
\tag{13.19}$$ $$u_x (0,k) = h_0 \varphi_2 (y,k), \quad u_y (x,0) = h_0 \varphi_1 (x,k),
\tag{13.20}$$ and (13.5) is replaced by $$\begin{align}
u(x,y) &= \frac{1}{2} \int_{D_{xy}} [q_1 (s)-q_2 (t)] u(s,t)\, ds\,dt
\notag\\
&+ \frac{1}{2}
\int^{x+y}_{x-y} h_0 \varphi_1(s,k) ds + \frac{1}{2} [\varphi_1 (x+y,k) +
\varphi_1(x-y,k)].
\tag{13.21}\end{align}
\notag$$ Note that $$\frac{1}{2} [\varphi_1(x+y)+\varphi_1(x-y)]
= \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \int^{x+y}_{x-y}\varphi_1 (s)\,ds
= \frac{1}{2} \int^{x+y}_{x-y} \varphi_s (s)\, ds.
\tag{13.22}$$ Equation (13.21) is uniquely solvable by iterations, as above, and its solution is given by the first formula (13.6) with $$u_0 (x,y) = \frac{h_0}{2} \int^{x+y}_{x-y} \varphi_1 (s,k)\,ds
+ \frac{1}{2}\int^{x+y}_{x-y} \varphi_{1s}(s,k)\,ds.
\tag{13.23}$$
The rest of the argument is as above: one proves existence and uniqueness of the solution to equation (13.21) and the analog of formula (13.10): $$u(x,y) = \frac{1}{2} \int^{x+y}_{x-y} w(x,y,s) \Phi (s) \,ds,
\quad\Phi := h_0 \varphi_1 (s,k) + \varphi_{1s} (s,k).
\tag{13.24}$$
Thus $$u(x,x) = \varphi_1(x,k) \varphi_2 (x,k)
= \int^{2x}_0 t(x,s) [h_0 \varphi_1 (s,k) + \varphi _{1s} (s,k)]\,ds,
\tag{13.25}$$ where $$t(x,s) := \frac{1}{2} w(x,x,s),
\tag{13.26}$$ and $t(x,s)$ is summable.
Thus, as before, completeness of the set of products $\{\varphi_1 (x,k) \varphi_2 (x,k)\}_{\forall k>0}$ can be studied.
Characterization of Weyl’s solutions
------------------------------------
The standard definition of Weyl’s solution to (1.1) is given by (2.2).
In [@M1] it is proved that $$W(x,k) = e^{ikx} (1+ o(1))\quad \hbox{as}\quad |k| \to \infty,
\quad |x| \leq b, \quad k^2 \in \Delta,
\tag{13.27}$$ where $\Delta :=\{\lambda :|Im\,\lambda|>\varepsilon$, $dist(\lambda, S)>\varepsilon\}$, $$S := \R \cup [i\gamma_-, i\gamma_+],
\quad \gamma_{\pm} :=
\operatorname*{inf}_{\substack{u\in H^1(\R_\pm) \\u(0)=0} }
\pm\int^{\pm\infty}_0
[u^{\prime 2} + q|u|^2]\,dx.
\tag{13.28}$$
The relation (13.27) gives a definition of the Weyl solution by its behavior on compact sets in the $x$-space as $|k| \to \infty$, as opposite to (2.2), where $k$ is fixed, and $x \to \infty$. For multidimensional Schrödinger equation similar definition was proposed in [@R p.356, problem 8].
We want to derive (13.27) for potentials in $L_{1,1}(\R_+)$ and for $k>0, \, k\to +\infty$.
The idea is simple. For any $q=\overline{q} \in L^1_{loc} (\R_+)$, one can construct $\varphi (x,k)$ and $\psi (x,k)$, the solutions to (1.1) and (1.4), for any $|x| \leq b$, where $b>0$ is an arbitrary large fixed number, by solving the Volterra equations $$\varphi (x,k) = \frac{\sin (kx)}{k}
+ \int^x_0 \frac{\sin[k(x-y)]}{k} q(y) \varphi (y,k) \,dy
\tag{13.29}$$ $$\psi (x,k) = \cos(kx) + \int^x_0 \frac{\sin [k(x-y)]}{k}
q(y)\psi(y,k)\,dy.
\tag{13.30}$$
One can also write an equation for the Weyl solution $W$: $$W (x,k) = \cos(kx) + m(k) \frac{\sin(kx)}{k}
+ \int^x_0 \frac{\sin[k(x-y)]}{k}
q(y) W(y,k)\,dy.
\tag{13.31}$$ This equation is uniquely solvable by iterations for $|x| \leq b$.
It is known that $$m(k) = ik + o(1), \quad |k| \to \infty,
\quad Imk >\varepsilon|Rek|, \quad \varepsilon>0.
\tag{13.32}$$ For $q\in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$ the above formula holds when $k>0, k\to +\infty$. From (13.31) and (13.32) one gets, assuming $k>0$, $$W(x,k) = e^{ikx} \left(1 + O\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)\right)
+ \int^x_0 \frac{\sin[k(x-y)]}{k} q(y) W(y,k) \,dy.
\tag{13.33}$$ Solving (13.33) by iterations yields (13.27) for $k>0, k\to +\infty$. For $q\in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$ the Weyl solution is the Jost solution. Therefore the above result for $k>0, k\to +\infty$ is just the standard asymptotics for the Jost solution. It would be of interest to generalize the above approach to the case of complex $k$ in the region (13.27).
One can look for an asymptotic representation of the solution to (1.1) for large $|k|$, $Imk >\varepsilon|Re\,k|$, $\varepsilon>0$, of the following form: $$u(x,k) = e^{ikx+\int^x_0 \sigma (t,k)\,dt},
\tag{13.34}$$ where $$\sigma^\prime + 2ik \sigma + \sigma^2 - q(x) = 0,
\quad \sigma = \frac{q(x)}{2ik}
+ o\left(\frac{1}{k}\right), \quad |k| \to \infty.
\tag{13.35}$$
From (13.34) one finds, assuming $q(x)$ continuous at $x=0$, $$\frac{u^\prime(0,k)}{u(0,k)} = ik + \frac{q(0)}{2ik}
+ o\left(\frac{1}{k}\right),
\qquad |k|\to\infty,\qquad k\in \C_+.
\tag{13.36}$$ If $q(x)$ has $n$ derivatives, more terms of the asymptotics can be written (see [@M p.55]).
Representation of the Weyl function via the Green function
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Green function of the Dirichlet operator $L_q=-\frac{d^2}{dx^2} +q(x)$ in $L^2(\R_+)$ can be written as: $$G(x,y,z)= \varphi(y,\sqrt{z}) W(x,\sqrt{z}),\quad x\geq y
\tag{13.37}$$ where $\varphi(x,k)$, $k:=\sqrt{z}$, solves (1.1) and satisfies the first two conditions (1.4), and $W(x,\sqrt{z})$ is the Weyl solution (2.2), which satisfies the conditions: $$W(0,\sqrt{z})=1,\qquad W^\prime(0,\sqrt{z})=m(\sqrt{z}).
\tag{13.38}$$
From (1.4), (13.37) and (13.38) it follows that: $$\frac{\partial^2 G(x,y,k)}{\partial x \partial y}
\Big|_{x=y=0} =m(k).
\tag{13.39}$$
If $q\in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$ then $W(x,k)=\frac{f(x,k)}{f(k)}$, where $f(x,k)$ is the Jost solution (1.3), $k\in\C_+$. Note that (13.17) and (13.38) imply: $$\frac{1}{\pi} Im\, G(x,y,\lambda+i0)
=\frac{\varphi (x,\sqrt{\lambda})\varphi(y,\sqrt{\lambda})}{\pi}
Im\,m(\sqrt{\lambda+i0})
\tag{13.40}$$ and $$G(x,y,z)=\int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{\theta(x,y,t)}{t-z}\,d\rho(t),
\qquad \theta(x,y,t)=\varphi(x,\sqrt{t}) \varphi(y,\sqrt{t}).
\tag{13.41}$$ Thus $$\frac{1}{\pi} Im\,G(x,y,t+i0)dt=\theta(x,y,t) d\rho(t).
\tag{13.42}$$ From (13.42) and (13.40) one gets, assuming $\rho(-\infty)=0$, $$\rho(t)=\frac{1}{\pi} \int^t_{-\infty} Im\,m(\sqrt{\lambda+i0})\,d\lambda.
\tag{13.43}$$
If $\lambda<0$ then $Im\,m\left( \sqrt{\lambda+i0} \right)=0$ except at the points $\lambda=-k^2_j$ at which $f(ik_j)=0$, so that $m( \sqrt{-k^2_j+i0})=\infty$. Thus, if $t$ and $a$ are continuity points of $\rho(t)$, then $$\rho(t)-\rho(a)=\frac{1}{\pi} \int^t_a Im\,m(\sqrt{\lambda +i0})
\,d\lambda, \qquad a\geq 0.
\tag{13.44}$$ Let us recall the Stieltjes inversion formula:
If $z=\sigma+ i\tau$, $\tau>0$, $\rho(t)$ is a function of bounded variation on $\R$, $$\varphi(z):=\int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{d\rho(t)}{t-z},
\tag{13.45}$$ and if $a$ and $b$ are continuity points of $\rho(t)$, then $$\frac{1}{\pi} \int^b_a Im\,\varphi(\lambda+i0)\,d\lambda
=\rho(b)-\rho(a).
\tag{13.46}$$ Therefore (13.44) implies $$m(\sqrt{z})=\int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{d\rho(t)}{t-z}.
\tag{13.47}$$
The spectral function $d\rho(t)$ does not have a bounded variation globally, on the whole real axis, and integral (13.47) diverges in the classical sense. We want to reduce it to a convergent integral by subtracting the classically divergent part of it.
If $q(x)=0$, then $\rho:=\rho_0(t)$ for $t<0$, $m(\sqrt{\lambda})=i\sqrt{\lambda}$, and formula (13.44) with $a=0$ yields $$\rho_0(\lambda)=\frac{2\lambda^{\frac{3}{2}}}{3\pi}.
\tag{13.48}$$ If $q(x)=0$ then $G(x,y,\lambda)=\frac{\sin (\sqrt{\lambda}y)
}{\sqrt{\lambda}}
\,e^{i\sqrt{\lambda}x},\qquad y\leq x$, so (13.39) yields $m(\sqrt{\lambda})=i\sqrt{\lambda}$. Formula (13.47) yields formally $$i\sqrt{\lambda}=\frac{1}{\pi} \int^\infty_0 \frac{\sqrt{t}\,dt}{t-\lambda}.
\tag{13.49}$$ This integral diverges from the classical point of view. Let us interpret (13.49) as follows. Let $Im\,\lambda>0$. Differentiate (13.49) formally and get $$\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\lambda}} =\frac{1}{\pi} \int^\infty_0
\frac{\sqrt{t}\,dt}{(t-\lambda)^2},\qquad Im\,\lambda>0.
\tag{13.50}$$ This is an identity, so (13.49) can be interpreted as an integral from $0$ to $\lambda$ of (13.50). The integral $\int^\infty_0 t^{-\frac{1}{2}} dt$ which one obtains in the process of integration, is interpreted as zero, as an integral of a hyperfunction or Hadamard finite part integral.
Subtract from (13.47) the divergent part (13.49) and get: $$m(\sqrt{z})-i\sqrt{z}=\int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{d\sigma(t)}{t-z},
\tag{13.47'}$$ where $$d\sigma(\lambda)=d\rho(\lambda)-d\rho_0(\lambda),
\qquad d\rho_0(\lambda):=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\sqrt{\lambda} d\lambda}{\pi}, & \lambda\geq 0,\\
0,& \lambda<0.\end{cases}
\tag{13.47"}$$ Integral (13.47’) converges in the classical sense if $q\in L_{1,1}(\R_+)$. Indeed, by (2.5) and (13.47") one has $d\sigma (t)=\frac {\sqrt{t}}{\pi}(\frac
1{|f(\sqrt{t}|^2)}-1)dt$. By (5.65) one has $f(\sqrt{t})=1+O(\frac 1{\sqrt{t}})$ as $t\to +\infty$. Thus $d\sigma(t)=O(\frac 1{\sqrt{t}})dt$ as $t\to +\infty$. Therefore integral (13.47’) converges in the classical sense, absolutely, if $Im z\neq 0$, otherwise it converges in the sense of the Cauchy principal value.
Let us write (11.1) as $$m(k)-ik= \int^\infty_{-\infty} e^{ikt}
\left[ -\sum^J_{j=0} r_j e^{k_jt} H(-t) +a(t)H(t) \right]\,dt,
\qquad H(t)=\begin{cases} 1, & t\geq 0, \\ 0,&t<0.\end{cases}
\tag{13.51}$$
From (13.51) and (13.47’) one gets $$\int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{d\sigma(s)}{s-\lambda}
=\int^\infty_{-\infty} e^{ikt} \alpha(t)\,dt,
\qquad \lambda=k^2+i0,
\tag{13.52}$$ where $$\alpha(t):= -\sum^J_{j=0} r_j e^{k_jt} H(-t)+a(t)H(t).
\tag{13.53}$$ Taking the inverse Fourier transform of (13.52) one can find $\alpha(t)$ in terms of $\sigma(s)$. If $k>0$ then $k=\sqrt {k^2+i0}$ and if $k<0$ then $k=\sqrt {k^2-i0}$. Thus: $$\alpha(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}
\int^\infty_{-\infty} dk\, e^{-ikt}
\int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{d\sigma(s)}{s-k^2-i0}$$ $$=-\frac{1}{2\pi} \int^\infty_{-\infty} d\sigma(s)
[ \int^\infty_{0} dk\,\frac{e^{-ikt}}{k^2+i0-s}+
\int^0_{-\infty} dk\,\frac{e^{-ikt}}{k^2-i0-s} ].
\tag{13.54}$$ Let us calculate the interior integral in the right-hand side of the above formula. One has to consider two cases: $s>0$ and $s<0$. Assume first that $s>0$. Then $$\int^\infty_{0} dk\,\frac{e^{-ikt}}{k^2+i0-s}+
\int^0_{-\infty} dk\,\frac{e^{-ikt}}{k^2-i0-s}
= \int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{e^{-ikt} dk}{k^2-s}+
i\pi\Biggl[\int^\infty_{0} e^{-ikt}\delta (k^2-s) dk-$$ $$-\int^{-\infty}_{0}
e^{-ikt}\delta (k^2-s) dk \Biggl]
=-\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{s}} \sin(\sqrt{s}t)H(s)+J,
\tag{13.55}$$ where $$J:=\int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{e^{-ikt} dk}{k^2-s}.$$ If $s<0$, then $$J= \frac{\pi}{ \sqrt{|s|}}e^{-\sqrt{|s|}|t|}.
\tag{13.56}$$ If $s>0$, then $$J =-\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{s}} \sin (|t|\sqrt{s}).
%\begin{cases}
% \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{|s|}} e^{-t\sqrt{|s|} }, & t>0,\quad s<0, \\
% \frac{\pi }{\sqrt{|s|}} e^{ t\sqrt{|s|} }, & t<0,\quad
%s<0.\end{cases}
\tag{13.57}$$ From (13.54)-(13.57) one gets $$\alpha(t)= \int^\infty_0 d\sigma(s)
\frac{\sin(t\sqrt{s}) }{\sqrt{s}} H(t)
-\frac{1}{2} \int^0_{-\infty}
\frac{d\sigma(s)}{\sqrt{|s|}}
e^{-|t|\sqrt{|s|}}.
\tag{13.58}$$ Formula (13.58) agrees with (13.53): the second integral in (13.58) for $t>0$ is an $L^1(\R_+)$ function, while for $t<0$ it reduces to the sum in (13.53) because $d\sigma(s)=d\rho(s)$ for $s<0$, $d\rho(s)$ for $s<0$ is given by formula (2.5) and the relation between $c_j$ and $r_j$ is given by formula (2.7).
[LLLLLL]{}
Airapetyan, R., Ramm, A. G., Smirnova, A. B. \[1999\] Example of two different potentials which have practically the same fixed-energy phase shifts, Phys. Lett. A., 254, N3-4, pp.141-148.
Borg, G. \[1946\] Eine Umkehrung der Sturm-Liouvilleschen Eigenwertaufgabe, Acta Math., 78, N1, pp. 1-96.
Chadan, K., Sabatier, P. \[1989\] Inverse problems in quantum scattering theory, Publisher Springer-Verlag, New York.
Del Rio, R., Gesztesy, F., Simon, B. \[1997\] Inverse spectral analysis with partial information on the potential III, Int. Math. Res. Notices, 15, pp.751-758.
Denisov, A. \[1994\] Introduction to the theory of inverse problems, Moscow Univ., Moscow.
Gakhov, F. \[1966\] Boundary value problems, Publisher Pergamon Press, New York.
Gradshteyn, I., Ryzhik, I. \[1985\] Tables of integrals series and products, Publisher Acad. Press, New York.
Gelfand, I., Raikov, D., Shilov, G. \[1964\] Commutative normed rings, Publisher Chelsea, New York.
Gesztesy, F., Simon, B., \[1998\] A new approach to inverse spectral theory II, (1998 preprint).
Levin, B. \[1980\] Distribution of zeros of entire functions, AMS Transl. vol.5, Providence, RI.
Levitan, B. \[1987\] Inverse Sturm-Liouville problems, Publisher VNU Press, Utrecht.
Levitan, B. \[1964\] Generalized translation operators, Jerusalem.
Levitan, B. \[1994\] On the completeness of the products of solutions of two Sturm-Liouville equations, Diff. and Integr. Eq., 7, N1, pp.1-14.
Marchenko, V. \[1986\] Sturm-Liouville operators and applications, Publisher Birkhüser, Boston.
Marchenko, V. \[1994\] Characterization of the Weyl’s solutions, Lett. Math-Phys, 31, pp.179-193.
Newton, R. \[1982\] Scattering theory of waves and particles, Publisher Springer-Verlag, New York.
Ramm, A. G. \[1992\] Multidimensional inverse scattering problems, Publisher Longman Scientific & Wiley, New York, pp.1-379. \[1994\] Expanded Russian edition, Mir, Moscow, pp.1-496.
Property C for ODE and applications to inverse scattering, Zeit. fuer Angew. Analysis, 18, N2, pp.331-348.
Recovery of the potential from I-function, Math. Reports of the Acad. of Sci., Canada, 9, pp.177-182.
A new approach to the inverse scattering and spectral problems for the Sturm-Liouville equation, Ann. der Phys., 7, N4, pp.321-338.
Inverse problem for an inhomogeneous Schroedinger equation, Jour. Math. Phys., 40, N8, (1999), 3876-3880.
Recovery of compactly supported spherically symmetric potentials from the phase shift of s-wave, In the book: Spectral and scattering theory, Plenum publishers, New York, (ed. A.G.Ramm), pp.111-130.
Inverse scattering problem with part of the fixed-energy phase shifts, Comm. Math. Phys., 207, N1, (1999), 231-247.
Stability estimates in inverse scattering, Acta Appl. Math., 28, N1, pp.1-42.
Characterization of the scattering data in multidimensional inverse scattering problem, in the book: “Inverse Problems: An Interdisciplinary Study." Publisher Acad. Press, New York, pp.153-167. (Ed. P.Sabatier).
On completeness of the products of harmonic functions, Proc. A.M.S., 99, pp.253-256.
Completeness of the products of solutions to PDE and uniqueness theorems in inverse scattering, Inverse problems, 3, pp.L77-L82
Recovery of the potential from fixed energy scattering data, Inverse Problems, 4, pp.877-886; 5, (1989) p.255.
Multidimensional inverse problems and completeness of the products of solutions to PDE, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 134, 1, pp.211-253; 139, (1989) 302.
Completeness of the products of solutions of PDE and inverse problems, Inverse Probl.6, pp.643-664.
Necessary and sufficient condition for a PDE to have property C, J. Math. Anal. Appl.156, pp.505-509.
Symmetry properties for scattering amplitudes and applications to inverse problems, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 156, pp.333-340.
Stable solutions of some inverse and ill-posed problems, Math. Meth. in appl. Sci. 3, pp.336-363.
Random fields estimation theory, Publisher Longman Scientific and Wiley, New York.
Some theorems on equations with parameters in Banach spaces, Doklady Acad. Sci. Azerb. SSR, 22, pp.3-6.
Inverse scattering on half-line, J. Math. Anal. Appl.,133, N2, pp.543-572.
Ramm, A. G., Arredondo, J. H., Izquierdo, B. G., \[1998\] Formula for the radius of the support of the potential in terms of the scattering data, Jour. of Phys. A, 31, N1, pp. L39-L44.
Ramm, A. G., Porru, G., \[1996\] Completeness and non-completeness results for the set of products of solutions to differential equations, Applicable Analysis, 60, pp.241-249.
Ramm, A. G., Scheid, W., \[1999\] An approximate method for solving inverse scattering problem with fixed-energy data, Journ. of Inverse and Ill-Posed Probl., 7, N6
Ramm, A. G., Smirnova, A., \[2000\] A numerical method for solving the inverse scattering problem with fixed-energy phase shifts, Journ. of Inverse and Ill-Posed Probl., 8 (to appear).
Rudin, W. \[1974\] Real and complex analysis, Publisher McGraw Hill, New York.
Rundell, W., Sacks, P. \[1992\] Reconstruction techniques for classical Sturm-Liouville problems, Math. Comput., 58, pp.161-183.
Volk, V. \[1953\] On inverse formulas for a differiential equation with a singularily at $x=0$, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 8, N4, pp.141-151.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this short review of Doubly Special Relativity I describe first the relations between DSR and (quantum) gravity. Then I show how, in the case of a field theory with curved momentum space, the Hopf algebra of symmetries naturally emerges. I conclude with some remarks concerning DSR phenomenology and description of open problems.'
author:
- |
J. Kowalski–Glikman[^1]\
Institute for Theoretical Physics\
University of Wroclaw\
Pl. Maxa Borna 9\
Pl–50-204 Wroclaw, Poland
title: 'Doubly Special Relativity: facts and prospects'
---
Introduction: What is DSR?
==========================
The definition of Doubly Special Relativity (DSR) (Amelino-Camelia, 2001 and 2002, see Kowalski-Glikman, 2005 for review) is deceptively simple. Recall that Special Relativity is based on two postulates: Relativity Principle for inertial observers and the existence of a single observer independent scale associated with velocity of light. In this DSR replaces the second postulate by assuming existence of [*two*]{} observer independent scales: the old one of velocity plus the scale of mass (or of momentum, or of energy). That’s it.
Adding new postulate has consequences, however. The most immediate on is the question: what does the second observer–independent scale mean physically? Before trying to answer this question, let us recall the concept of an observer–independent scale. It can be easily understood, when contrasted with the notion of dimensionful coupling constant, like Planck constant $\hbar$ or gravitational constant $G$. What is their status in relativity? Do they transform under Lorentz transformation? Well, naively, one would think that they should because they are given by dimensional quantities. But of course they do not. The point is that there is a special operational definition of these quantities. Namely each observer, synchronized with all the other observers, by means of the standard Einstein synchronization procedure, measures their values in an identical quasi–static experiment in her own reference frame (like Cavendish experiment). Then the relativity principle assures that the numerical value of such a constant will turn out to be the same in all experiments (the observers could check the validity of relativity principle by comparing values they obtained in their experiments). With an observer independent scale the situation is drastically different. Like the speed of light it cannot be measured in quasi-static experiments; all the observers now measure a quantity associated with a single object (in Special Relativity, all the observers could find out what the speed of light is just by looking at the same single photon.)
Now DSR postulates presence of the second observer–independent scale. What is the physical object that carries this scale, like the photon carrying the scale of velocity of light? We do not know. One can speculate that black hole remnants will do, but to understand them we need, presumably, the complete theory of quantum gravity. Fortunately, there is another way one can think of the observer–independent scale. If such a scale is present in the theory, and since, as explained above, it is operationally defined in terms of experiments, in which one physical object is observed by many distinct observers, who all measure the same value of the scale, it follows that the scale must appear as a parameter in the transformation rules, relating observers to each other. For example velocity of light is present as a parameter in Lorentz transformations. If we have a theory of spacetime with two observer independent scales, both should appear in the transformations. As an example one can contemplate the following form of infinitesimal action of Lorentz generators, rotations $M_i$ and boosts $N_i$ satisfying the standard Lorentz algebra, on momenta (so called DSR1), with the scale of mass $\kappa$ $$[M_i, P_j] = \epsilon_{ijk} P_k, \quad [M_i, P_0] =0$$ $$\left[N_{i}, {P}_{j}\right] = \delta_{ij}
\left( {1\over 2} \left(
1 -e^{-2{P_0}/\kappa}
\right) + {{\mathbf{P}^2}\over 2\kappa} \right) - \frac1\kappa\, P_{i}P_{j},\nonumber$$ $$\label{1}
\left[N_{i},P_0\right] = P_{i}.$$ This algebra is a part of $\kappa$-Poincaré quantum algebra, see Majid and Ruegg, 1994. One can also imagine a situation in which the scale $\kappa$ appears not in the rotational, but in the translational sector of the modified, deformed Poincaré group.
One may think of the second scale also in terms of synchronization of observers. Recall that the velocity of light scale is indispensable in Special Relativity because it provides the only meaningful way of synchronizing different observers. However this holds for spacetime measurements (lengths and time intervals) only. To define momenta and energy, one must relate them to velocities. On the other hand, using the momentum scale, one could, presumably, make both the spacetime and momentum space synchronization, independently, and perhaps could even describe the phase space as a single entity. Thus it seems that in DSR the primary concept would be the phase space not the configuration one.
In the limit when the second scale is very large (or very small depending on how the theory is constructed) the new theory should reduce to the old one, for example when the second scale $\kappa$ of DSR goes to infinity, DSR should reduce to Special Relativity. Putting it another way we can think of DSR as some sort of deformation of SR. Following this understanding some researchers would translate the acronym DSR to Deformed Special Relativity. But of course, deformation requires a deformation scale, so even semantically both terms are just equivalent, just stressing different aspects of DSR. Note that in addition to the modified, deformed algebra of spacetime symmetries, like the one in eq.(\[1\]), the theory is to be equipped with an additional structure(s), so as to make sure that its algebra cannot be reduced to the standard algebra of spacetime symmetries of Special Relativity, by rearrangement of generators. Only in such a case DSR will be physically different from Special Relativity.
In the framework of DSR we want to understand if there are any modifications to the standard particle kinematics as described by Special Relativity, at very high energies, of order of Planck scale. The motivation is both phenomenological and theoretical. First there are indications from observations of cosmic rays carrying energy higher than GZK cutoff that the standard Special relativistic kinematics might be not an appropriate description of particle scatterings at energies of order of $10^{20}\, eV$ (in the laboratory frame). Similar phenomenon, the violation of the corresponding cutoff predicted by the standard Special Relativistic kinematics for ultra-high energy photons seems also to be observed. It should be noted however that in both these cases we do not really control yet all the relevant astrophysical details of the processes involved (for example in the case of cosmic rays we do not really know what are the sources, though it it is hard to believe that they are not at the cosmological distances.) The extended discussion of these issues can be found, for example, in Aloisio [*et.al.*]{}, 2005. If violation of the GZK cutoff is confirmed, and if indeed the sources are at the cosmological distances, this will presumably indicate the deviation from Lorentz kinematics. One of the major goals of DSR is to work out the robust theoretical predictions, concerning magnitude of such effects. I will briefly discuss the “DSR phenomenology” below.
Gravity as the origin of DSR
============================
The idea of DSR arose from the desire to describe possible deviations from the standard Lorentz kinematics on the one hand and, contrary to the Lorentz breaking schemes, to preserve the most sacred principle of physics – the relativity principle. Originally the view was that one may be forced by phenomenological data to replace Special Relativity by DSR, and then, on the basis of the latter one should construct its curved space extension, “Doubly General Relativity”. Then it has been realized that, in fact, the situation is likely to be quite opposite: DSR might be [*the*]{} correct flat space limit of gravity coupled to particles (see Amelino-Camelia [*et. al.*]{}, 2004 and Freidel [*et. al.*]{}, 2004)
We are thus facing the fundamental theoretical question: is Special Relativity indeed, as it is believed, the correct limit of (quantum) gravity in the case when spacetime is flat? From the perspective of gravity flat Minkowski spacetime is some particular configuration of gravitational field, and us such is to be described by theory of gravity. It corresponds to configurations of gravitational field in which this field vanishes. However equations governing gravitational field are differential equations and thus describe the solutions only locally. In the case of Minkowski space particle kinematics we have to do not only with (flat) gravitational field but also with particles themselves. The particles are, of course, the sources of gravitational field and even in flat space limit the trace of particles’ back reaction on spacetime might remain in the form of some global information, even if locally, away from the locations of the particle, the spacetime is flat. Of course we know that in general relativity energy-momentum of matter curves spacetime, and the strength of this effect is proportional to gravitational coupling (Newton’s constant.) Thus we are interested in the situation, in which the transition from general relativity to special relativity corresponds to smooth switching off the couplings. In principle two situations are possible (in 4 dimensions):
1. weak gravity, semiclassical limit of quantum gravity: $$\label{2}
G,\, \hbar \rightarrow 0, \quad \sqrt{\frac\hbar{G}} = \kappa \, \mbox{ remains finite}$$
2. weak gravity, small cosmological constant limit of quantum gravity: $$\label{3}
\Lambda \rightarrow 0, \quad \kappa \, \mbox{ remains finite}$$
The idea is therefore to devise a controllable transition from the full (quantum) gravity coupled to point particles to the regime, in which all local degrees of freedom of gravity are switched off. Then it is expected that locally, away from particles’ worldlines gravity will take the form of Minkowski (for $\Lambda=0$) or (Anti) De Sitter space, depending on the sign of $\Lambda$. Thus it is expected that DSR arises as a limit of general relativity coupled to point particles in the topological field theory limit. To be more explicit, consider the formulation of gravity as the constrained topological field theory, proposed in Freidel and Starodubtsev, 2005. $$S=\int \left(B_{IJ}\wedge F^{IJ}
-\frac{\alpha}{4}\, B_{IJ}\wedge B_{KL}\epsilon^{IJKL5}- \frac{\beta}{2}\, B^{IJ}\wedge B_{IJ}\right) \label{4}.$$ Here $F^{IJ}$ is the curvature of $SO(4,1)$ connection $A^{IJ}$, and $B_{IJ}$ is a two-form valued in the algebra $SO(4,1)$. The dimensionless parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are related to gravitational and cosmological constants, and Immirzi parameter. The $\alpha$ term breaks the symmetry, and for $\alpha \neq 0$ this theory is equivalent to general relativity. On the other hand there are various limits in which this theory becomes a topological one. For example, for $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ all the local degrees of freedom of gravity disappear, and only the topological ones remain. One hopes that after coupling this theory to point particles, one derives DSR in an appropriate, hopefully natural, limit. This hope is based on experience with the 2+1 dimensional case, which I will now discuss.
Gravity in 2+1 dimensions as DSR theory
=======================================
It is well known that gravity in 2+1 does not possess local degrees of freedom and is described by a topological field theory. Even in the presence of point particles with mass and spin the 2+1 dimensional spacetime is locally flat. Thus 2+1 gravity is a perfect testing ground for DSR idea. There is also a simple argument that it is not just a toy model, but can tell us something about the full 3+1 dimensional case. It goes as follows.
As argued above what we are interested in is the flat space limit of gravity (perhaps also the semiclassical one in the quantum case.) Now consider the situation when we have 3+1 gravity coupled to planar configuration of particles. When the local degrees of freedom of gravity are switched off this configuration has translational symmetry along the direction perpendicular to the plane. But now we can make the dimensional reduction and describe the system equivalently with the help of 2+1 gravity coupled to the particles. The symmetry algebra in 2+1 dimensions must be therefore a subalgebra of the full 3+1 dimensional one. Thus if we find that the former is not the 2+1 Poincaré algebra but some modification of it, the latter must be some appropriate modification of the 3+1 dimensional Poincaré algebra. Thus if DSR is relevant in 2+1 dimensions, it is likely that it is going to be relevant in 3+1 dimensions as well.
Let us consider the analog of the situation 2, listed in the previous section. We start therefore with the 2+1 gravity with positive cosmological constant. Then it is quite well well established (see for example Noui and Roche, 2003) that the excitations of $3d$ quantum gravity with cosmological constant transform under representations of the quantum deformed de Sitter algebra $SO_q(3,1)$, with $z=\ln q$ behaving in the limit of small $\Lambda \hbar^2 /\kappa^2$ as $z \approx \sqrt{\Lambda} \hbar /
\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is equal to inverse 2+1 dimensional gravitational constant, and has dimension of mass.
I will not discuss at this point the notion of quantum deformed algebras (Hopf algebras) in much details It suffices to say that quantum algebras consist of several structures, the most important for our current purposes would be the universal enveloping algebra, which could be understand as an algebra of brackets among generators, which are equal to some analytic functions of them. Thus the quantum algebra is a generalization of a Lie algebra, and it is worth observing that the former reduces to the latter in an appropriate limit. The other structures of Hopf algebras, like co-product and antipode, are also relevant in the context of DSR, and I will introduce them in the next section.
In the case of quantum algebra $SO_q(3,1)$ the algebraic part looks as follows (the parameter $z$ used below is related to $q$ by $z=\ln q$) $$\begin{aligned}
&& [M_{2,3},M_{1,3}] = {1 \over z} \sinh(z M_{1,2}) \cosh(z M_{0,3})
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{2,3},M_{1,2}] = M_{1,3}
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{2,3},M_{0,3}] = M_{0,2}
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{2,3},M_{0,2}] = {1 \over z} \sinh(z M_{0,3}) \cosh(z M_{1,2})
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{1,3},M_{1,2}] = - M_{2,3}
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{1,3},M_{0,3}] = M_{0,1}
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{1,3},M_{0,1}] = {1 \over z} \sinh(z M_{0,3}) \cosh(z M_{1,2})
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{1,2},M_{0,2}] = - M_{0,1}
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{1,2},M_{0,1}] = M_{0,2}
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{0,3},M_{0,2}] = M_{2,3}
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{0,3},M_{0,1}] = M_{1,3}
\nonumber \\
&& [M_{0,2},M_{0,1}] = {1 \over z} \sinh(z M_{1,2}) \cosh(z M_{0,3})\label{1.1}\end{aligned}$$ Observe that on the right hand sides we do not have linear functions generators, as in the Lie algebra case, but some (analytic) functions of them. However we still assume that the brackets are antisymmetric and, as it is easy to show, that Jacobi identity holds. Note that in the limit $z\rightarrow0$ the algebra (\[1.1\]) becomes the standard algebra $SO(3,1)$, and this is the reason for using the term $SO_q(3,1)$.
The $SO(3,1)$ Lie algebra is the 2+1 dimensional de Sitter algebra and it is well known how to obtain the 2+1 dimensional Poincaré algebra from it. First of all one has to single out the energy and momentum generators of right physical dimension (note that the generators $M_{\mu\nu}$ of (\[1.1\]) are dimensionless): one identifies three-momenta $P_\mu \equiv (E, P_i)$ ($\mu=1,2,3$, $i=1,2$) as appropriately rescaled generators $M_{0,\mu}$ and then one takes the Inömü–Wigner contraction limit. In the quantum algebra case, the contraction is a bit more tricky, as one has to convince oneself that after the contraction the structure one obtains is still a quantum algebra. Such contractions has been first discussed in Lukierski [*et. al.*]{}, 1991.
Let us try to contract the algebra (\[1.1\]). To this aim, since momenta are dimensionful, while the generators $M$ in (\[1.1\]) are dimensionless, we must first rescale some of the generators by an appropriate scale, provided by combination of dimensionful constants present in definition of the parameter $z$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& E = \sqrt{\Lambda}\hbar\, M_{0,3}
\nonumber \\
&& P_i = \sqrt{\Lambda}\hbar\, M_{0,i}
\nonumber \\
&& M = M_{1,2}
\nonumber \\
&& N_i = M_{i,3}
\label{1.2}\end{aligned}$$ Taking now into account the relation $z \approx \sqrt{\Lambda}
\hbar / \kappa$, which holds for small $\Lambda$, from $$[M_{2,3},M_{1,3}] = {1 \over z} \sinh(z M_{1,2}) \cosh(z M_{0,3})$$ we find $$\label{1.3}
[N_2,N_1]
= {\kappa \over \hbar \sqrt{\Lambda}} \sinh(\hbar \sqrt{\Lambda}/\kappa M)
\cosh( E/\kappa)$$ Similarly from $$[M_{0,2},M_{0,1}] = {1 \over z} \sinh(z M_{1,2}) \cosh(z M_{0,3})$$ we get $$\label{1.4}
[P_2,P_1]
= {{\sqrt{\Lambda}\hbar \kappa} }\, \sinh(\sqrt{\Lambda} \hbar / \kappa\, M)
\cosh( E/\kappa)$$ Similar substitutions can be made in other commutators of (\[1.1\]). Now going to the contraction limit $\Lambda\rightarrow0$, while keeping $\kappa$ constant we obtain the following algebra $$\begin{aligned}
&& [N_i,N_j] = - M \epsilon_{ij}\, \cosh( E/\kappa)
\nonumber \\
&& [M,N_i] = \epsilon_{ij} N^j
\nonumber \\
&& [N_i,E] = P_i
\nonumber \\
&& [N_i,P_j] = \delta_{ij}\, {\kappa}\, \sinh( E/\kappa)
\nonumber \\
&& [M,P_i] = \epsilon_{ij} P^j
\nonumber \\
&& [E,P_i] = 0
\nonumber \\
&& [P_2,P_1] = 0
\label{1.5}\end{aligned}$$ This algebra is called the three dimensional $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra (in the standard basis.)
Let us pause for a moment here to make couple of comments. First of all, one easily sees that in the limit $\kappa\rightarrow\infty$ from the $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra algebra (\[1.5\]) one gets the standard Poincaré algebra. Second, we see that in this algebra both the Lorentz and translation sectors are deformed. However, in the case of quantum algebras one is free to change the basis of generators in an arbitrary, analytic way (contrary to the case of Lie algebras, where only linear trasformations of generators are allowed.) It turns out that there exists such a change of the basis that the Lorentz part of the algebra becomes classical (i.e., undeformed.) This basis is called bicrossproduct one, and the Doubly Special Relativity model (both in 3 and 4 dimensions) based on such an algebra is called DSR1. In this basis the 2+1 dimensional $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra looks as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&& [N_i,N_j] = -\epsilon_{ij}\, M
\nonumber \\
&& [M,N_i] = \epsilon_{ij} N^j
\nonumber \\
&& [N_i,E] = P_i
\nonumber \\
&& [N_i,P_j] = \delta_{ij}\, {\kappa\over 2}
\left(
1 -e^{-2{E/ \kappa}}
+ {\vec{P}\,{}^{ 2}\over \kappa^2} \right) - \, {1\over \kappa}
P_{i}P_{j}
\nonumber \\
&& [M,P_i] = \epsilon_{ij} P^j
\nonumber \\
&& [E,P_i] = 0
\nonumber \\
&& [P_1,P_2] = 0 ~.
\label{1.6}\end{aligned}$$
The algebra (\[1.6\]) is nothing but the 2+1 dimensional analogue of the algebra (\[1\]) we started our discussion with. Thus we conclude that in the case of 2+1 dimensional quantum gravity on de Sitter space, in the flat space, i.e., vanishing cosmological constant limit the standard Poincaré algebra is replaced by (quantum) $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra.
It is noteworthy that in the remarkable paper by Freidel and Livine $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra has been also found by direct quantization of 2+1 gravity without cosmological constant, coupled to point particles, in the weak gravitational constant limit. Even though the structures obtained by them and the ones one gets from contraction are very similar, their relation remains to be understood.
Let me summarize. In 2+1 gravity (in the limit of vanishing cosmological constant) the scale $\kappa$, arises naturally. It can be also shown that instead of the standard Poincaré symmetry we have to do with the deformed algebra, with deformation scale $\kappa$.
There is one interesting and important consequence of the emergence of $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra (\[1.6\]). As in the standard case this algebra can be interpreted both as the algebra of spacetime symmetries and gauge algebra of gravity [*and*]{} the algebra of charges associated with particle (energy momentum and spin.) It easy to observe that this algebra can be interpreted as an algebra of Lorentz symmetries of momenta if the momentum space is de Sitter space of curvature $\kappa$. It can be shown that one can extend this algebra to the full phase space algebra of a point particle, by adding four (non-commutative) coordinates (see Kowalski-Glikman and Nowak, 2003.) The resulting spacetime of the particle becomes the so-called $\kappa$-Minkowski spacetime with the non-commutative structure $$\label{7}
[x_0, x_i] = - \frac1\kappa\, x_i$$ On $\kappa$-Minkowski spacetime one can built field theory, which in turn could be used to discuss phenomenological issues, mentioned in the Introduction. In the next section I will show how, in a framework of such a theory, one discovers the full power of quantum $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra.
Four dimensional field theory with curved momentum space
========================================================
As I said above $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra can be understood as an algebra of Lorentz symmetries of momenta, for the space of momenta being the curved de Sitter space, of radius $\kappa$. Let us therefore try to built the scalar field theory on such a space (see also Daszkiewicz et. al. 2005.) Usually field theory is constructed on spacetime, and then, by Fourier transform, is turned to the momentum space picture. Nothing however prevents us from constructing field theory directly on the momentum space, flat or curved. Let us see how this can be done.
Let the space of momenta be de Sitter space of radius $\kappa$ $$\label{8}
-\eta_0^2 + \eta_1^2+ \eta_2^2+ \eta_3^2+ \eta_4^2 =\kappa^2,$$ To find contact with $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra we introduce the coordinates on this space as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{\eta_0} &=& -\kappa\, \sinh \frac{P_0}\kappa - \frac{\vec{P}\,{}^2}{2\kappa}\,
e^{ \frac{P_0}\kappa} \nonumber\\
\eta_i &=& -P_i \, e^{ \frac{P_0}\kappa} \nonumber\\
{\eta_4} &=& \kappa\, \cosh \frac{P_0}\kappa - \frac{\vec{P}\,{}^2}{2\kappa}
\, e^{ \frac{P_0}\kappa}, \label{9}\end{aligned}$$ Then one can easily check that the commutators of $P_\mu$ with generators of Lorentz subgroup, $SO(3,1)$ of the full symmetry group $SO(4,1)$ of (\[8\]) form exactly the $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra (\[1\]).
In the standard, flat momentum space, case the action for free massive scalar field has the form $$\label{10}
S_0 = \int\, d^4P\, {\cal M}_0(P)\, \Phi(P)\, \Phi(-P)$$ with ${\cal M}_0(P) = P^2- m^2$ being the mass shell condition. In the case of de Sitter space of momenta we should replace ${\cal
M}_0(P)$ with some generalized mass shell condition and also modify somehow $\Phi(-P)$, because “$-P$” does not make sense on curved space.
It is rather clear what should replace ${\cal M}_0(P)$. It should be just the Casimir of the algebra (\[1\]). As a result of the presence of the scale $\kappa$, contrary to the special relativistic case, there is an ambiguity here. However since the Lorentz generators can be identified with the generators of the $SO(4,1)$ algebra of symmetries of the quadratic form (\[8\]), operating in the $\eta_0$ – $\eta_3$ sector, and leaving $\eta_4$ invariant it is natural to choose the mass shell condition to be just (rescaled) $\eta_4$, to wit $$m^2 = \kappa\, \eta_4 - \kappa^2$$ so that $$\label{11}
{\cal M}_\kappa(P) = \left( 2\kappa \sinh P_0/2\kappa\right)^2 - {\mathbf{P}^2}\, e^{P_0/\kappa} - m^2$$ Eq. (\[11\]) is the famous dispersion relation of DSR1. Notice that it implies that the momentum is bounded from above by $\kappa$, while the energy is unbounded.
Let us now turn to the “$-P$” issue. To see what is to replace it in the theory with curved momentum space let us trace the origin of it. In Special Relativity the space of momenta is flat, and equipped with the standard group of motions. The space of momenta has the distinguished point, corresponding to zero momentum. An element of translation group $g(P)$ moves this point to a point of coordinates $P$. This defines coordinates on the energy momentum space. Now we [*define*]{} the point with coordinates $S( P)$ to be the one obtained from the origin by the action of the element $g^{-1}(P)$. Since the group of translations on flat space is an abelian group with addition, $S(P) = -P$.
Now, since in the case of interest the space of momenta is de Sitter space, which is a maximally symmetric space, we can repeat exactly the same procedure. The result, however is not trivial now, to wit $$\label{12}
S(P_0) = - P_0, \quad S(P_i )= - e^{P_0/\kappa}\, P_i$$ Actually one can check that the $S$ operator is in this case nothing but the antipode of $\kappa$-Poincaré quantum algebra. Thus we can write down the action for the scalar field on curved momentum space as $$\label{13}
S_\kappa = \int\, d^4P\, {\cal M}_\kappa(P)\, \Phi(P)\, \Phi(S(P))$$
De Sitter space of momenta has the ten-dimensional group of symmetries, which can be decomposed to six “rotations” and four remaining symmetries, forming the deformed $\kappa$-Poincaré symmetry (\[1\]). We expect therefore that the action (\[13\]) should, if properly constructed, be invariant under action of this group. We will find that this is indeed a case, however the story will take an unexpected turn here: the action will turned out to be invariant under action of the [*quantum group*]{}.
Let us consider the four-parameter subgroup of symmetries, that in the standard case would correspond to spacetime translation. It is easy to see that in the standard case the translation in spacetime fields is in the one-to-one correspondence with the phase transformations of the momentum space ones. This suggests that the ten parameter group of Poincaré symmetries in space-time translates into six parameter Lorentz group plus four independent phase transformations in the momentum space, being representations of the same algebra.
Using this insight let us turn to the case at hands. Consider first the infinitesimal phase transformation in energy direction[^2] (to simplify the notation I put $\kappa=1$) $$\label{V.4}
\delta_0 \Phi(P_0, \mathbf{P}) = i \epsilon\, P_0 \Phi(P_0, \mathbf{P}),$$ where $\epsilon$ is an infinitesimal parameter. It follows that $$\delta_0 \Phi(S(P_0), S(\mathbf{P})) = i \epsilon\, S(P_0)\,
\Phi(S(P_0), S(\mathbf{P})) = -i \epsilon\, P_0\,
\Phi(S(P_0), S(\mathbf{P}))$$ and using Leibniz rule we easily see that the action is indeed invariant. Let us now consider the phase transformation in the momentum direction. Assume that in this case $$\label{V.5}
\delta_i \Phi(P_0, \mathbf{P}) = i \epsilon\, P_i\, \Phi(P_0, \mathbf{P}).$$ But then $$\delta_i \Phi(S(P_0), S(\mathbf{P})) = i \epsilon\, S(P_i)\, \Phi(S(P_0), S(\mathbf{P})) =$$ $$-i \epsilon \, e^{P_0}\, P_i\, \Phi(S(P_0), S(\mathbf{P}))$$ and the action is not invariant, if we apply Leibniz rule.
The way out of this problem is to replace the Leibniz rule by the co-product one. To this end we take $$\delta_i\left\{ \Phi(P_0, \mathbf{P}) \Phi(S(P_0),
S(\mathbf{P})) \right\}
\equiv$$ $$\delta_i\left\{ \Phi(P_0, \mathbf{P})\right\} \Phi(S(P_0),
S(\mathbf{P}))
+ \left\{e^{-P_0} \Phi(P_0, \mathbf{P})\right\}\,
\delta_i\left\{\Phi(S(P_0), S(\mathbf{P})) \right\} =0%\label{V.6}$$ i.e., we generalize Leibniz rule by multiplying $\Phi(P_0, \mathbf{P})$ in the second term by $e^{-P_0}$. Note that such definition is consistent with the fact that the fields are commuting, because $$\delta_i\left( \Phi(S(P_0), S(\mathbf{P})) \Phi(P_0, \mathbf{P}) \right) =$$ $$\left( i \epsilon\, S( P_i) + i \epsilon\, e^{-S(P_0)}\, P_i\right)\Phi(S(P_0),
S(\mathbf{P})) \Phi(P_0, \mathbf{P}) =0.$$ We see therefore that in order to make the action invariant with respect to infinitesimal phase transformations one must generalize the standard Leibniz rule to the non-symmetric co-product one.
The rule of how an algebra acts on (tensor) product of objects is called the co-product, and denoted by $\Delta$. If Leibniz rule holds the coproduct is trivial $\Delta\delta = \delta\otimes1 +
1\otimes\delta$. Quantum groups can be characterized by the fact that Leibniz rule is generalized to a non-trivial coproduct rule. We discovered that in the case of $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra it takes the form $$\label{14}
\Delta \delta_0 = \delta_0\otimes1 + 1\otimes\delta_0, \quad \Delta \delta_i
= \delta_i\otimes1 + e^{-P_0}\otimes\delta_i$$ One can check that, similarly, the co-product for rotational part of the symmetry algebra is also non-trivial. The presence of non-trivial co-product in the algebraic structure of DSR theory has, presumably, far reaching consequences for particle kinematics. I will return to this point below.
DSR phenomenology
=================
DSR has emerged initially from the quantum gravity phenomenology investigations, as a phenomenological theory, capable of describing possible future observations disagreeing with predictions of Special Relativity. Two of these effects, the possible energy dependence of the speed of light, which could be observed by GLAST satellite, and the mentioned already, possible violation of the GZK cutoff, which could be confirmed by Pierre Auger Observatory were quite extensively discussed in the literature. Let me now briefly describe what would be the status of this (possible) effects vis a vis the approach of DSR I have been analyzed above[^3].
The prediction of energy dependence of the speed of light is based on the rather naive observation that since in (some formulations of) DSR the dispersion relation is being deformed, the formula for velocity $v = \partial E/\partial p$ gives, as a rule, the result which differs from this of Special Relativity. It turns out however that this conclusion may not stand if the effects of non-commutative spacetime are taken into account.
In the classical theory the non-commutativity is replaced by the nontrivial structure of the phase space of the particle, and, as in the standard case, one calculates the three velocity of the particle as the ratio of $\dot x = \{ x, H\}$ and $\dot t = \{ t, H\}$: $v =
\dot x/\dot t$. Then it can be generally proved that the effect of this nontrivial phase space structure cancels neatly the effect of the modified dispersion relation (see Daszkiewicz et. al. 2004 for details.) Thus, in the framework of this formulation of DSR, the speed of massless particles is always 1, though there are deviations from the standard Special Relativistic formulas in the case of massive particles. However the leading order corrections are here of order of $m/\kappa$, presumably beyond the reach of any feasible experiment.
Similarly one can argue that deviations from the GZK cutoff should be negligibly small in any natural DSR theory. The reasoning goes as follows (similar argument can be found in Amelino-Camelia 2003.) Consider [*experimental*]{} measurement of the threshold energy for reaction $p+\gamma = p + \pi^0$, which is one of the relevant ones in the ultra high energy cosmic rays case, but details are not relevant here. To measure this energy we take the proton initially at rest and bombard it by more and more energetic photons. At some point, when the photon energy is of order of $E^0_{th}=145$ MeV, the pion is being produced. Note that the threshold energy is just $E^0_{th}$, exactly as predicted by Special Relativity, and the corrections of DSR (if any) are much smaller than the experimental error bars $\Delta E^0_{th}$. Thus whichever kinematics is the real one we have the robust result for the value of the threshold energy.
Now there comes the major point. Since DSR respects the Relativity Principle by definition, we are allowed to boost the photon energy down to the CMB energy (this cannot be done in the Lorentz breaking schemes, where the velocity of the observer with respect to the ether matters), and to calculate the value of the corresponding rapidity parameter. Now we boost the proton with the same value of rapidity, using the DSR transformation rules, and check what is the modified threshold. Unfortunately, the leading order correction to the standard Special Relativistic transformation rule would be of the form $\sim \alpha E_{proton}/\kappa$, where $E_{proton}$ is the energy of the proton after boost, and $\alpha$ is the numerical parameter, fixed in any particular formulation of DSR. It is natural to expect that $\alpha$ should be of order 1, so that in order to have sizeable effect we need $\kappa$ of order of $10^{19}$ eV, quite far from the expected Planck scale[^4]. One may contemplate the idea that since the proton is presumably, from the perspective of the Planck scale physics, a very complex composite system, we do not have to do here with “fundamental” $\kappa$, but with some effective one instead, but then this particular value should be explained (it is curious to note in this context that, as observed in Amelino-Camelia 2003, $10^{19}$ eV is of order of the geometric mean of the Planck energy and the proton rest mass.) However the conclusion for now seems inevitably be that with the present formulation of DSR, the explanation of possible violation of GZK cutoff offered by this theory is, at least, rather unnatural.
DSR – facts and prospects
=========================
Let me summarize. Above I stressed two facts that seem to be essential features of DSR theory.
First (quantum) gravity in 2+1 dimensions coupled to point particles is just a DSR theory. Since the former is rather well understood, it is a perfect playground for trying to understand better the physics of the latter. In 3+1 dimensions the situation is much less clear. Presumably, DSR emerges in an appropriate limit of (quantum) gravity, coupled to point particles, when the dynamical degrees of freedom of gravitational field are switched off, and only the topological ones remain. However, it is not known, what exactly this limit would be, and how to perform the limiting procedure in the full dynamical theory. There is an important insight, coming from algebraic consideration, though. In 3+1 dimension one can do almost exactly the same procedure as the one, I presented for the 2+1 case above. It suffices to replace the $SO_q(3,1)$ group with the $SO_q(4,1)$. It happens however that in the course of the limiting procedure one has to further rescale the generators corresponding to energy and momentum. The possible rescalings are parametrized by the real, positive parameter $r$: for $r>1$ the contraction does not exist, for $0<r<1$ as the result of contraction one gets the standard Poincaré algebra, and only for one particular value $r=1$ one finds $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra. This result is not understood yet, and, if DSR is indeed a limit of gravity, gravity must tell us why one has to choose this particular contraction.
Second, as I explained above there is a direct interplay between non-trivial co-product and the fact that momentum space is curved. In addition, curved momentum space naturally implies non-commutative space-time. While the relation between these three properties of DSR theory has been well established, it still requires further investigations.
The presence of the non-trivial co-product in DSR theory has its direct consequences for particle kinematics. Namely the co-product can be understood as a rule of momentum composition. This fact has been again well established in the 2+1 dimensional case. However the 3+1 situation requires still further investigations. The main problem is that the co-product composition rule is not symmetric: the total momentum of the system (particle$_1$ + particle$_2$) is not equal, in general, to the of the total momentum of (particle$_2$ + particle$_1$) one. This can be easily understood in 2+1 dimension if one thinks of particles in terms of their worldlines, and where the theory takes care of the worldlines’ braiding. In 3+1 dimensions the situation is far from being clear, though. Perhaps a solution could be replacing holonomies that characterize particles in 2+1 one dimensions by surfaces surrounding particles in 3+1 dimensions. If this is true, presumably the theory of gerbes will play a role in DSR (and gravity coupled with particles, for that matter.)
Related to this is the problem of “spectators”. If the co-product rule is indeed correct, any particle would feel non-local influence of other particles of the universe. This means in particular, that LSZ theorem of quantum field theory, which requires the existence of free asymptotic states, presumably does not hold in DSR, and thus the whole of basic properties of QFT will have to be reconsidered.
Arguably one of the most urgent problems of DSR is the question “what is the momentum?” Indeed, as I mentioned above, in the $\kappa$-Poincaré case one has a freedom do redefine momentum and energy by any function of them and the $\kappa$ scale, restricted only by the condition that in the limit $\kappa\rightarrow\infty$ they all reduce to the standard momenta of special relativity. In particular some of them might be bounded from above, and some not. For example in DSR1 momentum is bounded from above and energy is not, in another model, called DSR2 both energy and momentum are bounded, and there are models in which neither is. Thus the question arises as to which one of them is physical? Which momentum and energy we measure in our detectors?
There is a natural answer to this question. Namely, the physical momentum is the charge that couples to gravity. Indeed if DSR is an emergent theory, being the limit of gravity, the starting point should be, presumably, gravity coupled to particles’ Poincaré charges in the canonical way.
To conclude. There seem to be an important and deep interrelations between developments in quantum gravity and understanding of DSR. Proper control over semiclassical quantum gravity would provide an insight into the physical meaning and relevance of DSR. And vice versa, DSR, being a possible description of ultra high energetic particle behavior will perhaps become a workable model of quantum gravity phenomenology, to be confronted with future experiments.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is partially supported by the KBN grant 1 P03B 01828.
[99]{} R. Aloisio, P. Blasi, A. Galante and A. F. Grillo, “Planck scale kinematics and the Pierre Auger Observatory,” in Giovanni Amelino-Camelia and Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman, [*Planck Scale Effects in Astrophysics and Cosmology*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics [**669**]{}, 1, Springer 2005 G. Amelino-Camelia, “Testable scenario for relativity with minimum-length,” Phys. Lett. B [**510**]{}, 255 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0012238\]. G. Amelino-Camelia, “Relativity in space-times with short-distance structure governed by an observer-independent (Planckian) length scale,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**11**]{}, 35 (2002) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0012051\].
G. Amelino-Camelia, “Kinematical solution of the UHE-cosmic-ray puzzle without a preferred class of inertial observers,” Int. J.Mod. Phys. D [**12**]{} (2003) 1211 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0209232\].
G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Smolin and A. Starodubtsev, “Quantum symmetry, the cosmological constant and Planck scale phenomenology,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**21**]{} (2004) 3095 \[arXiv:hep-th/0306134\]. M. Daszkiewicz, K. Imilkowska and J. Kowalski-Glikman, “Velocity of particles in doubly special relativity,” Phys. Lett. A [**323**]{} (2004) 345 \[arXiv:hep-th/0304027\].
M. Daszkiewicz, K. Imilkowska, J. Kowalski-Glikman and S. Nowak, “Scalar field theory on kappa-Minkowski space-time and doubly special relativity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**20**]{} (2005) 4925 \[arXiv:hep-th/0410058\].
L. Freidel, J. Kowalski-Glikman and L. Smolin, “2+1 gravity and doubly special relativity,” Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} (2004) 044001 \[arXiv:hep-th/0307085\].
L. Freidel and E. R. Livine, “Ponzano-Regge model revisited. III: Feynman diagrams and effective field theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0502106. L. Freidel and A. Starodubtsev, “Quantum gravity in terms of topological observables,” arXiv:hep-th/0501191.
J. Kowalski-Glikman, “Introduction to doubly special relativity,” in Giovanni Amelino-Camelia and Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman, [*Planck Scale Effects in Astrophysics and Cosmology*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics [**669**]{}, 131, Springer 2005 \[arXiv:hep-th/0405273\].
J. Kowalski-Glikman and S. Nowak, “Doubly special relativity and de Sitter space,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**20**]{} (2003) 4799 \[arXiv:hep-th/0304101\].
J. Lukierski, H. Ruegg, A. Nowicki and V. N. Tolstoi, “Q deformation of Poincare algebra,” Phys. Lett. B [**264**]{} (1991) 331.
S. Majid and H. Ruegg, “Bicrossproduct structure of kappa Poincare group and noncommutative geometry,” Phys. Lett. B [**334**]{} (1994) 348 \[arXiv:hep-th/9405107\].
K. Noui and P. Roche, “Cosmological deformation of Lorentzian spin foam models,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**20**]{} (2003) 3175 \[arXiv:gr-qc/0211109\].
[^1]: e-mail address jurekk@ift.uni.wroc.pl
[^2]: Note that since the function ${\cal M}$ is real, $\delta_0{\cal M}_\kappa = \delta_i{\cal M}_\kappa =0$.
[^3]: It should be stressed that DSR has been originally proposed as an idea, not a formally formulated theory, and therefore it may well happen that the particular realization of this idea described above could be replaced by another one in the future.
[^4]: Note that in this reasoning we do not have to refer to any particular DSR kinematics, the form of energy-momentum conservation etc. The only input here is the Relativity Principle.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Thomas Guyet and Yves Moinard and René Quiniou and Torsten Schaub
title: Efficiency Analysis of ASP Encodings for Sequential Pattern Mining Tasks
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Pattern mining is a data analysis task aiming at identifying “meaningful” patterns in a database of structured data ([e.g. ]{}itemsets, sequences, graphs). Sequential pattern mining consists in discovering subsequences as patterns in a sequence database [@Shen2014]. This problem has been introduced at the early beginning of the pattern mining field [@Agrawal1995] with the itemsets mining task [@Agrawal1993]. Sequential pattern mining is known to have a higher complexity than itemsets mining, but it has broad applications [@SPMapplication]. It includes – but is not limited to – the analysis of patient care pathways, education traces, digital logs (web access for client profiling, intrusion detection from network logs), customer purchase (rules for purchases recommendations), text and bioinformatic sequences.
In most cases, “interesting" patterns are the frequent ones. A pattern is said to be frequent if it appears at least $f_{min}$ times in the database, where $f_{min}$ is a frequency threshold given by the data analyst. This interestingness criterion reveals some important behaviours in the datasets and, above all, it benefits from an interesting property (anti-monotonicity) that make algorithms very efficient, even on large databases. Two decades of research on the specific task of frequent sequential pattern mining have led to very efficient mining methods and strategies to extract the complete set of frequent patterns or condensed representation of frequent patterns [@BIDE2004]. These methods can currently process millions of sequences with very low frequency threshold.
The challenge of mining a deluge of data is about to be solved, but is also about to be replaced by another issue: the deluge of patterns. In fact, the size of the complete set of frequent patterns explodes with the database size and density [@Lhote2010]. The data analyst cannot handle such volumes of results. A broad range of research, from data visualization [@perer2014frequence] to database sampling [@low2013mining] is currently attempting to tackle this issue. The data-mining community has mainly focused on the addition of expert constraints on sequential patterns [@Pei2004].
Recent approaches have renewed the field of Inductive Logic Programming [@muggleton1994inductive] by exploring declarative pattern mining. Similarly, some works have tackled the itemset mining task [@guns2015miningzinc; @jarvisalo2011itemset]. Recently, some propositions have extended the approach to sequence mining [@Negrevergne15; @coquery2012sat; @Metivier2013]. Their practical use depends on the efficiency of their encoding to process real datasets. Thanks the improvements on satisfiability (SAT) or constraints programming (CP) solving techniques and solvers, such approaches become realistic alternatives for highly constrained mining tasks. Their computational performances closely reach those of dedicated algorithms.
The long term objective is to benefit from the genericity of solvers to let a user specify a potentially infinite range of constraints on the patterns. Thus, we expect to go from specific algorithm constraints to a rich query language for pattern mining.
The approach we propose in this paper uses the formalism of Answer Set Programming (ASP) and the solver [[clingo]{}]{}. ASP is a logic programming language, as Prolog. Its first order syntax makes ASP programs easy to understand. Furthermore, ASP benefits from efficient solvers to compute efficiently the solution answer sets [@lifschitz:aaai:2008].
The contributions of this article are twofold. 1) The article presents a declarative approach which provides a high-level specification of a broad range of sequential pattern mining tasks in a unique framework. It demonstrates that this mining task and its related problems – mining closed, maximal and constrain patterns – can easily be encoded with pure declarative ASP. 2) The article extensively evaluates the proposed encodings to draw the computational strengths and limits of ASP for declarative pattern mining. It gives also experimental results about time/memory computing efficiency of the solving process and provides alternative encodings to improve the computing efficiency. The proposed encodings are compared to the results of the [CPSM]{} software, based on CP programming [@Negrevergne15].
The article is organized as follows: Sect. \[sec:ASP\] introduces ASP programming, its principles and the solver [[clingo]{}]{}. Then in Sect. \[sec:spm\], we introduce sequential pattern mining. In Sect. \[sec:spm\_with\_asp\], we give several ASP encodings of the basic sequential pattern mining task. Sect. \[sec:alternative\_spm\_asp\] presents encodings for alternative sequential pattern mining tasks, including the use of constraints and the extraction of condensed representations. After presenting some related works in Sect. \[sec:soa\], we present our experiments in Sect. \[sec:experiments\].
ASP – Answer Set Programming {#sec:ASP}
============================
In this section we introduce the Answer Set Programming (ASP) paradigm, syntax and tools. Sect. \[sec:aspprinc\] introduces the main principles and notations of ASP. Sect. \[sec:aspex\] illustrates them on the well-known graph coloring problem.
Principles of Answer Set Programming {#sec:aspprinc}
------------------------------------
ASP is a declarative programming paradigm. From a general point of view, declarative programming gives a description of what is a problem instead of specifying how to solve it. Several declarative paradigms have been proposed, differing in the modelling formalism they use. For instance, logic programming [@lallouet:hal-00758896] specifies the problem using a logic formalism, the SAT paradigm encodes the problem with boolean expressions [@biere2009handbook], the CP (constraint programming) paradigm specifies the problem using constraints [@rossi2006handbook]. ASP belongs to the class of logic programming paradigms, such as Prolog. The high-level syntax of logic formalisms makes generally the program easier to understand than other declarative programming paradigms.
An *ASP program* is a set of rules of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rule}\tt
a_0 \mathrel{\texttt{:-}} a_1,\ldots,a_m, \text{\lstinline!not! } a_{m+1},\ldots,\text{\lstinline!not! } a_n.\end{aligned}$$
where each $\mathtt{a_i}$ is a propositional atom for $\mathtt{0}\leq\mathtt{i}\leq\mathtt{n}$ and `not` stands for *default negation*. In the body of the rule, commas denote conjunctions between atoms. Contrary to Prolog, the order of atoms is meaningless. In ASP, rule may be interpreted as “*if $\mathtt{a_1,\ldots,a_m}$ are all true and if none of $\mathtt{a_{n+1},\ldots,a_n}$ can be proved to be true, then $\mathtt{a_0}$ is true.*"
If $\mathtt{n}=\mathtt{0}$, [i.e. ]{}the rule body is empty, is called a *fact* and the symbol “`:-`” may be omitted. Such a rule states that the atom $a_0$ has to be true. If $\mathtt{a_0}$ is omitted, [i.e. ]{}the rule head is empty, represents an integrity constraint.
Semantically, a logic program induces a collection of so-called *answer sets*, which are distinguished models of the program determined by answer sets semantics; see [@gellif91a] for details. For short, a model assigns a truth value to each propositional atoms of the program and this set of assignments is valid. An answer set is a minimal set of true propositional atoms that satisfies all the program rules. Answer sets are said to be minimal in the way that only atoms that have to be true are actually true.
To facilitate the use of ASP in practice, several extensions have been developed. First of all, rules with *variables* are viewed as shorthands for the set of their ground instances. This allows for writing logic programs using a first order syntax. Such kind of syntax makes program shorter, but it hides the grounding step and its specific encoding issues, especially from the memory management point of view.
Further language constructs include *conditional literals* and *cardinality constraints* [@siniso02a]. The former are of the form $$\tt
a\mathrel{:}{b_1,\dots,b_m}$$ the latter can be written as $$\tt
s~\{c_1;\dots;c_n\}~t$$ where $\mathtt{a}$ and $\mathtt{b_i}$ are possibly default negated literals for $0\leq i\leq m$, and each $\mathtt{c_j}$ is a conditional literal for $1\leq i\leq n$. The purpose of conditional literals is to govern the instantiation of a literal `a` through the literals $\tt{b_1,\dots,b_m}$. In a cardinality constraint, $\mathtt{s}$ (resp. $\mathtt{t}$) provides the lower (resp. upper) bound on the number of literals from $\tt{c_1;\dots;c_n}$ that must be satisfied in the model.
A cardinality constraint in the head of the rule defines a specific rule called a *choice rule*: $$\tt
s~\{c_1;\dots;c_n\}~t \mathrel{\texttt{:-}} a.$$ If $\mathtt{a}$ is true then all atoms of a subset $\mathcal{S} \subset \{c_1,\dots,c_n\}$ of size between $s$ and $t$ have to be true. All such subsets are admissible according to this unique rule, but not in the same model. All such subsets contribute to alternative answer sets. It should be noted that alternative models are solved independently. It is not possible to specify constraints that involve several models.
ASP problem solving is ensured by efficient solvers [@lifschitz:aaai:2008] which are based on the same technologies as constraint programming solvers or satisfiability checking (SAT) solvers. [[smodels]{}]{} [@syrjanen2001smodels], [[dlv]{}]{} [@Leone2006], [ASPeRiX]{} [@Asperix] or [[clingo]{}]{} [@gekakaosscsc11a] are well-known ASP solvers. Due to the computational efficiency it has demonstrated and its broad application to real problems, we use [[clingo]{}]{} as a basic tool for designing our encodings.
The basic method for programming in ASP is to follow a *generate-and-test* methodology. Choice rules generate solution candidates, while integrity constraints are tested to eliminate those candidates that violate the constraints. The programmer should not have any concern about how solutions are generated. He/she just has to know that all possible solutions will be actually evaluated. From this point of view, the ASP programming principle is closer to CP programming than to Prolog programming. Similarly to these declarative programming approaches, the difficulty of programming in ASP lies in the choices for the best way to encode problem constraints: it must be seen as the definition of the search space (*generate* part) or as an additional constraint on solutions within this search space (*test* part). This choices may have a large impact on the efficiency of the problem encoding.
A simple example of ASP program {#sec:aspex}
-------------------------------
The following example illustrates the ASP syntax on encoding the graph coloring problem. Lines 9-10 specify the problem as general rules that solutions must satisfy while lines 1-6 give the input data that defines the problem instance related to the graph in Fig. \[fig:graph\].
![An example graph for the graph coloring problem.[]{data-label="fig:graph"}](graph.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
The problem instance is a set of colors, encoded with predicates `col/1` and a graph, encoded with predicates `vertex/1` and `edge/2`. The input graph has 5 vertices numbered from 1 to 5 and 12 edges. The 5 fact-rules describing the vertex are listed in the same line (Line 2). It should be noted that, generally speaking, `edge(1,2)` is different from `edge(2,1)`, but considering that integrity constraints for the graph coloring problem are symmetric, it is sufficient to encode directed edge in only one direction. Line 6 encodes the 3 colors that can be used: `r`, `g` and `b`. Lower case letters represent values, internally encoded as integers, while strings beginning with upper case letters represent variables (see line 9 for instance).
% instance of the problem: the graph and colors
vertex(1). vertex(2). vertex(3). vertex(4). vertex(5).
edge(1,2). edge(1,3). edge(1,4). edge(2,4). edge(2,5).
edge(3,1). edge(3,4). edge(3,5). edge(4,1). edge(4,2).
edge(5,3). edge(5,4).
col(r). col(b). col(g).
% graph coloring problem specification
1 { color(X, C) : col(C) } 1 :- vertex(X).
:- edge(X, Y), color(X, C), color(Y, C).
Lines 9 and 10 specify the graph coloring problem. The predicate `color/2` encodes the color of a vertex: `color(X,C)` expresses that vertex `X` has color `C`. Line 10 is an integrity constraint. It forbids neighbor vertices `X` and `Y` to have the same color `C`[^1]. The ease of expressing such integrity constraints is a major feature of ASP.
Line 9 is a choice rule indicating that for a given vertex `X`, an answer set must contain exactly one atom of the form `color(X,C)` where `C` is a color. The grounded version of this rule is the following:
``` {numbers="none"}
1 { color(1, r), color(1, b), color(1, g) } 1.
1 { color(2, r), color(2, b), color(2, g) } 1.
1 { color(3, r), color(3, b), color(3, g) } 1.
1 { color(4, r), color(4, b), color(4, g) } 1.
1 { color(5, r), color(5, b), color(5, g) } 1.
```
The variable `X` is expanded according to the facts in line 2 and for each vertex, a specific choice rule is defined. Within the brackets, the variable `C` is expanded according to the conditional expression in the rule head of line 9: the only admissible values for `C` are color values. For each line of the grounded version of the program, one and only one atom within brackets can be chosen. This corresponds to a unique mapping of a color to a vertex. Line 9 can be seen as a search space generator for the graph coloring problem.
The set `color(1,b) color(2,r) color(3,r) color(4,g) color(5,b)` is an answer set for the above program (among several others).
For more detailed presentation of ASP programming paradigm, we refer the reader to recent article of Janhunen and Nimeläthe [@Janhunen16].
The [Potassco]{} collection of ASP tools
----------------------------------------
The [Potassco]{} collection is a set of tools for ASP developed at the University of Potsdam. The main tool of the collection is the ASP solver [[clingo]{}]{} [@gekakaosscsc11a]. This solver offers both a rich syntax to facilitate encodings[^2] and a good solving efficiency. It is worth-noting that the ASP system [[clingo]{}]{} introduced many facilities to accelerate the encoding of ASP programs. For the sake of simplicity, we do not use them in the presented programs. A complete description of the [[clingo]{}]{} syntax can be found in [@gekakasc14b].
The [[clingo]{}]{} solving process follows two consecutive main steps:
1. *grounding* transforms the initial ASP program into a set of propositional clauses, cardinality constraints and optimisation clauses. Note that grounding is not simply a systematic problem transformation. It also simplifies the rules to generate the as short as possible equivalent grounded program.
2. *solving* consists in finding from one to all solutions of the grounded program. This step is performed by [[clasp]{}]{} which is a conflict-driven ASP solver. The primary [[clasp]{}]{} algorithm relies on conflict-driven *nogood* learning. It is further optimized using sophisticated reasoning and implementation techniques, some specific to ASP, others borrowed from CDCL-based SAT solvers.
The overall process may be controlled using procedural languages, [e.g. ]{}*Python* or *lua* [@gekakasc14b]. These facilities are very useful to automate processes and to collect statistics on solved problems. Despite this procedural control which enables to interact with the grounder or the solver, it is important to note that once a program has been grounded, it cannot be changed.
Sequential pattern mining: definition and notations {#sec:spm}
===================================================
Briefly, the sequential pattern mining problem consists in retrieving from a sequence database $\mathcal{D}$ every frequent non empty sequence $P$, so-called a sequential pattern. Sequences, either in $\mathcal{D}$ or sequential patterns $P$, are multiset sequences of itemsets over a fixed alphabet of symbols (also called items). A pattern is frequent if it is a subsequence of at least $f_{min}$ sequences of $\mathcal{D}$, where $f_min$ is an arbitrary given threshold. In this section, we introduce classical definitions and notations for frequent sequential pattern mining which will be useful to formulate the problem in an ASP setting. In the sequel, if not specified otherwise, a pattern is a sequential pattern.
Sequences {#seq:sequences}
---------
We introduce here the basic definitions of sequences of itemsets. $[n]=\{1, \dots, n\}$ denotes the set of the first $n$ strictly positive integers.
Let $(\mathcal{I}, =, <)$ be the set of items (alphabet) with a total order ([e.g. ]{}lexicographic order). An *itemset* $A=(a_1, a_2, ..., a_n)$ is a subset of distinct increasingly ordered items from $\mathcal{I}$: $\forall i \in [n],\; a_i\in\mathcal{E}\wedge \forall i \in [n-1],\; a_i<a_{i+1} \wedge \forall i,j \in [n],\; i \neq j \implies a_i\neq a_j$. An itemset $\beta=(b_i)_{i\in [m]}$ is a sub-itemset of $\alpha=(a_i)_{i\in [n]}$, denoted $\beta \sqsubseteq \alpha$, iff there exists a sequence of $m$ integers $1 \leq i_1 < i_2 < ... < i_m \leq n$ such that $\forall k \in [m], b_k=a_{i_k}$. A *sequence* $S$ is an ordered set of itemsets $S = \langle s_1, s_2, ..., s_n\rangle$: $\forall i,j \in [n],\; i < j$ means that $s_i$ occurs before $s_j$. The length of sequence $S$, denoted $|S|$, is equal to its number of itemsets. Two sequences $S= \langle s_1, s_2, ..., s_n\rangle$ and $T= \langle t_1, t_2, ..., t_m\rangle$ are equal iff $n=m$ and $\forall i \in [n],\; s_i=t_i$.
$T= \langle t_1, t_2, ..., t_m\rangle$ is a *sub-sequence* of $S= \langle s_1, s_2, ..., s_n\rangle$, denoted $T \preceq S$, iff there exists a sequence of integers $1 \leq i_1 < i_2 < ... < i_m \leq n$ such that $\forall k \in [m],\; t_k \sqsubseteq s_{i_k}$. In other words, $(i_k)_{1\leq k \leq m}$ defines a mapping from $[m]$, the set of indexes of $T$, to $[n]$, the set of indexes of $S$. We denote by $T \prec S$ the strict sub-sequence relation such that $T \preceq S$ and $T \neq S$.
$T=\langle t_1, t_2, ..., t_m\rangle$ is a *prefix* of $S= \langle s_1, s_2, ..., s_n\rangle$, denoted $T \preceq_b S$, iff $\forall i \in [k-1],\; t_i=s_{i}$ and $t_m \sqsubseteq s_{m}$. Thus, we have $T \preceq_b S \implies T \preceq S$.
A sequence $T$ *is supported* by a sequence $S$ if $T$ is a sub-sequence of $S$, [i.e. ]{}$T \preceq S$.
Let $\mathcal{I}=\{a,b,c\}$ with a lexicographic order ($a<b$, $b<c$) and the sequence $S=\langle a(bc)(abc)cb\rangle$. To simplify the notation, parentheses are omitted around itemsets containing only one item. The length of $S$ is 5. $\langle abb\rangle$, $\langle (bc)(ac)\rangle$ or $\langle a(bc)(abc)cb\rangle$ are sub-sequences of $S$. $a$, $\langle a(bc)\rangle$ and $\langle a(bc)a\rangle$ are prefixes of $S$.
\[prop:relationordre\] $\prec$ and $\prec_b$ induces two partial orders on the sequence set. For all sequences $(s,s')$, $s\prec_b s' \implies s\prec s'$.
Sequential pattern mining
-------------------------
Let $\mathcal{D}= \lbrace S_1, S_2, \ldots , S_N \rbrace$ be a set of sequences. $\mathcal{D}$ is called a *sequence database*. The *support of a sequence* $S$ in $\mathcal{D}$, denoted by $supp_{\mathcal{D}}(S)$, is the number of sequences of $\mathcal{D}$ that support $S$: $$supp_{\mathcal{D}}(S)= |\{S_i \in \mathcal{D} | S \prec S_i \}|$$
$supp_{\mathcal{D}}(.)$ is an anti-monotonic measure on the set of subsequences of a sequence database $\mathcal{D}$ structured by $\prec$ or $\prec_b$.
This proposition implies that for all pairs of sequences $P$, $Q$: $$P \prec Q \implies supp_{\mathcal{D}}(P) \geq supp_{\mathcal{D}}(Q)\text{, and}$$ $$P \prec_b Q \implies supp_{\mathcal{D}}(P) \geq supp_{\mathcal{D}}(Q).$$
Let $f_{min}$ be a *frequency threshold* defined by the analyst. For any sequence $S$, if $supp_{\mathcal{D}}(S) \geq f_{min}$, we say that $S$ is a *frequent sequence* or a *(frequent) sequential pattern* of $\mathcal{D}$. *Mining sequential patterns* consists in extracting all frequent subsequences in a sequence database $\mathcal{D}$.
Every pattern mining algorithm [@Agrawal1995; @BIDE2004; @pei2007seqmining] uses the anti-monotonicity property to browse efficiently the pattern search space. In fact, this property ensures that a sequence $P$ including a sequence $Q$ which is not frequent, cannot be frequent itself. So, the main idea of classical algorithms is to extend the patterns until identifying a non frequent pattern.
\[ex:seq\_mining\] To illustrate the concepts introduced above, we consider the following sequence database $\mathcal{D}$ containing sequences built on items in $\mathcal{I}=\{a,b,c,d\}$ such that $a< b$, $b< c$ and $a< c$. In this running example, and in the rest of this article, we focus on *simple* sequences of items instead of sequences of itemsets.
SeqId Sequence
------- ---------------------------
1 $\langle a c \rangle$
2 $\langle d a b c \rangle$
3 $\langle b \rangle$
4 $\langle a b c \rangle$
5 $\langle a b \rangle$
6 $\langle a c b c \rangle$
7 $\langle a b c \rangle$
Given a threshold value $f_{min} = 3$, the frequent sequential patterns are: $\langle a \rangle$, $\langle b \rangle$, $\langle c \rangle$, $\langle ac \rangle$, $\langle bc \rangle$, $\langle ab \rangle$ and $\langle abc \rangle$.
It is interesting to relate the sequential pattern mining task with the presentation of ASP principles. The sequential pattern mining task rises two issues: 1) exploring a large search space, [i.e. ]{}the potentially infinite set of sequences and 2) assessing the frequency constraint (with respect to the given database). Thus, sequential pattern mining can be considered as a *generate and test* process which makes it straightforward to encode the mining task using ASP principles: 1) choice rules will define the search space and 2) the frequency assessment will be encoded using integrity constraints.
Frequent sequential pattern mining with ASP {#sec:spm_with_asp}
===========================================
In this section, we present several ASP encodings for sequential pattern mining. We assume that the database contains sequences of itemsets. But for the sake of simplicity, we will restrict patterns to sequences of items (each itemset is a singleton). Listing \[list:sequences\_IS\] in Appendices gives an encoding for the full general case of sequential pattern mining.
Our proposal is borrowed from Järvisalo’s [@jarvisalo2011itemset]: the solution of the sequential pattern mining ASP program is all the answer sets (AS), each of which contains the atoms describing a single frequent pattern as well as its occurrences in database sequences. The solution relies on the “generate and test principle”: generate combinatorially all the possible patterns and their related occurrences in the database sequences and test whether they satisfy the specified constraints.
Modelling database, patterns and parameters {#subseq:modelling}
-------------------------------------------
A sequence database $\mathcal{D}$ is modelled by the predicate `seq(T,Is,I)` which holds if sequence `T` contains item `I` at index `Is`.
The following facts encode the database of Example \[ex:seq\_mining\]:
``` {numbers="none"}
seq(1,1,a). seq(1,2,c).
seq(2,1,d). seq(2,2,a). seq(2,3,b). seq(2,4,c).
seq(3,1,b).
seq(4,1,a). seq(4,2,b). seq(4,3,c).
seq(5,1,a). seq(5,2,b).
seq(6,1,a). seq(6,2,c). seq(6,3,b). seq(6,4,c).
seq(7,1,a). seq(7,2,b). seq(7,3,c).
```
Similarly, the current pattern is modelled by the predicate `pat(Ip,I)` which holds if the current pattern contains item `I` at index `Ip`.
For example, the pattern $\langle a b c \rangle$ is modelled by the following atoms:\
`pat(1,a). pat(2,b). pat(3,c).`
In addition, we define two program constants:
- `#const th=23.` represents $f_min$, the minimal frequency threshold, [i.e. ]{}the requested minimal number of supporting sequences
- `#const maxlen=10.` represents the maximal pattern length.
Let $S$ be a set of ground atoms and $P \subset S$ the set of `pat(Ip,I)` atoms in $S$, according to the Järvisalo’s encoding principle we would like an ASP program $\pi$ such that $S$ is an answer set of $\pi$ iff the pattern defined by $P$ is a frequent sequential pattern in the database $\mathcal{D}$.
Two encodings for sequential pattern mining
-------------------------------------------
The main difficulty in declarative sequential pattern mining is to decide whether a pattern $P=\langle p_1, \dots, p_n\rangle$ supports a sequence $S=\langle s_1, \dots, s_m\rangle$ of the database. According to Def. \[def:insertableitem\], it means that it exists a mapping $e=(e_i)_{1\leq i \leq n}$ such that $p_i=s_{e_i}$. Unfortunately, this definition is not usable in practice to implement an efficient ASP encodings. The difficulty comes from the possible multiple mappings of a pattern in a single sequence. On the other hand, the detailed mapping description is not required here, we simply have to defined embeddings that exists iff a pattern supports a sequence. An embedding of a pattern in a sequence is given by the description of a relation between pattern item indexes to sequence item indexes.
This section presents two encodings of sequential pattern mining. These two encodings differ in their representation of embeddings, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:embeddings\]. Two embedding strategies have been defined and compared in our results: *skip-gaps* and *fill-gaps*.
More formally, let $P=\langle p_1, \dots, p_n\rangle$ be a pattern sequence and $S_T=\langle s_1, \dots, s_m\rangle$ be the $T$-th sequence of $\mathcal{D}$. In the *skip-gaps* strategy, an embedding $\mathcal{E}$ is a relation over $[1,m]\times[1,n]$ such that $\forall (i,j) \in \mathcal{E},\; i \leq j \wedge p_i = s_j$ and $\forall (i, j), (i', j') \in \mathcal{E},\; i < i' \implies j < j'$. In the *fill-gaps* strategy, an embedding $\mathcal{E'}$ is the same relation as $\mathcal{E}$ (i.e. $(i,j)\in\mathcal{E} \implies (i,j)\in\mathcal{E}'$) with the additional specification: $\forall i \in [1,m],\; \forall j,j' \in [1,n],\; (i, j)\in \mathcal{E'} \wedge j<j' \implies (i, j')\in \mathcal{E'}$. This additional specification expresses that once a pattern item has been mapped to the leftmost (having the lowest index, let it be $j$), the knowledge of this mapping is maintained on remaining sequences items with indexes $j'>j$. So, a *fill-gaps* embedding makes only explicit the “leftmost admissible matches” of $P$ items in sequence $S_T$.
![Illustration of embeddings strategies. On the left, *skip-gaps*, on the right, *fill-gaps*. []{data-label="fig:embeddings"}](Figures_sg_fg){width="\textwidth"}
Relations $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{E}'$ are interesting because (i) that can be computed in a constructive way ([i.e. ]{}without encoding guesses) and (ii) they contains the information required to decide whether the pattern supports the sequence.
The two following sections detail the ASP programs for extracting patterns under each embedding strategy.
### The skip-gaps approach {#sec:aspmining_skipgap}
In the first ASP encoding, an embedding of the current pattern $P=\langle p_i\rangle_{1\leq i \leq n}$ in sequence $T=\langle s_i\rangle_{1\leq i \leq m}$ is described by a set of atoms `occS(T,Ip,Is)` which holds if `Ip`-th the pattern item (occurring at index `Ip`) is identical to the `Is`-th item in sequence `T` (formally, $p_\mathtt{Ip}=s_\mathtt{Is} \wedge \langle p_i\rangle_{1\leq i \leq \mathtt{Ip}}\prec \langle s_i\rangle_{1\leq i \leq \mathtt{Is}}$). The set of valid atoms `occS(T,_,_)` encodes the relation $\mathcal{E}$ above and is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:embeddings\] (on the left).
\[ex:skipgap\] Let $P=\langle a c \rangle$ be a pattern represented by `pat(1,a).pat(2,c).` Here follows, the embeddings of pattern $P$ in the sequences of example \[ex:seq\_mining\]:
``` {numbers="none"}
occS(1,1,1) occS(1,2,2)
occS(2,1,2) occS(2,2,4)
occS(4,1,1) occS(4,2,3)
occS(5,1,1)
occS(6,1,1) occS(6,2,2) occS(6,2,4)
occS(7,1,1) occS(7,2,3)
```
The pattern could not be fully identified in the fifth sequence. There are two possible embeddings in the sixth sequence. Atom `occS(6,1,1)` is used for both. Nonetheless, this sequence must be counted only once in the support.
Listing \[list:sequences\_sg\] gives the ASP program for sequential pattern mining. The first line of the program is called a *projection*. It defines a new predicate that provides all items from the database. The symbol “`_`" denotes an anonymous (or don’t care) variable.
item(I) :- seq(_, _,I).
%sequential pattern generation
patpos(1).
0 { patpos(Ip+1) } 1 :- patpos(Ip), Ip<maxlen.
patlen(L) :- patpos(L), not patpos(L+1).
1 { pat(Ip,I): item(I) } 1 :- patpos(Ip).
%pattern embeddings
occS(T,1 ,Is):- seq(T,Is,I), pat(1, I).
occS(T,Ip+1,Is):- seq(T,Is,I), pat(Ip+1,I), occS(T,Ip,Js), Js<Is.
%frequency constraint
support(T) :- occS(T,L,_), patlen(L).
:- { support(T) } < th.
Lines 4 to 8 of the program encode the pattern generation. Predicate `patpos/1` defines the allowed sequential pattern indexes, beginning at index 1 (line 4). Line 5 is a choice rule that generates the successive pattern positions up to an ending index iterating from 2 to `maxlen`: `patpos(Ip+1)` is true if there is a pattern position at index `Ip` and `Ip` is lower than `maxlen`. Line 6 defines the length of a pattern: `patlen(L)` holds if `L` is the index of the last pattern item (there is no pattern item with a greater index). This predicate is used to decide whether an embedding has been completed or not. Finally, line 8 is a choice rule that associates exactly one item with each position `X`. We can note that each possible sequence is generated once and only once. So, there is no redundancy in the search space exploration.
Lines 11 to 12 encode pattern embedding search. Line 11 guesses a sequence index for the first pattern item: `occS(T,1,Is)` holds if the first pattern item is identical to the `Is`-th of sequence `T` (i.e. $p_1=s_\mathtt{Is}$). Line 12 guesses sequence indexes for pattern items at indexes strictly greater than 1. `occS(T,Ip,Is)` holds if the `Ip`-th pattern item is equal to the `Is`-th sequence item (i.e. $p_\mathtt{Ip}=s_\mathtt{Is}$) and the preceding pattern item is mapped to a sequence item at an index strictly lower than `Is`. Formally, this rule expresses the following implication $(\mathtt{Jp},\mathtt{Is}-1) \in \mathcal{E} \wedge p_\mathtt{Ip}=s_\mathtt{Is}\wedge \mathtt{Ip}>\mathtt{Jp} \implies (\mathtt{Ip},\mathtt{Is}) \in \mathcal{E}$ and recursively, we have $\langle p_i\rangle_{1\leq i \leq \mathtt{Ip}}\prec \langle s_i\rangle_{1\leq i \leq \mathtt{Is}}$. It should be noted that this encoding generates all the possible embeddings of some pattern.
Finally, lines 15 to 16 are dedicated to assess the pattern frequency constraint. `support(T)` holds if the database sequence `T` supports the pattern, [i.e. ]{}if an atom `occS` holds for the last pattern position. The last line of the program is an integrity constraint ensuring that the number of supported sequences is not lower than the threshold `th` or, in other words, that the support of the current pattern is greater than or equal to the threshold.
### The fill-gaps approach {#sec:aspmining_fillgap}
In the *fill-gap* approach, an embedding of the current pattern $P$ is described by a set of atoms `occF(T,Ip,Is)` having a slightly different semantics than in the *skip-gap* approach. `occF(T,Ip,Is)` holds if at sequence index `Is` it is true that the `Ip`-th pattern item has been mapped (to some sequence index equal to `Is` or lower than `Is` if `occF(T,Ip,Is-1)` holds). More formally, we have $\langle p_i\rangle_{1\leq i \leq \mathtt{Ip}}\prec \langle s_i\rangle_{1\leq i \leq \mathtt{Is}}$. The set of atoms `occF(T,_,_)` encodes the relation $\mathcal{E'}$ above and is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:embeddings\] (on the right).
\[ex:fillgap\] Pattern $P=\langle a, c \rangle$ has the following fill-gaps embeddings (represented by `occF` atoms) in the sequences of the database of example \[ex:seq\_mining\]:
``` {numbers="none"}
occF(1,1,1) occF(1,1,2) occF(1,2,2)
occF(2,1,2) occF(2,1,3) occF(2,1,4) occF(2,2,4)
occF(4,1,1) occF(4,1,2) occF(4,1,3) occF(4,2,3)
occF(5,1,1) occF(5,1,2)
occF(6,1,1) occF(6,1,2) occF(6,1,3) occF(6,1,4) occF(6,2,2) occF(6,2,3) occF(6,2,4)
occF(7,1,1) occF(7,1,2) occF(7,1,3) occF(7,2,3)
```
Contrary to the skip-gap approach example (see Example \[ex:skipgap\]), the set of `occF(T,Ip,Is)` atoms alone is not sufficient to deduce all occurrences. For instance, occurrence with indexes $(3,8,9)$ is masked.
%pattern embeddings
occF(T,1,Is) :- seq(T,Is,I), pat(1,I).
occF(T,Ip,Is) :- occF(T, Ip-1, Is-1), seq(T,Is,I), pat(L,I).
occF(T,Ip,Is) :- occF(T, Ip, Is-1), seq(T,Is,_).
%frequency constraint
seqlen(T,L) :- seq(T,L,_), not seq(T,L+1,_).
support(T) :- occF(T, L, LS), patlen(L), seqlen(T,LS).
:- { support(T) } < th.
Listing \[list:sequences\_fg\] gives the ASP program for sequential pattern mining with the fill-gaps strategy. The rules are quite similar to those encoding the skip-gaps method. The main difference comes from the computation of embeddings (lines 11-13). As in listing \[list:sequences\_sg\], line 11 guesses a sequence index for the first pattern item: `occF(T,1,Is)` holds if the first pattern item is identical to the `Is`-th of sequence `T` (i.e. $p_\mathtt{Ip}=s_\mathtt{Is}$).
Line 12 guesses sequence indexes for pattern items at indexes strictly greater than 1. `occS(T,Ip,Is)` holds if the `Ip`-th pattern item is equal to the `Is`-th sequence item and the preceding pattern item is mapped to some sequence item at some index strictly lower than `Is`. More formally, we have that $p_\mathtt{Ip}=s_\mathtt{Is} \wedge (\mathtt{Ip}-1,\mathtt{Is}-1) \in \mathcal{E}' \implies (\mathtt{Ip},\mathtt{Is}) \in \mathcal{E}'$.
Line 13 simply maintains the knowledge that the `Ip`-th pattern item has been mapped all along the further sequence indexes, i.e. `occF(T,Ip,Is)` holds if `occF(T,Ip,Is-1)` holds. More formally, $(\mathtt{Ip}-1,\mathtt{Is}-1) \in \mathcal{E}' \implies (\mathtt{Ip},\mathtt{Is}) \in \mathcal{E}'$. In combination with previous rules, we thus have recursively that `occF(T,Ip,Is)` is equivalent to $\langle p_i\rangle_{1\leq i \leq \mathtt{Ip}}\prec \langle s_i\rangle_{1\leq i \leq \mathtt{Is}}$.
Line 17 a sequence is supported by the pattern an `occF` atoms exists at the last position `LS` of the sequence, computed line 16. The remaining rules for testing whether it is greater than the threshold `th` are identical to those in the skip-gaps approach.
Sequential pattern mining improvements
--------------------------------------
The main objective of this subsection is to present alternative encodings of the sequential pattern mining task. These encodings attempt to take advantage of known properties of the sequential pattern mining task to support the solver to mine datasets more efficiently or with less memory requirements. The efficiency of these improvements will be compared in the experimental part.
### Filter out unfrequent items
The first improvement consists in generating patterns from only frequent items. According to the anti-monotonicity property, all items in a pattern have to be frequent. The rules in listing \[list:frequentitems\] may replace the projection rule previously defining the available items. Instead, an explicit aggregate argument is introduced to evaluate the frequency of each item `I` and to prune it if it is unfrequent.
In the new encoding, the predicate `sitem/1` defines the set of items that occurs in the database and `item/1` defines the frequent items that can generate patterns.
sitem(I) :- seq(_, _,I).
item(I) :- sitem(I), #count{ T:seq(T,_,I) } >= th.
### Using projected databases
The idea of this alternative encoding is to use the principle of *projected databases* introduced by algorithm PrefixSpan [@Pei2004]. Let $P=\langle p_1, \dots, p_n \rangle$ be a pattern, the projected database of $\mathcal{D}=\{S_1, \dots, S_n\}$ is $\{S'_1, \dots, S'_n\}$ where $S'_i$ is the projected sequence of $S_i$ with respect to $P$. Let $S_i=\langle s_1,\dots, s_m\rangle$ be a sequence. Then the projected sequence of $S_i$ is $S'_i=\langle s_{k+1},\dots s_m\rangle$ where $k$ is the position of the last item of the first occurrence of $P$ in $S_i$. If $P$ does not occur in $S_i$ then $S'_i$ is empty.
A projected database is smaller than the whole database and the set of its frequent items is consequently much smaller than the original set of frequent items. The idea is to improve the candidate generation part of the algorithm by making use of items from projected databases. Instead of generating a candidate (a sequential pattern) by extending a frequent pattern with an item that is frequent in the whole database, the pattern extension operation uses only the items that are frequent in the database projected along this pattern.
item(1,I) :- sitem(I),
#count{ T: seq(T,_,I) } >= th.
item(Ip+1,I):- item(Ip,I),
#count{ T: seq(T,Js,I),occS(T,Ip,Is),Js>Is }>= th.
1 { pat(Ip,I) : item(Ip,I) } 1 :- patpos(Ip).
item(1,I) :- sitem(I),
#count{ T: seq(T,_,I) } >= th.
item(Ip+1,I) :- item(Ip,I),
#count{ T: seq(T,Is,I), occF(T,Ip,Is) } >= th.
1 { pat(Ip,I) : item(Ip,I) } 1 :- patpos(Ip).
The ASP encoding of the prefix-projection principle is given in Listing \[list:seq\_proj\_sg\] for the skip-gaps strategy and in Listing \[list:seq\_proj\_fg\] for the fill-gaps strategy. The programs of Listings \[list:sequences\_sg\] and \[list:sequences\_fg\] remain the same except for the generation of patterns defined by `patpos/1` and the new predicate `item/2`. `item(Ip,I)` defines an item `I` that is frequent in sequence suffixes remaining after removing the prefix of the sequence containing the first occurrence of the `X-1`-pattern prefix (consisting of the `Ip-1` first positions of the pattern). Lines 8-9 are similar to those in Listing \[list:frequentitems\]. `item(1,I)` defines the frequent items, [i.e. ]{}those that are admissible as first item of a frequent pattern. Lines 10-11 generates the admissible items for pattern position `Ip+1`. Such an item must be admissible for position `Ip` and be frequent in sequence suffixes (sub-sequence after at least one (prefix) pattern embedding). For skip-gaps, the sequence suffix is defined by `seq(T,Js,I), occS(T,Ip,Is), Js>Is` (the items at sequence positions farther away than the last position that matches the last (partial) pattern item at position `Ip`). For fill-gaps, `seq(T,Js,I), occF(T,Ip,Is)` is sufficient because `occF(T,Ip,Is)` atoms represent the sequence suffix beginning at the sequence position that matches the last (partial) pattern item (at position `Ip`).
### Mixing itemsets and sequences mining
In [@jarvisalo2011itemset], Järvisalo showed that ASP can be efficient for itemset pattern mining. The main idea of this last alternative approach is to mine frequent itemsets and to derive sequential patterns from them.
This time, the itemset mining step extracts a frequent itemset pattern $I=(e_i)_{i\in[n]}$, $e_i \in \mathcal{I}$. A sequential pattern $S=(s_i)_{i\in[m]}$ is generated using the items of the itemset, [i.e. ]{}$\forall i\in[m]$, $\exists j\in[n],\, s_i=e_j$ taking into account that items may be repeated within a sequential pattern and that every item from $I$ must appear in $S$. If not, there would exist a subset $J\subset I$ that would generate the same sequence $s$. This would lead to numerous redundant answer sets for similar frequent sequences and would cause a performance drop.
sitem(I) :- seq(_, _,I).
% extract frequent itemsets
db(T,I) :- seq(T,_,I).
0 { in_itemset(I) } 1 :- th { in_support(T):db(T,I) }, sitem(I).
in_support(T) :- 0 { conflict_at(T,I) : sitem(I) } 0, db(T,_).
conflict_at(T,I) :- not db(T,I), in_itemset(I), db(T,_).
%sequential pattern generation from frequent itemsets
patpos(1).
0 { patpos(Ip+1) } 1 :- patpos(Ip), Ip<maxlen.
patlen(L) :- patpos(L), not patpos(L+1).
1 { pat(Ip,I) : in_itemset(I) } 1 :- patpos(Ip).
:- 0 { pat(Ip,I) : patpos(Ip) } 0 , in_itemset(I).
%pattern occurrences
occS(T,1,Is) :- in_support(T), seq(T,Is,I), pat(1, I).
occS(T,Ip+1,Is):- occS(T,Ip,Js), seq(T,Is,I), pat(Ip+1,I), Js<Is.
support(T) :- occS(T, L, _), patlen(L).
:- { support(T) } < th.
Listing \[list:sequences\_itemsets\] gives the entire encoding of this alternative for the skip-gaps strategy[^3]. Rules in Lines 4-7 extract frequent itemsets, represented by the predicate `in_itemset/1`, borrowed from Järvisalo’s encoding [@jarvisalo2011itemset]. Next, the generation of sequential patterns in line 14 uses only items from such a frequent itemset. Line 16 defines a constraint required to avoid answer set redundancies. The remaining part of the program is left unchanged.
Alternative sequential pattern mining tasks {#sec:alternative_spm_asp}
===========================================
In this section, we illustrate how the previous encodings can be modified to solve more complex mining tasks. Our objective is to show the impressive expressiveness of ASP which let us encode a very wide range of mining tasks. We focus our attention on the most classical alternative sequential pattern mining tasks: constrained sequential patterns and condensed representation of sequential patterns.
In [@Negrevergne15], the authors organize the constraints on sequential patterns in three categories: 1) constraints on patterns, 2) constraints on patterns embeddings, 3) constraints on pattern sets. These constraints are provided by the user and capture his background knowledge.
The following subsection shows that our ASP approach enables to add constraints on individual patterns (constraints of categories 1 and 2). But, as ASP cannot compare models with each others, the third category of constraints can not be encoded directly.
In Sect. \[sec:condensed\], we transform the classical definition of the most known constraints of the third category – the condensed representations – to encode them in pure ASP. Condensed representations (maximal and closed patterns) have been widely studied due to their monotonicity property, and to their representativeness with respect to frequent patterns. Concerning more generic constraints on pattern sets, such as the extraction of skypatterns [@ugarte2015skypattern], we have proposed in [@Guyet_IJCAI2016] an ASP-based approach for mining sequential skypatterns using [[asprin]{}]{} for expressing preferences on answer sets. [[asprin]{}]{} [@brewka:hal-01187001] provides a generic framework for implementing a broad range of preferences relations on ASP models and can easily manage them. This approach is out of the scope of this article.
Constraints on patterns and embeddings
--------------------------------------
Pei et [al. ]{}[@pei2007seqmining] defined seven types of constraints on patterns and embeddings. In this subsection, we describe each of these constraints keeping their original numbering. Constraints 1, 2, 3 and 5 are pattern constraints, while constraints 4, 6 and 7 are embedding constraints. If not stated otherwise, the base encoding is the skip-gaps strategy and line numbers refers to Listing \[list:sequences\_sg\].
In a first approach, constraints on patterns and on embeddings may be trivially encoded by adding integrity constraints. But these integrity constraints acts a posteriori, during the test stage, for invalidating candidate models. A more efficient method consists in introducing constraints in the generate stage, specifically in choice rules, for pruning the search space early.
**Constraint 1 – item constraint.** An item constraint specifies what are the particular individual or groups of items that should or should not be present in the patterns. For instance, the constraint “patterns must contain item `1` but not item `2` nor item `3`” can be encoded using `must_have/1` and `cannot_have/1` predicates: `must_have(1). cannot_have(2). cannot_have(3).`
To cope with this kind of constraint, Line 8 of Listing \[list:sequences\_sg\] is modified as:
``` {startFrom="8"}
1 { pat(X,I): item(I), not cannot_have(I) } 1 :- patpos(X).
:- { pat(X,I) : must_have(I) } < 1.
```
The encoding of Line 8 modifies the choice rule to avoid the generation of known invalid patterns, [i.e. ]{}patterns with forbidden items. Line 9 is a new constraint that imposes to have at least one of the required items.
**Constraint 2 – length constraint.** A length constraint specifies a prerequisite on pattern length. The maximal length constraint is anti-monotonic while the minimal length is not anti-monotonic. The maximal length constraint is already encoded using the program constant `maxlen` in our encodings. A new constant `minlen` is defined to encode the minimal length constraint and a new rule is added to predicate `patpos/1` to impose at least `minlen` positions in patterns instead of only one.
``` {numbers="none"}
#const minlen = 2.
patpos(1).
patpos(X+1) :- patpos(X), X<=minlen.
0 { patpos(X+1) } 1 :- patpos(X), X<maxlen.
```
**Constraint 3 – super-pattern constraint.** A super-pattern constraint enforces the extraction of patterns that contain one or more given sub-patterns. Mandatory sub-patterns are defined by means of the new predicate `subpat(SP,P,I)` expressing that sub-pattern `SP` contains item `I` at position `P`.
Predicate `issubpat(SP)` verifies that the sub-pattern `SP` is included in the pattern. An approach similar to embedding computation may be used:
``` {numbers="none"}
issubpat(SP,1,P) :- pat(P,I), subpat(SP,1,I).
issubpat(SP,Pos+1,P) :- issubpat(SP,Pos,Q), pat(P,I),
subpat(SP,Pos+1,I), Q<P.
issubpat(SP) :- issubpat(SP,L,_), subpatlen(SP,L).
```
`issubpat(SP)` is true if the sub-pattern `SP` is a sub-pattern of the current pattern. This predicate is used to define the final integrity constraint:
``` {numbers="none"}
:- #count{ SP : issubpat(SP), subpat(SP,_,_) } = 0.
```
**Constraint 4 – aggregate constraint.** An aggregate constraint is a constraint on an aggregation of items in a pattern, where the aggregate function can be *sum*, *avg*, *max*, *min*, *standard deviation*, etc. The only aggregates that are provided by [[clingo]{}]{} are `#sum`, `#max` and `#min`. For example, let us assume that to each item `I` is assigned a cost `C`, which is given by predicate `cost(I,C)`. The following constraint enforces the selection of patterns having a total cost of at least 1000.
``` {numbers="none"}
:- #sum{ C,X : cost(I,C), pat(X,I) } < 1000.
```
As an integrity constraint, this rule means that it is not possible to have a total amount lower than 1000 for pattern. It should be noted that `C` values are summed for each pair $(\texttt{C},\texttt{X})$. Thus, item repetitions are taken into account.
**Constraint 5 – Regular expression.** Such a constraint is satisfied if the pattern is an accepted regular expression as stated by the user. A regular expression can be encoded in ASP as its equivalent deterministic finite automata. Expressing such a constraint is mainly technical and is not detailed here. SPIRIT [@SPIRIT1999] is one of the rare algorithms that considers complex pattern constraints expressed as regular expressions.
**Constraint 6 – Duration constraints.** The duration (or span) of some pattern is the difference between its last item timestamp and its first item timestamp. A duration constraint requires that the pattern duration should be longer or shorter than a given time period. In the database encoding introduced Sect. \[subseq:modelling\], predicate `seq(T,P,I)` defines the timestamp of `I` in sequence `T` as the integer position `P` . A global constraint such as *max-span* cannot be expressed through simple local constraints on successive pattern item occurrences, as gap constraints described in the next paragraph. In fact, the predicate `occS/3` does not describe the embeddings precisely enough to express the *max-span* constraint: for some pattern embedding, there is no explicit link between its first item occurrence and its last item occurrence. The proposed solution is to add an argument to `occS/3` to denote the position of the occurrence of the first pattern item:
``` {startFrom="11"}
%pattern embeddings (skip-gaps strategy)
occS(T,1,P,P) :- seq(T,P,I), pat(1,I).
occS(T,Pos+1,P,IP) :- occS(T,Pos,Q,IP), seq(T,P,I), pat(Pos+1,I),
P-IP+1<=maxspan, P-IP+1>=minspan.
```
**Constraint 7 – Gap constraints.** A gap constraint specifies the maximal/minimal number of positions (or timestamp difference) between two successive itemsets in an embedding. The maximal gap constraint is anti-monotonic while the minimal gap is not anti-monotonic. Contrary to pattern constraints, embedding constraints cannot be encoded simply by integrity constraints. In fact, an integrity constraint imposes a constraint on all embeddings. If an embedding does not satisfy the constraint, the whole interpretation – [i.e. ]{}the pattern – is unsatisfied.
In the following we give an encoding for the *max-gap* and *min-gap* constraints. For such local constraint, the solution consists in modifying the embedding generation (lines 11-12 in Listing \[list:sequences\_sg\]) for yielding only embeddings that satisfy gap constraints:
``` {startFrom="11"}
occS(T,1,P) :- seq(T,P,I), pat(1,I).
occS(T,Pos+1,P) :- seq(T,P,I), pat(Pos+1,I), occS(T,Pos,Q),
P-Q-1>=mingap, P-Q-1<=maxgap.
```
This encoding assumes that the value of constants `mingap` and `maxgap` have been provided by the user (using `#const` statements).
Constraints of type 6 and 7 can be mixed by merging the two encodings of `occS` above:
``` {startFrom="11"}
occS(T,1,P,P) :- seq(T,P,I), pat(1,I).
occS(T,Pos+1,P,IP) :- seq(T,P,I), pat(Pos+1,I), occS(T,Pos,Q,IP),
P-Q-1>=mingap, P-Q-1<=maxgap,
P-IP+1<=maxspan, P-IP+1>=minspan.
```
Condensed representation of patterns: closed and maximal sequences {#sec:condensed}
------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we study the encodings for two well-studied pattern types, closed and maximal patterns. A closed pattern is such that none of its frequent super-patterns has the same support. A maximal pattern is such that none of its super-patterns is frequent. Thus, it is necessary to compare the supports of several distinct patterns. Since a solution pattern is encoded through an answer set, a simple solution would be to put constraints on sets of answer sets. However, such a facility is not provided by basic ASP language[^4]. So, these constraints have been encoded without any comparison of answer sets but as additional constraints on the requested patterns. The next section introduces the definitions of these alternative mining tasks and the properties that were used to transform the pattern set constraints as constraints on individual patterns. Sect. \[sec:maximal\_patterns\] gives encodings for closed and maximal patterns extraction.
### Definitions and properties
A frequent pattern $S$ is *maximal* (resp. *backward-maximal*) with respect to the relation $\prec$ (resp. $\prec_b$) iff there is no other frequent pattern $S'$ such that $S \prec S'$ (resp. $S \prec_b S'$).
A frequent pattern $S$ is *closed* (resp. *backward-closed*) with respect to the relation $\prec$ (resp. $\prec_b$) iff there is no proper superpattern $S'$ such that $S \prec S'$ (resp. $S \prec_b S'$) and $supp(S)=supp(S')$. Mining the closed patterns significantly reduces the number of patterns without loss of information for the analyst. Having the closed patterns and their support, the support of any pattern can be computed. This is not the case for maximal patterns.
\[ex:closed\_mining\] Considering the database of Example \[ex:seq\_mining\], among the frequent patterns with $f_{min}=3$, the only maximal pattern is $\langle abc\rangle$. The set of backward-maximal is $\{ \langle c\rangle, \langle bc\rangle, \langle ac\rangle, \langle abc\rangle\}$.
The set of closed patterns is $\{ \langle a \rangle, \langle b \rangle, \langle ab \rangle, \langle ac \rangle, \langle abc \rangle\}$. $\langle bc \rangle$ is not closed because in any sequence it occurs, it is preceded by an $a$. Thus $supp(\langle bc \rangle)=supp(\langle abc \rangle)=4$.
The set of backward-closed patterns is $\{ \langle a \rangle, \langle b \rangle, \langle c \rangle, \langle bc \rangle, \langle ac \rangle, \langle abc \rangle\}$. $\langle bc\rangle$ is backward-closed because any pattern $\langle bc?\rangle$ is frequent.
Now, we introduce alternative maximality/closure conditions. The objective of these equivalent conditions is to define maximality/closure without comparing patterns. Such conditions can be used to encode the mining of condensed pattern representations. The main idea is to say that a sequence $S$ is maximal (resp. closed) if and only if for every sequence $S'$ s.t. $S$ is a subsequence of $S'$ with $|S'|=|S|+1$, then $S'$ is not frequent (resp. $S'$ has not the same support as $S$).
More precisely, a frequent pattern $S$ is maximal iff any sequence $S^{j}_{a}$, obtained by adding to $S$ any item $a$ at any position $j$, is non frequent. Such an $a$ will be called an *insertable* item.
\[prop:maximality\] A frequent sequence $S=\langle t_1,\dots, t_n\rangle$ is maximal iff $\forall a \in \mathcal{I}$, $\forall j
\in [0,n]$, $|\{T \in \mathcal{D}| S \prec T
\wedge S^{j}_{a}\prec T\}|<f_{min}$, where $S^{0}_{a}=\langle a, t_{1},\dots, t_n\rangle$, $S^{j}_{a}=
\langle t_1,\dots, t_{j}, a, t_{j+1},\dots, t_n\rangle$ and $S^{n}_{a}=\langle t_{1},\dots, t_n, a\rangle$.
A frequent pattern $S$ is closed iff for any frequent sequence $S^{j}_{a}$, obtained by adding any item $a$ at any position $j$ in $S$, any sequence $T$ that supports $S$ supports also $S^{j}_{a}$.
\[prop:closure\] A frequent sequence $S=\langle t_1,\dots, t_n\rangle$ is closed iff $\forall a \in \mathcal{I}$, $\forall j \in
[0,n]$, $supp(S^{j}_{a}) \geq f_{min} \implies (\forall T \in \mathcal{D}, S \prec T \implies S^{j}_{a}\prec T)$, where $S^{0}_{a}=
\langle a, t_{1},\dots, t_n\rangle$, $S^{j}_{a}=\langle t_1,\dots, t_{j}, a,
t_{j+1},\dots, t_n\rangle$ and $S^{n}_{a}=\langle t_{1},\dots,
t_n, a\rangle$.
A consequence (the contraposition) of these properties is that if an item may be inserted between items of an embedding for at least $f_{min}$ sequences (resp. for all supported sequences) then the current pattern is not maximal (resp. not closed). The main idea of our encodings is grounded on this observation.
The main difficulty is to construct the set of insertable items for each in-between position of a pattern, so-called insertable regions. Fig. \[fig:insertion\_regions\] illustrates the insertable regions of a sequence for the pattern $\langle abc \rangle$.
![Illustration of the notion of insertable region on the example of Fig. \[fig:embeddings\] for pattern $\langle abc \rangle$. Each line shows an insertable region, from top to bottom: insertion in the prefix, insertion between $b$ and $b$, insertion in $b$ and $c$, insertion in the suffix.[]{data-label="fig:insertion_regions"}](Figures_insertion_regions){width=".5\textwidth"}
\[def:insertableitem\] Let $P=\langle p_i \rangle_{i\in[l]}$ be an $l$-pattern, $S=\langle s_i \rangle_{i\in[n]}$ be a sequence and $\epsilon^j=(e^j_i)_{i\in[l]}$, $j\in[k]$ be the $k$ embeddings of $P$ in $S$, $k>0$. An *insertable region* $R_i=[l_i+1,u_i-1]\subset [n]$, $i\in[l+1]$ is a set of positions in $S$ where $l_i {\mathrel{\stackrel{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny def}}}{=}}}\min\limits_{j\in[k]}e^j_{i-1}, i\in [2,l+1], u_i {\mathrel{\stackrel{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny def}}}{=}}}\max\limits_{j\in[k]}e^j_{i}, i\in[1,l])$, $l_1{\mathrel{\stackrel{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny def}}}{=}}}0$, $u_{l+1}{\mathrel{\stackrel{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny def}}}{=}}}n+1$.
Any item $a \in s_{p},$ $p\in [l_i,u_i]$, $i\in[l+1]$ is called an *insertable item* and is such that $S$ supports the pattern $P'$ obtained by inserting $a$ in $P$ at position $i$ as follows:
- $P'=\langle a, p_{1},\dots, p_l\rangle$ if $i=1$,
- $P'=\langle p_{1},\dots, p_l, a\rangle$ if $i=l+1$,
- $P'=\langle p_{1},\dots, p_{i-1}, a, p_{i},\dots, p_l\rangle$ otherwise.
In the sequel, we present encodings for closed and maximal patterns which are based on the notations introduced in Definition \[def:insertableitem\]. These encodings cope with the most general case of condensed patterns. It should be noted that, for efficiency reasons, most of procedural algorithms for condensed sequential pattern mining process backward-condensed patterns only. Specific ASP encodings for backward-condensed pattern mining can be found in [@Guyet_EGC2016]. These encodings are known to be more efficient but are less generic. In Sect. \[sec:experiments\], the performance of the encodings introduced here will be compared with other existing approaches that often implement only backward closure/maximality constraints.
### Encoding maximal and closed patterns constraints {#sec:maximal_patterns}
The encoding below describes how is defined the set of items that can be inserted between successive items of an embedding. These itemsets are encoded by the atoms of predicate `ins(T,X,I)` where `I` is an item which can be inserted in an embedding of the current pattern in sequence `T` between items at position `X` and `X+1` in the pattern. We give the encodings for the two strategies skip-gaps and fill-gaps: Listing \[list:insertable\_sg\] (resp. Listing \[list:insertable\_fg\]) has to be added to the encoding of skip-gaps strategy (Listing \[list:sequences\_sg\]), resp. fill-gaps strategy (Listing \[list:sequences\_fg\]). We illustrate the way they proceed in Fig. \[fig:insertion\_sg\].
![Illustration of the computation of an insertable region (hatched area) where insertable items are located between $a$ and $b$ and related to the first and second element of pattern $\langle abc\rangle$. On the left, valid `occS/3` atoms in the skip-gaps strategy. In the figures, the leftmost occurrences and the rightmost occurrences are the same. Concerning the fill-gaps strategy, `occF/3` and `roccF/3` atoms are illustrated on the right. Black occurrences are used to compute the hatched region.[]{data-label="fig:insertion_sg"}](Figures_insertion_sg "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![Illustration of the computation of an insertable region (hatched area) where insertable items are located between $a$ and $b$ and related to the first and second element of pattern $\langle abc\rangle$. On the left, valid `occS/3` atoms in the skip-gaps strategy. In the figures, the leftmost occurrences and the rightmost occurrences are the same. Concerning the fill-gaps strategy, `occF/3` and `roccF/3` atoms are illustrated on the right. Black occurrences are used to compute the hatched region.[]{data-label="fig:insertion_sg"}](Figures_insertion_fg "fig:"){width="5cm"}
% leftmost "valid" embeddings
mlocc(T,1,P) :- occS(T,1,P), 0 { occS(T,1,Q): Q<P } 0,
support(T).
mlocc(T,X,P) :- occS(T,X,P), mlocc(T,X-1,Q), Q<P, X>1,
support(T).
% rightmost "valid" embeddings
mrocc(T,L,P) :- occS(T,L,P), 0 { occS(T,L,R): R>P } 0, patlen(L).
mrocc(T,X,P) :- occS(T,X,P), mrocc(T,X+1,R), R>P, X<L, patlen(L).
%insertable items
ins(T,1 ,I) :- seq(T,P,I), P<Q, mrocc(T,1, Q).
ins(T,X ,I) :- seq(T,P,I), P<Q, mrocc(T,X, Q),
P>R, mlocc(T,X-1,R), X>1, patpos(X).
ins(T,L+1,I) :- seq(T,P,I), P>R, mlocc(T,L, R), patlen(L).
Listing \[list:insertable\_sg\] gives the encoding for computing insertable items using the skip-gaps strategy. This encoding is based on the idea that the insertable region $i$ is roughly defined by the first occurrence of the $(i-1)$-th pattern item and the last occurrence of the $i$-th pattern item. However, not all occurrences of an item $I$ represented by `occS/3` atoms are valid. For instance, in Fig. \[fig:insertion\_sg\], on the left, the last occurrence of $b$ is not valid because it can not be used to define an occurrence of $\langle abc \rangle$. The valid occurrences are those which have both a preceding and a following valid occurrence. Thus, this validity property is recursive. The encoding of Listing \[list:insertable\_sg\] selects two types of occurrences: the leftmost occurrences (resp. rightmost occurrences) corresponding to the earlier (resp. the later) embeddings.
Lines 19 and 25 are boundary cases. A leftmost occurrence is valid if it is the first occurrence in the sequence. Lines 21-22 expresses that an occurrence of the $X$-th item is a valid leftmost occurrence if it follows a valid leftmost occurrence of the $(X-1)$-th item. Note that it is not required to compute a unique leftmost occurrence here. Lines 25-26 do the same operation starting from the end of the sequence, precisely, the rightmost occurrence.
Lines 29-32 define insertable items. There are three cases. Lines 29 and 32 are specific boundary cases, [i.e. ]{}insertion respectively in the prefix and in the suffix. The rule in lines 30-31 specifies that insertable items `I` are the items of a sequence `T` at position `P` such that `P` is strictly between a leftmost position of the `(X-1)`-th item and a rightmost position of the `X`-th item. In Fig. \[fig:insertion\_sg\] left, the hatched segment defines the second insertable region for pattern $\langle abc \rangle$ (strictly between $a$ and $b$).
The encoding of Listing \[list:insertable\_fg\] achieves the same task using the alternative semantics for predicate `occF/3` defining the fill-gaps strategy. As noted for the previous encoding, only the positions of the last and the first valid occurrences are required for any pattern item. It can be noted that the fill-gaps strategy provides the first valid occurrence of an item `X` as the first atom of the `occF(T,X,_)` sequence. Then, computing the last occurrence for each pattern item can be done in the same manner considering an embedding represented in reverse order . The right part of Fig. \[fig:insertion\_sg\] illustrates `occF/3` and `roccF/3` (reverse order) occurrences (see Listing \[list:insertable\_fg\], lines 21-23). We can notice that the hatched insertable region is the intersection of occurrences related to $a$ and reverse occurrences related to $b$, after having removed intersection bounds.
%embeddings in a reverse order
roccF(T,L,P) :- seq(T,P,I), pat(L,I), patlen(L).
roccF(T,L,P) :- roccF(T, L, P+1), seq(T,P,_).
roccF(T,L,P) :- roccF(T, L+1, P+1), seq(T,P,C), pat(L,C).
%insertable items
ins(T,1 ,I) :- seq(T,P,I), roccF(T,1, P+1).
ins(T,L+1,I) :- seq(T,P,I), occF(T,L,P-1), patlen(L).
ins(T,X, I) :- seq(T,P,I), roccF(T,X,P+1),
occF(T,X-1,P-1), patpos(X), X>1.
The computation of insertable items, Listing \[list:insertable\_fg\] lines 26-29, exploits the above remark. Line 26 defines the insertable region in a prefix using `roccF(T,1,P)`. Since items are insertable if they are strictly before the first position, we consider the value of `roccF(T,1,P+1)`. Line 27 uses `occF(T,L,P)` to identifies the suffix region. Line 28-29 combines both constraints for in-between cases.
We can now define the (integrity) constraints for closed and maximal patterns. These constraints are the same for the two embedding strategies.
To extract only maximal patterns, the following constraint denies patterns for which it is possible to insert an item which will be frequent within sequences that support the current pattern.
``` {numbers="none"}
:- item(I), X = 1..maxlen+1, { ins(T,X,I) : support(T) } >= th.
```
The following constraint concerns the extraction of closed-patterns. It specifies that for each insertion position (from 1, in the prefix, to `maxlen`$+1$, in the suffix), it not possible to have a frequent insertable item `I` for each supported transaction.
``` {numbers="none"}
:- item(I), X = 1..maxlen+1, { ins(T,X,I) } >=th,
ins(T,X,I) : support(T).
```
Though interesting from a theoretical point of view, these encodings leads to more complex programs and should be more difficult to ground and to solve, especially the encoding in Listing \[list:insertable\_sg\]. Backward-closure/maximality constraints are more realistic from a practical point of view.
Finally, it is important to notice that condensed constraints have to be carefully combined with other patterns/embedding constraints. As noted by Negrevergne et [al. ]{}[@negrevergne2013dominance], in such cases the problem is not clearly specified. For instance, with our database of Example \[ex:seq\_mining\], extracting closed patterns amongst the patterns of length at most 2 will not yield the same results as extracting closed patterns of length at most 2. In the first case, $\langle bc \rangle$ is closed because there is no extended pattern (of length at most 2) with the same support. In the second case, this pattern is not closed (see Example \[ex:closed\_mining\]), even if its length is at most 2.
Related works {#sec:soa}
=============
Sequential pattern mining in a sequence database have been addressed by numerous algorithms inspired by algorithms for mining frequent itemsets. The most known algorithms are GSP [@Srikant96], SPIRIT [@SPIRIT1999], SPADE [@Zaki01], PrefixSpan [@Pei2004], and CloSpan [@CloSpan03] or BIDE [@BIDE2004] for closed sequential patterns. It is worth-noting that all these algorithms are based on the anti-monotonicity property which is essential to obtain good algorithmic performances. The anti-monotonicity property states that if some pattern is frequent then all its sub-patterns are also frequent. And reciprocally, if some pattern is not-frequent then all its super-patterns are non-frequent. This property enables the algorithm to prune efficiently the search space and thus reduces its exploration. These algorithms differ by their strategy for browsing the search space. GSP [@Srikant96] is based on a breadth-first strategy, while PrefixSpan [@Pei2004] combines a depth-first strategy with a database projection that consists in reducing the database size after each pattern extension. LCM\_seq [@LCM_seq] is also based on the PrefixSpan principle, but it uses the data structures and processing method of LCM, which is the state of the art algorithm for frequent itemsets mining. Finally, SPADE [@Zaki01] introduces a vertical representation of database to propose an alternative to the two previous type of algorithms. For more details about these algorithms, we refer the reader to the survey of Mooney and Roddick [@Mooney2013].
Many algorithms extend the principles of these algorithms to extract alternative forms of sequential patterns. Constraints and condensed patterns are among the most studied alternative patterns due to their relevance to a wide range of applications or to their concise representation of frequent patterns. Integrating constraints in sequential pattern mining is often limited to the use of anti-monotonic temporal constraints such as `maxgap` constraints. When constraints are not anti-monotonic, the previous pruning technique cannot be applied and the computation may require an exhaustive search, which is not reasonable. The usual technique consists in defining an anti-monotonic upper-bound of the measure such that a large part of the search space can be prune ([e.g. ]{}high occupancy patterns [@Zhang2015]). The tighter the upper-bound is, the better the computing performances are. However, any new type of constraint requires a long effort before being integrated in an efficient algorithm. Integrating flexible and generic constraints in a pattern mining algorithm remains a challenge.
The design of a generic framework for data mining is not a new problem. It has been especially studied within the field of inductive databases as proposed by Imielinski and Mannila [@Imielinski1996]. In an inductive database, knowledge discovery is viewed as a querying process. The idea is that queries would return patterns and models. This framework is based on a parallel between database and data mining theory and has as ultimate goal the discovery of a relational algebra for supporting data mining.
In the specific field of pattern mining, designing such query languages has recently attracted interest in the literature [@DeRaedt15; @guns2015miningzinc; @negrevergne2013dominance; @bonchi2006conquest; @Boulicault2005; @Vautier07]. For instance, Vautier et [al. ]{}[@Vautier07] proposed a framework which is based on an algebraic specification of pattern mining operators. Bonchi et [al. ]{}[@bonchi2006conquest] proposed the Conquest system which is an algorithmic framework that accepts constraints with different properties (anti-monotonic, convertible, loose anti-monotonic, etc.). Boulicault and Jeudy [@Boulicault2005] survey the field of constraint-based data mining. Negrevergne et [al. ]{}[@negrevergne2013dominance] recently proposed an algebra for programming pattern mining problems. This algebra allows for the generic combination of constraints on individual patterns with dominance relations between patterns.
More recently, the declarative approaches have shown a strong potential to be relevant frameworks for implementing the principles of inductive databases [@DeRaedt15]. Many data mining problems can be formalized as combinatorial problems in a declarative way. For instance, tasks such as the discovery of patterns in data, or finding clusters of similar examples in data [@DaoDV15], often require constraints to be satisfied and require solutions that are optimal with respect to a given scoring function. The aim of these declarative approaches is to obtain a declarative constraint-based language even at the cost of degraded runtime performance compared to a specialized algorithm. Three types of state-of-the-art solvers have been used: SAT solvers [@coquery2012sat], CP solvers [@guns2015miningzinc] and ASP solvers [@jarvisalo2011itemset].
MiningZinc [@guns2015miningzinc] is a CP-based approach providing a specific language built upon MiniZinc, a medium-level constraint modelling language [@nethercote2007minizinc]. A similar declarative language has been proposed by Bruynooghe et [al. ]{}[@bruynooghe2015] using the IDP3 system. IDP3 is a Knowledge Base System (KBS) that intends to offer the user a range of inference methods and to make use of different state of the art technologies including SAT, SAT Modulo Theories, Constraint Programming and various technologies from Logic Programming. One example of application of their system concerns the problem of learning a minimal automaton consistent with a given set of strings. In ASP, Järvisalo [@jarvisalo2011itemset] has proposed the first attempt of encoding pattern mining in ASP. Järvisalo addressed this problem as a new challenge for the ASP solver, but he did not highlight the potential benefit of this approach to improve the expressiveness of pattern mining tools. Nonetheless, the first order expressions of ASP encodings can easily be understood by users without higher abstracted languages. Following Guns et [al. ]{}’s proposal [@guns2011CPmining], Järvisalo designed an ASP program to extract frequent itemsets in a transaction database. A major feature of Järvisalo’s proposal is that each answer set (AS) contains only one frequent itemset associated with the identifiers of the transactions where it occurs. To the best of our knowledge, there is no comprehensive language provided for SAT-based data mining approaches.
All these approaches were conducted on itemset mining in transaction databases, which is much simpler than sequential pattern mining in a sequence database. Some recent works have proposed to explore declarative programming for sequential pattern mining. In fact, dealing with expressive constraints is especially interesting for sequential pattern mining. The range of constraints on sequential patterns is wider than on itemsets and are meaningful for various concrete data analysis issues.
Negrevergne et Guns [@Negrevergne15] proposed the [CPSM]{} approach which can be considered as the state of the art of declarative sequential pattern mining. Their contribution is twofold: i) the first declarative encodings of the standard sequential pattern mining task, ii) an efficient CP-based approach based on dedicated propagators that remains compatible with sequential pattern constraints. By combining efficiency and declarativity, [CPSM]{} is a proof of concept that a declarative approach can be efficient to solve pattern mining tasks.
Métivier et [al. ]{}[@Metivier2013] have developed a constraint programming method for mining sequential patterns with constraints in a sequence database. The constraints are based on *amongst* and *regular expression* constraints and expressed by automata. Coquery et [al. ]{}[@coquery2012sat] have proposed a SAT based approach for sequential pattern mining. The patterns are of the form $ab?c$ and an occurrence corresponds to an exact substring (without gap) with joker (the character $?$ replaces exactly one item different from $b$ and $c$). Coletta and Negrevergne [@coletta2016] have proposed a purely boolean SAT formulation of sequential pattern mining (including closed and maximal patterns) that can be easily extended with additional constraints.
ASP has also been used for sequential pattern mining [@Guyet_IJCAI2016; @Guyet_IAF2014]. Gebser et [al. ]{}[@Guyet_IJCAI2016] have proposed, firstly, an efficient encoding for sequential pattern mining. Secondly, they have proposed to use the [[asprin]{}]{} system for the management of pattern set constraints using preferences. In [@Guyet_IAF2014], the mining task is the extraction of serial episodes in a unique long sequence of itemsets where occurrences are the minimal occurrences with constraints. Counting the number of occurrences of a pattern, or of a set of patterns, in a long sequence introduces additional complexity compared to mining sequential patterns from a sequence database since two pattern occurrences can overlap. The main contribution is a method for enumerating pattern occurrences that ensures the anti-monotonicity property.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Having demonstrated that modelling in ASP is powerful yet simple, it is now interesting to examine the computational behavior of ASP-based encodings.
The first experiments compare the performance, in runtime and memory requirements, of the various ASP programs presented before. The objective is to better understand the advantages and drawbacks of each encoding. The questions we would like to answer are: which of the two embedding strategies is the best? does the encoding improvement really reduce computing resources needs? what is the behaviour of our encoding with added pattern constraints?
Next, we compare our results with the CP-based ones of [CPSM]{} [@Negrevergne15]. [CPSM]{} constitutes a natural reference since it aims at solving a mining task similar to the present one and since [CPSM]{} adopts a semi-declarative approach, in particular, occurrence search is performed by a dedicated constraint propagator.
In all presented experiments, we use the version 4.5 of [[clingo]{}]{}[^5], with default solving parameters. For benchmarking on synthetic data, the ASP programs were run on a computing server with 8Go RAM without using the multi-threading mode of `clingo`. Multi-threading reduces the mean runtime but introduces variance due to the random allocation of tasks. Such variance is inconvenient for interpreting results with repeated executions. For real datasets, we used the multi-threading mode with 4 threads and 20Go shared RAM. This large amount of memory is required for large datasets.
Encodings comparisons on synthetic datasets
-------------------------------------------
The first experiments were conducted on synthetic databases to control the most important features of data. It allows for an easier and more reliable analysis of time and memory requirements with respect to these parameters. We designed a sequential database simulator to generate datasets with controlled characteristics. The generator[^6] is based on a “retro-engineering” process: 1) a set of random patterns is generated, 2) occurrences of patterns are assigned to a given percentage of database sequences, and 3) each sequence of items is randomly generated according to the patterns it must contain and a mean length.
The parameters of the generator and their default values are sum up in Table \[tab:generator\]. Default values are those used when not explicitly specified.
The task to be solved is the extraction of the complete set of frequent patterns (see Sect. \[sec:spm\]). It should be noted that every encoding extracts exactly the same set of patterns. Resource requirements are thus fairly comparable. The computation runtime is the time needed to extract all the patterns. It includes both grounding and solving of the ASP programs using the quiet [[clingo]{}]{} mode (no printed output). The memory consumption is evaluated from the size of the grounded program, [i.e. ]{}the number of grounded atoms and rules. This approximation is accurate to compare ASP encodings. The solving process may require additional memory. This memory requirement is negligible compared to grounding.
Parameter Default value Description
----------- --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$D$ 500 number of sequences in the database
$l$ 20 sequence mean length (sequence length follows a normal law)
$n$ 20 number of different patterns
$lp$ 5 pattern mean length
$th_{D}$ 10% minimum number of occurrences generated for each pattern
$k$ 50 alphabet size. The distribution of item occurrences follows a normal law ($\mu=.5$ and $\sigma=0.05$). Some items occur more often than others.
: Sequence generator parameters.[]{data-label="tab:generator"}
We start with an overall comparison of the different encodings and their refinements with respect to parameters $th_{D}$ and $l$. Fig. \[fig:expe1\_cmp\_time\] compares the runtimes for different encodings and the two embedding strategies, fill-gaps and skip-gaps. For each setting, 6 databases with the same characteristics were generated. Figure curves show the mean rutime of the successful executions, [i.e. ]{}those that extract the complete set of frequent pattern within the timeout period. The timeout was set to 20 minutes.
![Mean computation time for synthetic databases with sequences length from 10 to 30 (in rows). Each curve represents an improvement to the basic encoding: none ([base]{}), frequent items ([fqit]{}), itemsets ([itms]{}), projection ([proj]{}). Each dot represents the mean of results on 6 datasets. The left-hand (resp. right-hand) column gives the results for the fill-gaps (resp. skip-gaps) strategy. The dashed horizontal line denotes the timeout of 20 minutes.[]{data-label="fig:expe1_cmp_time"}](expe1_cmp_time){width="\textwidth"}
The exponential growth of the runtime when the threshold decreases is a classical result in pattern mining considering that the number of patterns grows exponentially. Every approach conforms to this behaviour. In more details:
- the longer the sequences, the greater the runtime. Most problem instances related to databases with $l=10$ can be solved by any approach. When the mean length of sequences increases, the computation time increases also and the number of instances solved within the timeout period decreases. This can be easily explained by the combinatorics of computing embeddings which increases with the sequence length.
- all proposed improvements do improve runtime for high frequency thresholds on these small synthetic databases. For $f_{min}=20\%$, the curve of every proposed improvement is below the curve of the basic encoding. For high thresholds, prefix-projection and itemsets improvements are significantly better. Nonetheless, the lower the threshold, the lower the difference between computation times. This shows that, except for prefix-projection, the improvements are not so efficient for hard mining tasks.
- the prefix-projection improvement is the fastest and reduces significantly the computation time (by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude).
- the skip-gaps strategy is more efficient than the fill-gaps strategy for these small datasets. The skip-gaps strategy requires less time to extract the same set of patterns than the fill-gaps strategy, for the same encoding improvements.
We will see below that this last result does not accurately predict which strategy should be preferred for mining real datasets. Before, we analyse the memory requirements of the different encodings.
![Memory requirement with respect to sequence length. Problem size (estimated memory requirement) for synthetic databases of sequences of length from $10$ to $30$ (in rows), under frequency threshold of $20\%$.[]{data-label="fig:expe1_cmp_mem"}](expe1_cmp_mem){width="\textwidth"}
We first note that the memory consumption is not related to the frequency threshold. This is a specificity of declarative pattern mining. Thus, Fig. \[fig:expe1\_cmp\_mem\] compares the embedding strategies only for a unique frequency threshold $f_{min} = 20\%$. The curves show the number of grounded atoms and rules. As it represents a tight approximation of the memory requirement, we will refer to memory in the sequel.
Unsurprisingly, the richer the encoding is, the more memory is required. But the differences are not really significant, except for the prefix-projection programs ([proj]{}) which requires the highest number of atoms. We can see that using frequent itemsets ([itms]{}) is efficient to reduce the memory requirement. This means that the grounding step was able to exploit the additional rules to avoid the creation of useless atoms and rules. Such a kind of rules is really interesting because, as the algorithmic complexity of the mining task is not high, the efficiency of the ASP program is related to his grounding size.
In addition, from this last point of view, we can note that the fill-gaps strategy requires several order less memory than the skip-gaps strategy. The longer the sequences, the larger the difference. This result is illustrated by Fig. \[fig:expe1\_fgsg\_memratio\]. For each problem instance, the ratio of memory usage is computed by dividing the memory required by encoding with skip-gaps strategy with the memory required by the similar encoding with the fill-gaps strategy. Fig. \[fig:expe1\_fgsg\_memratio\] illustrates with boxplots the dispersion of these ratios for different sequence lengths. Fig. \[fig:expe1\_fgsg\_memratio\] clearly shows that the longer the sequences are, the more efficient the fill-gaps strategy is for memory consumption.
![Dispersion of ratios of memory consumption obtained for the skip-gaps strategy to those obtained for the fill-gaps strategy. Boxplots were computed for problem instances with threshold at $20\%$ and for all lengths and all encodings.[]{data-label="fig:expe1_fgsg_memratio"}](expe1_fgsg_memratio){width="60.00000%"}
To end this overall comparison, it is interesting to come back to runtime. The overall results of Fig. \[fig:expe1\_cmp\_time\] show that the skip-gaps strategy seems better, but considering that the fill-gaps strategy requires less memory, it is interesting to analyse the evolution of computation time with respect to database size.
Fig. \[fig:expe3\_fgsg\_dbsize\] illustrates the ratio of runtimes in both strategies when the database size increases. The support threshold, $f_{min}$, is fixed to $10\%$ and the sequence mean length to $20$. We used the prefix-projection encoding for this experiment. Similarly to the previous figure, the ratios were individually computed for each pair of results (fill-gaps/skip-gaps) and the figure shows statistics about these ratio.
Fig. \[fig:expe3\_fgsg\_dbsize\] shows clearly that when the database size increases, the fill-gaps strategy becomes more efficient than the skip-gaps strategy.
![Dispersion of ratios of runtime of the skip-gaps strategy to the runtime of the fill-gaps strategy.[]{data-label="fig:expe3_fgsg_dbsize"}](expe3_fgsg_dbsize){width="60.00000%"}
From these experiments, we can conclude that combining prefix-projection with the fill-gaps strategy gives the best encoding. Thus, in the next subsection, we will compare this encoding with [CPSM]{}.
Real dataset analysis
---------------------
In these experiments, we analyse the proposed encodings on processing real datasets. We use the same real datasets as selected in [@Negrevergne15] to have a representative panel of application domains:
- JMLR: a natural language processing dataset; each transaction is a paper abstract from the Journal of Machine Learning Research,
- UNIX: each transaction is a series of shell commands executed by a user during one session,
- iPGR: each transaction is a sequence of peptides that is known to cleave in presence of a Trypsin enzyme,
- FIFA: each transaction is a sequence of webpages visited by a user during a single session.
The dataset characteristics are sum up in Table \[tab:dataset\]. Some of them are similar to those of simulated datasets.
**Dataset** $|\mathcal{I}|$ $|D|$ $||D||$ $max |T |$ $avg |T |$ $density$
--------------- ----------------- ------- --------- ------------ ------------ -----------
**Unix user** 265 484 10935 1256 22.59 0.085
**JMLR** 3847 788 75646 231 96.00 0.025
**iPRG** 21 7573 98163 13 12.96 0.617
**FIFA** 20450 2990 741092 100 36.239 0.012
: Dataset characteristics: alphabet size, number of sequences and items, max and mean length of sequences, dataset density.[]{data-label="tab:dataset"}
### Comparison of frequent pattern mining with [CPSM]{}
Fig. \[fig:cpsm\_vs\_asp\] compares the runtimes of ASP-based sequence mining (using the ASP system [[clingo]{}]{}) and [CPSM]{} (based on the CP solver [[gecode]{}]{}). We ran the two versions of [CPSM]{}. [CPSM]{} makes use of global constraints to compute embeddings. This version is known to be very efficient, but it cannot cope with embedding constraints, while [CPSM-emb]{} does but is less efficient. We do not compare our approach with dedicated algorithms, which are known to be more efficient than declarative mining approaches (see [@Negrevergne15] for such comparisons). The timeout was set to 1 hour.
![Runtime for mining frequent patterns with four approaches: [CPSM]{}, [CPSM-emb]{}, ASP with fill-gaps, ASP with skip-gaps.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp"}](CPSMvsASP_JMLR "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"} ![Runtime for mining frequent patterns with four approaches: [CPSM]{}, [CPSM-emb]{}, ASP with fill-gaps, ASP with skip-gaps.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp"}](CPSMvsASP_UNIX "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}\
![Runtime for mining frequent patterns with four approaches: [CPSM]{}, [CPSM-emb]{}, ASP with fill-gaps, ASP with skip-gaps.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp"}](CPSMvsASP_IPRG "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"} ![Runtime for mining frequent patterns with four approaches: [CPSM]{}, [CPSM-emb]{}, ASP with fill-gaps, ASP with skip-gaps.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp"}](CPSMvsASP_FIFA "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}\
![Runtime for mining frequent patterns with four approaches: [CPSM]{}, [CPSM-emb]{}, ASP with fill-gaps, ASP with skip-gaps.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp"}](legend_cpsm "fig:"){width=".4\textwidth"}
The results show that the runtimes obtained with [[clingo]{}]{} are comparable to [CPSM-emb]{}. It is lower for IPGR, very similar for UNIX and larger for JMLR. These results are consistant to those presented in [@Guyet_IJCAI2016] for synthetic datasets. When sequences become large, the efficiency of our encoding decreases somewhat. The mean length for JMLR is $96$ while it is only $12.96$ for iPRG. For [CPSM]{} with global constraints, the runtime-efficiency is several order of magnitude faster. To be fair, it should be noted that ASP approach ran with four parallel threads while [CPSM-emb]{} ran with no multi-threading since it does not support it. It should also be noted that [CPSM]{} requires a lot of memory, similarly to ASP-based solving.
### Comparison of constrained frequent pattern mining with [CPSM]{}
In this section, we detail the performance on constrained pattern mining tasks. We compare our approach with [CPSM-emb]{}, which enables *max-gap* and *max-span* constraints. In this experiments we took the same setting as the experiments of [@Negrevergne15]: we add first a constraint *max-gap=2* and then we combine it with a second constraint *max-span=10*. For each setting, we compute the frequent patterns with our ASP encoding and with [CPSM]{} for the four datasets.
Fig. \[fig:cpsm\_vs\_asp\_constrainted\] shows the runtime and the number of patterns for each experiment. This figure illustrates results for completed searches. A first general remark is that adding constraints to ASP encodings reduces computation times. Surprisingly for [CPSM]{}, for some thresholds the computation with some constraints requires more time than without constraints. This is the case for example for the iPRG dataset: [CPSM]{} could not solve the mining problem within the timeout period for thresholds 769 and 384. Surprisingly, it could complete the task for lower thresholds whereas the task should be more difficult. ASP required also more time to solve the same problem instances, but it could complete them. Again, we can note that the mean sequence length impacts the performance of ASP encodings. [CPSM]{} has lower runtime on JMLR than ASP while it is the opposite on iPRG.
The curves related to the number of patterns demonstrate that the number of extracted pattern decreases when the number of constraints increases. Since we present only the results of completed solving, [CPSM]{} and ASP yield the same set of patterns.
![Results for constrained sequence mining tasks with ASP vs [CPSM]{}. On the left: runtime; on the right: number of patterns. The two figures are in log scales. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG, UNIX and FIFA. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different type of constraints (see legend). The horizontal dashed line figure out the 1 hour timeout.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp_constrainted"}](CSTR_time_JMLR "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"} ![Results for constrained sequence mining tasks with ASP vs [CPSM]{}. On the left: runtime; on the right: number of patterns. The two figures are in log scales. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG, UNIX and FIFA. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different type of constraints (see legend). The horizontal dashed line figure out the 1 hour timeout.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp_constrainted"}](CSTR_nbpat_JMLR "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}\
![Results for constrained sequence mining tasks with ASP vs [CPSM]{}. On the left: runtime; on the right: number of patterns. The two figures are in log scales. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG, UNIX and FIFA. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different type of constraints (see legend). The horizontal dashed line figure out the 1 hour timeout.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp_constrainted"}](CSTR_time_IPRG "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"} ![Results for constrained sequence mining tasks with ASP vs [CPSM]{}. On the left: runtime; on the right: number of patterns. The two figures are in log scales. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG, UNIX and FIFA. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different type of constraints (see legend). The horizontal dashed line figure out the 1 hour timeout.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp_constrainted"}](CSTR_nbpat_IPRG "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}\
![Results for constrained sequence mining tasks with ASP vs [CPSM]{}. On the left: runtime; on the right: number of patterns. The two figures are in log scales. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG, UNIX and FIFA. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different type of constraints (see legend). The horizontal dashed line figure out the 1 hour timeout.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp_constrainted"}](CSTR_time_UNIX "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"} ![Results for constrained sequence mining tasks with ASP vs [CPSM]{}. On the left: runtime; on the right: number of patterns. The two figures are in log scales. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG, UNIX and FIFA. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different type of constraints (see legend). The horizontal dashed line figure out the 1 hour timeout.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp_constrainted"}](CSTR_nbpat_UNIX "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}\
![Results for constrained sequence mining tasks with ASP vs [CPSM]{}. On the left: runtime; on the right: number of patterns. The two figures are in log scales. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG, UNIX and FIFA. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different type of constraints (see legend). The horizontal dashed line figure out the 1 hour timeout.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp_constrainted"}](CSTR_time_FIFA "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"} ![Results for constrained sequence mining tasks with ASP vs [CPSM]{}. On the left: runtime; on the right: number of patterns. The two figures are in log scales. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG, UNIX and FIFA. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different type of constraints (see legend). The horizontal dashed line figure out the 1 hour timeout.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp_constrainted"}](CSTR_nbpat_FIFA "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}\
![Results for constrained sequence mining tasks with ASP vs [CPSM]{}. On the left: runtime; on the right: number of patterns. The two figures are in log scales. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG, UNIX and FIFA. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different type of constraints (see legend). The horizontal dashed line figure out the 1 hour timeout.[]{data-label="fig:cpsm_vs_asp_constrainted"}](legend_cstr "fig:"){width=".4\textwidth"}
### Analysis of condensed pattern extraction
Fig. \[fig:results\_condensed\] illustrates the results for condensed pattern mining. This approach cannot be compared to [CPSM]{} since it does not propose means for encoding such kind of patterns.
This experiment compares the resource requirements in time and memory for mining closed/maximal and backward-closed/maximal patterns. For each of these mining task, we compared the skip-gaps and fill-gaps strategies. The main encoding is still based on prefix-projection. Three real datasets have been processed (JMLR, UNIX and IPRG). The FIFA dataset was not processed due to its heavy memory requirement for some of these tasks.
We can first note that the difference between the number of extracted patterns is low. As expected, all encodings that complete a given mining task extract the same number of patterns. This result supports the correctness of our approach. From the memory point of view, we see that the encodings extracting condensed patterns requires several order of magnitude more memory, especially for (backward-)closed patterns. It is also interesting to note that the memory requirement for the fill-gaps strategy is not linked to the threshold, contrary to the skip-gaps strategy. Again, the fill-gaps strategy seems to be more convenient for small thresholds. We can note that there is a big difference between datasets concerning runtime. For instance, frequent patterns are faster to extract for JMLR and UNIX, but maximal patterns are faster to compute on IPRG. The density of this last dataset makes maximal pattern extraction easier. Uniformly, we can conclude that fill-gaps is faster than skip-gaps. The complexity of the encoding related to insertable items with skip-gaps makes the problem difficult to solve. Opposed to the experiments presented in [@Guyet_EGC2016], we did not use any solving heuristic. For maximal patterns, a huge improvement of runtime was observed when using the *subset-minimal* heuristic[^7].
![From left to right, problem size, runtime and number of extracted patterns with respect to the frequency threshold. Runtimes are shown only if the solving was complete, contrary to pattern numbers which show the number of extracted patterns within the timeout period. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG and UNIX. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different types of condensed patterns (see legend) and for the two embedding strategies (*fill-gaps* in red-plain line, *skip-gaps* in blue-dashed line). []{data-label="fig:results_condensed"}](condensed_memory_JMLR "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"} ![From left to right, problem size, runtime and number of extracted patterns with respect to the frequency threshold. Runtimes are shown only if the solving was complete, contrary to pattern numbers which show the number of extracted patterns within the timeout period. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG and UNIX. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different types of condensed patterns (see legend) and for the two embedding strategies (*fill-gaps* in red-plain line, *skip-gaps* in blue-dashed line). []{data-label="fig:results_condensed"}](condensed_time_JMLR "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"} ![From left to right, problem size, runtime and number of extracted patterns with respect to the frequency threshold. Runtimes are shown only if the solving was complete, contrary to pattern numbers which show the number of extracted patterns within the timeout period. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG and UNIX. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different types of condensed patterns (see legend) and for the two embedding strategies (*fill-gaps* in red-plain line, *skip-gaps* in blue-dashed line). []{data-label="fig:results_condensed"}](condensed_nbpatterns_JMLR "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"}\
![From left to right, problem size, runtime and number of extracted patterns with respect to the frequency threshold. Runtimes are shown only if the solving was complete, contrary to pattern numbers which show the number of extracted patterns within the timeout period. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG and UNIX. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different types of condensed patterns (see legend) and for the two embedding strategies (*fill-gaps* in red-plain line, *skip-gaps* in blue-dashed line). []{data-label="fig:results_condensed"}](condensed_memory_IPRG "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"} ![From left to right, problem size, runtime and number of extracted patterns with respect to the frequency threshold. Runtimes are shown only if the solving was complete, contrary to pattern numbers which show the number of extracted patterns within the timeout period. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG and UNIX. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different types of condensed patterns (see legend) and for the two embedding strategies (*fill-gaps* in red-plain line, *skip-gaps* in blue-dashed line). []{data-label="fig:results_condensed"}](condensed_time_IPRG "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"} ![From left to right, problem size, runtime and number of extracted patterns with respect to the frequency threshold. Runtimes are shown only if the solving was complete, contrary to pattern numbers which show the number of extracted patterns within the timeout period. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG and UNIX. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different types of condensed patterns (see legend) and for the two embedding strategies (*fill-gaps* in red-plain line, *skip-gaps* in blue-dashed line). []{data-label="fig:results_condensed"}](condensed_nbpatterns_IPRG "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"}\
![From left to right, problem size, runtime and number of extracted patterns with respect to the frequency threshold. Runtimes are shown only if the solving was complete, contrary to pattern numbers which show the number of extracted patterns within the timeout period. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG and UNIX. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different types of condensed patterns (see legend) and for the two embedding strategies (*fill-gaps* in red-plain line, *skip-gaps* in blue-dashed line). []{data-label="fig:results_condensed"}](condensed_memory_UNIX "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"} ![From left to right, problem size, runtime and number of extracted patterns with respect to the frequency threshold. Runtimes are shown only if the solving was complete, contrary to pattern numbers which show the number of extracted patterns within the timeout period. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG and UNIX. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different types of condensed patterns (see legend) and for the two embedding strategies (*fill-gaps* in red-plain line, *skip-gaps* in blue-dashed line). []{data-label="fig:results_condensed"}](condensed_time_UNIX "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"} ![From left to right, problem size, runtime and number of extracted patterns with respect to the frequency threshold. Runtimes are shown only if the solving was complete, contrary to pattern numbers which show the number of extracted patterns within the timeout period. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG and UNIX. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different types of condensed patterns (see legend) and for the two embedding strategies (*fill-gaps* in red-plain line, *skip-gaps* in blue-dashed line). []{data-label="fig:results_condensed"}](condensed_nbpatterns_UNIX "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"}\
![From left to right, problem size, runtime and number of extracted patterns with respect to the frequency threshold. Runtimes are shown only if the solving was complete, contrary to pattern numbers which show the number of extracted patterns within the timeout period. From top to bottom, JMLR, IPRG and UNIX. For each plot, the curves illustrate the results for different types of condensed patterns (see legend) and for the two embedding strategies (*fill-gaps* in red-plain line, *skip-gaps* in blue-dashed line). []{data-label="fig:results_condensed"}](legend_condensed "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
Conclusion and perspectives
===========================
This article has presented a declarative approach of sequential pattern mining based on answer set programming. We have illustrated how to encode a broad range of mining tasks (including condensed representations and constrained patterns) in pure ASP. Thus, we shown the first advantage of declarative pattern mining: for most well-specified tasks, the development effort is significantly lower than for procedural approaches. The integration of new constraints within our framework requires only few lines of code. This was made possible thanks to the flexibility of both ASP language and solvers.
Nonetheless, another objective of this paper was to give the intuition to the reader that while encoding a straightforward solution to a problem can be easy in ASP, writing efficient programs may be complex. Developing competitive encodings requires a good understanding of the solving process. To this end, we have presented several possible improvements of basic sequential pattern mining and two alternatives for encoding the main complex task, [i.e. ]{}computing embeddings. These encodings have been extensively evaluated on synthetic and real datasets to draw conclusions about the overall efficiency of this approach (especially compared to the constraint programming approach CPSM) and about which are the best encodings among the proposed ones and in which context.
The first conclusion of these experiments is that our ASP approach has comparable computing performances with [CPSM-emb]{} as long as the length of the sequence remains reasonable. This can be explained considering that solving the embedding problem is a difficult task for pure declarative encodings while [CPSM]{} relies on dedicated propagators. The propagators of [CPSM]{} solve the embedding problem using additional procedural code. It turns that, for solving the embedding problem in ASP, encoding using a *fill-gaps* strategy appears to be better than using the *skip-gaps* strategy on real datasets, thanks to lower memory requirements.
The second conclusion is that adding constraints on patterns reduces runtime, but increases memory consumption. For real datasets, the more constraints are added, the more memory is required. This is due, to encoding the constraints, but also to encoding the information that may be required to compute constraints. For example, encodings using the *maxspan* constraint require more complex embeddings (`occS/4` atoms) than encodings without this constraint.
To fully benefit from the flexibility of our approach to proceed large datasets, we need to improve the efficiency of the computation of embeddings. Our objective is now to mimic the approach of CPSM consisting in using propagators within the solver to solve the part of the problems for which procedural approaches are efficient. The new [[clingo]{}]{} 5 series will integrate “ASP modulo theory" solving processes. This new facilities will enable to combine ASP and propagators in an efficient way.
We would like to thanks Roland Kaminski and Max Ostrowski for their significant inputs and comments about ASP encodings; and Benjamin Negrevergne and Tias Guns for their suggestions about the experimental part. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
\[sec:appendix\]
Listing \[list:sequences\_IS\] illustrates how the encoding of the *skip-gaps* strategy can be transformed to mine sequential patterns that are sequences of itemsets.
item(I) :- seq(_, _,I). %set of items
%sequential pattern generation
patpos(1).
0 { patpos(X+1) } 1 :- patpos(X), X<maxlen.
patlen(L) :- patpos(L), not patpos(L+1).
%generate an itemset for each position
1 { pat(X,I): item(I) } :- patpos(X).
%pattern occurrences
occS(T,1,P) :- seq(T,P,I):pat(1,I); seq(T,P,_).
occS(T,Pos+1,P) :- occS(T,Pos,Q), Q<P, seq(T,P,J),
pat(Pos+1,J), seq(T,P,I):pat(Pos+1,I).
support(T) :- occS(T, L, _), patlen(L).
:- { support(T) } th-1.
The first difference with the encoding of Listing \[list:sequences\_sg\] concerns the generation of patterns. The upper bound constraint of the choice rule in Line 9 has been removed, enabling the possible generation of every non-empty subset of $\mathcal{I}$.
The second difference is that the new ASP rules verify the inclusion of all items in itemsets. Line 14, `seq(T,P,I):pat(1,I)` indicates that for each atom `pat(1,I)` there should exist an atom `seq(T,P,I)` to satisfy the rule body. A similar expression is used Line 15.
Agrawal, R., Imielinski, T., and Swami, A. (1993). Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In [*Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data*]{}, pages 207–216.
Agrawal, R. and Srikant, R. (1995). Mining sequential patterns. In [*Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering*]{}, pages 3–14.
Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., and Walsh, T. (2009). , volume 185. IOS Press.
Bonchi, F., Giannotti, F., Lucchese, C., Orlando, S., Perego, R., and Trasarti, R. (2006). Conquest: a constraint-based querying system for exploratory pattern discovery. In [*Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering*]{}, pages 159–159.
Boulicaut, J.-F. and Jeudy, B. (2005). Constraint-based data mining. In Maimon, O. and Rokach, L., editors, [*Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook*]{}, pages 399–416. Springer US.
Brewka, G., Delgrande, J. P., Romero, J., and Schaub, T. (2015). asprin: [C]{}ustomizing answer set preferences without a headache. In [*Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)*]{}, pages 1467–1474.
Bruynooghe, M., Blockeel, H., Bogaerts, B., De Cat, B., De Pooter, S., Jansen, J., Labarre, A., Ramon, J., Denecker, M., and Verwer, S. (2015). Predicate logic as a modeling language: Modeling and solving some machine learning and data mining problems with [IDP3]{}. , 15(06):783–817.
Coletta, R. and Negrevergne, B. (2016). A [SAT]{} model to mine flexible sequences in transactional datasets. .
Coquery, E., Jabbour, S., Sa[ï]{}s, L., and Salhi, Y. (2012). A [SAT-B]{}ased approach for discovering frequent, closed and maximal patterns in a sequence. In [*Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI)*]{}, pages 258–263.
Dao, T., Duong, K., and Vrain, C. (2015). Constrained minimum sum of squares clustering by constraint programming. In [*Proceedings of Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming*]{}, pages 557–573.
, L. (2015). Languages for learning and mining. In [*Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)*]{}, pages 4107–4111.
Garofalakis, M., Rastogi, R., and Shim, K. (1999). : Sequential pattern mining with regular expression constraints. In [*Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases*]{}, pages 223–234.
Gebser, M., Guyet, T., Quiniou, R., Romero, J., and Schaub, T. (2016). Knowledge-based sequence mining with [ASP]{}. In [*Proceedings of International Join Conference on Artificial Intelligence*]{}, pages 1497–1504.
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., and Schneider, M. (2011). Potassco: The [P]{}otsdam answer set solving collection. , 24(2):107–124.
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., and Schaub, T. (2014). *Clingo* = [ASP]{} + control: Preliminary report. In [*Technical Communications of the Thirtieth International Conference on Logic Programming*]{}.
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1991). Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. , 9:365–385.
Guns, T., Dries, A., Nijssen, S., Tack, G., and [De Raedt]{}, L. (2015). : A declarative framework for constraint-based mining. , page In press.
Guns, T., Nijssen, S., and [De Raedt]{}, L. (2011). Itemset mining: A constraint programming perspective. , 175(12-13):1951–1983.
Gupta, M. and Han, J. (2013). , chapter Applications of Pattern Discovery Using Sequential Data Mining, pages 947–970. IGI-Global.
Guyet, T., Moinard, Y., and Quiniou, R. (2014). Using answer set programming for pattern mining. In [*Proceedings of conference “Intelligence Artificielle Fondamentale” (IAF)*]{}.
Guyet, T., Moinard, Y., Quiniou, R., and Schaub, T. (2016). Fouille de motifs séquentiels avec [ASP]{}. In [*Proceedings of conference “Extraction et la Gestion des Connaissances” (EGC)*]{}, pages 39–50.
Imielinski, T. and Mannila, H. (1996). A database perspective on knowledge discovery. , 39(11):58–64.
Janhunen, T. and Niemelä, I. (2016). The answer set programming paradigm. , 37:13–24.
J[ä]{}rvisalo, M. (2011). Itemset mining as a challenge application for answer set enumeration. In [*Proceedings of the conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning*]{}, pages 304–310.
Lallouet, A., Moinard, Y., Nicolas, P., and Stéphan, I. (2013). Programmation logique. In Marquis, P., Papini, O., and Prade, H., editors, [*Panorama de l’intelligence artificielle : ses bases méthodologiques, ses développements*]{}, volume 2. Cépaduès.
Lefèvre, C. and Nicolas, P. (2009). The first version of a new [ASP]{} solver: [ASPeRiX]{}. In [*Proceedings of the conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning*]{}, pages 522–527.
Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., and Scarcello, F. (2006). The [DLV]{} system for knowledge representation and reasoning. , 7(3):499–562.
Lhote, L. (2010). Number of frequent patterns in random databases. In Skiadas, C. H., editor, [*Advances in Data Analysis*]{}, Statistics for Industry and Technology, pages 33–45.
Lifschitz, V. (2008). What is answer set programming? In [*Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)*]{}, pages 1594–1597.
Low-Kam, C., Ra[ï]{}ssi, C., Kaytoue, M., and Pei, J. (2013). Mining statistically significant sequential patterns. In [*Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining*]{}, pages 488–497.
M[é]{}tivier, J.-P., Loudni, S., and Charnois, T. (2013). A constraint programming approach for mining sequential patterns in a sequence database. In [*Proceedings of the Workshops of the European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML/PKDD)*]{}.
Mooney, C. H. and Roddick, J. F. (2013). Sequential pattern mining – approaches and algorithms. , 45(2):1–39.
Muggleton, S. and De Raedt, L. (1994). Inductive logic programming: Theory and methods. , 19:629–679.
Negrevergne, B., Dries, A., Guns, T., and Nijssen, S. (2013). Dominance programming for itemset mining. In [*Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining*]{}, pages 557–566.
Negrevergne, B. and Guns, T. (2015). Constraint-based sequence mining using constraint programming. In [*Proceedings of International Conference on Integration of [AI]{} and [OR]{} Techniques in Constraint Programming, [CPAIOR]{}*]{}, pages 288–305.
Nethercote, N., Stuckey, P. J., Becket, R., Brand, S., Duck, G. J., and Tack, G. (2007). : Towards a standard [CP]{} modelling language. In [*Proceedings of the conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming*]{}, pages 529–543.
Pei, J., Han, J., Mortazavi-Asl, B., Wang, J., Pinto, H., Chen, Q., Dayal, U., and Hsu, M.-C. (2004). Mining sequential patterns by pattern-growth: the [PrefixSpan]{} approach. , 16(11):1424–1440.
Pei, J., Han, J., and Wang, W. (2007). Constraint-based sequential pattern mining: The pattern-growth methods. , 28(2):133–160.
Perer, A. and Wang, F. (2014). Frequence: interactive mining and visualization of temporal frequent event sequences. In [*Proceedings of the international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces*]{}, pages 153–162.
Rossi, F., Van Beek, P., and Walsh, T. (2006). . Elsevier.
Shen, W., Wang, J., and Han, J. (2014). Sequential pattern mining. In Aggarwal, C. C. and Han, J., editors, [*Frequent Pattern Mining*]{}, pages 261–282. Springer International Publishing.
Simons, P., Niemelä, I., and Soininen, T. (2002). Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. , 138(1-2):181–234.
Srikant, R. and Agrawal, R. (1996). Mining sequential patterns: Generalizations and performance improvements. In [*Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Extending Database Technology*]{}, pages 3–17.
Syrj[ä]{}nen, T. and Niemel[ä]{}, I. (2001). The smodels system. In [*Proceedings of the conference on Logic Programming and Nonmotonic Reasoning*]{}, pages 434–438.
Ugarte, W., Boizumault, P., Cr[é]{}milleux, B., Lepailleur, A., Loudni, S., Plantevit, M., Ra[ï]{}ssi, C., and Soulet, A. (2015). Skypattern mining: From pattern condensed representations to dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. , page In press.
Uno, T. (2004). .
Vautier, A., Cordier, M., and Quiniou, R. (2007). Towards data mining without information on knowledge structure. In [*Proceedings of the Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases*]{}, pages 300–311.
Wang, J. and Han, J. (2004). : Efficient mining of frequent closed sequences. In [*Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering*]{}, pages 79–90.
Yan, X., Han, J., and Afshar, R. (2003). : Mining closed sequential patterns in large datasets. In [*Proceedings of the SIAM Conference on Data Mining*]{}, pages 166–177.
Zaki, M. J. (2001). : An efficient algorithm for mining frequent sequences. , 42(1/2):31–60.
Zhang, L., Luo, P., Tang, L., Chen, E., Liu, Q., Wang, M., and Xiong, H. (2015). Occupancy-based frequent pattern mining. , 10(2):1–33.
[^1]: It is important to notice that the scope of a variable is the rule and each occurrence of a variable in a rule represents the same value.
[^2]: [[clingo]{}]{} is fully compliant with the recent ASP standard:\
<https://www.mat.unical.it/aspcomp2013/ASPStandardization>
[^3]: A similar encoding can be done for the fill-gaps strategy applying the same changes as above.
[^4]: [[asprin]{}]{} [@brewka:hal-01187001] is a [[clingo]{}]{} extension that allows for this kind of comparison. For more details about the use of [[asprin]{}]{} to extract skypatterns, see [@Guyet_IJCAI2016].
[^5]: <http://potassco.sourceforge.net/>
[^6]: The generator and databases used in our experiments are available at <https://sites.google.com/site/aspseqmining>.
[^7]: The use of subset-minimal heuristic keeps solving the maximal patterns problem complete.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'F. Vito[^1]'
- 'W.N. Brandt'
- 'F.E. Bauer'
- 'R. Gilli'
- 'B. Luo'
- 'G. Zamorani'
- 'F. Calura'
- 'A. Comastri'
- 'C. Mazzucchelli'
- 'M. Mignoli'
- 'R. Nanni'
- 'O. Shemmer'
- 'C. Vignali'
- 'M. Brusa'
- 'N. Cappelluti'
- 'F. Civano'
- 'M. Volonteri'
bibliography:
- '../../../../../biblio.bib'
title: Discovery of the first heavily obscured QSO candidate at $z>6$ in a close galaxy pair
---
[While theoretical arguments predict that most of the early growth of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) happened during heavily obscured phases of accretion, current methods used for selecting $z>6$ quasars (QSOs) are strongly biased against obscured QSOs, thus considerably limiting our understanding of accreting SMBHs during the first gigayear of the Universe from an observational point of view. We report the *Chandra* discovery of the first heavily obscured QSO candidate in the early universe, hosted by a close ($\approx5$ kpc) galaxy pair at $z=6.515$. One of the members is an optically classified type-1 QSO, PSO167–13. The companion galaxy was first detected as a emitter by Atacama large millimeter array (ALMA). An X-ray source is significantly ($P=0.9996$) detected by *Chandra* in the 2–5 keV band, with $<1.14$ net counts in the 0.5–2 keV band, although the current positional uncertainty does not allow a conclusive association with either PSO167–13 or its companion galaxy. From photometry and hardness-ratio arguments, we estimated an obscuring column density of $N_H>2\times10^{24}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$ and $N_H>6\times10^{23}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$ at $68\%$ and $90\%$ confidence levels, respectively. Thus, regardless of which of the two galaxies is associated with the X-ray emission, this source is the first heavily obscured QSO candidate at $z>6$.]{}
Introduction
============
The discovery of accreting supermassive black holes (SMBHs) with masses of $10^9-10^{10}\,M_\odot$ shining as quasars (QSOs) at $z>6$ [e.g., @Mortlock11; @Banados16; @Banados18a] when the Universe was less than 1 Gyr-old challenges our understanding of SMBH formation and growth in the early universe, and is one of the major open issues in modern astrophysics [e.g., @Reines16; @Woods18]. Different classes of theories have been proposed to explain the formation of the BH seeds that eventually became SMBHs. The two most popular classes of models involve the formation of “light seeds” ($M \approx 10^2\,M_\odot$), as remnants of the first Pop III stars, and “heavy seeds" ($M \approx 10^4-10^6\,M_\odot$), perhaps formed during the direct collapse of giant pristine gas clouds (e.g., @Volonteri16b [@Valiante17; @Smith18; @Woods18], and references therein). To match the masses of the SMBHs discovered at $z>6$, all such models require continuous, nearly Eddington-limited or even super-Eddington accretion phases during which the growing SMBH is expected to be heavily obscured by the same accreting material with large column densities, even exceeding the Compton-thick level ($N_H=1.5\times10^{24}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$; e.g., @Pacucci15 [@Pezzulli17]). “Wet” (i.e., gas-rich) galaxy mergers are expected to provide both a large amount of gas and the mechanisms to drive it toward the galaxy nuclear regions, thus allowing efficient SMBH accretion [e.g., @Hopkins08 but see also @DiMatteo12]. Indeed, high-redshift QSOs are usually found in overdense environments in simulations [e.g., @Costa14; @Barai18; @Habouzit18], but no consensus has yet been reached among observational works [e.g., @Balmaverde17; @Mazzucchelli17a; @Ota18].
Currently, approximately 180 quasars have been discovered at $z> 6$ (e.g., @Banados16 and references therein; @Mazzucchelli17b [@Matsuoka18a; @Matsuoka19; @Wang18a; @Fan19; @Reed19]), up to $z = 7.54$ (ULAS J1342+0928; @Banados18a). However, these rare QSOs have been selected from wide-field optical/near-infrared(NIR) surveys such as, for example, SDSS, CFHQS, and PanSTARRS-1, and thus are, by selection, optically type 1 (i.e., broad emission-line QSOs with blue UV continua). The selection of $z>6$ QSO candidates typically relies on the detection of the blue power-law UV continuum, absorbed at $\lambda<1216$ Å by the $Ly\alpha$ forest, and suppressed at wavelengths shorter than the $Ly\alpha$ break at 912 Å, due to absorption by intervening neutral hydrogen. Therefore, the census of accreting SMBHs in the early universe is currently missing, by selection, the key population of obscured systems, thereby strongly limiting our understanding of the early phases of SMBH growth. Currently, the highest redshift, Compton-thick QSO candidate is XID403 at $z=4.76$ [@Gilli14; @Circosta19], an X-ray-selected QSO in the *Chandra* Deep Field-South [@Xue11; @Luo17].
In this Letter, we report the discovery in the X-ray band of the first heavily obscured QSO candidate at $z>6$, in a close ($\approx5$ kpc) pair of galaxies at $z\approx6.515$. One of the two galaxies hosts an optically classified type-1 QSO, PSO J167.6415–13.4960 (hereafter PSO167–13). Evidence for interaction between the two galaxies is reported in [@Mazzucchelli19]. Errors and limits are reported at the $68\%$ confidence level, unless otherwise noted. We adopt a flat cosmology with $H_0=67.7\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and $\Omega_m=0.307$ [@Planck16].
Target description and data analysis
====================================
PSO167-13 was first selected as a high-redshift QSO candidate on the basis of its colors in the PanSTARRS-1 survey (@Venemans15a, see Fig. \[J1110\], left panel), and was then confirmed spectroscopically to lie at $z=6.515$ both in the rest-frame UV [@Venemans15a] and sub-millimeter with Atacama large millimeter array (ALMA), via detection of the \[C II\] ($158\,\mu m$) emission line [@Decarli18]. An investigation of the ALMA data-cube at frequencies near the \[C II\] emission line [@Willott17] revealed the presence of a close companion, separated by $0.9''$ ($\approx5$ kpc in projection at the redshift of the QSO) from the rest-frame UV and \[C II\] position of the QSO, and by $\Delta v\approx-270\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ (corresponding to $\Delta z \approx 0.007$) in velocity space (based on the frequency of the \[C II\] emission peaks). The companion galaxy thus forms a physical pair with PSO167–13. Its existence was recently confirmed by a deep HST/WFC3 observation in the F140W ($\approx1.4\,\mu m$) band (with AB magnitude F140W$=25.5$) and new high-resolution ($\approx0.25"$) ALMA imaging (Fig. \[J1110\], center and right panels; @Mazzucchelli19 [@Neeleman19]). No rest-frame UV spectrum is currently available for this galaxy. Similar companions have been found in about a quarter of the $z>6$ QSOs observed with ALMA [@Decarli17].
We observed PSO167–13 for 59 ks with *Chandra* as part of a larger program aimed at making exploratory observations of a statistically significant sample of ten $z>6$ QSOs (Vito et al., in prep.).[^2] We reprocessed the *Chandra* observations with the *chandra\_repro* script in CIAO 4.10,[^3] using CALDB v4.8.1,[^4] setting the option *check\_vf\_pha=yes* in the case of observations taken in Very Faint mode, and extracted the response matrix and ancillary file using the *specextract* tool. The astrometry for all instruments has been consistently locked on the PanSTARRS-1 frame, using six common sources in the field for *Chandra* (we used the CIAO *wcs\_match* and *wcs\_update* tools), and the position of PSO167–13 itself for HST and ALMA.
We detected significant emission in the hard (2–5 keV) band using a standard circular extraction region of $1$ arcsec radius (Fig. \[Xray\]). In particular, we detected three counts, with an expected background level of 0.14 counts, corresponding to a number of net counts of $2.86_{-1.44}^{+2.14}$ and a false-detection probability (i.e., that the detected emission is due to a background fluctuation) of only $P=4\times10^{-4}$ [@Weisskopf07]. The corresponding flux is $F_{2-5\,\mathrm{keV}}=8.1_{-3.9}^{+5.9}\times10^{-16}\,\mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$. As a check on the detection significance, after having masked bright sources including PS167–13, we performed aperture photometry using $R=1$ arcsec regions randomly centered over $10^5$ positions across the field in the $2-5$ keV band, and detected $\geq3$ counts for 52 of them ($P=5\times10^{-4}$). Moreover, 10 of these 52 regions are also coincident with the positions of PanSTARRS galaxies, and therefore could be real X-ray sources, increasing the agreement with the false-source probability reported above. All of the three detected counts have energies in the range $2.5\lesssim \frac{E}{\mathrm{keV}}\lesssim 3.5$, which is not surprising since the effective area of *Chandra* drops at high energies. If we restrict the detection to the $2-4$ keV band, thus excluding the background-dominated higher energies, we derive an even higher detection significance ($P=2\times10^{-4}$).
We detected zero counts in the soft (0.5–2 keV) band at the UV position of PSO167–13 (cyan cross in Fig. \[Xray\]), thus setting an upper limit on the net counts of $<1.14$ . In order to evaluate the significance of the soft-band nondetection, we assumed a standard $\Gamma=1.9$ power-law model, suitable for high-redshift luminous QSOs (e.g., , @Nanni17), normalized to the observed net-count rate in the hard band. Accounting for Galactic absorption, the expected background in the extraction region ($\approx0.1$ counts), and the *Chandra* effective area at the position of the target, the expected number of soft-band counts is 6.59. Given this expectation, the Poisson probability of detecting zero counts is $P(x=0,\mu=6.59)=1.37\times10^{-3}$. Conservatively assuming a rather flat slope ($\Gamma=1.6$, based on the uncertainties on the average photon index in @Shemmer06b [@Nanni17]), the source nondetection in the soft band remains significant ($P=6.1\times10^{-3}$).
The centroid of the hard-band emission is shifted from the optical and sub-millimeter position of PSO167–13 (cyan cross in Fig. \[Xray\]) by $0.97$ arcsec and by $0.15$ arcsec from the \[C II\] position of the companion galaxy (black cross). We computed the positional uncertainty via 1000 MARX 5.3.3[^5] simulations of a source with three counts in the hard band at the position of PSO167–13, accounting for the real instrumental configuration, and including a (negligible) residual astrometry uncertainty. We found a positional uncertainty of $0.73$ arcsec and $1.17$ arcsec at 68% and 90% confidence levels, respectively. The observed offset between the X-ray source and the optical position of PSO167–13 is significant at $\approx1.5\sigma$ only, such that the hard-band X-ray emission is consistent with being produced by the type-1 QSO.
Results and discussion
======================
The measured X-ray photometry corresponds to a hardness ratio[^6] of $HR>0.47$ and an effective power-law photon index at rest-frame $4-38$ keV of $\Gamma<0.55$, computed accounting for the effective area at the position of the X-ray source and Galactic absorption. These extremely hard values for an object at $z=6.515$ strongly suggest the source is heavily obscured. We estimated the column density required to retrieve such values through spectral simulations with XSPEC, assuming an intrinsic power-law spectrum with $\Gamma=1.9$ and accounting for Galactic absorption, and obtained $N_H>2\times10^{24}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$ and $N_H>6\times10^{23}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$ at the $68\%$ and $90\%$ confidence levels, respectively. The column density cannot be constrained at $\gtrsim95\%$ confidence level, due to the combination of the number of detected counts and the photoelectric cut-off shifting outside the *Chandra* band for low column densities.
We estimated the rest-frame $2-10$ keV luminosity of this source from the detected counts in the observed-frame hard band assuming $\Gamma=1.9$ to be in the range $L_{2-10\mathrm{keV}}=[6.6_{-3.2}^{+4.5}, 7.4_{-3.6}^{+5.4}]\times10^{44}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, where the lower and upper limits are computed assuming , respectively. The derived luminosity does not vary significantly for very different values of $N_H$, as the high rest-frame energies (i.e., $15-38$ keV) probed at $z=6.52$ are not strongly affected by even moderately Compton-thick obscuration.
![Rest-frame UV spectrum of PSO167-13 (red line, adapted from @Mazzucchelli17b) obtained with VLT/FORS2 and Magellan/FIRE, compared with the average QSO spectrum of @VandenBerk01 [blue line]. A zoom in the C IV region is shown in the inset, where we also report the best fit to the C IV line, and associated redshift and equivalent width. Tentative BAL features might be present at wavelengths bluer than the emission line, which is also particularly weak. PSO167–13 may thus be a BAL QSO and/or a WLQ.[]{data-label="spectrum"}](spectrum_letter_ok.pdf){width="80mm"}
Considering the hard-band positional accuracy (see the green circle in the center and right panels of Fig. \[J1110\],), the source of the X-ray emission could be either PSO167–13 or its companion galaxy. Assuming that the QSO is the source of the hard-band emission with a somewhat large X-ray offset (0.97 arcsec), the upper limit we derived above on the number of soft-band counts corresponds to an observed soft-band X-ray emission $\gtrsim4$ times weaker than that expected from its UV luminosity [e.g., @Just07]. The intrinsic (i.e., corrected for absorption) luminosity estimated in the previous paragraph would be consistent within a factor of two with the expectations based on the QSO UV luminosity [e.g., @Just07]. Several physical processes could explain why an optically classified type-1 QSO is heavily obscured in the X-rays. For instance, approximately $50\%$ of the Weak Emission-Line QSOs (WLQs; e.g., @Diamond-Stanic09) are associated with weak and hard X-ray emission [e.g., @Luo15; @Ni18], possibly linked to the presence of thick accretion disks with large column density on small scales that prevent ionizing radiation from reaching the broad-line region. Moreover, WLQs are usually found to be fast-accreting QSOs [e.g., @Luo15; @Marlar18], as is PSO167–13 ($\lambda_{\mathrm{Edd}}\gtrsim1$; @Mazzucchelli17b).
Similarly, in broad-absorption-line QSOs (BALQSOs), small-scale screening material may absorb the ionizing UV/X-ray radiation, thus allowing the acceleration of the outflowing wind producing the BALs [e.g., @Proga04], but still allowing the detection of the blue UV continuum. @Rogerson18 [see also @Yi19] reported the emergence of BALs on timescales of $\sim100$ days, that is, shorter than the rest-frame time that passed from the UV spectral observation to the X-ray imaging of PSO167–13, which was $6$ months.
In the currently available rest-frame UV spectrum of PSO167–13 (Fig. \[spectrum\]) the C IV line is relatively weak ($EW_{CIV}\approx12\,\mathrm{\AA}$), and some BAL features might also be present at bluer wavelengths. The C IV line is blueshifted by $\sim-5800\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ with respect to the Mg II emission line, similarly to some hyper-luminous QSOs [e.g., @Vietri18] and other $z>6$ QSOs [e.g., @Banados18a; @Meyer19]. Such extreme blueshifts are also seen in WLQs [e.g., @Luo15; @Ni18].
We also note that [@Nanni18] detected significant spectral variability (from $N_H\approx0\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$ to in two distinct X-ray observations of the $z>6$ QSO SDSS J1030+0524. A similar increase of the obscuration might have taken place also for between its observations in rest-frame UV and X-rays. Additional rest-frame UV spectroscopic observations are also needed to investigate such a possibility, as well as to help characterize this object as a possible WLQ or BALQSO. Alternatively, since the X-ray centroid is consistent with the position of the companion galaxy, this could host a heavily obscured QSO, in a close and interacting [@Mazzucchelli19] pair with PSO167–13. In this scenario, only its proximity to the optically type-1 QSO allowed us to discover it with *Chandra*, as high-redshift obscured QSOs are missed by UV surveys, and the lack of strong detection of X-ray emission from PSO167–13 can be explained by a moderate intrinsic X-ray weakness (a factor of $\geq4$). Similar pairs of QSOs have been discovered at redshifts as high as $z\approx5$ [@McGreer16], although with larger separation, but beyond $z\approx3.3$ none are known to include an obscured QSO [@Vignali18].
To summarize, if PSO167–13, optically classified as a type-1 QSO, were found to be responsible for the high-energy emission, it would be an intrinsically X-ray normal but heavily obscured QSO, and the causes of the UV/X-ray misclassification would need to be investigated. Alternatively, if the companion galaxy were found to be the X-ray source, it would be a heavily obscured QSO in an interacting pair with PSO167–13. In this case, PSO167–13 would be intrinsically X-ray weak by a factor of $\geq4$. Thus, regardless of which of the two members of the system produced the hard-band detection, it represents the first heavily obscured QSO candidate in the early universe. Deeper X-ray observations are required to better constrain the column density and to improve the positional accuracy of the hard-band X-ray source, thereby allowing a confident association with either or its companion galaxy, and confirmation or rejection of the QSO-pair nature of this system.
We thank the anonymous referee for their useful comments and suggestions. FV acknowledges financial support from CONICYT and CASSACA through the Fourth call for tenders of the CAS-CONICYT Fund. WNB acknowledges *Chandra* X-ray Center grant G08-19076X. BL acknowledges financial support from the National Key R&D Program of China grant 2016YFA0400702 and National Natural Science Foundation of China grant 11673010. We acknowledge financial contribution from CONICYT grants Basal-CATA AFB-170002 (FV, FEB), the Ministry of Economy, Development, and Tourism’s Millennium Science Initiative through grant IC120009, awarded to The Millennium Institute of Astrophysics, MAS (FEB), and the agreement ASI-INAF n.2017-14-H.O.
[^1]: fabio.vito@uc.cl
[^2]: *Chandra* observations of the remaining 9 targets have been completed and the analysis is ongoing. PSO167–13 is the only source showing significant evidence of obscuration.
[^3]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/
[^4]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/caldb/
[^5]: https://space.mit.edu/ASC/MARX/
[^6]: $HR=(H-S)/(H+S)$, where $S$ and $H$ are source net counts in the soft and hard bands, respectively. This quantity is widely used to characterize the spectra of X-ray sources with limited photon statistics.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We study ${{b_1''(M)}}$, the co-rank of the fundamental group of a smooth closed connected manifold $M$. We calculate this value for the direct product of manifolds. We characterize the set of all possible combinations of ${{b_1''(M)}}$ and the first Betti number $b_1(M)$ by explicitly constructing manifolds with any possible combination of ${{b_1''(M)}}$ and $b_1(M)$ in any given dimension. Finally, we apply our results to the topology of a Morse form foliations. In particular, we construct a manifolds $M$ and a Morse form ${\omega}$ on it for any possible combination of ${{b_1''(M)}}$, $b_1(M)$, $m({\omega})$, and $c({\omega})$, where $m({\omega})$ is the number of minimal components and $c({\omega})$ is the maximum number of homologically independent compact leaves of ${\omega}$.'
address: 'CIC, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, 07738, Mexico City, MEXICO'
author:
- Irina Gelbukh
bibliography:
- 'Gelbukh.bib'
title: 'The co-rank of the fundamental group: the direct product, the first Betti number, and the topology of foliations'
---
,[, ]{}
namedef[subjclassname@2010]{}[ Mathematics Subject Classification]{}
Introduction and main results
=============================
Co-rank of a group $G$, also known as inner rank, is the maximum rank of a free homomorphic image of $G$. In a sense, co-rank is a notion dual to the rank; unlike rank, co-rank is algorithmically computable for finitely presented groups. This notion has been re-invented various times in different branches of mathematics, and its properties relevant for the corresponding particular task have been studied in different contexts. The notion of co-rank, called there inner rank, was apparently first mentioned in [@Lyndon59] in the context of solving equations in free groups. Co-rank of the free product of groups was calculated using geometric [@Jaco72] and algebraic [@Lyndon] methods.
Co-rank is extensively used in geometry, especially in geometry of manifolds, as $${{b_1'(M)}}=\mathop{\mathrm{corank}}(\pi_1(M)),$$ the co-rank of the fundamental group $\pi_1(M)$ of a manifold $M$. For example, it has been repeatedly shown to coincide with the genus $g$ of a closed oriented surface: $b_1'(M^2_g)=g$ [@Lyndon66; @Jaco69; @Gelb10; @Leininger].
In the theory of 3-manifolds, ${{b_1'(M)}}=c(M)$ [@Sikora; @Jaco72], the cut number: the largest number $c$ of disjoint two-sided surfaces $N_1 ,\dots,N_c$ that do not separate $M$, i.e., $M \setminus (N_1\cup\dots\cup N_c)$ is connected. It is related to quantum invariants of $M^3$ and gives a lower bound on its Heegaard genus [@Gilmer]. Around 2001, J. Stallings, A. Sikora, and T. Kerler discussed a conjecture that for a closed orientable 3-manifold it holds ${{b_1'(M)}}\ge\frac{b_1(M)}3$, where $b_1(M)$ is the Betti number. This conjecture was later disproved by a number of counterexamples, such as [@Harvey; @Leininger]. In this paper we, in particular, give a complete characterization of possible pairs ${{b_1'(M)}}$, $b_1(M)$ for any given $\dim M$.
In systolic geometry, every unfree 2-dimensional piecewise flat complex $X$ satisfies the bound $\mathop{S\!R}(X)\le16(b_1'(X)+1)^2$ [@KRS], where $\mathop{S\!R}$ is the optimal systolic ratio.
In the theory of foliations, for the foliation ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$ defined on $M\setminus{\mathop{\mathrm{Sing}}\nolimits}{\omega}$ by a closed 1-form ${\omega}$ with the singular set ${\mathop{\mathrm{Sing}}\nolimits}{\omega}$, it was shown that if ${{b_1'(M)}}\le 1$ and ${\mathop{\mathrm{codim}}\nolimits}{\mathop{\mathrm{Sing}}\nolimits}{\omega}\ge 3$ with ${\mathop{\mathrm{Sing}}\nolimits}{\omega}$ contained in a finite union of submanifolds of $M$, then ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$ has no exceptional leaves [@Levitt87]. Foliations have numerous applications in physics, such as general relativity [@Chen], superstring theory [@Bab-Laz; @Bab-Laz-Foliated], etc.
The notion of co-rank of $\pi_1(M)$, the notation ${{b_1'(M)}}$, and the term [*the first non-commutative Betti number*]{} were first introduced in [@AL] to study Morse form foliations, i.e., foliations defined by a closed 1-form that is locally the differential of a Morse function on a smooth closed manifold $M$.
A Morse form foliation can have compact leaves, compactifiable leaves and minimal components [@Gelb09]. In [@AL], it was proved that if ${{b_1'(M)}}\le 2$, then each minimal component of ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$ is uniquely ergodic. On the other hand, if ${{b_1'(M)}}\ge 4$, then there exists a Morse form on $M$ with a minimal component that is not uniquely ergodic. If the form’s rank $${\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}{\omega}>{{b_1'(M)}},$$ then the foliation ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$ has a minimal component [@Levitt90]; here ${\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}{\omega}={\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}[{\omega}]$, where $[{\omega}]$ is the integration map.
Though co-rank is known to be algorithmically computable for finitely presented groups [@Makanin; @Razborov], we are not aware of any simple method of finding ${{b_1'(M)}}$ for a given manifold. This value is, however, bounded by the isotropy index $h(M)$, which is the maximum rank of a subgroup in $H^1(M,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ with trivial cup-product [@Meln2]. Namely, for a smooth closed connected manifold it holds [@Gelb10; @Dimca-Pa-Su] $${{b_1'(M)}}\le h(M),$$ while for $h(M)$ there are simple estimates via $b_1(M)$ and $b_2(M)$ [@Meln3].
For the connected sum of $n$-manifolds, $n\ge2$, except for non-orientable surfaces, it holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
b_1(M_1{\mathrel\#}M_2)&=b_1(M_1)+b_1(M_2),\\
b_1'(M_1{\mathrel\#}M_2)&=b_1'(M_1)+b_1'(M_2),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:b',b(sum)}\end{aligned}$$ which for $\dim M\ge3$ follows from the Mayer–Vietoris sequence and by [@Lyndon Proposition 6.4], respectively. Also, for the direct product the Künneth theorem gives: $$\begin{aligned}
b_1(M_1\times M_2)=b_1(M_1)+b_1(M_2).\end{aligned}$$
In this paper, we show that the fourth combination is very different: $$\begin{aligned}
b_1'(M_1\times M_2)=\max\{b_1'(M_1),b_1'(M_2)\}
\label{eq:intro-x}\end{aligned}$$ (Theorem \[theor:b’(dir-prod)\]), which completes the missing piece to allow calculating ${{b_1'(M)}}$ for manifolds that can be represented as connected sums and direct products of simpler manifolds.
We give a complete characterization of the set of all possible combinations of ${{b_1'(M)}}$ and $b_1(M)$ for a given $n=\dim M$. Namely, for $b',b\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$, there exists a connected smooth closed $n$-manifold $M$ with $b'_1(M)=b'$ and $b_1(M)=b$ iff $$\begin{aligned}
n\ge3\mathrm{:}\quad&b'=b=0\textrm{ or }1\le b'\le b;\label{eq:intro-b'b}\\
n=2\mathrm{:}\quad&0\le b,\ b'=\textstyle{\left[\frac{b+1}2\right]};\notag\\
n=1\mathrm{:}\quad&b'=b=1;\notag\\
n=0\mathrm{:}\quad&b'=b=0;\notag\end{aligned}$$ the manifold can be chosen orientable, except for odd $b$ when $n=2$ (Theorem \[theor:(k,m)-dimM>2\]). Using –, we explicitly construct such a manifold (Construction \[con:(k,m)-dimM>2\]).
We apply the obtained results to estimation of the number of minimal components $m({\omega})$ and the maximum number of homologically independent compact leaves $c({\omega})$ of the foliation ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$ of a Morse form ${\omega}$ on $M$. The smaller ${{b_1'(M)}}$ or $b_1(M)$, the more information we have about ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$. For example, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
m({\omega})+c({\omega})&\le{{b_1'(M)}}\ {\textrm{\cite{Gelb10}}},\\
2m({\omega})+c({\omega})&\le b_1(M)\ {\textrm{\cite{Gelb09}}};
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:intro-m+c}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if ${{b_1'(M)}}=0$, or, which is the same, $b_1(M)=0$, then all leaves of ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$ are compact and homologically trivial and ${\omega}=df$ is exact.
Theorem \[theor:(k,m)-dimM>2\], which states that all combinations allowed by are possible, implies that the two inequalities are independent. However, in special cases knowing the values of ${{b_1'(M)}}$ and $b_1(M)$, for example, calculated using –, allows choosing one of the two inequalities as stronger. For instance, if ${{b_1'(M)}}\le\frac12b_1(M)$, then the first one is stronger.
Finally, we generalize Theorem \[theor:(k,m)-dimM>2\] to a characterization of the set of possible combinations of ${{b_1'(M)}}$, $b_1(M)$, $m({\omega})$, and $c({\omega})$ (Theorem \[theor:b’bmc\]). Namely, we use Construction \[con:(k,m)-dimM>2\]—the constructive proof of Theorem \[theor:(k,m)-dimM>2\]—to show that and are the only restrictions on these four values, except for ${{b_1'(M)}}=\frac12b_1(M)$ if $\dim M=2$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:defs\], we give the definitions of the Betti number $b_1$ and the non-commutative Betti number $b_1'$ for groups and manifolds. In Section \[sec:dir-prod\], we calculate $b_1'(M_1\times M_2)$. In Section \[sec:poss-comb\], we describe the set of possible combinations of ${{b_1'(M)}}$ and $b_1(M)$ for a given $\dim M$ and, using the results of Section \[sec:dir-prod\], explicitly construct a manifold with any given valid combination of ${{b_1'(M)}}$ and $b_1(M)$. Finally, in Section \[sec:fol\] we use the manifold constructed in Section \[sec:poss-comb\] to describe the set of possible combinations of the number of minimal components and the maximum number of homologically independent compact leaves of a Morse form foliation.
Definitions\[sec:defs\]
=======================
For a finitely generated abelian group $G={{\mathbb{Z}}}^n\oplus T$, where $T$ is finite, its torsion-free rank, Prüfer rank, or first Betti number, is defined as $b_1(G)={\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}(G/T)=n$. The notion of first Betti number can be extended to any finitely generated group by $b_1(G)=b_1({H_1(G)})={\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}({H_1(G)}/{\mathop{\mathrm{\kern0pt T}}\nolimits}({H_1(G)}))$, where ${H_1(G)}=G^{ab}=G/[G,G]$ is the abelianization, or the first homology group, of the group $G$, and ${\mathop{\mathrm{\kern0pt T}}\nolimits}(\cdot)$ is the torsion subgroup. In other words:
The [*first Betti number*]{} $b_1(G)$ of a finitely generated group $G$ is the maximum rank of a free abelian quotient group of $G$, i.e., the maximum rank of a free abelian group $A$ such that there exists an epimorphism ${\varphi}:G\twoheadrightarrow A$.
Consider a connected smooth closed manifold $M$. The first Betti number of $M$ is the torsion-free rank of its first homology group $H_1(M)$, i.e., of the first homology group of its fundamental group $\pi_1(M)$: $$b_1(M)=b_1(\pi_1(M)).$$
A non-commutative analog of the Betti number can be defined as follows.
\[def:corank\] The [*co-rank*]{} $\mathop{\mathrm{corank}}(G)$ [@Leininger], [*inner rank*]{} $\mathop{I\kern-1.3pt N}(G)$ [@Jaco72] or $\mathop{\mathrm{Ir}}(G)$ [@Lyndon], or [*first non-commutative Betti number*]{} ${b_1'}(G)$ [@AL] of a finitely generated group $G$ is the maximum rank of a free quotient group of $G$, i.e., the maximum rank of a free group $F$ such that there exists an epimorphism ${\varphi}:G\twoheadrightarrow F$.
The notion of co-rank is in a way dual to that of rank, which is the minimum rank of a free group allowing an epimorphism onto $G$. Unlike rank, co-rank is algorithmically computable for finitely presented groups [@Makanin; @Razborov].
The first non-commutative Betti number [@AL] of a connected smooth closed manifold $M$ is defined as the co-rank, or inner rank, of its fundamental group: $${{b_1'(M)}}={b_1'}(\pi_1(M)).$$
Note that a similar definition for higher $\pi_k(M)$ is pointless since they are abelian.
Co-rank of the fundamental group of the direct product\[sec:dir-prod\]
======================================================================
The Betti number $b_1(M)$ is linear in both connected sum and direct product. While the non-commutative Betti number ${{b_1'(M)}}$ is linear in connected sum, its behavior with respect to direct product is very different:
\[theor:b’(dir-prod)\] Let $M_1, M_2$ be connected smooth closed manifolds. Then $$b_1'(M_1\times M_2)=\max\{b_1'(M_1),b_1'(M_2)\}.$$
We will divide the proof into a couple of lemmas.
\[lem:F=Z\] Let $G_1,G_2$ be groups. Then any epimorphism $${\varphi}:G_1\times G_2\twoheadrightarrow F$$ onto a free group $F\ne{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ factors through a projection.
For $F=\{1\}$ the fact is trivial. [*Par abus de langage*]{}, denote $G_1=G_1\times1$ and $G_2=1\times G_2$, subgroups of $G_1\times G_2$. Suppose both $G_i\not\subseteq\ker{\varphi}$. Since $G_1\times G_2=\langle G_1,G_2\rangle$ and $[G_1,G_2]=1$ and denoting $F_i={\varphi}(G_i)$, we have a free group $F=\langle F_1,F_2\rangle$ such that $[F_1,F_2]=1$ and by the condition $F_1,F_2\ne1$.
Let $a,b\in F_1$ and $c\in F_2$, $c\ne1$. Since $[a,c]=1$, we have $\langle a,c\rangle={{\mathbb{Z}}}$ as both free and abelian, so $a,c\in\langle x\rangle$ for some $x\in F$, and similarly $b,c\in\langle y\rangle$ for some $y\in F$. Then $\langle x,y\rangle={{\mathbb{Z}}}$ as a two-generated free group with a non-trivial relation $x^k=y^l=c\ne1$, so $x,y\in\langle z\rangle$ for some $z\in F$. We obtain $a,b\in\langle z\rangle$; in particular, $[a,b]=1$.
Thus $F_1$ is abelian, and similarly $F_2$. Since $[F_1,F_2]=1$, we obtain that the non-trivial $F=\langle F_1,F_2\rangle$ is both free and abelian, thus $F={{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
In fact this holds for any (infinite) quantity of factors: any epimorphism ${\varphi}:{\mathop\times}_{\alpha\in I}G_{\alpha}\twoheadrightarrow F$ onto a free group $F\ne{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ factors through the projection onto one of $G_{\alpha}$.
\[lem:co-rank(dir-prod)\] Let $G_1, G_2$ be finitely generated groups. Then for the co-rank of the direct product, $${b_1'}(G_1\times G_2)=\max\{{b_1'}(G_1),{b_1'}(G_2)\}.$$
Denote $G=G_1\times G_2$ and $m=\max\{{b_1'}(G_1),\linebreak[0]{b_1'}(G_2)\}$.
Let us show that ${b_1'}(G)\ge m$. Without loss of generality assume $m={b_1'}(G_1)$. Consider an epimorphism ${\varphi}:G_1\twoheadrightarrow F$ onto a free group, ${\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}F=m$. Then $\psi:G\twoheadrightarrow F$ such that $\psi(G_2)=1$ and $\psi|_{G_1}={\varphi}$ is an epimorphism, so ${b_1'}(G)\ge m$.
Let us now show that $m\ge{b_1'}(G)$. Consider an epimorphism ${\varphi}:G\twoheadrightarrow F$ onto a free group, ${\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}F={b_1'}(G)$. If ${\varphi}(G_2)=1$, then ${\varphi}|_{G_1}$ is an epimorphism and thus $m\ge{b_1'}(G_1)\ge{\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}F={b_1'}(G)$, and similarly if ${\varphi}(G_1)=1$.
Otherwise ${\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}{\mathop{\mathrm{im}}\nolimits}{\varphi}|_{G_i}\ge1$, so $m\ge{b_1'}(G_i)\ge1={b_1'}(G)$ by Lemma \[lem:F=Z\].
For smooth connected manifolds $M_i$, we have $$\pi_1(M_1\times M_2)=\pi_1(M_1)\times\pi_1(M_2),$$ and the desired fact is given by Lemma \[lem:co-rank(dir-prod)\].
For a torus $T^n={\mathop\times}_{i=1}^nS^1$, we have $b'_1(T^n)=b'_1(S^1)=1$. Since $\pi_1(T^n)\ne\{0\}$ is free abelian, this also follows from Definition \[def:corank\]. For the Kodaira-Thurston manifold $KT^4=H^3\times S^1$, we have $b'_1(KT^4)=1$ since for the Heisenberg nil manifold, $b'_1(H^3)=1$. This also follows from the fact that $KT^4$ itself is a nil manifold.
In Section \[sec:poss-comb\], we will use Theorem \[theor:b’(dir-prod)\] to explicitly construct a manifold with arbitrary given $b'(M)$ and $b(M)$.
Relation between ${{b_1'(M)}}$ and $b_1(M)$\[sec:poss-comb\]
============================================================
As an application of Theorem \[theor:b’(dir-prod)\], in this section we show that there are no non-obvious relations between $b_1'(M)$ and $b_1(M)$, and explicitly construct a manifold with any given valid pair of $b'_1(M)$ and $b_1(M)$.
For a sphere and for low-dimensional manifolds, such as closed orientable surface $M^2_g={\mathop\#}^gT^2$ and closed non-orientable surface $N^2_h={\mathop\#}^h{{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$, $h\ge1$, the values of $b_1'(M)$ and $b_1(M)$ are obvious or well known: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&\textrm{point:}&&b'_1(*)=0,&&b_1(*)=0;\\
&\textrm{circle:}&&b'_1(S^1)=1,&&b_1(S^1)=1;\\
&\textrm{sphere,}\ n\ge2:&&b'_1(S^n)=0,&&b_1(S^n)=0;\\
&\textrm{orientable surface:}&&b'_1(M^2_g)=g,&&b_1(M^2_g)=2g;\\
&\textrm{non-orientable surface:}&&b'_1(N^2_h)={\textstyle\left[\frac h2\right]},&&b_1(N^2_h)=h-1.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:b(M^2_g)}\end{aligned}$$ The value of $b'_1(M^2_g)$ was calculated in [@Gelb10] and [@Leininger Lemma 2.1]. It can be also obtained as the cut-number [@Jaco72 Theorem 2.1], which for a surface is the number of handles, since each non-separating two-sided circle identifies the edges of two holes. In particular, $b'_1(N^2_h)$ is a sphere with $\left[\frac h2\right]$ inverted handles plus a Möbius strip for odd $h$.
In general, $$\begin{aligned}
0\le b'_1(M)\le b_1(M)
\label{eq:0<b'M<bM}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
b_1'(M)=0\textrm{ iff\/ }b_1(M)=0,\label{eq:iff}\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
b_1(M)=1\textrm{ implies\/ }b_1'(M)=1.\label{eq:implies}\end{aligned}$$
Indeed, since for a free group $F$ it holds ${\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}F^{ab}={\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}F$ and a group epimorphism $G\twoheadrightarrow F$ induces an epimorphism $G\twoheadrightarrow F^{ab}$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
0\le b'_1(G)\le b_1(G)\end{aligned}$$ and since ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is both free and free abelian, ${b_1'}(G)=0$ iff $b_1(G)=0$.
There are no relations between $b_1'(M)$ and $b_1(M)$ other than –:
\[theor:(k,m)-dimM>2\] Let $b',b,n\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. There exists a connected smooth closed $n$-manifold $M$ with $b'_1(M)=b'$ and $b_1(M)=b$ iff $$\begin{aligned}
n\ge3\mathrm{:}\quad&b'=b=0\textrm{ or }1\le b'\le b;\label{eq:1<b'<b}\\
n=2\mathrm{:}\quad&0\le b,\ b'=\textstyle{\left\lfloor\frac{b+1}2\right\rfloor};\notag\\
n=1\mathrm{:}\quad&b'=b=1;\notag\\
n=0\mathrm{:}\quad&b'=b=0;\notag\end{aligned}$$ the manifold can be chosen orientable iff $n\ne2$ or $b$ is even.
For $n\le2$ and for $b=0$ the facts are given in , so let $n\ge 3$ and $b\ge1$.
For $n\ge4$, every finitely presented group is the fundamental group of a connected smooth closed orientable $n$-manifold $M$, while by [@Gelb17 Theorem 3] there exists such a group $G$ with ${b_1'}(G)=b'$ and $b_1(G)=b$, which proves the result for $n\ge4$.
Finally, let $n=3$. For any given $b\ge1$, Harvey [@Harvey Theorem 3.1] constructed a smooth closed orientable hyperbolic 3-manifold $H_b$ with the largest possible gap between $b_1'$ and $b_1$: $$\begin{aligned}
b_1'(H_b)=1,\ b_1(H_b)=b.
\label{eq:H_b}\end{aligned}$$ For $1\le b'\le b$, choose $k_i\ge1$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{b'} k_i=b$. By , for $$\begin{aligned}
M={\mathop\#}_{i=1}^{b'} H_{k_i}
\label{eq:H31b}\end{aligned}$$ we have $b_1'(M)=b',\ b_1(M)=b$.
Using Theorem \[theor:b’(dir-prod)\], we can generalize any specific example with given ${b_1'}(M)$ and $b_1(M)$ to higher dimensions, as well as to increase the gap between $b_1'(M)$ and $b_1(M)$:
\[lem:xS\^n\] Let $b_1'(M^n)\ne0$. Then for $M^{n+k}=M^n\times S^k$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
k=1:&\qquad b'_1(M^{n+k})=b'_1(M^n),&&b_1(M^{n+k})=b_1(M^n)+1;\\
k\ge2:&\qquad b'_1(M^{n+k})=b'_1(M^n),&&b_1(M^{n+k})=b_1(M^n).\end{aligned}$$
This allows us to explicitly construct a manifold with given $b_1'(M)$ and $b_1(M)$ of any given dimension, thus giving a simple constructive proof of Theorem \[theor:(k,m)-dimM>2\] for $\dim M\ge3$:
\[con:(k,m)-dimM>2\] For any given $b',b,n\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ such that $b'=b=0$ or $1\le b'\le b$, and $n\ge3$, the following connected smooth closed oriented $n$-manifold $H^n_{b',b}$ has $$\begin{aligned}
b_1'(H^n_{b',b})=b',\ b_1(H^n_{b',b})=b.\end{aligned}$$ For $b'=b=1$, consider $$\begin{aligned}
H^n_{1,1}=S^1\times S^{n-1}
\label{eq:Hn11}\end{aligned}$$ and for $b\ge2$, generalize to higher dimensions using Lemma \[lem:xS\^n\]: $$\begin{aligned}
H^n_{1,b}=
\begin{cases}
H_b&$for $n=3,\\
H_{b-1}\times S^1&$for $n=4,\\
H_b\times S^{n-3}&$for $n\ge5.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:Hn1b}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, as in , choose $k_i\ge1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{b'} k_i=b
\label{eq:sum-m_i=b}\end{aligned}$$ and take $$\begin{aligned}
H^n_{b',b}={\mathop\#}_{i=1}^{b'} H^n_{1,k_i}.
\label{eq:Hnb'b}\end{aligned}$$
By Theorem \[theor:(k,m)-dimM>2\], in both the lower bound (except for $n=1$) and the upper bound (except for surfaces other than $S^2$, ${{\mathbb{R}}}P^2$, and the Klein bottle) are exact for any given $n$. Both conditions are impossible for $n=1$ and both conditions are impossible for $n=0$.
In particular, the lower bound in is achieved on $S^n$, while and provide the lower bound in the inequality in . The upper bound ${{b_1'(M)}}=b_1(M)$ for $n\ge3$ is provided by with $b'=b$: $$H^n_{b,b}={\mathop\#}_{i=1}^b(S^1\times S^{n-1}).$$ In general, ${{b_1'(M)}}=b_1(M)$ iff some (and thus any) epimorphism $$\pi_1(M)\twoheadrightarrow H_1(M)/{\mathop{\mathrm{\kern0pt T}}\nolimits}(H_1(M))$$ factors through a free group; ${\mathop{\mathrm{\kern0pt T}}\nolimits}(\cdot)$ is the torsion subgroup:
For any group $G$, the following conditions are equivalent:
1. \[lem:co-rank=b:=\] ${b_1'}(G)=b_1(G)$,
2. \[lem:co-rank=b:E\] there exists an epimorphism $$h:G\twoheadrightarrow {{\mathbb{Z}}}^{b_1(G)}={H_1(G)}/T$$ that factors through a free group; $T\subset{H_1(G)}$ is the torsion subgroup,
3. \[lem:co-rank=b:A\] any such epimorphism factors through a free group.
\[lem:co-rank=b:=\]$\Rightarrow$\[lem:co-rank=b:E\]: Let ${\varphi}:G\twoheadrightarrow F$ be the epimorphism from the definition of ${b_1'}(G)$ and $\psi:F\twoheadrightarrow F/[F,F]={{\mathbb{Z}}}^{{b_1'}(G)}={{\mathbb{Z}}}^{b_1(G)}$ be the natural epimorphism; then $h=\psi\circ{\varphi}$ has the desired properties.
\[lem:co-rank=b:E\]$\Rightarrow$\[lem:co-rank=b:=\]: Let $G\twoheadrightarrow F\twoheadrightarrow{H_1(G)}/T$ be a factorization of $h$ through a free group $F$. Then $b_1(G)={\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}({H_1(G)}/T)\le{\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}F\le{b_1'}(G)$. By [@Gelb17 Theorem 3], ${b_1'}(G)\le b_1(G)$, so we obtain ${b_1'}(G)=b_1(G)$.
\[lem:co-rank=b:E\]$\Rightarrow$\[lem:co-rank=b:A\]: For any epimorphisms ${\varphi},h:G\twoheadrightarrow H$ there exists an automorphism $\psi:H\twoheadrightarrow H$ such that ${\varphi}=\psi\circ h$.
\[lem:co-rank=b:A\]$\Rightarrow$\[lem:co-rank=b:E\]: The composition of natural epimorphisms $$G\twoheadrightarrow{H_1(G)}=G/[G,G]\twoheadrightarrow{H_1(G)}/T={{\mathbb{Z}}}^{b_1(G)}$$ is an epimorphism.
Application to foliation topology\[sec:fol\]
============================================
The gap between ${{b_1'(M)}}$ and $b_1(M)$ plays a role in foliation topology.
Useful facts about Morse form foliations
----------------------------------------
Consider a connected closed oriented $n$-manifold $M$ with a Morse form ${\omega}$, i.e., a closed 1-form with Morse singularities—locally the differential of a Morse function. The set of its singularities ${\mathop{\mathrm{Sing}}\nolimits}{\omega}$ is finite. This form defines a foliation ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$ on $M\setminus{\mathop{\mathrm{Sing}}\nolimits}{\omega}$.
Its leaves ${\gamma}$ can be classified into compact, compactifiable (${\gamma}\cup{\mathop{\mathrm{Sing}}\nolimits}{\omega}$ is compact), and non-compactifiable. The set covered by all non-compactifiable leaves is open and has a finite number $m({\omega})$ of connected components, called [*minimal components*]{} [@AL]. Each non-compactifiable leaf is dense in its minimal component [@Im]. A foliation is called [*minimal*]{} if all its leaves are non-compactifiable, i.e., the whole $M\setminus{\mathop{\mathrm{Sing}}\nolimits}{\omega}$ is one minimal component.
Any compact leaf has a cylindrical neighborhood consisting of leaves that are diffeomorphic and homotopically equivalent to it [@Gelb14]. Denote by $H_{\omega}\subseteq H_{n-1}(M)$ the group generated by the homology classes of all compact leaves of ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$. Since $M$ is closed and oriented, $H_{n-1}(M)$ is finitely generated and free; therefore so is $H_{\omega}$. By [@Gelb08 Theorem 4], in $H_{\omega}$ there exists a basis consisting of homology classes of leaves, i.e., ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$ has exactly $c({\omega})={\mathop{\mathrm{rk}}\nolimits}H_{\omega}$ homologically independent compact leaves.
\[lem:m+m,c+c\] Let ${\omega}_1,w_2$ be Morse forms defined on smooth closed oriented manifolds $M_1,M_2$, respectively. Then on $M=M_1{\mathrel\#}M_2$ there exists a Morse form ${\omega}$ with $m({\omega})=m({\omega}_1)+m({\omega}_2)$ and $c({\omega})=c({\omega}_1)+c({\omega}_2)$.
Consider a form ${\omega}$ constructed as shown in \[fig:connsum\]. It coincides with ${\omega}_i$ outside a small area where $M_i$ are glued together. We assume that each ${\omega}_i$ was locally distorted either in a minimal component or in a cylindrical neighborhood covered by homologous compact leaves. In the former case, since nearby leaves are dense on either side of the affected leaf, the distortion does not change the number of minimal components. In the latter case, even though the distortion “destroys” one compact leaf, the nearby leaves contribute the same value to $H_{{\omega}_i}$. In either case, the new compact leaves introduced in the process are homologically trivial.
![\[fig:connsum\] Construction of the form on the connected sum. (a) Manifolds $M_1$ and $M_2$ with Morse forms ${\omega}_1$, ${\omega}_2$, respectively. (b) A center and a conic singularity are locally added to each form, and the manifolds are glued together by spheres around the removed centers. The new form ${\omega}$ on $M_1{\mathrel\#}M_2$ has two additional conic singularities.](Connected-sum-of-forms-before.eps){width="100\unitlength"}
(0,0)(100,0) (50,-7)
![\[fig:connsum\] Construction of the form on the connected sum. (a) Manifolds $M_1$ and $M_2$ with Morse forms ${\omega}_1$, ${\omega}_2$, respectively. (b) A center and a conic singularity are locally added to each form, and the manifolds are glued together by spheres around the removed centers. The new form ${\omega}$ on $M_1{\mathrel\#}M_2$ has two additional conic singularities.](Connected-sum-of-forms-after.eps){width="100\unitlength"}
(0,0)(100,0) (50,-7)
Since the two sides are separated by compact leaves, each minimal component of ${\omega}$ lies either in $M_1$ or in $M_2$, and thus $m({\omega})=m({\omega}_1)+m({\omega}_2)$. Similarly, homologically non-trivial leaves of ${\omega}$ are homologous to either leaves of ${\omega}_1$ or leaves of ${\omega}_2$; in particular, $H_{\omega}=H_{{\omega}_1}\oplus H_{{\omega}_2}$ and thus $c({\omega})=c({\omega}_1)+c({\omega}_2)$.
Relation between ${{b_1'(M)}}$, $b_1(M)$, $m({\omega})$, and $c({\omega})$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let ${\omega}$ be a Morse form on a smooth closed orientable manifold $M$, $\dim M\ge2$, defining a foliation with exactly $c({\omega})$ homologically independent compact leaves and $m({\omega})$ minimal components. The following inequalities have been proved independently: $$\begin{aligned}
m({\omega})+c({\omega})&\le{{b_1'(M)}}\ {\textrm{\cite{Gelb10}}},\label{eq:c+m}\\
2m({\omega})+c({\omega})&\le b_1(M)\ {\textrm{\cite{Gelb09}}}.\label{eq:c+2m}\end{aligned}$$
For some manifolds, and Theorem \[theor:b’(dir-prod)\] allow direct calculation of ${{b_1'(M)}}$. This may allow one to choose between and . Namely, denoting $b'={{b_1'(M)}}$, $b=b_1(M)$, unless $b'=b=0$ we have:
1. If $b'\le\frac12b$, then is stronger;
2. \[case:independent\] If $\frac12b<b'<b$, then they are independent;
3. If $b'=b$, then is stronger.
In particular, is always stronger for $\dim M=2$. However, for any $\dim M\ge3$, by Theorem \[theor:(k,m)-dimM>2\] all three cases are possible; in particular, there exist manifolds for which the two estimates are independent. By , the case $b'>b$ is impossible.
More specifically, in the case \[case:independent\], if seen as conditions on $c({\omega})$ under given $m({\omega})$ and vice versa,
- is stronger when $m({\omega})<b-b'$ or when $c({\omega})>2b'-b$;
- is stronger when $m({\omega})> b-b'$ or when $c({\omega})<2b'-b$,
and they are equivalent in case of equalities.
We can generalize Theorem \[theor:(k,m)-dimM>2\] to observe that there are no relations between $m({\omega})$, $c({\omega})$, $b'_1(M)$, and $b_1(M)$ other than those given by , , , , and, for an orientable surface, :
\[theor:b’bmc\] Let $n,m,c,b',b\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^0$. There exists a smooth closed connected oriented $n$-manifold $M$ with ${{b_1'(M)}}=b'$ and $b_1(M)=b$, and a Morse form foliation ${{\mathcal{F}}_{\!{\omega}}}$ on it with $m$ minimal components and exactly $c$ homologically independent compact leaves, iff $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
n=2\mathrm{:}\quad
&\text{\eqref{eq:b(M^2_g)} for $M^2_g$\upshape{:}}\quad &&0\le b=2b',\notag\\
&\text{\eqref{eq:c+m}\upshape{:}} &&0\le m+c\le b',\notag\\
n\ge3\mathrm{:}\quad
&\text{\eqref{eq:0<b'M<bM}, \eqref{eq:iff}\upshape{:}} &&b'=b=0\textrm{ or }1\le b'\le b,\label{eq:Th-0<b'M<bM}\\
&\text{\eqref{eq:c+m}\upshape{:}} &&0\le m+c\le b',\label{eq:Th-c+m}\\
&\text{\eqref{eq:c+2m}\upshape{:}} &&0\le 2m+c\le b.\label{eq:Th-c+2m}\end{aligned}$$
Apart from a trivial foliation on $S^n$, the proof is given by the following constructions.
On $S^k\times S^1$, $k\ge1$, there exists Morse form foliation with $m({\omega})=0$, $c({\omega})=0$.
The corresponding foliations for $k=1$ and $k\ge2$ are shown in Figures \[fig:ex1\] and \[fig:ex2\], respectively.
![\[fig:ex1\] Torus $T^2$ foliated with $m({\omega})=0$, $c({\omega})=0$. The square is self-glued by the sides to form a torus. The foliation, shown in thin lines, has two centers $p_1$, $p_2$ and two conic singularities $q_1$, $q_2$.](Example-1){width="100\unitlength"}
(0,0)(100,0) (-1,100) (-1,50) (-1,0) (102,100)[$q_2$]{} (102,50)[$p_1$]{} (102,0)[$q_2$]{} (50,104) (50,60) (50,-7)
![\[fig:ex2\] Manifold $S^k\times S^1$, $k\ge2$, foliated with $m({\omega})=0$, $c({\omega})=0$. Shown are two manifolds $D^k_i\times S^1$ (solid tori for $k=2$), where $D^k_i$ are disks and $S^1$ is shown in dashed line They are glued together by the boundary, so that $D^k_1\cup D^k_2=S^k$. The foliation, shown in thin lines, has two centers and two conic singularities, its compact leaves being either spheres $S^k$ or $S^{k-1}\times S^1$ (tori for $k=2$).](Example-2){width="100\unitlength"}
(0,0)(100,0) (6,1)[$D^k_1$]{} (15,37)[$S^1$]{}
![\[fig:ex2\] Manifold $S^k\times S^1$, $k\ge2$, foliated with $m({\omega})=0$, $c({\omega})=0$. Shown are two manifolds $D^k_i\times S^1$ (solid tori for $k=2$), where $D^k_i$ are disks and $S^1$ is shown in dashed line They are glued together by the boundary, so that $D^k_1\cup D^k_2=S^k$. The foliation, shown in thin lines, has two centers and two conic singularities, its compact leaves being either spheres $S^k$ or $S^{k-1}\times S^1$ (tori for $k=2$).](Example-2){width="100\unitlength"}
(0,0)(100,0) (6,1)[$D^k_2$]{} (15,37)[$S^1$]{}
\[lem:M2g\] For $0\le m+c\le g$, on $M=M^2_g$ there exists a Morse form foliation with $m({\omega})=m$ and $c({\omega})=c$.
As shown in \[fig:M2g\], construct $M^2_g$ as the connected sum of
- $m$ tori with an irrational winding;
- $c$ tori $T^2$ with a compact non-singular foliation;
- $g-(c+m)$ tori with a foliation shown in \[fig:ex1\];
with the forms glued together as shown in \[fig:connsum\]. Lemma \[lem:m+m,c+c\] completes the proof.
g
This easily generalizes to higher dimensions:
For $n\ge3$ and $m,c,b',b\in{{\mathbb{N}}}^0$ satisfying –, there exists an $n$-manifold $H^n_{b',b}$ from Construction \[con:(k,m)-dimM>2\] and a Morse form on it with $c({\omega})=c$ and $m({\omega})=m$.
The construction is very similar to that of Lemma \[lem:M2g\]. Observe that in , we can choose at most $b-b'$ summands $k_i\ge2$.
If $b-b'\ge m$ (which by and is always the case if $b'\le\frac12b$), then in choose $m$ summands $k_i\ge2$, which by leaves at least $c$ summands $k_i=1$: $$\begin{aligned}
H^n_{b',b}=\left({\mathop\#}_{i=1}^m H^n_{1,k_i}\right){\mathrel\#}\left({\mathop\#}_{i=1}^c H^n_{1,1}\right){\mathrel\#}\left({\mathop\#}_{\vphantom{i=1}} H^n_{1,1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Otherwise, in choose $b-b'$ summands $k_i=2$, which by leaves $$b'-(b-b') = b - 2(b-b') \ge (2m+c) - 2(b-b') = 2(m-(b-b'))+c$$ summands $k_i=1$: $$\begin{aligned}
H^n_{b',b}=
\underbrace{
\left({\mathop\#}_{i=1}^{b-b'} H^n_{1,2}\right)
{\mathrel\#}\left({\mathop\#}_{i=1}^{m-(b-b')}\left(H^n_{1,1}{\mathrel\#}H^n_{1,1}\right)\right)
}_{m\text{ manifolds}}
{\mathrel\#}\left({\mathop\#}_{i=1}^c H^n_{1,1}\right)
{\mathrel\#}\left({\mathop\#}_{\vphantom{i=1}} H^n_{1,1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
As in Lemma \[lem:M2g\], the foliations on the manifolds are chosen as follows:
- On $m$ manifolds $H^n_{1,k_i}$, $k_i\ge2$, and $H^n_{1,1}{\mathrel\#}H^n_{1,1}$ there exists a Morse form ${\omega}$ with a minimal foliation [@AL Theorem 1]; in particular, $m({\omega})=1$ and $c({\omega})=0$;
- On $c$ manifolds $H^n_{1,1}=S^1\times S^{n-1}$, choose a compact non-singular foliation along $S^1$ with leaf $S^{n-1}$;
- On the rest of $H^n_{1,1}$, choose a foliation shown in \[fig:ex2\];
Lemma \[lem:m+m,c+c\] completes the proof.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We study the solutions of the inverse problem $$g(z)=\int f(y) P_T(z,dy)$$ for a given $g$, where $(P_t(\cdot,\cdot))_{t \geq 0}$ is the transition function of a given symmetric Markov process, $X$, and $T$ is a fixed deterministic time, which is linked to the solutions of the ill-posed Cauchy problem $$u_t + A u=0, \qquad u(0,\cdot)=g,$$ where $A$ is the generator of $X$. A necessary and sufficient condition ensuring square integrable solutions is given. Moreover, a family of regularisations for above problems is suggested. We show in particular that these inverse problems have a solution when $X$ is replaced by $\xi X + (1-\xi)J$, where $\xi$ is a Bernoulli random variable, whose probability of success can be chosen arbitrarily close to $1$, and $J$ is a suitably constructed jump process.'
address: 'Department of Statistics, London School of Economics and Political Science, 10 Houghton st, London, WC2A 2AE, UK'
author:
- Umut Çetin
title: Linear inverse problems for Markov processes and their regularisation
---
Introduction
============
Suppose that $X$ is a Markov process taking values in some topological space, $\bfE$, and let $(P_t)_{t \geq 0}$ be a strongly continuous semigroup describing the movement of $X$ in its state space through time. Let us consider the following integral equation \[e:IP\] g(z)=f(y) P\_T(z,dy) for a given $g$ and a fixed -deterministic- $T \geq 0$. Put differently, the above can be viewed as recovering an input signal, $f$, from a blurred output, $g$, which is corrupted by some noise described by the kernel $P_T$. This is an inverse problem which is present in many fields of science and technology. In image processing solving this inverse problem corresponds to the reconstruction of an image from the available data as in, e.g., [*tomography*]{} (see [@imaging]). In statistics one is often interested in estimating the density function, $f$, of a certain random variable using the observations of a related one with density $g$, which is linked by some kernel $K$ to the original density via the equation $g= Kf$. Vardi and Lee [@VL] show that such inverse problems can be interpreted as a statistical estimation problem from an incomplete data if it admits a positive solution. Under the assumption of the existence of a positive solution to $g=Kf$ they develop a maximum likelihood (ML) algorithm to solve the estimation issue and apply their methodology to problems arising from optimal investment, emission tomography, and image reconstruction due to motion blurring. More recent works on the interplay between ML estimators and inverse problems with positivity constraints include [@Silvermanetal], [@eggL], and [@KooChung], and [@Cavalier] is an excellent introduction to inverse problems in statistics and a survey of available methods. Note that the inverse problem given by $g=Kf$, where $K$ is a non-negative operator on a Hilbert space with norm less than $1$, can be recast in the form of (\[e:IP\]). Indeed, if we define the operator $A:=-\log K$ (consult the beginning of the next section or Chapter 1 of [@FOT] for the construction of this operator), then $A$ will correspond to the infinitesimal generator of a Markov process whose transition function at time 1 coincides with $K$, i.e $g=Kf$ becomes $g(z)=\int f(y)P_1(z,dy)$, where $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is the semigroup of the Markov process with generator $-\log K$. Thus, the method that we shall describe below will contain as special cases many inverse problems in the literature and, in particular, the above density estimation problem of statistics. Moreover, the existing literature typically assumes that $K$ is a compact operator to arrive at a simple [*singular value decomposition*]{}. We will not need this assumption in what follows and thereby considerably extend the scope of the methodology for solving inverse problems.
The inverse problem in (\[e:IP\]) has an alternative partial differential equation (PDE) interpretation. Suppose that for a given $g$ and fixed $T>0$ one can find a solution, $f$, to (\[e:IP\]). Then, one can easily show that $u(t,\cdot):=P_{T-t}f$ is a solution to the following: \[i:e:pde\] u\_t + A u=0, u(0,)=g, where $A$ is the generator of $X$. If $A$ is a differential operator, the above is a [*backward*]{} PDE with an [*initial*]{} condition. Such equations are known to be ill-posed in the sense of Hadamard that either there exists no solution or the solution is non-unique, or the unique solution does not have a continuous dependence on the initial data, $g$.
If, moreover, $g$ is a probability density then the inverse problem (\[e:IP\]) with positivity constraint can answer the following question: Can we find an initial distribution for $X$ so that the probability distribution of $X_T$ is defined by $g$? As such, this question is related to the [*Skorokhod embedding*]{} problem which searches for a martingale whose time $T$-distribution is given by $g$. Ekström et al. [@Ekstrom] have solved this problem of Skorokhod in the one-dimensional setting by showing the existence of a generalised diffusion with a constant initial value, which is set from the beginning as a consequence of the martingale condition. However, the transition function of this martingale is in general cannot be obtained. The inverse problem (\[e:IP\]), on the other hand, fixes the transition function from the start and seeks an initial distribution rather than a whole stochastic process. There is nevertheless an important drawback: Although we may obtain arguably quite explicit answers using the positive solutions of (\[e:IP\]), one cannot expect to find a solution, let alone a positive one, to this equation for any given distribution $g$ in general. The reason for this is that the inverse of $P_t$, $P_t^{-1}$, is typically an unbounded linear operator and, therefore, it has only a dense domain. However, our methodology is not restricted to the one-dimensional case and works equally effective in a multi-dimensional setting.
In what follows we aim to find necessary and sufficient conditions for (\[e:IP\]) to admit a suitably integrable solution. There do not seem to be many attempts in the literature to characterise the solutions of such an inversion. The first attempt when $(P_t)_{tX \geq 0}$ is the transition function of a linear Brownian motion is by Widder [@WidderTams]. In [@WidderTams] and some subsequent works Widder provides some necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a solution to this inverse problem, which he calls [*Weierstrass transform*]{}.
We show in Theorem \[t:invformula\] that (\[e:IP\]) has a square integrable solution if and only if $$\int_0^{\infty}I_0(2\sqrt{2Tt})\int_0^{\infty}J_0(2 \sqrt{ts})e^{-\alpha s} (P_sg,g) ds dt <\infty,$$ where $J_0$ (resp. $I_0$) is the (resp. modified) Bessel function of the first kind of order $0$. Additionally, the same theorem gives a formula for the inversion. Section 2 also contains a number of alternative criteria for the characterisation of the domain of $P_t^{-1}$. In particular it is observed that the finiteness of the double integral above can be recast in terms of the last passage times in the case of one-dimensional regular diffusions. Moreover, Corollary \[c:picard\] gives us a numerical recipe by means of a Picard iteration to deduce the convergence of this integral.
As we mentioned earlier there is no solution to (\[e:IP\]) in general for an arbitrary transition function. Theorem \[t:regularisation\] introduces a family of regularisations of (\[e:IP\]), which are essentially small perturbations of the original problem aimed at obtaining a solution for any given $g$. Moreover, the solution of the regularised problem is characterised in terms of the minimiser of an associated optimisation problem.
Corollary \[c:mixing\] gives a remarkable special class of regularisations suggested by Theorem \[t:regularisation\]. It shows that if we construct a new Markov process that amounts to choosing randomly between the original process, $X$, and a suitable pure jump process, then the inverse problem will have a solution for every $g$ as soon as $P_T$ is replaced by the corresponding transition function of the new Markov process. For example, when $X$ is a Brownian motion, the inverse problem can be turned into a well-posed one by replacing the Brownian motion with a mixture of a Brownian motion and a compound Poisson process whose jumps are normally distributed. Such mixtures of the original Markov process and a jump process are easy to construct and one can choose the probability of choosing the jump process arbitrarily small so that the jump component is virtually absent in implementations. This mixture also regularises the ill-posed backward PDE (\[i:e:pde\]) by transforming it to a partial integro-differential equation using an arbitrarily small perturbation.
Although we are able to give a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a solution to (\[e:IP\]), what is particularly missing in this paper is a comparison result. Namely, if we know that $P_T^{-1}h$ exists for some $h$, what kind of relationship between $g$ and $h$ would entail that $g$ is also in the domain of $P_T^{-1}$? A comparison theorem in the spirit of the ones that can be found in the literature on the [*Skorokhod embedding problem*]{} could be very useful. Falkner [@falkner] has shown (under a duality assumption and another mild condition) for a general transient Markov process, $X$, with potential operator $U$ that if $U\mu \leq U\nu$ for measures $\mu$ and $\nu$, then one can find a stopping time $\tau$ such that $X_{\tau}$ has the law $\mu$ if $\nu$ is the distribution of $X_0$. Note that in order for $g$ to be in the domain of $P_T^{-1}$ it is necessary that $Ug \leq Uh$ for some $h$ in the domain of $P_T^{-1}$. However, the following counterexample[^1] shows that this necessary condition is not sufficient: Let $g$ be the distribution of $X_{\tau}$, where $\tau = \inf\{t \geq T : |X_t| > a\}$ and $X$ is a standard Brownian motion with $X_0=0$ and killed as soon as it exits $(-2a, 2a)$. Clearly, $Ug \leq U\eps_0$, where $\eps_0$ is the Dirac measure at $0$. However, $g$ cannot be in the domain of $P_T^{-1}$ since it has a point mass.
The outline of the paper is as follows. Section 2 presents the setup and introduces the inverse problem. It contains Theorem \[t:invformula\] that gives the necessary and sufficient condition for the inversion along with the inversion formula. Section 3 is devoted to the regularisation of the inverse problem and includes in particular Corollary \[c:mixing\], which states that the inverse problem has a solution when $X$ is replaced by a mixture of $X$ and a jump process.
An inverse problem for a symmetric Markov process {#s:ip}
=================================================
Let us fix a Borel right Markov process $X=(\Om, \cF,\cF_t,X_t,\theta_t, P^x)$ with lifetime $\zeta$, state space $(\bfE, \sE)$, sub-Markovian semigroup $(P_t)$, and resolvent $(U^{\alpha})$. Suppose that $\bfE$ is a locally compact separable metric space and $(P_t)$ is $m$-symmetric with respect to a $\sigma$-finite measure $m$ on the Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\sE$ with $\mbox{supp}[m]=\bfE$. More precisely, we assume that $(P_t)$ can be extended to a strongly continuous sub-Markovian semigroup on $L^2(\bfE,m)$ such that $$(P_tf,g)=(f,P_tg), \qquad \forall f,g \in L^2(m),$$ where $(\cdot, \cdot)$ denotes the inner product with respect to $m$, i.e. $(f,g)=\int_{\bfE}fgdm$ for $f,g \in L^2(\bfE,m)$. We also assume that $(\bfE,\sE,m)$ is a separable measure space, which in turn implies that $L^2(\bfE,m)$ is a separable Hilbert space. In the sequel we shall simply write $L^2(m)$ instead of $L^2(\bfE,m)$.
The generator, $A$, of $(P_t)$ is defined as usual via A f&=&\_[t 0]{} \[e:defA\]\
(A)&:=& { f L\^2(m): (\[e:defA\]) L\^2(m)}.
Consequently $-A$ is a non-negative definite symmetric operator on $L^2(m)$. Thus, there exists a spectral family[^2] $\{E_{\lambda}:0\leq \lambda <\infty\}$ of projection operators such that $-A=\int_0^{\infty}\lambda dE_{\lambda}$. This further entails $$\sD(A)=\left\{f \in L^2(m):\int_0^{\infty}\lambda^2 d(E_{\lambda}f,f)<\infty\right\}.$$ Moreover, if $\phi:\bbR_+ \mapsto \bbR$ is a continuous function, $\phi(-A)$ is another symmetric operator on $L^2(m)$ with the spectral representation $\int_0^{\infty}\phi(\lambda) dE_{\lambda}$ and domain $$\sD(\phi(-A))=\left\{f \in L^2(m):\int_0^{\infty}\phi(\lambda)^2 d(E_{\lambda}f,f)<\infty\right\}.$$ In particular, for each $t>0$ and $\alpha>0$, $P_t=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\lambda t} dE_{\lambda}$ and $U^{\alpha}=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\lambda+\alpha}dE_{\lambda}$, and obviously, have the whole $L^2(m)$ as their domain. When $X$ is transient, the potential operator is also given by $U=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\lambda}dE_{\lambda}$. We refer the reader to Chapter 1 of [@FOT] for a brief account of the spectral theory associated with the generators of strongly continuous symmetric semigroups.
\[ex:1dim\] Let $\bfE=(l,r)$ with $-\infty \leq l<r \leq \infty$ and consider a one-dimensional regular diffusion on natural scale defined by the generator $$Af =\frac{\half d \frac{df}{dx}-udk}{dm},$$ where the [*killing measure*]{}, $k$, and the [*speed measure*]{}, $m$, are Radon measures on $(\bfE, \sE)$. In the absolutely continuous case the generator becomes a differential operator: $$Af =\frac{\sigma^2}{2}f'' - cf,$$ where $\sigma : \bfE \mapsto \bbR_{++}$ and $c:\bfE:\mapsto \bbR_+$ are measurable functions.
McKean [@MK] has shown that the transition function, $(P_t)$ possesses a symmetric density, $(p(t,\cdot,\cdot)$, with respect to $m$ such that $$p(t,x,y)=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\lambda t} e(x,y,d\lambda),$$ where $e(x,y,\cdot)$ is a measure on $[0,\infty)$ with $e(x,y\cdot)=e(y,x,\cdot)$. We refer the reader to [@MK] or [@IK] for more details on the general theory of one-dimensional diffusions and the eigendifferential expansions of their transition densities.
When the diffusion has no natural boundaries Elliott [@jelliott] has shown earlier that the spectrum of the generator is discrete, which in turn implies that the transition density with respect to $m$ is given by $$p(t,x,y) =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_n t} \phi_n(x)\phi_n(y),$$ where $0\leq \lambda_0 \leq \lambda_1 \leq \ldots \lambda_n \leq \ldots$ with $\lambda_n \uparrow \infty$ and $\phi_n$ is the solution of $A\phi_n = -\lambda_n \phi_n$ for appropriate boundary conditions given by the behaviour of the diffusion near $l$ and $r$.
\[ex:jump\] Suppose that $q(x,y)=q(y,x)$ and $qdm$ defines a transition function on $(\bfE, \sE)$. In particular, $$\int_{\bfE}q(x,y) m(dy)\leq 1.$$ Then, it can be directly verified that $A$ defined by $$Af(x) =\int_{\bfE} f(y)q(x,y)m(dy) -f(x)$$ is a bounded symmetric operator corresponding to a Markov jump process (see, e.g., Section 4.2 in [@EK]) that remains constant between jumps of a Poisson process with unit intensity and moves between the states of $\bfE$ according to the kernel $q$, or is being sent to the cemetery state with probability $1-\int_{\bfE}q(x,y) m(dy)$.
In the particular case of $\bfE=\bbR$, $q(x,y)=q(y-x)$ for some symmetric function, $q$, $A$ is the generator of a compound Poisson process whose jumps have a symmetric distribution around $0$ with $m$-density $q$, provided $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} q(x,y)m(dy)=1, \; \forall x\in \bbR.$$
Next consider the inverse operator, $P_{t}^{-1}$, for $t>0$. That is, $g \in \sD(P_t^{-1})$ if $g \in L^2(m)$ and there exists $f \in L^2(m)$ such that $P_t f=g$. In this case we shall define $P_t^{-1}g$ to be $f$. Note that this operation is well-defined. Indeed, if $f_1, f_2 \in L^2(m)$ are such that $g=P_tf_1=P_tf_2$, then $P_t(f_1-f_2)=0$. However, in view of the spectral representation of $P_t$, this yields $(E_{\lambda}(f_1-f_2), f_1-f_2)=0$ for all $\lambda \geq 0$, which in turn implies $f_1=f_2$, $m$-a.e. due to the fact that $\lim_{\lambda\rar \infty}(E_{\lambda}f,f)=(f,f)$ for any $f \in L^2(m)$.
Observe that, since $P_t$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, $P_t^{-1}$ is also a symmetric operator on $L^2(m)$. The following, which should formally follow from spectral calculus, characterises $P_t^{-1}$ in terms of the spectral family $(E_{\lambda})$.
\[t:invchar\] Let $P_t^{-1}$ be the inverse of $P_t$ for $t>0$. Then the following hold. (P\_t\^[-1]{})&=&{g L\^2(m):\_0\^e\^[2 t]{} d(E\_g,g)<}\
P\_t\^[-1]{}g&=& \_0\^e\^[t]{} dE\_g. \[e:invrep\]
Let $$D=\left\{g \in L^2(m):\int_0^{\infty}e^{2 \lambda t} d(E_{\lambda}g,g)<\infty\right\}.$$ This is clearly the domain of the operator $I_t$ on $L^2(m)$, where $$I_t=\int_0^{\infty}e^{\lambda t} dE_{\lambda}.$$ Pick an arbitrary $g \in \sD(P_t^{-1})$. By definition there exists $f \in L^2(m)$ such that $g=P_tf$. Using the spectral representation of the semigroup we may write $$g=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\lambda t} dE_{\lambda}f.$$ Thus, \_0\^e\^[2 t]{} d(E\_g,g)&=&\_0\^e\^[2 t]{} d(E\_P\_tf,P\_tf)=\_0\^e\^[2 t]{} d(E\_P\_[2t]{}f,f)\
&=&\_0\^ d(E\_f,f)=f\^2<, where the second equality follows from the symmetry of $P_t$, $dE_{\lambda}P_tf=e^{-\lambda t}dE_{\lambda}f$, and the fact that $E_{\lambda}$ and $P_t$ commute. Thus, $\sD(P_t^{-1}) \subset D$. Moreover, $$I_t g = \int_0^{\infty}e^{\lambda t} dE_{\lambda}g= \int_0^{\infty}e^{\lambda t} dE_{\lambda}P_tf =\int_0^{\infty} dE_{\lambda}f =f,$$ i.e, $P_t^{-1}=I_t$ on $\sD(P_t^{-1})$.
Thus, it remains to show that $D \subset \sD(P_t^{-1})$. Indeed, let $g \in D$ and set $f =I_t g$. Note that $f \in L^2(m)$ by the definition of $D$. Moreover, $dE_{\lambda }f=e^{\lambda t} dE_{\lambda }g$. Therefore, $$P_t f =\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\lambda t} dE_{\lambda }f=\int_0^{\infty} dE_{\lambda }g=g.$$ Hence, $D \subset \sD(P_t^{-1})$.
The above result illustrates the first difficulty with inverting $P_t$. When $A$ is an unbounded operator, which is usually the case, so is $P_t^{-1}$. In this case $P_t^{-1}$ will have a dense domain, characterisation of which is one of the main goals of this paper.
On the other hand, if $A$ is bounded, $E_{\lambda}$ becomes the identity operator for all $\lambda\geq M$ for some $M<\infty$. In view of the above representation for $P_t^{-1}$ and its domain, this boundedness property will be inherited by $P_{t}^{-1}$.
Suppose that the generator, $A$, of $(P_t)$ is bounded. Then $\sD(P_t^{-1})=L^2(m).$ In particular (\[e:invrep\]) holds for all $g \in L^2(m)$.
\[r:positive\] It is tempting to conclude that $P_t^{-1}g$ is nonnegative when $g\geq 0$ and belongs to $\cD(P_t^{-1})$. This would be especially handy when one needs to estimate the true density $f$ by observing an auxiliary density $g$ using the relationship $g=P_t f$. However, the positivity of $f$ does not in general hold although one can find instances in the literature (see, e.g., the beginning of Section 3.3 in [@KooChung]) where this issue is overlooked.
To see this in a concrete example suppose that $X$ is an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, i.e $$X_t=X_0 + B_t -r\int_0^t X_s ds, \qquad r>0.$$ Then, conditional on $X_0=x$, $X_t$ is normally distributed with mean $xe^{rt}$ and variance $\frac{1-e^{-2rt}}{2r}$. The speed measure for this diffusion is given by $$m(dx) =e^{-rx^2}dx,$$ thus its generator, $A$, is symmetric with respect to $m$. Then, if one takes $g=x^2$, it follows from a simple computation that $g=P_1f$, where $$f(x)= e^{2r}x^2 -\frac{e^{2r}-1}{2r}.$$ Note that both $f$ and $g$ belong to $L^2(m)$. However, $f$ is not always nonnegative on $\bbR$.
As mentioned in Introduction the inverse problem (\[e:IP\]) is intimately linked to the solution of a Cauchy problem, which becomes a backward partial differential equation when $A$ is a differential operator.
\[c:invpde\] The following hold for any fixed $T>0$.
1. Suppose that $g \in \sD(P_T^{-1})$. Then there exist $(u(t,\cdot))_{t \in [0,T]}$ such that $u(t,\cdot) \in L^2(m)$ for all $t \in [0,T]$, and \[e:bpde\] u\_t+Au=0, t>0, u(0, )=g, where $u_t(t, \cdot):=\lim_{h \rar 0} \frac{u(t+h,\cdot)-u(t,\cdot)}{h}$ and the limit is in $L^2(m)$.
2. Conversely, if there exists a family $(u(t,\cdot))_{t \in [0,T]}\subset L^2(m)$ solving (\[e:bpde\]) for a given $g \in L^2(m)$, then $g \in \sD(P_T^{-1})$.
Consequently, there exists a unique solution of (\[e:bpde\]) in $L^2(m)$ if and only if $g \in \sD(P_T^{-1})$. Moreover, $P_T^{-1}g=u(T,\cdot)$.
Let $f=P_T^{-1}g$ and define $u(t,\cdot)=P_{T-t}f$. First observe that since $f \in L^2(m)$, $P_tf \in \sD(A)$ for all $t>0$. Indeed, $$\int_0^{\infty}\lambda^2d(E_{\lambda}P_tf, P_tf)=\int_0^{\infty}\lambda^2e^{-2\lambda t} d(E_{\lambda}f, f)\leq \frac{1}{t^2 e^2}\int_0^{\infty}d(E_{\lambda}f, f)<\infty.$$ Thus, $$AP_{T-t}f=-\int_0^{\infty}\lambda e^{-(T-t)\lambda}dE_{\lambda}f.$$ Moreover, $$\frac{d}{dt}P_{T-t}f=\frac{d}{dt}\int_0^{\infty} e^{-(T-t)\lambda}dE_{\lambda}f=\int_0^{\infty} \lambda e^{-(T-t)\lambda}dE_{\lambda}f$$ by virtue of the dominated convergence theorem since $(E_{\lambda}f, f)$ is of bounded variation in $\lambda$ and $x^2e^{-2x}$ is bounded on $[0,\infty)$. Therefore, $u$ solves (\[e:bpde\]) since $u(0,\cdot)= P_Tf=g$.
Conversely, suppose $u$ is a solution of (\[e:bpde\]) in $L^2(m)$. In particular, $u(t, \cdot) \in \sD(A)$ for $t \in (0,T]$. Thus for any $t \in (0,T]$, we have \[e:uevolve\] u(t,)=g + \_0\^t u\_t(s,)ds= g - \_0\^s ds A u(s,), where the integrals are to be understood as Bochner integrals in $L^2(m)$.
Next observe that for any $\lambda \geq 0$ and $f \in L^2(m)$, $$E_{\lambda}f = \int_0^{\lambda} dE_{\mu}f \in \sD(A),$$ and $$AE_{\lambda}f=-\int_0^{\lambda}\mu dE_{\mu}f.$$ Applying $E_{\lambda}$ to both sides of (\[e:uevolve\]) and exploiting the commutativity of $E_{\lambda}$ and $A$ we obtain $$E_{\lambda}u(t,\cdot)= E_{\lambda} g +\int_0^t ds \int_0^{\lambda}\mu dE_{\mu}u(s,\cdot).$$ However, the unique solution of the above equation is given by $$E_{\lambda}u(t,\cdot)=\int_0^{\lambda}e^{\mu t} dE_{\mu}g,$$ which readily yields $dE_{\lambda}u(t,\cdot)=e^{\lambda t} dE_{\lambda}g$. Therefore, $$P_T u(T,\cdot)= \int_0^{\infty} e^{-\lambda T} dE_{\lambda} u(T,\cdot)=g.$$ Since $u(T,\cdot) \in L^2(m)$, we deduce that $g \in \sD(P_T^{-1})$.
Thus, we have shown that there is a one-to-one correspondence between $\sD(P_{T}^{-1})$ and the $L^2$-solutions of (\[e:bpde\]). Moreover, since $P_{T}^{-1}g$ is uniquely determined, any solution of (\[e:bpde\]) satisfies $u(T,\cdot)=P_{T}^{-1}g$.
Finally, by virtue of $dE_{\lambda}u(t,\cdot)=e^{\lambda t} dE_{\lambda}g$ we readily establish the uniqueness of $L^2$-solutions of (\[e:bpde\]) under the assumption that $g \in \sD(P_T^{-1})$.
Theorem \[t:invchar\] characterises the domain of $P_t^{-1}$ completely. However, it requires the knowledge of the spectral resolution. Theorem \[t:invformula\], on the other hand, determines the domain of $P_T^{-1}$ in terms of the transition function. Before its statement let us introduce a new operator on $L^2(m)$: \[e:Jdef\] \^\_t f := \_0\^J\_0(2 )e\^[-s]{} P\_sf ds, where $\alpha >0$, $J_0$ is the Bessel function of the first kind of order $0$, and the integral is to be understood as a Bochner integral. Since $J_0$ is bounded and $U^{\alpha}$ is a bounded operator, it follows that $\cJ^{\alpha}_t$ is also a bounded operator and, thus, has $L^2(m)$ as its domain.
\[p:J\] Let $(\cJ^{\alpha}_t)$ be the family of operators defined by (\[e:Jdef\]). For each $t>0$ and $\alpha>0$ $\cJ^{\alpha}$ is a non-negative self-adjoint operator on $L^2(m)$ with the following spectral resolution: \[e:Jspec\] \^\_t =\_0\^ e\^[-]{}dE\_. Moreover, for any $f \in L^2(m)$, the mapping $t \mapsto (\cJ_t^{\alpha} f, f)$ is convex in $t$ and decreases to $0$ as $t \rar \infty$.
Let us first show that (\[e:Jspec\]) holds. Indeed, using Fubini and the spectral representation of $P_t$ along with the fact that $\int_0^{\infty} e^{-\alpha s} J_0(2\sqrt{ts})ds=e^{-\frac{t}{\alpha}}/\alpha$ (see Table 29.2 in [@AS]), we obtain $$(\cJ_t^{\alpha}f,g)=\int_0^{\infty}\left(\int_0^{\infty} J_0(2\sqrt{ts})e^{-(\alpha+\lambda) s}ds \right)d(E_{\lambda} f,g)=\int_0^{\infty} \frac{1}{\lambda+\alpha}e^{-\frac{t}{\lambda+\alpha}}d(E_{\lambda}f,g),$$ which yields (\[e:Jspec\]). Thus, $$(\cJ_t^{\alpha}f,f)=\int_0^{\infty} \frac{1}{\lambda+\alpha}e^{-\frac{t}{\lambda+\alpha}}d(E_{\lambda}f,f)\geq 0$$ since $E_{\lambda}$ is a non-negative operator. It can be checked directly that $\cJ_t^{\alpha}$ is symmetric, and therefore self-adjoint due to its boundedness.
The spectral representation also yields the monotonicity and the convexity of the map $t \mapsto (\cJ_t^{\alpha} g, g)$. The fact that $\lim_{t \rar \infty}(\cJ_t^{\alpha} f, f) =0$ is a consequence of the monotone convergence theorem and the assumption that $f \in L^2(m)$.
\[t:invformula\] $g \in \sD(P_t^{-1})$ if and only if $$\int_0^{\infty}I_0(2\sqrt{2ts})(\cJ^{\alpha}_s g,g) ds <\infty,$$ where $I_0$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind of order $0$. Moreover, if $g \in \sD(P_t^{-1})$, then $P_t^{-1}g$ equals a Bochner integral as follows: \[e:invformula\] P\_t\^[-1]{}g=e\^[-t]{}\_0\^I\_0(2)\^\_sgds.
It follows from (\[e:Jspec\]) that \_0\^I\_0(2)(\^\_s g,g) ds &=&\_0\^ ds I\_0(2) \_0\^ e\^[-]{}d(E\_g,g)\
&=&\_0\^ (\_0\^e\^[-]{} I\_0(2) ds)d(E\_g,g)\
&=&\_0\^ e\^[2t(+)]{} d(E\_g,g), which is finite if and only if $g \in \sD(P_T^{-1})$. The last line in the above follows from the Laplace transform of the modified Bessel function (see Table 29.3 in [@AS]).
Next observe that for $g \in L^2(m)$, $$\|\cJ^{\alpha}_t g\|^2=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{(\lambda+\alpha)^2}e^{-\frac{2t}{\lambda +\alpha}}d(E_{\lambda}g,g)\leq\frac{1}{e^2t^2} \int_0^{\infty}d(E_{\lambda}g,g)=\frac{\|g\|^2}{e^2t^2}.$$ Thus, using Fubini’s theorem and (\[e:Jspec\]) we deduce $$\int_0^{\infty}I_0(2\sqrt{ts})\cJ^{\alpha}_sgds=e^{\alpha t}\int_0^{\infty} e^{t\lambda} dE_{\lambda}g,$$ which implies (\[e:invformula\]).
$\cJ^{\alpha}g$ can be explicitly computed if one knows the transition function of $X$. If one instead has the knowledge of the family $(U^{\alpha})$, $\cJ^{\alpha}g$ is determined as the solution of a Cauchy problem.
\[t:Jcauchy\] Given an $f \in L^2(m)$ there exists a unique solution to the following Cauchy problem: \[e:Jcauchy\] j(t,) &=& -U\^j(t,)\
j(0,)& =& U\^f. Moreover, its solution is given by $j(t,\cdot)=\cJ^{\alpha}_tf$.
Let $j(t,\cdot)=\cJ^{\alpha}_tf$ and observe using (\[e:Jspec\]) that $$j(t,\cdot)=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\lambda+\alpha}e^{-\frac{t}{\lambda+\alpha}}dE_{\lambda}f.$$ Thus, $$U^{\alpha}j(t,\cdot)=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{(\lambda+\alpha)^2}e^{-\frac{t}{\lambda+\alpha}}dE_{\lambda}f.$$ In view of the Fubini’s theorem $$\int_0^t U^{\alpha}j(s,\cdot)ds=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\lambda+\alpha}\left(1-e^{-\frac{t}{\lambda+\alpha}}
\right)dE_{\lambda}f=U^{\alpha}f-j(t,\cdot),$$ which verifies that $\cJ^{\alpha}_tf$ solves (\[e:Jcauchy\]) since $$\cJ^{\alpha}_0f=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\lambda+\alpha}dE_{\lambda}f=U^{\alpha}f.$$ To show the uniqueness let us suppose $j_1$ and $j_2$ are two solutions of (\[e:Jcauchy\]) and set $j=j_1-j_2$. Note that $$U^{\alpha}E_{\lambda}j(t,\cdot)= \int_0^{\lambda}\frac{1}{\mu+\alpha}dE_{\mu}j(t,\cdot).$$ Since $j$ solves (\[e:Jcauchy\]) with the initial condition $0$, applying $E_{\lambda}$ to both sides of the equality we obtain $$E_{\lambda}j(t,\cdot)=-\int_0^t ds\int_0^{\lambda}\frac{1}{\mu+\alpha}dE_{\mu}j(s,\cdot),$$ which yields $E_{\lambda}j(t,\cdot)=0$ for all $\lambda \geq 0$. This completes the proof.
Since $-U^{\alpha}$ is a non-positive bounded operator, it generates a uniformly continuous semi-group, $T_t:=e^{-t U^{\alpha}}$. Thus, we have the following immediate corollary.
\[c:picard\] Let $(T_t)$ be the semigroup on $L^2(m)$ generated by $U^{\alpha}$. Then, $$\cJ^{\alpha}_t f= T_t U^{\alpha}f.$$
The fact that $\cJ^{\alpha}_tf$ is a solution of a Cauchy problem with a bounded generator also implies that one can compute it using a Picard iteration.
Suppose $f \in L^2(m)$ and set j\_0(t,)&=&U\^f,\
j\_[n+1]{}(t,)&=&U\^ f-\_0\^t U\^j\_n(s,)ds. Then, $(j_n(\cdot,\cdot))_{n \geq 0}$ converges uniformly in $L^2( m)$ to $(\cJ^{\alpha}_sf)_{s \in [0,t]}$ for any $t>0$, i.e. $$\lim_{n \rar \infty} \sup_{0\leq s \leq t} \|j_{n}(s,\cdot)-\cJ^{\alpha}_sf\|=0, \qquad \forall t>0.$$
Let $j(s,\cdot)=\cJ^{\alpha}_sf$ and observe from (\[e:Jcauchy\]) that $$j(s,\cdot)=U^{\alpha}f -\int_0^s U^{\alpha}j(r,\cdot)dr.$$ Moreover, j\_0(s,)-j(s,) && \_0\^s U\^j(r,)dr = \_0\^s dr\
&&\_0\^s fdr f. \[e:picest0\] Thus, $$\|j_{n+1}(s,\cdot)-j(s,\cdot)\|\leq\int_0^s\|U^{\alpha}j_n(r,\cdot)-U^{\alpha}j(r,\cdot)\|dr\leq \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_0^s\|j_n(r,\cdot)-j(r,\cdot)\|dr.$$ Hence, $$\sup_{0\leq s \leq t} \|j_{n+1}(s,\cdot)-j(s,\cdot)\|\leq \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_0^t \|j_n(r,\cdot)-j(r,\cdot)\|dr$$ and we deduce by induction that $$\sup_{0\leq s \leq t} \|j_{n}(s,\cdot)-j(s,\cdot)\|\leq \frac{t^n }{\alpha^n n!} \sup_{0\leq s \leq t} \|j_0(s,\cdot)-j(s,\cdot)\|.$$ In conjunction with (\[e:picest0\]) this leads to the estimate $$\sup_{0\leq s \leq t} \|j_{n}(s,\cdot)-j(s,\cdot)\|\leq \frac{t^n }{\alpha^n n!} \|f\|,$$ which yields the claim.
Although it is difficult to predict the tail behaviour of $(\cJ^{\alpha}_tf,f)$ as $t \rar \infty$ due to the oscillatory nature of the Bessel functions of the first kind, the Laplace transform of $(\cJ^{\alpha}_tf,g)$ is a familiar object. Thus the tail behaviour can be determined by inverting this Laplace transform as well.
Suppose $f \in L^2(m)$. Then for all $s \geq 0$ $$\int_0^{\infty} e^{-st} (\cJ^{\alpha}_tf,f)dt= \frac{1}{s}U^{\alpha+\frac{1}{s}}(f,f).$$
Using the spectral representation of $\cJ^{\alpha}$ \_0\^ e\^[-st]{} (\^\_tf,f)dt&=& \_0\^ e\^[-st]{}\_0\^ e\^[-]{}d(E\_f,f)\
&=&\_0\^ d(E\_f,f)\
&=&\_0\^ d(E\_f,f)=U\^[+]{}(f,f). Also observe that the above identity is valid for $s=0$ since $\alpha U^{\alpha}f \rar f$ as $ \alpha \rar \infty$ and $$\int_0^{\infty} (\cJ^{\alpha}_tf,f)dt=(f,f).$$
When $X$ is a one-dimensional transient diffusion we have yet another way of characterising $\cJ^{\alpha}$.
Suppose that $X$ is as in Example \[ex:1dim\] and is transient. Let $G_x:=\sup\{t \geq 0: X_t=x\}$ be the last hitting time of $x$. Then $$\cJ^{\alpha}f(x) = u(x,x)E^{\mu}\left(J_0(2 \sqrt{tG_x}) e^{-\alpha G_x}\chf_{[G_x>0]}\right),$$ where $\mu$ is a measure on $(\bfE,\sE)$ given by $\mu(dy)=f(y)m(dy)$, and $u$ is the potential kernel for $X$, i.e. $$u(x,y)=\int_0^{\infty}p(t,x,y)dt.$$
It is well-known that (see, e.g., p.27 of [@BorSal]) $$P^y(0<G_y\leq t)=\int_0^t \frac{p(s,x,y)}{u(y,y)}ds.$$ In view of the symmetry of $p(t,x,y)$ the above implies for all bounded and continuous $h$ that $$E^{\mu} h(G_x)\chf_{[G_x>0]}=\int_0^{\infty} h(s)\frac{P_sf(x)}{u(x,x)}ds,$$ which yields the claim.
Recall (see Chapter 9 of [@AS]) that $J_0$ satisfies the following ODE: \[e:J0ode\] x\^2 J\_0”+ x J\_0’ + x\^2 J\_0=0. The above equation and its connection with $2$-dimensional Bessel process leads to the following remarkable observation that $\cJ^{\alpha}_t$ can be considered as the solution of a backward partial differential equation with an initial condition.
Fix an $f \in L^2(m)$, $T>0$ and consider the following function \[e:h\] h(t,x)= \_0\^ J\_0(2) e\^[-2(T-t)s]{}(P\_sf,f)ds, x 0, t\[0,T). Then h\_t + 2x h\_[xx]{} + 2 h\_x &=&0; \[e:pdeh\]\
h(0,)&=&(\^T\_x f,f).Moreover, $(h(t,X_t))_{t \in [0,S]}$ is a bounded martingale for any $S<T$ when $X$ is a $2$-dimensional squared Bessel process, i.e. $X$ is the unique weak solution $$dX_t =2\sqrt{X_t}dW_t +2 dt,$$ where $W$ is a standard Brownian motion.
First note that $|J_0|<1$ and $\frac{J_0'(x)}{x}$ is bounded on $[0,\infty)$. The latter implies that $\frac{d}{dx}J_0(2\sqrt{xs})$ is bounded whenever $s$ belongs to a bounded interval. In view of (\[e:J0ode\]) these observations further yield that $\frac{d^2}{dx^2}J_0(2\sqrt{xs})$ is bounded when $(x,s)$ belong to compact squares. Thus, we can differentiate under the integral sign in (\[e:h\]) to get &&h\_t + 2x h\_[xx]{} + 2 h\_x\
&=&\_0\^ {2x J\_0(2)+2 J\_0(2) + 2sJ\_0(2)}e\^[-2(T-t)s]{}(P\_sf,f)ds. However, (\[e:J0ode\]) implies that the term within the curly brackets vanishes. Moreover, $h(0,\cdot) = (\cJ^T_x f,f)$ by the definition of $h$. This completes the proof that $h$ solves the PDE in (\[e:pdeh\]).
To finish the proof note that $(h(t,X_t))_{t \in [0,S]}$ is a local martingale by an application of Ito’s formula. Moreover, for any $t\leq S$ $$0\leq h(t,X_t)\leq \int_0^{\infty} e^{-2(T-S)s}(P_sf,f)ds= (U^{2(T-S)}f,f)<\infty,$$ which in turn yields that $(h(t,X_t))_{t \in [0,S]}$ is a bounded martingale.
Regularisation of the inverse problem
=====================================
Regularisation of inverse problems are in principle perturbations of the forward operator so that its inverse becomes a bounded operator on the underlying Hilbert space. As a bounded operator the perturbed inverse operator can then be applied to any member of the Hilbert space. If the perturbation is small, one expects not to deviate too much from the solution of the original inverse problem, if exists. We refer the reader to [@ehn] for an exhaustive treatment of regularisation methods for inverse problems.
The most common method for regularising ill-posed inverse problems is the [*Tikhonov regularisation*]{}. In our set up this will correspond to the solution of an auxiliary problem $$P_t f +\gamma f = g, \qquad \gamma>0,\, g\in L^2(m).$$ Using spectral calculus it can be formally showed that the inverse of $P_t +\gamma I$ is given by $$\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\gamma +e^{-\lambda t}}dE_{\lambda}.$$ Since $\gamma +e^{-\lambda t}$ is bounded away from $0$, this inverse operator is bounded and, therefore, has all of $L^2(m)$ as its domain.
In view of the above heuristic discussion we shall next describe a family of perturbations of the original problem that results in a regularisation. The resulting problems can be viewed as a mixture of the original inverse problem with a suitable regularising noise.
\[t:regularisation\] Suppose that $\phi:\bbR_+ \mapsto \bbR_+$ is a continuous function with $\liminf_{x \rar \infty}\phi(x) >0$ such that $\sup_{x\geq 0} e^{-tx}\phi(x) <\infty$. Then, there exists a unique solution $f\in L^2(m)$ to the following for any $g \in L^2(m)$ and $t>0$: \[e:reggen\] (1-)P\_t f +(-A)f=g, (0,1). Moreover, the solution is given by \[e:regsol\] f=\_0\^dE\_g, and has the property that \[e:minimizer\] (1-)f= \_[hL\^2(m)]{}P\_t h -g\^2 +(P\_t (-A)h,h).
Observe that $f$ given by (\[e:regsol\]) is well-defined and belongs to $L^2(m)$ since $g\in L^2(m)$ and $\liminf_{x \rar \infty}\phi(x) >0$. Moreover, it belongs to the domain of $\phi(-A)$. The fact that $f$ is the solution of (\[e:reggen\]) is easy. Indeed, using the spectral representation $$(1-\gamma)P_t f +\gamma \phi(-A)f=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{e^{-\lambda t}(1-\gamma)+ \gamma\phi(\lambda)}{\gamma \phi(\lambda)+(1-\gamma)e^{-\lambda t}}dE_{\lambda}g=g.$$ Thus, it remains to show (\[e:minimizer\]).
[*Case 1:*]{} First suppose that $A$ is a finite rank operator, which is equivalent to saying that $P_t$ is a finite rank operator. Assume that the dimension of the range of $A$ is $n\in \mathbb{N}$. This implies the existence of an orthonormal family $(\nu_k)_{k=1}^n \subset L^2(m)$ and real numbers $(\lambda_k)_{k=1}^n$ such that for any $h \in L^2(m)$ $$-Ah =\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda_k (\nu_k,h)\nu_k.$$ The corresponding spectral family is defined via E\_h&=&\_[\_k]{}(\_k,h)\_k, >0;\
h\_0:=E\_[0]{}h&=&h-\_[k=1]{}\^n (\_k,h)\_k. Consequently, &&P\_t h -g\^2 +(P\_t (-A)h,h)\
&&=\_[k=1]{}\^n (e\^[-2 \_k t]{} (h, \_k)\^2 -2 e\^[-\_k t]{} (h,e\_k)(g,\_k) + (g,\_k)\^2 +e\^[-\_k t]{}(\_k)(h,\_k)\^2)\
&&+\_((h\_0-g\_0)\^2+(0)h\_0\^2)dm. Minimising the quadratic in every summand we deduce that the minimiser, $\hat{h}$, satisfies $$(\hat{h},e_k)=\frac{e^{-\lambda_k t} (g,e_k)}{e^{-2\lambda_k t} +\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}e^{-\lambda_k t} \phi(\lambda_k)}=\frac{(g,e_k)}{e^{-\lambda_k t} +\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma} \phi(\lambda_k)}$$ Moreover, minimising the integrand that is quadratic in $h_0$ we see for $m$-a.e. $y\in \bfE$ $$\hat{h}_0(y)=\frac{g_0(y)}{1+\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma} \phi(0)}.$$ Thus, $$(1-\gamma)\hat{h}=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\gamma \phi(\lambda)+(1-\gamma)e^{-\lambda t}}dE_{\lambda}g,$$ which establishes (\[e:minimizer\]).
Note that (\[e:regsol\]) can be written alternatively that $$f= F(-A),$$ where $F:\bbR_+ \mapsto \bbR_+$ is the following bounded continuous function: $$F(x)=\frac{1}{\gamma\phi(x)+(1-\gamma)e^{-xt}}.$$ Thus, we have shown \[e:altrep\] (1-)F(-A)g=\_[hL\^2(m)]{}P\_t h -g\^2 +(P\_t (-A)h,h) when $A$ is a finite rank operator. This alternative representation is going to be useful in extending the validity of (\[e:minimizer\]) for a general $A$.
[*Case 2:*]{} Suppose that $A$ is a bounded operator. Define a sequence of finite rank self-adjoint nonpositive operators, $(A_n)$, via $$A^n e_k =A e_k, \, k\leq n, \quad A^n e_k =0, \, k\geq n+1,$$ where $(e_k)_{k=1}^{\infty}$ is an orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space $L^2(m)$. Then, $A^n\rar A$ strongly, i.e. for any $h\in L^2(m)$, $A^nh \rar A^h$ in $L^2(m)$. Denote the associated semigroups by $(P^n_t)$ and define $S^n:L^2(m) \mapsto \bbR_+$ and $S:L^2(m) \mapsto \bbR_+$ as follows: S\_n(h)&=&P\^n\_t h -g\^2 +(P\^n\_t (-A\^n)h,h)\
S(h)&=&P\_t h -g\^2 +(P\_t (-A)h,h). Since $P^n_t=\exp(tA^n), P_t=\exp(tA)$, $\phi$ is continuous, and $\sup\|A_n\|<\infty$, it follows that $P^n_t$ and $P^n_t \phi(-A^n)$ converge strongly to $P_t$ and $P_t \phi(-A)$, respectively (see Corollary 2 on p.2220 of [@DS3]). Therefore, we have \[e:lboundmin\] S(h)=\_[n ]{} S\_n(h) \_[n ]{} S\_n((1-)F(-A\^n)g), where the inequality is due to (\[e:altrep\]) since $A^n$ is a finite rank operator.
Let $h_n:=F(-A^n)g$ and observe that $h_n \rar F(-A)g$ in $L^2(m)$ since $F$ is continuous. Thus, $(P^n_t \phi(-A^n)h_n,F(-A)g) \rar (P_t \phi(-A)h_n,F(-A)g)$ as $n \rar \infty$ as $(P_t^n)$ and $(A^n)$ are strongly convergent to $P_t$ and $A$. On the other hand, $$(P^n_t \phi(-A^n)h_n,h_n -F(-A)g)\leq K \|h_n-F(-A)g\|^2$$ for some $K<\infty$ $P^n_t \phi(-A^n)$ are uniformly bounded operators due to the assumption that $e^{-tx}\phi(x)$ is bounded. Since $\|h_n-F(-A)g\|^2 \rar 0$ as $n \rar \infty$, we may now conclude that $(P^n_t \phi(-A^n)h_n,h_n) \rar (P_t \phi(-A)h_n,F(-A)g)$ as $n \rar \infty$. By similar arguments we can also show that $\|P^n_th_n-g\|\rar \|P_t F(-A)g-g\|$. Therefore, $S_n((1-\gamma)F(-A^n)g) \rar S((1-\gamma)F(-A)g$, which in turn implies $$S(h)\geq S((1-\gamma)F(-A)g), \quad \forall h \in L^2(m)$$ in view of (\[e:lboundmin\]). Since $F(-A)g \in L^2(m)$, we have $$(1-\gamma)F(-A)g=\operatorname*{arg\,min}_{h\in L^2(m)}\|P_t h -g\|^2 +\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}(P_t \phi(-A)h,h)$$ [*Case 3:*]{} Given a general $A$ define $$A^n:=\int_0^n \lambda dE_{\lambda}, \qquad n \geq 1.$$ Note that each $A^n$ is a bounded operator. Thus, (\[e:minimizer\]) holds when $A$ is replaced by $A^n$ and $P_t$ by $P^n_t$, where $(P^n_t)$ is the associated semigroup generated by $A^n$. Moreover, $(P^n_t \phi(-A^n))$ is a sequence of uniformly bounded operators converging strongly to $(P_t \phi(-A)$ as $n \rar \infty$. Thus, imitating the proof of the previous case we can similarly establish that (\[e:minimizer\]) is satisfied.
The assumption that $\liminf_{x \rar \infty}\phi(x) >0$ cannot be dispensed easily if (\[e:reggen\]) is to have a solution for any given $g \in L^2(m)$. To wit take $\phi(x)=e^{-tx}$. Then (\[e:reggen\]) becomes $P_tf=g$, which does not have a solution in general.
Observe that $\phi(x)=e^{tx}$ satisfies the conditions in Theorem \[t:regularisation\] and $P_t \phi(-A)$ is the identity operator. This observation leads to the following corollary.
\[c:regularisation\] There exists a unique solution $f\in L^2(m)$ to the following for any $g \in L^2(m)$ and $t>0$: \[e:reggenc\] (1-)P\_t f +P\_t\^[-1]{}f=g, (0,1). Moreover, the solution is given by \[e:regsolc\] f=\_0\^dE\_g, belongs to $\cD(P_t^{-1})$, and has the property that \[e:minimizerc\] (1-)f= \_[hL\^2(m)]{}P\_t h -g\^2 +(h,h).
If $g\in \cD(P_t^{-1})$, one should expect that the solutions of (\[e:reggen\]) converge to $P_t^{-1}g$ as $\gamma \rar 0$. This is indeed the case as the following proposition shows.
Let $\phi$ be as in Theorem \[t:regularisation\] and for each $\gamma \in (0,1)$ denote by $f_{\gamma}$ the solution of (\[e:reggen\]). Assume further that $g \in \cD(P_t^{-1})$. Then $$\lim_{\gamma \rar 0} \|f_{\gamma}-P_t^{-1}g\|=0.$$
The hypothesis that $g \in P_t^{-1}$ implies $$\int_0^{\infty} e^{2 \lambda t}d(E_{\lambda}g,g)<\infty.$$ On the other hand, $$\left(e^{\lambda t} -\frac{1}{\gamma \phi(\lambda)+(1-\gamma)e^{-\lambda t}}\right)^2 \leq \left(\frac{2-\gamma}{1-\gamma}\right)^2 e^{2 \lambda t}.$$ Thus, in view of the Dominated Convergence Theorem, we have $$\lim_{\gamma\rar 0}\int_0^{\infty}\left(e^{\lambda t} -\frac{1}{\gamma \phi(\lambda)+(1-\gamma)e^{-\lambda t}}\right)^2d(E_{\lambda}g,g)=0,$$ which yields the claim.
Although looking abstract, Theorem \[t:regularisation\] furnishes us with a plethora of concrete examples for regularising the inverse problem (\[e:IP\]). To see this in a specific example suppose that the transition function, $(P_t)$, possesses a density with respect to $m$. Let us denote this transition density with $p(t,\cdot,\cdot)$ and introduce a new operator, $B$, on $L^2(m)$ via \[e:mixgen\] Bf(x):= \_ f(y)p(T\^\*,x,y)m(dy)-f(x)=P\_[T\^\*]{}f(x) -f(x), where $T^*>0$ is fixed. Due to the symmetry of $P_{T^*}$, $B$ is a also bounded symmetric operator on $L^2(m)$. Moreover, it corresponds to the generator of a Markov jump process that remains constant between the jumps of a Poisson process with unit parameter and moves between the points of $\bfE$ according to the transition function $P_{T^*}$ (see Example \[ex:jump\]). Thus, by enlarging the probability space if necessary, we can assume the existence of a Markov jump process, $J$, with generator $B$ and independent from $X$. The semigroup, $(\tilde{P}_t)$, associated with $J$ is easily seen to satisfy $\tilde{P}_t=e^{tB}=\phi(-A)$, where $\phi(x)=\exp(t(e^{-tx}-1))$. Clearly, $\phi$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[t:regularisation\]. Thus, $L^2(m)=\cD(Q_t^{-1})$, where $$Q_t= (1-\gamma)P_t + \gamma \tilde{P}_t.$$ Note that $(Q_t)$ is the semigroup of the Markov process, $Y$, where $$Y= \xi X+ (1-\xi)J,$$ and $\xi$ is a Bernoulli random variable independent of $X$ and $J$ with $Prob(\xi=1)=1-\gamma$. Therefore, mixing the original Markov process with a pure jump process we observe that the inverse problem admits a solution. This construction readily extends to the following result.
\[c:mixing\] Suppose that $K$ is a bounded positive operator such that $K=\psi(-A)$ for some bounded continuous function $\psi:\bbR_+\mapsto [0,1]$. In an enlargement of the probability space there exists a Markov process $Y$ such that $$Y= \xi X+ (1-\xi)J,$$ where $\xi$ is a non-degenerate Bernoulli random variable, $J$ is a jump Markov process with generator $$Bf=Kf-f, \qquad f \in L^2(m),$$ and $\xi, J$ and $X$ are mutually independent. Moreover, $\cD(Q_t^{-1})=L^2(m)$, where $(Q_t)$ is the semigroup associated to $Y$.
In view of the relationship between the inverse problem and the backward PDEs the above corollary leads to the following in view of Corollary \[c:invpde\].
\[c:mixingPDE\] Suppose that $K$ is a bounded positive operator such that $K=\psi(-A)$ for some bounded continuous function $\psi:\bbR_+\mapsto [0,1]$. Then, for any $g \in L^2(m)$, there exists a unique solution on $$u_t+ \xi Au+ (1-\xi)(Ku-u)=0, \qquad u(0,\cdot)=g.$$
The above corollaries show that if we construct a new process by randomly mixing the original process with a suitably chosen independent jump process, the inverse problem becomes well-posed when $P_t$ is replaced with the corresponding transition function of the new process. Note that $\gamma$ can be chosen arbitrarily close to 1, which in practice means that one would almost never see the jump process, $Y$.
In particular when the generator is a differential operator Corolllary \[c:mixingPDE\] shows the existence and uniqueness of a solution for the following partial integro-differential equation for any $\xi \in (0,1) $, $T^*>0$, and $g \in L^2(m)$, which can be viewed as the regularisation for the ill-posed PDE in (\[e:bpde\]). \[e:r-pide\] u\_t(t,x) + Au(t,x) +(1-) \_ u(t,y) P(T\^\*,x,dy)-(1-)u(t,x)&=&0;\
u(0,)&=&g.
Suppose that $X$ is a Brownian motion and $m$ is the Lebesgue measure on the real line. Then, the generator $B$ defined in (\[e:mixgen\]) corresponds to a compound Poisson process with unit intensity, whose jumps are normally distributed with mean $0$ and variance $T^*$. In this case the process $Y$ of Corollary \[c:mixing\] is a Brownian motion with probability $1-\gamma$ and a compound Poisson process with probability $\gamma$.
Corollary \[c:mixingPDE\], on the other hand, gives us a regularisation of the ill-posed backward heat equation with an initial condition. The regularisation takes the form of a partial integro-differential equation as follows: u\_t +u\_[xx]{} + (1-)\_[-]{}\^(u(t,y)-u(t,x))(-)dy&=&0;\
u(0,)&=&g. Corollary \[c:mixingPDE\] yields the existence and uniqueness of a solution to the above for [*any*]{} $g \in L^2(m)$.
Let $K=\alpha U^{\alpha}$ for some $\alpha>0$, where $U^{\alpha}$ is the $\alpha$-potential operator. Observe that $\|K\|\leq 1$ so Corollary \[c:mixing\] is applicable. In this case the process $Y$ is given by $X$ with probability $1-\gamma$ while it is equal to a Markov jump process with generator $K-I$ with probability $\gamma$.
[99]{}
Abramowitz, M. and Stegun,I.A. (1972): [*Handbook of mathematical functions: with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables*]{}. National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series. Vol. 55. Corrected 10th printing. Bertero, M. and Boccacci, P. (1998): [*Introduction to inverse problems in imaging*]{}. CRC press. Borodin, A. N., and Salminen, P. (2012): [*Handbook of Brownian motion-facts and formulae*]{}, Birkhäuser. Cavalier, L. (2011): Inverse problems in statistics. [*Inverse problems and high-dimensional estimation*]{}, Lect. Notes Stat. Proc., 203, pp. [3–96]{}. Dunford, N. and Schwartz, J.T. (1971): [*Linear Operators. Part 3: Spectral Operators*]{}, Wiley-Interscience. Eggermont, P. P. B. and LaRiccia, V. N. (1995): Maximum smoothed likelihood density estimation for inverse problems. [*Ann. Statist.*]{}, 23(1), pp. 199–220. Engl, H.W., Hanke, M. and Neubauer, A.. (1996). [*Regularization of inverse problems*]{}, Vol. 375, Springer Science & Business Media. Ekstr[ö]{}m, E., Hobson, D., Janson, S. and Tysk, J. (2013): Can time-homogeneous diffusions produce any distribution? [*Probab. Theory Related Fields*]{}, 155(3-4), pp. [493–520]{}. Elliott, J. (1955): Eigenfunction expansions associated with singular differential operators. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, 78, pp. [406–425]{}. Ethier, S., and Kurz, T. (1989): [*Convergence of Markov Processes*]{}, Wiley. Falkner, N. (1983): Stopped distributions for Markov processes in duality. [*Zeitschrift f[ü]{}r Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete*]{}, 62(1), pp. 43–51. Fukushima, M., Oshima, Y. and Takeda, M. (2010): [*Dirichlet forms and symmetric Markov processes*]{}. Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 19, de Gruyter. Ito, K., McKean, H. P., Jr. (1965): [*Diffusion processes and their sample paths*]{}, Springer. Koo, J-Y. and Chung, H-Y. (1998): Log-density estimation in linear inverse problems. [*Ann. Statist.*]{}, 26(1), pp. 335–362. McKean, Jr., H. P. (1956): Elementary solutions for certain parabolic partial differential equations. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, 82, pp. [519–548]{}. Silverman, B. W., Jones, M. C., Nychka, D. W. and Wilson, J. D.. (1990): A smoothed [EM]{} approach to indirect estimation problems, with particular reference to stereology and emission tomography. [*J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B*]{}, 52(2), pp. [271–324]{}. Vardi, Y., and Lee, D. (1993) From image deblurring to optimal investments: Maximum likelihood solutions for positive linear inverse problems. [*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological),*]{} pp. 569–612. Widder, D. V. (1951): Necessary and sufficient conditions for the representation of a function by a [W]{}eierstrass transform. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, 71, pp. [430–439]{}.
[^1]: This example is due to David Hobson.
[^2]: That is, 1) $E_{\lambda}E_{\mu}=E_{\lambda}, \, \lambda \leq \mu$; 2) $\lambda \mapsto E_{\lambda}f$ is right continuous for any $f \in L^2(m)$; and 3) $\lim_{\lambda \rar \infty}E_{\lambda}f=f$ for all $f \in L^2(m)$. In particular $(E_{\lambda}f,g)$ is of bounded variation in $\lambda$ for any $f,g \in L^2(m)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We characterize the edges of two classes of $0/1$-polytopes. The first class corresponds to the stable set polytope of a graph $G$ and includes chain polytopes of posets, some instances of matroid independence polytopes, as well as newly-defined polytopes whose vertices correspond to noncrossing set partitions. In analogy with matroid basis polytopes, the second class is obtained by considering the stable sets of maximal cardinality. We investigate how the class of $0/1$-polytopes whose edges satisfy our characterization is situated within the hierarchy of $0/1$-polytopes. This includes the class of matroid polytopes. We also study the diameter of these classes of polytopes and improve slightly on the Hirsch bound.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z2, Canada'
- 'Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto ON M3J 1P3, Canada'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto ON M3J 1P3, Canada'
- 'Depart[é]{}ment de math[é]{}matiques, Universit[é]{} du Qu[é]{}bec [à]{} Montr[é]{}al, Montr[é]{}al QC, Canada'
author:
- Farid Aliniaeifard
- Carolina Benedetti
- Nantel Bergeron
- Shu Xiao Li
- Franco Saliola
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Stable set polytopes and their 1-skeleta'
---
Introduction
============
We study two classes of $0/1$-polytopes associated with a graph $G$. The first is the of $G$ (also known as the in the literature) whose vertices are indexed by the *stable sets* of $G$. This class includes several polytopes arising in algebraic combinatorics such as the *chain polytope of a poset*, some instances of *matroid independence polytopes*, and the *unipotent polytopes* introduced in [@Thiem-FPSAC2017; @Thiem2018]. We also identify a family of polytopes whose vertices correspond to noncrossing set partitions. In analogy with the relationship between matroid independence polytopes and *matroid basis polytopes*, we also study the polytope whose vertices are indexed by stable sets of maximal cardinality. This construction includes as a special case the *Birkhoff polytopes*.
Our new contributions are described as follows.
1. A new characterization of the edges and $1$-skeleta of stable set polytopes is presented (see Theorem \[RP1skeleton\]). In particular, this also includes a description of the $1$-skeleton of the chain polytope of a finite poset, which seems to be new (see Section \[sec:chain-polytope\]).
2. Among these polytopes, we identify two new families, the nonnesting polytopes ${\operatorname{NN}}_n$ (Section \[sec:NNP\]) and the noncrossing polytopes ${\operatorname{NC}}_n$ (Section \[sec:NCP\]), whose vertices are indexed by nonnesting and noncrossing set partitions of $[n]$, respectively. In addition to describing their $1$-skeleta via Theorem \[RP1skeleton\], we describe some of their facets (see Section \[facets-NNP\] and Section \[facets-NCP\], respectively).
3. We investigate how the class of $0/1$-polytopes whose edges satisfy our characterization is situated within the hierarchy of $0/1$-polytopes. We show that this class is properly contained in the class of all $0/1$-polytopes and that it properly contains the stable set polytopes, the matroid basis polytopes, and the matroid independent set polytopes (see Figure \[inclusions-polytope-classes\] and the results of Section \[hierarchy\]). We also characterize the intersection of the class of stable set polytopes and the class of independent set polytopes of matroids.
(-4, -4) rectangle (9, 5); (2.75, 0.5) ellipse (6 and 4);
(5, 0) ellipse (2.75 and 2); (2, 0) ellipse (2.75 and 2);
(5, 0) ellipse (2.75 and 2); (2, 0) ellipse (2.75 and 2); at (-2, 4.5) [$0/1$-polytopes]{}; at (2, 3) [$0/1$-polytopes satisfying ]{}; at (1, 0)
----------------------
matroid
\[-0.5ex\] polytopes
----------------------
; at (3.5, 0)
----------------------
partition
\[-0.5ex\] matroid
\[-0.5ex\] polytopes
----------------------
; at (6, 0)
----------------------
stable set
\[-0.5ex\] polytopes
----------------------
;
4. In Section \[section-on-the-diameter\], we study the Hirsch conjecture as it pertains to our setting. Recall that the *Hirsch conjecture* asserts that the diameter of every $d$-dimensional convex polytope $P$ with $n$ facets is at most $n - d$ (see Section \[section-on-the-diameter\] for definitions). It is related to the *travelling salesman problem* and the *simplex method* as it provides an easy-to-compute bound on the minimum distance between any two vertices. Although the Hirsch conjecture is false in general [@Santos2012], it is true for $0/1$-polytopes [@Naddef1989], and we prove an improvement on this bound for some of the polytopes we study here.
Stable set polytope of a graph
==============================
Indicator vectors
-----------------
Let $X$ be a finite set and let ${{\mathbb R}}^{X}$ denote a real vector space with standard basis, denoted $\{e_x : x \in X\}$, whose elements are indexed by the elements of $X$. We associate an element $e_A$ of ${{\mathbb R}}^{X}$ to each subset $A \subseteq X$ as follows: define the of $A$ as $$e_A = \sum_{a \in A} e_a \in {{\mathbb R}}^{X}.$$ Note that $e_{\emptyset} = 0 \in {{\mathbb R}}^{X}$.
It is often convenient to identify ${{\mathbb R}}^{X}$ with ${{\mathbb R}}^{|X|}$. To do so, fix any total order $(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n)$ on $X$ and identify the basis vector $e_{x_i} \in {{\mathbb R}}^X$ with the standard basis vector $e_i \in
{{\mathbb R}}^{|X|}$.
We will also make use of the usual inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot
\rangle$ on ${{\mathbb R}}^{X}$ for which $\{e_x : x \in X\}$ is an orthonormal basis. Thus, $$\langle e_x, e_A \rangle
=
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if $x \in A$,} \\
0, & \text{if $x \notin A$.}
\end{cases}$$ The following straightforward consequence will be used several times: $$\langle e_A - e_B, e_x \rangle =
\begin{cases}
0, & \text{if $x \in A \cap B$ or $x \notin A \cup B$,} \\
1, & \text{if $x \in A \setminus B$,} \\
-1, & \text{if $x \in B \setminus A$.}
\end{cases}$$
Stable set polytope (SSP)
-------------------------
Let $G = (V,E)$ be a graph, that is, $G$ has no loops and no multiple edges. A subset $A$ of the vertices $V$ is for $G$ if no two vertices in $A$ are connected by an edge in $G$. Let denote the set of stable sets of $G$. The of $G$ is the convex hull of the indicator vectors of the stable sets of $G$: $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G) = \conv\left\{ e_A : A \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G) \right\} \subseteq {{\mathbb R}}^V.$$
Examples {#sec:examples}
--------
Our motivation for studying this family of polytopes is the vast variety of polytopes that can be realized as stable set polytopes.
### Polytope of independent sets of a relation {#sec:IP(R)}
Let ${\mathscr{R}}\subseteq X^2$ be a relation on a finite set $X$. A subset $A$ of $X$ is iff $(x, y) \notin {\mathscr{R}}$ and $(y, x)
\notin {\mathscr{R}}$ for all *distinct* $x, y \in A$. Let $${{\color{DodgerBlue}\Ind(X, {\mathscr{R}})}} = \left\{ A \subseteq X : \text{$A$ is independent for ${\mathscr{R}}$} \right\}.$$ Note that since we require $x$ and $y$ to be *distinct*, it follows that $\{x\}$ is independent for all $x \in X$. Note also that if $A$ is independent for ${\mathscr{R}}$, then every subset of $A$ is also independent for ${\mathscr{R}}$. Define the of a relation ${\mathscr{R}}$ to be the convex hull of the indicator functions of the independent sets for ${\mathscr{R}}$.
Note that ${\operatorname{IP}}({\mathscr{R}})$ is a special case of a stable set polytope. Let $G_{\mathscr{R}}$ be the simple graph with vertex set $X$ and with edge set consisting of $\{x, y\}$ iff $(x, y) \in {\mathscr{R}}$ or $(y, x) \in {\mathscr{R}}$. (Implicit in this definition is the fact that $x$ and $y$ are distinct.) Note that a subset $A \subseteq X$ is stable for $G_{\mathscr{R}}$ iff $A$ is independent for ${\mathscr{R}}$. Consequently, $${\operatorname{IP}}({\mathscr{R}})={\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G_{\mathscr{R}}).$$
Take $X = \{1,2,3\}$ and ${\mathscr{R}}= \{(1, 2), (2, 3)\}$. The independent sets for ${\mathscr{R}}$ are $\left\{\emptyset, \{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}, \{1,3\}\right\}$ so that $${\operatorname{IP}}({\mathscr{R}}) = \conv\{(0,0,0), (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1), (1,0,1)\}.$$
sage: X = [1, 2, 3]{} sage: R = [(1, 2), (2, 3)]{} sage: T = [A for A in Subsets(X) if all((x, y) not in R for x in A for y in A)]{} sage: T [[1]{}, [3]{}, , [2]{}, [1, 3]{}]{}
### $n$-cube {#sec:n-cube}
Let $([n], \emptyset)$ be a graph with $n$ vertices and no edges. Then every subset of of the vertices is stable, and the associated polytope is the ; *i.e.,* ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}([n], \emptyset) = \conv(\{0,1\}^n)$.
### Chain polytope of a poset {#sec:chain-polytope}
Let $P = (X, \preceq)$ be a finite poset. The of $P$ is the graph whose vertex set is $X$ and which contains an edge connecting $x$ and $y$ iff $x \prec y$ or $y \prec x$. A subset $A \subseteq X$ is stable for $G_P$ iff it is an antichain of the poset. Hence, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G_P)$ is the of $P$ originally introduced by R. Stanley in [@Stanley1986].
Our Theorem \[RP1skeleton\] gives a description of the $1$-skeleton of the chain polytope of a finite poset. To our knowledge this description is new.
### Bell polytopes {#sec:bell-polytope}
Let $G$ be the graph with vertex set $X_n=\{(i,j): 1\le i<j\le n\}$ and with an edge connecting $(i, j)$ and $(k, l)$ iff $$\text{$i = k$ and $j \neq l$}
\qquad\text{or}\qquad
\text{$i \neq k$ and $j = l$.}$$
The stable sets of $G$, and hence the vertices of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$, can be identified with set partitions of the set $[n]:=\{1,\dots,n\}$, as follows. Identify $e_{(i,j)} \in {{\mathbb R}}^{X_n}$ with the upper triangular $n \times n$ matrix whose $(i, j)$ entry is $1$ and whose other entries are $0$. Then $e_A$ is identified with a strictly upper triangular $0/1$-matrix. If $A$ is stable for $G$, then the matrix $e_A$ has at most one $1$ in each row and column. We can encode such a matrix by a set partition $S = \{S_1,\dots,S_{\ell}\}$ of $[n]$ by placing $i$ and $j$ in the same set $S_r$ if the $(i, j)$ entry of the matrix is $1$.
This polytope, which we call the , is a particular case of the introduced in [@Thiem-FPSAC2017; @Thiem2018].
### Nonnesting (partition) polytope {#sec:NNP}
The is the stable set polytope of the comparability graph of the root poset of type $A_n$, which we think of as $X_n = \{(i,j): 1\le i<j\le n\}$ with $$(i, j) \leq (k, l)
\qquad\text{iff}\qquad
k \leq i < j \leq l.$$ As above, the stable sets for the comparability graph of this poset are also encoded by certain strictly upper triangular matrices with at most one $1$ in each row and column; or equivalently, by certain set partitions of $[n]$. It turns out that we obtain precisely the nonnesting partitions of $[n]$ in this way. See Example \[ex\_uni3\].
(node\_0) at (0, 0) \[draw,draw=none\] [$\left(1, 2\right)$]{}; (node\_1) at (1, 1) \[draw,draw=none\] [$\left(1, 3\right)$]{}; (node\_2) at (2, 2) \[draw,draw=none\] [$\left(1, 4\right)$]{}; (node\_3) at (3, 3) \[draw,draw=none\] [$\left(1, 5\right)$]{}; (node\_4) at (2, 0) \[draw,draw=none\] [$\left(2, 3\right)$]{}; (node\_5) at (3, 1) \[draw,draw=none\] [$\left(2, 4\right)$]{}; (node\_6) at (4, 2) \[draw,draw=none\] [$\left(2, 5\right)$]{}; (node\_7) at (4, 0) \[draw,draw=none\] [$\left(3, 4\right)$]{}; (node\_8) at (5, 1) \[draw,draw=none\] [$\left(3, 5\right)$]{}; (node\_9) at (6, 0) \[draw,draw=none\] [$\left(4, 5\right)$]{}; (node\_0) to (node\_1); (node\_1) to (node\_2); (node\_2) to (node\_3); (node\_4) to (node\_5); (node\_5) to (node\_6); (node\_7) to (node\_8); (node\_4) to (node\_1); (node\_5) to (node\_2); (node\_6) to (node\_3); (node\_7) to (node\_5); (node\_8) to (node\_6); (node\_9) to (node\_8);
### Noncrossing (partition) polytope {#sec:NCP}
The is the stable set polytope of the graph on $\{(i,j): 1\le i<j\le n\}$ with edges connecting $(i,j)$ and $(k,l)$ iff $$\text{$i = k$ and $j \neq l$}
\quad\text{or}\quad
\text{$i \neq k$ and $j = l$}
\quad\text{or}\quad
\text{$i < k < j < l$}.$$ The stable sets for this graph are also encoded by certain strictly upper triangular matrices with at most one $1$ in each row and column; or equivalently, by certain set partitions of $[n]$. It turns out that we obtain precisely the noncrossing partitions of $[n]$ in this way.
\[ex\_uni3\] For $n \leq 3$, the Bell polytope $B_n$, the nonnesting polytope ${\operatorname{NN}}_n$ and the noncrossing polytopes ${\operatorname{NC}}_n$ coincide as every set partition of $[3]$ is noncrossing and nonnesting. For example, when $n = 3$ we have the graph $G = (V, E)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
V &= \Big\{ (1,2), (1,3), (2,3) \Big\}
\\
E &= \Big\{ \{(1,2), (1,3)\}, \{(1,3), (2,3)\} \Big\}
\\
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G) &= \conv\Big\{(0,0,0), (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1), (1,0,1)\Big\}.
\end{aligned}$$
(A0) at (0,0); (A1) at (-.8,-.5); (A2) at (1,0); (A3) at (0,1); (A4) at (-.8,.5);
(A1) – (A0) – (A2) ; (A0) – (A3);
at (A0) ; at (A1) ; at (A2) ; at (A3) ; at (A4) ; (A2) – (A4) – (A3); (A1) – (A4) – (A2); (A1) – (A2) – (A3) – (A4) –cycle; (A2) – (A4);
The polytopes $B_n$, ${\operatorname{NN}}_n$ and ${\operatorname{NC}}_n$ admit generalizations to other types of root systems. The polytopes obtained for the type $B$ case were studied by [@Allen2017]. See Section \[facets-Bell-polytopes-B\] for more information. We will see below that it is related to the Birkhoff polytopes.
### Matroid independence polytopes {#sec:matroid-independence-polytope}
A $M$ on a finite set $X$ is a non-empty collection $\Ind$ of subsets of $X$ satisfying:
1. \[matroid-axiom-0\] $\emptyset \in\mathcal I$;
2. \[matroid-axiom-1\] if $A \in \Ind$ and $B \subseteq A$, then $B \in \Ind$; and
3. \[matroid-axiom-2\] if $A, B \in \Ind$ and $|B| > |A|$, then there exists $b \in B \setminus A$ such that $A \cup \{b\} \in \Ind$.
The elements of $\Ind$ are called the of $M$. The of $M$ is the polytope whose vertices are the indicator vectors for the independent sets of $M$. This family of polytopes was introduced by Edmonds in [@Edmonds1970] where he also described the facet inequalities.
The independent sets of a relation ${\mathscr{R}}$ on $X$ satisfy \[matroid-axiom-1\], but not necessarily \[matroid-axiom-2\]. When a relation ${\mathscr{R}}$ satisfies both \[matroid-axiom-1\] and \[matroid-axiom-2\], the polytope ${\operatorname{IP}}({\mathscr{R}})$ defined in Section \[sec:IP(R)\] coincides with the matroid independence polytope of a matroid. In this case, results about matroid polytopes can be used to describe various aspects of ${\operatorname{IP}}({\mathscr{R}})$.
### Matroid basis polytopes {#sec:matroid-basis-polytope}
The of a matroid $M$ are the independent sets of $M$ that are maximal with respect to inclusion. Let be the polytope whose vertices are the indicator vectors for the bases of $M$. By \[matroid-axiom-2\], all bases of $M$ have the same cardinality, which is called the of $M$. Note that ${\operatorname{BP}}(M)$ is the facet of the independent set polytope of $M$ supported by the hyperplane of vectors whose coordinates sum to the rank of $M$.
In Section \[sec:birkhoff\], we consider a generalization of this construction: the face of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ supported by the hyperplane of vectors whose coordinates sum to the maximal cardinality of a stable set of $G$. This includes the as a special case.
The $1$-skeleton of stable set polytopes
========================================
Recall that the of a polytope $P$ is the graph whose vertices correspond to the $0$-dimensional faces of $P$; and there is an edge connecting two vertices of the graph iff they are the vertices of a $1$-dimensional face of $P$. One of our main results is the following description of the $1$-skeleton of the stable set polytope of a graph $G$.
Recall that ${\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$ denotes the stable sets of $G$.
\[RP1skeleton\] Let ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ be the stable set polytope of a finite simple graph $G = (V, E)$.
1. \[RP1skeleton-vertices\] The vertex set of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ is $\{e_A : A \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G) \}$.
2. \[RP1skeleton-edges\] Two distinct vertices $e_A$ and $e_B$ form an edge in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ iff for all $C, D \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$, $$\text{$e_A + e_B = e_C + e_D$ implies $\{A, B\} = \{C, D\}$.}$$
Note that $e_A$ is not a nontrivial convex combination of the other $e_B$, for otherwise we would have a nontrivial convex combination of the vertices of the $|X|$-cube (since each $e_A$ is a vertex of the $|X|$-cube). Hence, $e_A$ is a vertex of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$.
The proof of part of Theorem \[RP1skeleton\] will make use of the following characterization of the edges of a polytope, whose proof we include for the sake of completeness.
\[lem:edge\] Two distinct vertices $a$ and $b$ of a polytope $P$ are *not* the vertices of an edge of $P$ iff there exist $k \geq 1$ vertices $v_1, \dots, v_k$ of $P$, distinct from $a, b$, and coefficients $\gamma_1, \dots,
\gamma_k > 0$ such that $$a-b = \sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i(v_i-b).$$
Suppose $a - b = \sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i(v_i - b)$ with $\gamma_1, \dots,
\gamma_k > 0$, where $v_1, \dots, v_k$ are $k \geq 1$ vertices of $P$ that are distinct from $a$ and $b$. Let $F$ denote the smallest face of $P$ containing $a$ and $b$, and let $H = \{u \in {{\mathbb R}}^d: \langle u, c \rangle = c_0 \}$ be a supporting hyperplane of $F$ satisfying $P \subseteq \{ u \in {{\mathbb R}}^d : \langle u, c \rangle \geq c_0 \}$. Hence, for any vertex $v$ of $P$, we have $\langle v, c \rangle \geq c_0$, with equality iff $v \in F$. Thus, $$\langle a, c \rangle = c_0 = \langle b, c \rangle
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\langle v - b, c \rangle \geq c_0 - c_0 = 0,$$ Since $a - b = \sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i(v_i - b)$, we have $$0 = \langle a - b, c \rangle
= \sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i \langle v_i - b, c \rangle.$$ Since $\langle v_i - b, c \rangle \geq 0$ and $\gamma_i > 0$ for all $i \in [k]$, it follows that $\langle v_i - b, c \rangle = 0$ for all $i \in [k]$. Thus, $v_1, \ldots, v_k$ also belong to $F$. Since $F$ is the smallest face containing $a$ and $b$, it follows that $a$ and $b$ are not the vertices of an edge of $P$ since $F$ also contains $v_1$.
Suppose $a$ and $b$ are not the vertices of an edge of $P$ and let $F$ denote the smallest face of $P$ containing $a$ and $b$. Denote the vertices of $F$ by $a, b, v_1, \ldots, v_k$ with $k \geq 1$ (if $k = 0$, then the only vertices of $F$ are $a$ and $b$). Since $\frac{1}{2}\left(a + b\right)$ belongs to the relative interior of $F$, there exist $\lambda_a, \lambda_b, \lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_k > 0$ such that $\lambda_a + \lambda_b + \lambda_1 + \cdots + \lambda_k = 1$ and $$\frac{1}{2}\left(a + b\right)
= \lambda_a a + \lambda_b b + \lambda_1 v_1 + \cdots + \lambda_k v_k.$$ Since $k \geq 1$, we cannot have $\lambda_a \geq 1/2$ and $\lambda_b \geq
1/2$. If $\lambda_a < 1/2$, then $0 < 1 - 2 \lambda_a$ and so $$a - b = \frac{2 \lambda_1}{(1 - 2 \lambda_a)} (v_1 - b) + \cdots + \frac{2 \lambda_k}{(1 - 2 \lambda_a)} (v_k - b).$$ Set $\gamma_i = \frac{2 \lambda_i}{(1 - 2 \lambda_a)}$. If $\lambda_a \ge 1/2$, then $\lambda_b < 1/2$, and so we can swap the roles of $a$ and $b$.
We now apply this lemma to our situation.
\[sandwich-lemma\] If $e_A, e_B, e_{C_1}, \ldots, e_{C_k}$ are distinct vertices and $e_A - e_B = \sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i(e_{C_i} - e_B)$ with $\gamma_1, \dots, \gamma_k > 0$, then $A \cap B\subseteq C_i \subseteq A\cup B$ for all $i \in [k]$.
Suppose $x \in A \cap B$. Then $
0
= \langle e_A - e_B, e_x \rangle
= \sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i \left(\langle e_{C_i}, e_x \rangle - 1\right),
$ which implies $\langle e_{C_i}, e_x \rangle = 1$ for all $i \in [k]$, since $\langle e_{C_i}, e_x \rangle - 1 \leq 0$ and $\gamma_i > 0$. Hence, $x \in C_i$ for all $i\in [k]$.
To prove $C_i \subseteq A \cup B$, suppose $x \notin A \cup B$. Since $ 0
= \langle e_A - e_B, e_x \rangle
= \sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i \langle e_{C_i}, e_x \rangle,
$ each $\langle e_{C_i}, e_x \rangle \geq 0$, and $\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_k > 0$, it follows that $\langle e_{C_i}, e_x \rangle = 0$ for all $i \in [k]$.
If there exist $C,D \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$ with $e_A+e_B=e_C+e_D$, then $$e_A-e_B=e_C+e_D-2e_B=(e_C-e_B)+(e_D-e_B).$$ Thus, if $\{C, D\} \neq \{A, B\}$, then Lemma \[lem:edge\] implies $\{e_A,e_B\}$ is not an edge of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$.
To prove the converse, argue by contradiction. Suppose $\{e_A,e_B\}$ is not an edge and suppose the following hypothesis holds:
1. \[hypothesis\] there do not exist $C \neq D$ in ${\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$ such that $\{A, B\} \neq \{C, D\}$ and $e_A+e_B=e_C+e_D$.
By Lemma \[lem:edge\], there exist $e_{C_1}, \ldots, e_{C_k}$ different from $e_A$ and $e_B$ and $\gamma_1, \dots, \gamma_k > 0$ such that $$\label{eq:face1}
e_A-e_B = \sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i(e_{C_i} - e_B).$$ By Lemma \[sandwich-lemma\], we have, for all $i \in [k]$, $$A \cap B \subseteq C_i \subseteq A \cup B.$$ Let $A'=A \setminus B$ and $B' = B \setminus A$. We consider several cases.
Case 1
: Suppose $A' = \emptyset = B'$. This contradicts that $e_A$ and $e_B$ are distinct.
Case 2
: Suppose $A' = \emptyset$ and $|B'| > 1$. Pick $x \in B$ and note that $$e_{A} + e_{B}
= e_{A \cup \{x\}} + e_{B \setminus \{x\}}.$$ Note $A \cup \{x\} \subseteq B$ because $A \setminus B = \emptyset$. Since subsets of stable sets are stable, we have that $A \cup \{x\}, B \setminus \{x\} \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$. Hence, $e_{A} + e_{B}
= e_{A \cup \{x\}} + e_{B \setminus \{x\}}$ contradicts \[hypothesis\] unless $\{A, B\} = \{A \cup \{x\}, B \setminus \{x\}\}$, or in other words, $A = B \setminus \{x\}$ and $B = A \cup \{x\}$. In that case, $|B'| = |B \setminus A| = |\{x\}| = 1$ contradicts the assumption that $|B'| > 1$.
Case 3
: Suppose $A' = \emptyset$ and $|B'| = 1$. Let $x$ be the unique element of $B'$. Then $$B = A \cup B = (A \cap B) \cup A' \cup B' = A \cup \{x\}.$$ Hence, $$A = A \cap B \subseteq C_i \subseteq A \cup B = A \cup \{x\}.$$ Hence, for each $i \in [k]$, we either have $C_i = A$ or $C_i = A \cup \{x\} = B$; a contradiction.
Case 4
: Suppose $A' \neq \emptyset$ and $B' = \emptyset$. Argue as in the previous cases with the roles of $A$ and $B$ reversed.
Case 5
: Suppose $A' \neq \emptyset$ and $B' \neq \emptyset$. For $x\in A'$, let $$B'_x = \{ b' \in B' : \text{$x$ and $b'$ are adjacent in $G$} \}.$$
1. \[5a\] First, we prove that $B'_x \neq \emptyset$. Suppose $B'_x = \emptyset$. Then $B \cup \{x\} \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$, because:
- $b$ and $b'$ are not adjacent for distinct $b, b' \in B$, since $B \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$;
- $x$ and $b$ are not adjacent for $b \in B \setminus B' = A \cap B$, since $x, b \in A$ and $A \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$;
- $x$ and $b'$ are not adjacent for $b' \in B'$, since $B'_x = \emptyset$.
Also, $e_A, e_B, e_{A \setminus \{x\}}, e_{B \cup \{x\}}$ are distinct: otherwise, $B = A \setminus \{x\}$, contradicting the assumption that $B' \neq \emptyset$. But then $e_A + e_B = e_{A \setminus \{x\}} + e_{B \cup \{x\}}$ contradicts \[hypothesis\].
2. \[5b\] Next, we prove that $$B' = \bigcup_{x\in A'} B'_x.$$ Suppose there exists $b' \in B' \setminus \bigcup_{x\in A'} B'_x$. Then $A \cup \{b'\} \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$, because:
- $a$ and $a'$ are not adjacent for distinct $a, a' \in A$, since $A \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$;
- $a$ and $b'$ are not adjacent for $a \in A \setminus A' = A \cap B$, since $a, b' \in B$ and $B \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)$;
- $a'$ and $b'$ are not adjacent for $a' \in A'$, since $b' \notin B'_{a'}$.
Also, $e_A, e_B, e_{A \cup \{b'\}}, e_{B \setminus \{b'\}}$ are distinct: otherwise, $A = B \setminus \{b'\}$, contradicting the assumption that $A' \neq \emptyset$. But then $e_A + e_B = e_{A \cup \{b'\}} + e_{B \setminus \{b'\}}$ contradicts \[hypothesis\].
3. \[5c\] We show that for each $x \in A' = A \setminus B$ and each $C_i$ appearing in , $$\label{x-in-Ci-iff-B'x-not-in-Ci}
x \in C_i
\quad\text{and}\quad
B'_x \cap C_i = \emptyset
\quad\qquad\text{or}\qquad\quad
x \notin C_i
\quad\text{and}\quad
B'_x \subseteq C_i.$$ By definition, $b \in B'_x$ iff $x$ and $b$ are adjacent in $G$. Hence, $b$ and $x$ cannot both belong to the same stable set. So, if $x \in C_i$, then $b \notin C_i$ for all $b \in B'_x$; that is, $B'_x \cap C_i = \emptyset$.
Let $x \in A'$. Then $x \notin B$ and so by Equation , $$\label{eq:rel1}
1
= \langle e_A - e_B, e_x \rangle
= \sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i \langle e_{C_i} - e_{B}, e_x \rangle
= \sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i \langle e_{C_i}, e_x \rangle
= \sum_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq k \\ x \in C_i}} \gamma_i.$$ For $b \in B'_x$, Equations and , together with the fact that $x \in C_i$ implies $b \notin C_i$, $$\label{eq:coeffb}
\begin{aligned}
-1
&= \langle e_A - e_B, e_b \rangle
=
\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq k \\ x \in C_i}}
\gamma_i \langle e_{C_i} - e_B, e_b \rangle
+
\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq k \\ x \notin C_i}}
\gamma_i \langle e_{C_i} - e_B, e_b \rangle
\\
&=
\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq k \\ x \in C_i}} -\gamma_i
+
\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq k \\ x \notin C_i}}
\gamma_i \left(\langle e_{C_i}, e_b \rangle - 1 \right)
=
\quad{-1}
+ \sum_{\substack{1 \leq i \leq k \\ x \notin C_i}}
\gamma_i \left(\langle e_{C_i}, e_b \rangle - 1 \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Since each $\gamma_i > 0$, it follows that $b \in C_i$ for all $i$ such that $x \notin C_i$. Hence, $B'_x \subseteq C_i$ for all $1 \leq i \leq k$ such that $x \notin C_i$.
4. Fix $i$ such that $1 \leq i \leq k$, and write $A' = \{x_1, \ldots, x_m, y_1, \ldots, y_l\}$, with $x_1, \ldots, x_m \in C_i$ and $y_1, \ldots, y_l \notin C_i$. (We allow $m = 0$ and $l = 0$, but see \[5e\].) By \[5b\] and \[5c\], we have $$B' = \big(B'_{x_1} \cup \cdots \cup B'_{x_m}\big)
\cup \big(B'_{y_1} \cup \cdots \cup B'_{y_l}\big)
\quad\text{and}\quad
B'_{x_s} \cap C_i = \emptyset
\quad\text{and}\quad
B'_{y_t} \subseteq C_i$$ for $1 \leq s \leq m$ and $1 \leq t \leq l$. Combined with the fact that $A \cap B \subseteq C_i$, we have $$\big(A \cap B\big)
\cup
\big\{x_1, \ldots, x_m\}
\cup
\big(B'_{y_1} \cup \cdots \cup B'_{y_l}\big)
\subseteq
C_i.$$ Since $C_i \subseteq A \cup B$, since $B'_{x_s} \cap C_i = \emptyset$ for $1 \leq s \leq m$, and since $y_1, \ldots, y_l \notin C_i$, we have $$C_i
\subseteq
A \cup B = \big(A \cap B\big) \cup A' \cup B'
\subseteq
\big(A \cap B\big)
\cup
\big\{x_1, \ldots, x_m\}
\cup
\big(B'_{y_1} \cup \cdots \cup B'_{y_l}\big).$$ Thus, $$\label{formula-for-Ci}
C_i =
\big(A \cap B\big)
\cup
\big\{x_1, \ldots, x_m\}
\cup
\big(B'_{y_1} \cup \cdots \cup B'_{y_l}\big).$$
5. \[5e\] We prove that we can assume $l \geq 1$ and $m \geq 1$ in ; that is, that there exists an element $x_s \in A' \cap C_i$ and an element $y_t \in A' \setminus C_i$.
If $l = 0$, that is, if $A' = \{x_1, \ldots,
x_m\}$, then $C_i = (A \cap B) \cup A' = A$, contradicting that $C_i$ and $A$ are distinct. Similarly, if $m = 0$, that is, if $A' = \{y_1, \ldots,
y_l\}$, then $C_i = (A \cap B) \cup B' = B$, contradicting that $C_i$ and $B$ are distinct.
6. \[5f\] We claim that the following two sets are stable. $$\begin{aligned}
C &
= \big(A \cap B\big) \cup \{x_1, \ldots, x_m\}
\cup \big(B'_{y_1} \cup \cdots \cup B'_{y_l}\big)
\\
D &
= \big(A \cap B\big) \cup \{y_1, \ldots, y_l\}
\cup \big(B'_{x_1} \cup \cdots \cup B'_{x_m}\big)
\end{aligned}$$ First, we prove that $C$ is stable. Suppose $u$ and $v$ are distinct elements of $C$.
- Since $(A \cap B) \cup \{x_1, \ldots, x_m\} \subseteq A$ and $B'_{y_1} \cup \cdots \cup B'_{y_l} \subseteq B$ are subsets of stable sets, we have that $u$ and $v$ are not adjacent if $u$ and $v$ both belong to any one of these sets.
- If $u \in A \cap B$ and $v \in
B'_{y_1} \cup \cdots \cup B'_{y_l}$, then $u$ and $v$ are not adjacent since $u, v \in B$.
- If $u = x_s$ is adjacent to $v \in B'_{y_t}$, for some $1 \leq t \leq l$, then $v \in B'_{x_s}$. But $B'_{x_s} \cap C_i = \emptyset$ since $x_s \in C_i$. Hence, $u$ and $v$ are not adjacent.
Next, we prove that $D$ is stable.
- As above, it suffices to show that $y_t$ and $v$ are not adjacent for every $v \in B'_{x_s}$.
- If $y_t$ is adjacent to $v \in B'_{x_s}$, for some $1 \leq s \leq m$, then $v \in B'_{y_t}$. But $B'_{y_t} \cap B_{x_s} = \emptyset$ since $B'_{y_t} \subseteq C_i$ and $B'_{x_s} \cap C_i = \emptyset$. Hence, $y_t$ and $v$ are not adjacent.
7. \[5g\] Since $A = (A \cap B) \cup \{x_1, \ldots, x_m, y_1, \ldots, y_l\}$ and $B = (A \cap B) \cup \bigcup_{u \in A'} B'_{u}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
e_A + e_B
& =
\left(
e_{A \cap B}
+ \sum_{s=1}^{m} e_{x_s}
+ \sum_{t=1}^{l} e_{y_t}
\right)
+
\left(
e_{A \cap B}
+ \sum_{s=1}^{m} e_{B'_{x_s}}
+ \sum_{t=1}^{l} e_{B'_{y_t}}
\right)
\\
& =
\left(
e_{A \cap B}
+ \sum_{s=1}^{m} e_{x_s}
+ \sum_{t=1}^{l} e_{B'_{y_t}}
\right)
+
\left(
e_{A \cap B}
+ \sum_{t=1}^{l} e_{y_t}
+ \sum_{s=1}^{m} e_{B'_{x_s}}
\right)
=
e_C + e_D.
\end{aligned}$$ This contradicts our hypothesis \[hypothesis\] unless $\{A, B\} = \{C, D\}$. If $C = A$, then $A' = \{x_1, \ldots, x_m\}$ since $B'_{y_t}$ contains elements that do not belong to $A$, which contradicts \[5e\]. If $A = D$, then $A' = \{y_1, \ldots, y_l\}$ since $B'_{x_s}$ contains elements not belonging to $A$, contradicting \[5e\].
Birkhoff polytope of a relation {#sec:birkhoff}
===============================
The is defined as the convex hull of the $n\times n$ permutation matrices, where we view each permutation matrix as a vector in ${{\mathbb R}}^{n^2}$. This polytope is a face of a stable set polytope of a graph, as we now describe.
Let $G$ be a graph with vertex set $\{(i,j): 1\le i,j\le n\}$ and with edges connecting $(i,j)$ and $(k,l)$ iff $$i=k
\quad\text{or}\quad
j=l.$$ In other words, $(i, j)$ and $(k, l)$ are connected if they index entries of an $n \times n$ matrix that belong to the same row or to the same column. Hence, the stable sets of $G$ correspond to selecting entries of an $n \times
n$ matrix with at most one entry from each row and each column. Equivalently, they correspond to of $[n]$, or to on an $n \times n$ board.
Since the indicator vectors for the maximal stable sets of $G$ are the permutation matrices, the Birkhoff polytope is the face of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ supported by the hyperplane consisting of the vectors whose coordinates sum to $n$.
This is similar to the relationship seen in Sections \[sec:matroid-independence-polytope\] and \[sec:matroid-basis-polytope\] between the basis polytope and the independence polytope of a matroid, respectively. This suggests the following definition that simultaneously generalizes these two constructions.
Let $G$ be a finite simple graph and let $r = \max\{|A| : A \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)\}$. The is $${{\color{DodgerBlue}{\operatorname{BP}}(G)}} = \conv\left\{ e_A : A \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G) \text{~and~} |A| = r \right\}.$$ The of ${\operatorname{BP}}(G)$ is defined to be the number $r$.
Our characterization of the edges of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ also characterizes the edges of ${\operatorname{BP}}(G)$.
\[BP1skeleton\] Let ${\operatorname{BP}}(G)$ be the Birkhoff polytope of a finite simple graph $G$ and let $r$ denote its rank.
1. \[BP1skeleton-vertices\] The vertex set of ${\operatorname{BP}}(G)$ is $\{e_A : A \subseteq {\mathcal B}(G)\}$, where ${\mathcal B}(G) = \{A \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G) : |A| = r\}$.
2. \[BP1skeleton-edges\] Two distinct vertices $e_A$ and $e_B$ form an edge in ${\operatorname{BP}}(G)$ iff for all $C, D \in {\mathcal B}(G)$, $$\text{$e_A + e_B = e_C + e_D$ implies $\{A, B\} = \{C, D\}$.}$$
This follows from the fact that ${\operatorname{BP}}(G)$ is a face of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$: it is the intersection of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ with the hyperplane consisting of the vectors whose coordinates sum to $r$.
\[remark:maximal-sets-polytope-graph\] It turns out Theorem \[BP1skeleton\] does not hold for the polytope constructed using all the stable sets of $G$ that are maximal with respect to set inclusion. For an example, consider the graph $G$ in Figure \[fig:graph\]. The following are all the stable sets of $G$ that are maximal with respect to inclusion: $$\begin{array}{r@{\hskip3pt}c@{\hskip3pt}l@{\hskip15pt}r@{\hskip3pt}c@{\hskip3pt}l@{\hskip15pt}r@{\hskip3pt}c@{\hskip3pt}l}
A &=& \{1,2,3 \} &
B &=& \{4,5,6\} &
C &=& \{7,8,9\}
\\
D &=& \{1,5,6\} &
E &=& \{2,4,6\} &
F &=& \{3,4,5\}
\\
G &=& \{1,8,9\} &
H &=& \{2,7,9\} &
I &=& \{3,7,8\}
\\
J &=& \{2,3,4,7\} &
K &=& \{1,3,5,8\} &
L &=& \{1,2,6,9\}
\end{array}$$ Then in the polytope that is the convex hull of the indicator vectors of these sets, we have that $e_A$ and $e_B$ are not adjacent: indeed, since $$e_A - e_B = (e_D - e_B) + (e_E - e_B) + (e_F - e_B),$$ it follows from Lemma \[lem:edge\] that $e_A$ and $e_B$ are not adjacent. However, there are no other maximal stable sets $A'$ and $B'$ distinct from $A$ and $B$ such that $e_A+e_B=e_A'+e_B'$.
sage: V = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]{} sage: E = [(1,7),(1,4),(2,8), ....: (2,5),(3,9),(3,6), ....: (7,5),(7,6),(8,4), ....: (8,6),(9,4),(9,5)]{} sage: G = Graph((V, E), format=“vertices\_and\_edges”) sage: Stab = \[A for A in Subsets(V) if G.is\_independent\_set(A)\] sage: P = Poset((Stab, attrcall(“issubset”))) sage: M = P.maximal\_elements() sage: sorted(map(sorted, M)) \[\[1, 2, 3\], \[1, 2, 6, 9\], \[1, 3, 5, 8\], \[1, 5, 6\], \[1, 8, 9\], \[2, 3, 4, 7\], \[2, 4, 6\], \[2, 7, 9\], \[3, 4, 5\], \[3, 7, 8\], \[4, 5, 6\], \[7, 8, 9\]\]
sage: E = (QQ\^len(V)).basis() sage: e = lambda A : sum(\[E\[a - 1\] for a in A\], E\[0\].parent().zero()) sage: MP = Polyhedron(vertices=\[e(C) for C in M\]) sage: EdgeGraph = MP.graph() sage: V = [Set(\[i + 1 for (i, vi) in enumerate(v) if vi != 0\]): v ....: for v in MP.vertices()]{}
sage: A = Set([1, 2, 3]{}) sage: B = Set([4, 5, 6]{}) sage: EdgeGraph.has\_edge((V\[A\], V\[B\])) False
sage: [Set(\[C, D\]) for C in M for D in M if e(A) + e(B) == e(C) + e(D)]{} [[[1, 2, 3]{}, [4, 5, 6]{}]{}]{}
(v0)(v3) (v0)(v6) (v1)(v4) (v1)(v7) (v2)(v5) (v2)(v8) (v3)(v7) (v3)(v8) (v4)(v6) (v4)(v8) (v5)(v6) (v5)(v7)
Facets
======
There is no known complete description of the facets of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ for an arbitrary graph $G$. In fact, it is most likely intractable since the problem of finding the size of a maximal stable set of $G$ is known to be NP-hard. Below, we present partial descriptions of the facets for some of the families of polytopes described in Section \[sec:examples\].
Some inequalities valid for all stable set polytopes {#section-always-facets}
----------------------------------------------------
Padberg [@Padberg1973] proved the following two families of inequalities define facets of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ for any finite graph $G = (V, E)$: $$\label{always-facets}
0 \leq x_v \quad (x \in V)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\sum_{v \in C} x_v \leq 1 \quad (C \in {\operatorname{Cliq}}(G)),$$ where ${\operatorname{Cliq}}(G)$ is the set of cliques of a graph $G$. Chv[á]{}tal proved that these two families constitute a complete description of the facets iff $G$ is a perfect graph [@Chvatal1975 Theorem 3.1]. (Recall that a graph is *perfect* if for each subgraph $G'$, the chromatic number of $G'$ is equal to the maximal cardinality of clique of $G'$.)
Chain Polytopes and the Nonnesting Partition Polytopes {#facets-NNP}
------------------------------------------------------
If $G_P$ is the comparability graph of a partial order $P$, then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G_P)$ is the poset chain polytope introduced by Stanley [@Stanley1986] (see Section \[sec:chain-polytope\]). Stanley described the facets by noting that the graph $G_P$ is perfect, and so the facets are given by : there is one facet for each element $x$ of the poset; and one facet for each *maximal* chain $C$ of the poset. In particular, this gives a complete description of all the facets of the nonnesting partition polytopes ${\operatorname{NN}}_n$ defined in Section \[sec:NNP\].
Bell polytopes of type $A$. {#facets-Bell-polytopes-A}
---------------------------
In J. Pulido’s B. Sc. Thesis [@pulidothesis], it is shown that all the facets of the Bell polytopes defined in Section \[sec:bell-polytope\] are of the form given by . (Note that these polytopes are not chain polytopes of some poset.) Explicitly, the second family of inequalities are $$\sum_{i < j \leq n} x_{(i,j)} \leq 1 \quad (1 \leq i < n)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\sum_{1 \leq i < j} x_{(i, j)} \leq 1 \quad (1 < j \leq n).$$
Bell polytopes of type $B$. {#facets-Bell-polytopes-B}
---------------------------
The Bell polytope of type $B$ was independently studied by Allen [@Allen2017]. Again, all the facets of the Bell polytopes of type $B$ are described by . Explicitly, the second family of inequalities are $$\sum_{i \leq j \leq n} x_{(i, j)} \leq 1 \quad (1 \leq i \leq n)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\sum_{1 \leq i \leq j} x_{(i, j)} \leq 1 \quad (1 \leq j \leq n).$$
Noncrossing partition polytopes {#facets-NCP}
-------------------------------
The inequalities in Equation are not sufficient to describe all the facets of the noncrossing partition polytopes ${\operatorname{NC}}_n$ (see Section \[sec:NCP\]). For example, when $n = 6$, the two families in account for $15$ facets and $16$ facets, respectively, whereas ${\operatorname{NC}}_6$ has $32$ facets. The missing facet is defined by the hyperplane $$x_{(1, 3)} + x_{(1, 5)} + x_{(1, 6)} + x_{(2, 3)} + x_{(2, 4)} + x_{(2, 5)} + x_{(2, 6)} + x_{(4, 5)} + x_{(4, 6)} + x_{(5, 6)} = 2.$$ Our computations suggest that the facets of ${\operatorname{NC}}_m$ are supported by hyperplanes of the form $\sum_{a \in X} c_a x_a = m$ with $m, c_a \in {{\mathbb N}}$. When $n = 8$, some coefficients $c_a$ are greater than $1$.
On $0/1$-polytopes satisfying Theorem \[RP1skeleton\] {#hierarchy}
=====================================================
The goal of this section is to study the class of $0/1$-polytopes whose $1$-skeleton is described by the criterion in Theorem \[RP1skeleton\]; explicitly, a polytope $P$ belongs to this class iff $P$ satisfies the following condition: $$\label{1-skeleton-condition}
\begin{array}{l}
\text{two distinct vertices $v$ and $u$ form an edge of $P$ iff} \\
\text{there exists a unique way to write $v + u$ as the sum of two vertices of $P$.}
\end{array}
\tag{E}$$ The results of this section are summarized in Figure \[inclusions-polytope-classes\].
By Theorem \[RP1skeleton\], all stable set polytopes satisfy , but there are $0/1$-polytopes satisfying that are not stable set polytopes: for example, consider $$\widehat{C} = \conv(0, e_1, e_2, e_3, e_1 + e_2, e_2 + e_3, e_1 + e_3),$$ which is the cube in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ with the vertex $e_1 + e_2 + e_3$ removed. In addition, not all $0/1$-polytopes satisfy condition ; consider, for example, the polytope of Remark \[remark:maximal-sets-polytope-graph\]. These examples establish the following strict inclusions (see also Figure \[inclusions-polytope-classes\]): $$\text{stable set polytopes}
\quad \subsetneq \quad
\text{$0/1$-polytopes satisfying \eqref{1-skeleton-condition}}
\quad \subsetneq \quad
\text{$0/1$-polytopes}.$$
Our next result states that a $0/1$-polytope is both a stable set polytope of a graph and the independent set polytope of a matroid iff the graph is a union of complete graphs (or equivalently, iff the matroid is a direct sum of uniform matroids; such matroids are called ).
\[stable-set-polytopes-cap-matroid-polytopes\] Let $G$ be a finite simple graph. Then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ is the independent set polytope of a matroid iff $G$ is a union of complete graphs.
($\Leftarrow$) First assume that $G = K_n$. Then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G) = \conv\{0, e_1, \ldots, e_{n}\}$. Thus, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ is the independent set polytope of the uniform matroid $U_{1,n}$ whose independent sets are the subsets of $[n]$ that contain at most $1$ element. Next, if $G$ is the disjoint union of two complete graphs $K_a$ and $K_b$, then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G) = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(K_a) \times {\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(K_b)$, and hence ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ is the independent set polytope of the matroid $U_{1,a}\oplus U_{1,b}$. The general case follows by induction.
($\Rightarrow$) Suppose that $G$ is a graph with vertex set $[n]$ and that the stable sets of $G$ satisfy conditions \[matroid-axiom-1\] and \[matroid-axiom-2\] of the definition of a matroid (see Section \[sec:matroid-independence-polytope\]). Write $G=G_1\cup\cdots\cup G_r$ as the union of its connected components. If the number of vertices of $G_i$ is less than $3$, then it is a complete graph ($K_1$ or $K_2$), so consider a connected component $G_i$ with at least $3$ vertices. By relabelling, we can assume $i = 1$.
If $G_1$ is not a complete graph, then there exists three vertices $\{i_1,
i_2, i_3\}$ of $G$ such that $\{i_1,i_2\}$ and $\{i_2,i_3\}$ are edges of $G$ while $\{i_1, i_3\}$ is not. It follows that both $A=\{i_2\}$ and $B=\{i_1,i_3\}$ are stable sets of $G$. By \[matroid-axiom-2\], there is an element $b \in B\setminus A$ such that $A\cup \{b\}$ is also a stable set, but this is not the case. This contradiction implies $G_1$ is a complete graph.
The property is also satisfied by the $1$-skeleton of matroid basis polytopes and the matroid independence polytopes as we now prove.
\[matroid-polytopes-satisfy-(E)\] Let $P_M$ be the independence polytope of a matroid $M$. Two distinct vertices $e_A$ and $e_B$ of $P_M$ form an edge of $P_M$ if and only if there exists a unique way to write $e_A + e_B$ as the sum of two vertices of $P_M$.
($\Rightarrow$) We prove the contrapositive. If $e_A + e_B = e_C + e_D$ with $\{A, B\} \neq \{C, D\}$, then $$e_A - e_B = (e_A + e_B) - 2 e_B
= (e_C - e_B) + (e_D - e_B),$$ which, by Lemma \[lem:edge\], implies that $e_A$ and $e_B$ are not the vertices of an edge.
($\Leftarrow$) We provide a proof by contradiction. Let $e_A$ and $e_B$ be two vertices of $P_M$ such that $e_A + e_B$ can be written as a sum of two vertices of $P_M$ in a unique way; and suppose that $e_A$ and $e_B$ are *not* the vertices of an edge of $P_M$. Combining Lemma \[lem:edge\] and Lemma \[sandwich-lemma\], there exist vertices $e_{C_1}, \ldots, e_{C_k}$ of $P_M$, each distinct from $e_A$ and $e_B$, and $\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_k > 0$ such that $$\label{adjacent-condition}
e_A-e_B=\sum_{i=1}^k \gamma_i(e_{C_i}-e_B)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
A \cap B \subseteq C_i \subseteq A \cup B
\text{~for all $1 \leq i \leq k$}.$$
1. $|A| \neq |B|$. Without loss of generality, suppose $|A| > |B|$. By the matroid axiom \[matroid-axiom-2\], there exists $a\in
A\setminus B$ such that $B\cup \{a\}$ is independent. Also, $A\setminus \{a\}$ is independent by \[matroid-axiom-1\]. Hence, both $e_{B \cup \{a\}}$ and $e_{A \setminus \{a\}}$ are vertices of $P_M$ that sum to $$e_{B \cup \{a\}} + e_{A \setminus \{a\}} =
(e_{B} + e_{a}) + (e_{A} - e_{a}) =
e_A + e_B.$$ Since there is a unique way to write $e_A + e_B$ as the sum of two vertices of $P_M$, it follows that $A = B \cup \{a\}$ and $B = A \setminus \{a\}$. Therefore, all the $C_i$ appearing in Equation satisfy $B \subseteq C_i \subseteq B \cup \{a\}$. Thus, $C_i = B$ or $C_i = A$, both of which contradict $C_i \neq A, B$.
2. $|A| = |B| = r$. By the *Strong Exchange Theorem* ([@bgw section 1.5.1]) for any $a \in A\setminus B$, there exists $b \in B\setminus A$ such that $(A \setminus \{a\}) \cup \{b\}$ and $(B \setminus \{b\}) \cup \{a\}$ are independent sets. Hence, $e_{(A\setminus \{a\})\cup \{b\}}$ and $e_{(B\setminus \{b\})\cup \{a\}}$ are vertices of $P_M$ that sum to $e_A + e_B$. Since there is a unique way to write $e_A + e_B$ as the sum of two vertices, it follows that $$A = (B\setminus \{b\})\cup \{a\}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
B = (A\setminus \{a\})\cup \{b\}.$$
Consider the sets $C_i$ appearing in Equation . Since $A \cap B \subseteq C_i \subseteq A \cup B = (A \cap B) \cup \{a,b\}$, there are two possibilities: either $C_i = A \cap B$ or $C_i
= (A \cap B) \cup \{a, b\}$ (recall that $C_i \neq A, B$).
Suppose there exists an $i$ such that $C_i = (A \cap B) \cup \{a, b\}$. Since $C_i = A \cup \{b\}$, we have that $e_{C_i}$ and $e_{B \setminus
\{b\}}$ are vertices of $P_M$ that sum to $e_A + e_B$. This implies $A = A \cup \{b\}$ (which contradicts $b \in A \setminus B$) or $A = B \setminus \{b\}$ (which contradicts $|A| = |B|$). Thus, no such $i$ exists.
Therefore, each $C_i$ appearing in Equation is equal to $A \cap B$, and so $$e_A - e_B = \gamma (e_{A \cap B} - e_{B})$$ for some $\gamma > 0$. Substituting $A = (B \setminus \{b\}) \cup \{a\}$ on the left, and $B = (A \cap B) \cup \{b\}$ on the right, we obtain $e_{a} - e_{b} = \gamma (- e_{b})$, which is absurd since $e_a$ and $e_b$ are linearly independent.
These results establish the following strict inclusions (completing the picture in Figure \[inclusions-polytope-classes\]): $$\text{partition matroids polytopes}
\quad \subsetneq \quad
\text{stable set polytopes}$$ $$\text{partition matroids polytopes}
\quad \subsetneq \quad
\text{matroids polytopes}
\quad \subsetneq \quad
\text{$0/1$-polytopes satisfying \eqref{1-skeleton-condition}}$$
We end this section by remarking that one can derive from Theorem \[matroid-polytopes-satisfy-(E)\] the description of the $1$-skeleton of the matroid basis polytope first given in [@ggms1987 Thm. 4.1] and that of the matroid independence polytope first given by [@Topkis1984 Thm. 5.1].
On the diameter {#section-on-the-diameter}
===============
The *Hirsch conjecture* asserts that the diameter of every $d$-dimensional convex polytope $P$ with $n$ facets is at most $n - d$, where the of $P$ is the smallest number $\delta(P)$ such that every pair of vertices of $P$ are connected in its $1$-skeleton by a shortest path of length at most $\delta(P)$. The conjecture remained open for more than fifty years before a counter-example was found [@Santos2012]. Although it is false in general, it is true for $0/1$-polytopes [@Naddef1989].
Here we provide a slight improvement on a bound for the diameter for the polytopes ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$. Our first step is to show that a generalization of the basis exchange property for matroids is satisfied for any non-empty subset of $k$-subsets of $[n]$.
\[quasimatroid\] Let $\mathcal{I}$ be a non-empty family of subsets of $[n]$ such that $|A|=k$ for all $A\in\mathcal{I}$. For every $A,B\in\mathcal{I}$ and for every $i\in A\setminus B$, there exists $E\subseteq A\setminus B$, $F\subseteq B\setminus A$ satisfying
1. $|E|=|F|$
2. $i\in E$
3. $(A \setminus E) \cup F \in \mathcal{I}$
4. for all $M,N\in\mathcal{I}$; if $e_A + e_{(A\setminus
E)\cup F}=e_M + e_N$, then $\{A, (A\setminus E) \cup F\}=\{M,N\}$.
We prove this using induction on $|A\cap B|$. Suppose $|A\cap B|=k-1$, that means $A\setminus B=\{i\}$. Then, we choose $E=A\setminus B$ and $F=B\setminus A$, and the lemma holds.
Suppose the lemma is true for all $A,B$ such that $m<|A\cap B|<k$, we want to show that the lemma is true for all $A,B$ with $|A\cap B|=m$.
Fix $A,B$ such that $|A\cap B|=m$, and fix $i\in A\setminus B$. Let $E=A\setminus B$ and $F=B\setminus A$. Then, the first three conditions are satisfied. Suppose the fourth condition fails, that means there exists $M,N\in\mathcal{I}$ such that $e_A+ e_B=e_M + e_N$ and $\{M,N\}\neq\{A,B\}$. Since $i$ appears once in $A\uplus B$, without loss of generality, we may assume $i\notin M$ and $i\in N$.
Moreover, every element in $A\cap B$ appears twice in $A\uplus B$, hence they must appear twice in $M\uplus N$. In particular, $A\cap B\subset
M\subset A\cup B$. Therefore, $A\cap B\subset A\cap M$ and the inclusion is strict since $i\in A\cap M$. Therefore, $|A\cap M|>m$. Since we also have $i\in A\setminus M$, by induction hypothesis, we can find $E'\subseteq
A\setminus M$ and $F'\subseteq M\setminus A$ satisfying the lemma.
The last step is to note that $A\setminus M\subset A\setminus B$ and $M\setminus A\subset B\setminus A$ i.e. $(E',F')$ is a correct choice.
\[theo:diameterB\] Let $G$ be a finite simple graph and let ${\operatorname{BP}}(G)$ be the corresponding Birkhoff polytope. Let $r= \max\{|A| : A \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G)\}$. Then $$\delta({\operatorname{BP}}(G))\leq r.$$ That is, the diameter of the Birkhoff polytope of $G$ is at most its rank.
Recall that ${\operatorname{BP}}(G)=\conv\{e_A : A \subseteq {\mathcal B}(G)\}$, where ${\mathcal B}(G) = \{A \in {\operatorname{Stab}}(G) : |A| = r\}$. Let $A,B\in {\mathcal B}(G)$ and fix $i\in A\setminus B$. By lemma \[quasimatroid\], we can find $E\subseteq A\setminus B$ and $F\subseteq
B\setminus A$ such that $i\in E$, $A_1=(A\setminus E)\cup F\in{\mathcal B}(G)$ and for all $M,N\in{\mathcal B}(G)$ with $e_A+ e_{(A\setminus E)\cup
F}=e_M +e_N$, we have $\{A, (A\setminus E) \cup F\}=\{M,N\}$.
By theorem \[BP1skeleton\], this condition is to say that $\{e_A,e_{A_1}\}$ is an edge in ${\operatorname{BP}}(G)$. Since $i\notin A_1$, we have $A\cap B\subset A_1\cap B$ and the inclusion is strict. We can then repeat this process with $\{e_{A_1},e_B\}$ to find $A_2\in{\mathcal B}(G)$ such that $\{e_{A_1},e_{A_2}\}$ is an edge in ${\operatorname{BP}}(G)$ and $A_1\cap B\subset A_2\cap B$ with strict inclusion.
If we continue this process, we get $A\cap B\subset A_1\cap B\subset\dots
\subset A_\ell\cap B=B$. Since all inclusions are strict, this process must terminate in at most $|B\setminus A|$ steps, which is at most $r=\max\{|A|:A\in\text{Stab}(G)\}$. Therefore, the distance from $e_A$ to $e_B$ is at most $r$, via the edges $\{e_{A},e_{A_1}\}, \{e_{A_1},e_{A_2}\},\dots,\{e_{A_2},e_{A_\ell}\}$.
\[BaseChange\] Let $A$ and $B$ be two stable sets of $G$, written as $A=\{a_1,\dots,a_k,c_1,\dots,c_\ell\}$ and $B=\{b_1,\dots,b_m,c_1,\dots,c_{\ell}\}$ where $a_i\neq b_j$ for all $i$ and $j$. Then there exists a third stable set $C$ of $G$ such that $\{e_A, e_C\}$ is an edge in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$, $\{c_1,\dots,c_\ell\}\subseteq C\subseteq A \cup B$ and $C\cap\{b_1,\dots,b_m\}\neq\emptyset$.
If $\{e_A,e_B\}$ is an edge in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$, then we set $C=B$ and we are done.
Otherwise, by Theorem \[RP1skeleton\], there exists a pair of vertices $C_1,D_1$ in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ such that $e_A+ e_B=e_{C_1} +e_{D_1}$ and $\{A,B\}\neq\{C_1,D_1\}$. Clearly $\{c_1,\dots,c_\ell\}\subset C_1\cap
D_1$.
If $A\subset C_1$, then there must exist some $b_i\in C_1$. We can set $C=A\cup \{b_1\}\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ and we are done.
Therefore, without loss of generality, we can assume that $C_1\cap
\{b_1,\dots,b_m\}\neq \emptyset$ and $C_1\cap
\{a_1,\dots,a_k\}\neq\emptyset$. If $(A,C_1)$ is not an edge, we continue this process and get $C_2,D_2$ and so on. In each step, we have the following conditions
1. $A\cap C_1\subsetneq A\cap C_2\subsetneq\cdots\subsetneq A\cap C_t$, and
2. $C_i\cap\{b_1,\dots,b_m\}\neq\emptyset$.
Therefore, this process will eventually terminate at some $C_t$, and we find an edge that is either $\{e_{A},e_{C_t}\}$ or $\{e_A,e_{A\cup\{b_i\}}\}$ for some $b_i\in C_t$.
Finally, we prove an upper bound for the diameter of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ in analogy with Theorem \[theo:diameterB\].
\[prop:diameter\] If the largest size of a stable set in $G$ is $r$, then the diameter of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ is at most $r$.
Given two vertices $e_A,e_B$ in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$, Let $A=\{a_1,\dots,a_m\}$, $B=\{b_1,\dots,b_\ell\}$. If $|A|+|B|\leq r$, then we can find a path $e_A,e_{A\setminus \{a_1\}},\dots,e_{\{a_m\}},0,e_{\{b_1\}},\dots,e_B$ of length $|A|+|B|$ that connects $e_A$ and $e_B$.
Otherwise, by Lemma \[BaseChange\], we can find a path $e_A,e_{A_1},\dots,e_{A_t}$ such that $A\cap B\subset A_1\cap
B\subset\cdots\subset A_t\cap B$ and $B\subseteq A_t$. And we have another path $e_{A_t},\dots, e_{A_{t+s-1}},e_{B}$ by removing the elements in $A_t\setminus B$. Since we have $t\leq \ell$, $|A_t|\leq r$ and $s\leq r-\ell$, the distance from $e_A$ to $e_B$ is at most $r$.
A result similar to Proposition \[prop:diameter\] also holds for the independence polytope $P_M$ of a matroid $M$: explicitly, we have $\delta\big(P_M\big)\le r$, where $r$ is the rank of $M$ (that is, the largest size of an independent set). This follows by mimicking the proof of Proposition \[prop:diameter\] and replacing every use of Lemma \[quasimatroid\] by the basis exchange property of $M$. This result is well-known, so we do not include all the details.
We end this section by linking our results with the bound from the Hirsch conjecture. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple graph. In this context, the Hirsch conjecture asserted an upper bound on the diameter of the associated stable set polytope: $$\delta\big({\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)\big) \le n - d,$$ where $n$ is the number of facets of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$ and $d = \dim({\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)) = |V|$.
For any simple graph $G$, Equation describes two families of facet-defining inequalities of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)$. Since these inequalities are indexed by the vertices and the cliques of $G$, we have $$d + c \leq n,$$ where $d = |V|$ and $c=\big|{\operatorname{Cliq}}(G)\big|$. Moreover, $n = d + c$ if and only if $G$ is a perfect graph.
On the other hand, since any stable set intersects a clique of $G$ in at most one vertex, we have $r \le c$, where $r$ is the largest size of a stable set in $G$. Then by Proposition \[prop:diameter\] we have $$\delta\big({\ensuremath{\operatorname{SSP}}}(G)\big) \le r \le c \le n-d.$$ It turns out that $r < c$ in general, even for perfect graphs. Hence, Proposition \[prop:diameter\] is an improvement on the Hirsch upper bound of $n - d$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'K. Demyk'
- 'C. Meny'
- 'H. Leroux'
- 'C. Depecker'
- 'J.-B. Brubach'
- 'P. Roy'
- 'C. Nayral'
- 'W.-S. Ojo'
- 'F. Delpech'
bibliography:
- 'bib1.bib'
date: 'Received \*\*\* ; accepted \*\*\*'
title: 'Low-temperature MIR to submillimeter mass absorption coefficient of interstellar dust analogues II: Mg and Fe-rich amorphous silicates'
---
[To model the cold dust emission observed in the diffuse interstellar medium, in dense molecular clouds or in cold clumps that could eventually form new stars, it is mandatory to know the physical and spectroscopic properties of this dust and to understand its emission.]{} [This work is a continuation of previous studies aiming at providing astronomers with spectroscopic data of realistic cosmic dust analogues for the interpretation of observations. The aim of the present work is to extend the range of studied analogues to iron-rich silicate dust analogues.]{} [Ferromagnesium amorphous silicate dust analogues were produced by a sol-gel method with a mean composition close to $\mathrm{Mg_{1-x}Fe_{x}SiO_3}$ with x = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4. Part of each sample was annealed at 500$^{\circ}$C for two hours in a reducing atmosphere to modify the oxidation state of iron. We have measured the mass absorption coefficient (MAC) of these eight ferromagnesium amorphous silicate dust analogues in the spectral domain 30 - 1000 $\mu$m for grain temperature in the range 10 - 300 K and at room temperature in the 5 - 40 $\mu$m range. ]{} [The MAC of ferromagnesium samples behaves in the same way as the MAC of pure Mg-rich amorphous silicate samples. In the 30 - 300 K range, the MAC increases with increasing grain temperature whereas in the range 10 - 30 K, we do not see any change of the MAC. The MAC cannot be described by a single power law in ${\lambda}^{-\beta}$. The MAC of the samples does not show any clear trend with the iron content. However the annealing process has, on average, an effect on the MAC that we explain by the evolution of the structure of the samples induced by the processing. The MAC of all the samples is much higher than the MAC calculated by dust models. ]{} [The complex behavior of the MAC of amorphous silicates with wavelength and temperature is observed whatever the exact silicate composition (Mg vs. Fe amount). It is a universal characteristic of amorphous materials, and therefore of amorphous cosmic silicates, that should be taken into account in astronomical modeling. The enhanced MAC of the measured samples compared to the MAC calculated for cosmic dust model implies that dust masses are overestimated by the models. ]{}
Introduction
============
The [*Herschel*]{} and [*Planck*]{} satellites have opened up the far infrared (FIR) and submillimeter (submm) spectral domain and we now have in hand a huge amount of observational data in the 250 $\mu$m - 1mm (850 - 300 GHz) domain. This is the domain where cold dust grains (10 - 30 K) emit and dominate the continuum emission. This FIR/submm emission traces cold astrophysical environments such as interstellar dense and diffuse clouds, cold clumps, and pre-stellar cores in our Galaxy as well as in external galaxies. It is used, for example, to derive the dust and cloud masses which constitute important information for star formation studies. Accurate knowledge and understanding of the dust emission is also important for cosmological studies requiring the subtraction of the foreground emission from our Galaxy. However a proper modeling of the FIR/submm dust emission is mandatory to making reliable interpretations of the observations. Dust emission is usually modeled using the Modified BlackBody model (MBB) and depends on the dust temperature and on the dust mass absorption coefficient (MAC) expressed as $\mathrm{\kappa_{\lambda} =\:\kappa _{\lambda_{0} }\: ( \lambda {/} \lambda_{0}) ^{-\beta}}$ and characterized by a value at a reference wavelength, $\kappa _{\lambda_0}$, and by the spectral index, $\beta$, usually set to a value between 1 and 2, with no dependence on the temperature or wavelength. However, a great number of studies show that our understanding of cold dust emission is not complete. We refer the reader to @demyk2017 for a detailed description and discussion of recent observational results. Briefly, it appears that dust-emission models are not able to fit the recent FIR/submm observations from the [*Herschel*]{} and [*Planck*]{} missions, independently of the level of noise in the observations, of the methods used to fit the data [@shetty2009b; @juvela2012a; @juvela2013], and of temperature mixing along the line of sight [@malinen2011; @juvela2012b]. These studies show that [*[(i)]{}*]{} the spectral index, $\beta$, is anti-correlated with the dust temperature [@planck2011_early_XXV; @planck2011_early_XXIII; @planck2013-XI; @planck-XVII-Int-2014; @juvela2015], [*[(ii)]{}*]{} the $\beta$ value derived from the observations varies with the astrophysical environment [@galliano2011; @paradis2014] and [*[(iii)]{}*]{} $\beta$ varies with the wavelength [@meisner2015; @paradis2009]. These observational results may be understood in terms of variations of the dust nature (composition and structure) in various environments [@koehler2012; @jones2013] or in terms of interaction of the dust with the electromagnetic radiation depending on the intrinsic dust physical properties [@meny2007].
With this study, our group continues the effort to investigate the optical properties of cosmic dust analogues in the mid infrared (MIR) to the millimeter domain as a function of temperature, undertaken 20 years ago by different groups [we refer to @demyk2013 for the details of the studied samples]. Briefly, [@agladze1996] were the first to study relevant interstellar silicate dust analogues in the temperature range from 1.2 K to 30 K and in the wavelength range from 700 $\mu$m to 2.9 mm. [@mennella1998] studied amorphous carbon samples and silicate samples in the 24 $\mu$m - 2 mm spectral domain and 24 - 300 K temperature range. [@boudet2005] investigated silica and silicate samples in the 10 - 300 K temperature range and in the spectral region 100 - 1000 $\mu$m. The work by [@coupeaud2011] was focussed on pure sol-gel Mg-rich silicates, of composition close to enstatite (MgSiO$_3$) and forsterite (Mg$_2$SiO$_4$), amorphous and crystalline, whose spectra were recorded in the 100 - 1000 $\mu$m spectral range and from 10 K to 300 K. These studies have brought important results about the spectroscopic characteristics and behavior of interstellar dust analogues in the FIR at varying temperature. They show that the MAC of the amorphous analogues (silicates and carbonaceous matter) increases with the grain temperature and that its spectral shape cannot be approximated with a single power law in the form ${\lambda}^{-\beta}$. The dependence of the MAC on the temperature, which is not observed in crystalline samples, is related to the amorphous nature and to the amount of defects in the structure of the material [@coupeaud2011]. A physical model was proposed by [@meny2007] to explain these experimental results. This model, named the TLS model, is based on a description of the amorphous structure of the material in terms of a temperature independent disordered charge distribution and of a collection of atomic configurations modeled as two-level systems and sensitive to the temperature.
We extend this experimental work with the aim to deliver to the community a comprehensive and coherent data set measured on a common spectral domain (5 - 1000 $\mu$m) and temperature range (10 K - 300 K), on samples spanning a range of compositions, each set of which being synthesized using the same method. In @coupeaud2011, we investigated Mg-rich amorphous silicates synthesized with a sol-gel method. @demyk2017 investigated four samples of amorphous Mg-rich glassy silicates with a composition close to enstatite, forsterite and one intermediate composition between forsterite and enstatite.
The present study is focussed on ferromagnesium amorphous silicate dust analogues. [@mennella1998] derived, from transmission measurements, the MAC of one Fe-rich silicate amorphous sample, (Mg$_{0.18}$Fe$_{1.82}$SiO$_4$) in the MIR-mm domain (20 - 2000 $\mu$m) at low temperature (24 - 300 K). More recently, [@richey2013] measured the transmission and reflexion spectra of highly disordered, “chaotic”, iron silicates (FeSiO) in the wavelength range 2 - 300 $\mu$m for grain temperature in the range 5 - 300 K. [@mohr2013] presented a preliminary study of a series of Mg/Fe-rich glassy pyroxene-like silicates of up to 50% iron, in the spectral range 50 $\mu$m - 1.2 mm and from 300 K down to 10 K but they do not show nor discuss the low-temperature spectra in their article. Iron is highly depleted from the gas phase in the ISM. It is most probably incorporated into the cosmic dust grains although the form it takes in the grains remains poorly constrained. Iron could be present in the dust grains in the form of metallic iron or FeS inclusions, as can be observed in the presolar glass with embedded metal and sulfides (GEMS), @bradley1994) in porous interplanetary dust particles (IDPs). Based on elemental depletion observations and on the modeling of the dust formation, [@dwek2016] proposed that iron exists in metallic form either as inclusions or as separate iron grains. Iron has also been proposed to be present as a population of iron oxide grains (magnetite, Fe$_3$O$_4$, or maghemite, $\gamma$-Fe$_2$O$_3$) [@draine2013a] or as iron oxide inclusions in the silicate grains. However, the amount of iron sulfides and iron oxides must be sufficiently low to be compatible with the absence of detection of the vibrational bands of these species. Iron could also be present in the amorphous silicate network either in the form of ferric iron (Fe$^{3+}$) and/or in the form of ferrous iron (Fe$^{2+}$). Interestingly, [@bose2012] and reference therein, showed that a number of presolar silicates are ferromagnesian. Such silicates thus constitute relevant analogues of interstellar silicates. In this article, we present the study of Mg-Fe-rich silicates produced by sol-gel method, of pyroxene mean composition close to (Mg$_{1-x}$Fe$_{x}$SiO$_3$) and containing iron from 10 to 40% ($x$ = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4).
The paper is organized as follows: Sect. \[exp\] introduces the experimental procedures for the dust analogues synthesis, their characterization, and the spectroscopic measurements, Sect. \[spectro\] presents the MAC of the studied samples measured in the 5 - 1000 $\mu$m range and in the 10 - 300 K temperature range and Sect. \[discussion\] discusses these results and their implications for astrophysical studies.
Experiments {#exp}
===========
Sample synthesis
----------------
Amorphous samples of composition Mg$_{1-x}$Fe$_x$SiO$_3$, with $x$ = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 were synthesized with a sol-gel method using nitrates as precursors. The method is described in detail in @gillot2009. In the absence of iron, a clear and transparent gel is formed. The gel is more and more brown as the Fe concentration of the final product increases. When the iron nitrate precursor is used, it is necessary to adjust the pH ($\sim$1.7) with ammonium hydroxide in order to allow a reasonable gelification time and to avoid the precipitation of iron hydroxide. Once gelification has been reached, the gel is aged at ambient temperature for fifteen minutes before being dried at 110$^{\circ}$C for 48 hours in an oven under primary vacuum. At this stage, the translucent gel completely expanded in the liquid shrinks dramatically by losing around 50-75 % of its volume. Finally, the dried gel, called xerogel, is ground in an agate mortar before the purification stage at 500$^{\circ}$C, in air, for two hours. Using these conditions for the synthesis, ferric iron (Fe$^{3+}$ or FeIII) is dominant. These samples are named E10 to E40 for samples containing 10 to 40% iron. The ferric iron was partially reduced to ferrous iron (Fe$^{2+}$ or FeII) by loading the dehydrated gel into an oven with a gas streaming (Ar + 10% H$_2$) at 500$^{\circ}$C for 3 hours. These samples, in which part of the iron has been reduced, are named E10R to E40R for samples containing 10 to 40% iron; we also refer to these later in the article as “processed” samples.\
Sample characterization {#carac}
-----------------------
The sol-gel synthesis products were characterized by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) in order to infer their morphology at the nanometer scale and their local chemical composition. The TEM examination requires thin samples (typically less than 100 nm thick). To prepare the samples, pieces of sol-gel blocks were crushed in alcohol. A drop of alcohol, containing a large number of small fragments in suspension, was deposited on a carbon film supported by a TEM copper grid. The TEM characterization was performed using a FEI Tecnai G2-20 twin at the electron microscopy facility of the University of Lille. The sample morphology and size distribution were studied by conventional bright field imaging. It is similar to the Mg-rich sol-gel samples from [@coupeaud2011]. Whatever their composition (x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4), the samples consist of clusters of matter bonded to one another (Fig. \[Fig1\_TEM\]). In all samples, the clusters are homogenous in size, centred around 11 nm with a Gaussian size distribution between 5 and 20 nm (Fig. \[Fig2\_size\]). The size of the porosity is of the same order of magnitude ($\sim$ 10 nm). The amorphous state of the clusters is confirmed by electron diffraction patterns which show diffuse rings characteristic of amorphous matter. Compositions were measured by EDS by selecting volumes typically of the order of 10$^{-3}$ $\mu$m$^3$, thus including a large number of clusters in each analysis. The use of smaller volumes was avoided because it led to significant damage of the samples under the electron beam and a preferential loss of Mg with respect to Si and Fe. The measured compositions are found to be relatively homogeneous and reasonably close to the target compositions (Fig. \[Fig3\_compo\]), although a slight deficit of Mg was systematically observed, likely due to degradation of the samples under the electron beam. The E10 and E20 samples appear to have very similar measured composition, as do the samples E30 and E40 (Fig. \[Fig3\_compo\]).
![TEM image of one sample. The sol-gel samples are constituted by clusters about 10 nm in size. []{data-label="Fig1_TEM"}](Fig1_TEM1.pdf)
We investigated the oxidation state of the iron contained in the samples with Mössbauer spectroscopy. Mössbauer spectra were collected on a constant-acceleration conventional spectrometer with a 1.85 GBq source of $^{57}$Co (Rh matrix) at 293 K. The absorber was a sample of ca. 50 - 100 mg of powder that was enclosed in a 20-mm-diameter cylindrical plastic sample holder, the size of which has been determined to optimize the absorption. We observe doublets and sextets in the Mössbauer spectra of the samples which are characteristic of quadrupole and magnetic dipole interactions, respectively, the doublets being associated to the presence of iron in the silicate network and the sextets to oxide phases with magnetic signature [@ferreiradasilva1992; @jayasuriya2004]. The Mössbauer spectra of samples E10 to E40 show a single doublet characteristic of FeIII in silicates whereas the spectra of the E10R to E40R samples show two doublets characteristic of FeIII and FeII. This indicates that the annealing of the samples under reducing conditions (Ar + 10% H$_2$) led to incomplete iron reduction. It is likely due to the low temperature of annealing (500$^{\circ}$C). Sol-gel processing at higher temperature is precluded because of the strong propensity of the samples to crystallization. We also observed sextets in the spectra that reveal the presence of oxides. In the unprocessed samples, two sextets are observed (only one sextet is observed for the E10 sample) and their isomer shifts point to disordered (and/or small nanocrystals of) hematite (Fe$_2$O$_3$, FeIII) as a carrier [@ferreiradasilva1992]. Two sextets are also observed for the E30R and E40R samples, with a relative intensity of $\sim$ 2:1 but their isomer shifts are different from those of the sextets observed in the spectra of the unprocessed samples suggesting that the hematite has been reduced into magnetite (Fe$_3$O$_4$, FeII:FeIII = 1:2) [@lyubutin2009]. The measured isomer shift domain was not extended enough to measure the sextet for the E10R and E20R samples for which we have no information. From the Mössbauer spectra, we estimate that the samples contained about 5 - 10% iron oxide, which means that the main fraction of iron is present within the silicate sol-gel.
![Size distribution of the clusters constituting the sol-gel samples.[]{data-label="Fig2_size"}](Fig2_size_distribution.pdf)
\
Spectroscopic measurements {#spectro}
--------------------------
The spectroscopic measurements were performed on the setup ESPOIRS at IRAP in the spectral range 5 - 1000 $\mu$m and on the AILES beam line at the synchrotron SOLEIL in the spectral range 250 - 1000/1200 $\mu$m. The ESPOIRS setup is dedicated to the characterization of interstellar dust analogue spectroscopic properties. Thanks to a set of detectors, beamsplitters, and sources it covers the spectral domain from 0.7 $\mu$m to $\sim$ 1000 $\mu$m. In the FIR ($\lambda$ $\ge$ 30 $\mu$m), we use a TES Si bolometer detector from QMC Instrument (operating at 8 K and cooled with a He pulse-tube), a silicon beamsplitter, and a mercury lamp. In the MIR, we use a CsI beamsplitter, a Globar source and a DLaTGS detector. The samples are cooled down to 10 K with a pulse tube cooled cryostat. The AILES beam line is equipped with a similar experimental setup described in detail by @brubach2010. In the MIR range (5 - 40 $\mu$m), the transmission spectra were measured at room temperature whereas in the FIR/submm range ($\lambda$ $\ge$ 30 $\mu$m) they were measured at 10, 30, 100, 200 and 300 K.
The samples are prepared for transmission measurements in the form of pellets of 13 mm diameter. In the MIR, KBr (Aldrich) pellets are pressed at room temperature under ten tons for several minutes. In the FIR, polyethylene (PE, Thermo Fisher Scientific) pellets are pressed under ten tons after annealing of the PE+sample mixture at 130$^{\circ}$C for five minutes. To obtain the MAC of the samples in the full wavelength range from 5 $\mu$m to 1 mm, several pellets are made with increasing mass of sample to compensate for the decrease of the MAC of the sample with increasing wavelength. Typically, 0.5 mg of sample is enough to measure the MIR spectrum whereas more than 100 mg of sample is required for measurements around 1 mm [we refer to @demyk2017 for more details].
The final MAC curves are constructed from the MAC curves of the pellets containing different masses of sample. The effect of the KBr and PE matrix is taken into account following the procedure described in [@mennella1998]. The error on the measured MAC is the quadratic sum of the uncertainty on the thermal stability of the spectrometer and on the uncertainty on the mass of sample in the pellet. The analysis of the spectral data to reconstruct the MAC of the samples and the details on the error determination are explained in @demyk2017.
MIR and FIR/submm mass absorption coefficient as a function of temperature {#spectro}
==========================================================================
The MAC of all samples, measured at room temperature in the range 5 - 40 $\mu$m, are shown in Fig. \[kappamir\], together with the MAC of the MgSiO$_3$ sample from @coupeaud2011 (named E in @coupeaud2011 and hereafter named E00). This sample, which was synthesized with the same method as the samples studied here, is considered in this study because it represents the iron-free counterpart of the Fe-rich samples. Figure \[kappamir\] shows the stretching vibration of the Si-O bond of the SiO$_4$ tetrahedra at $\sim$ 9.6 $\mu$m and the bending vibration of the Si-O-Si bond at $\sim$ 21.6 $\mu$m. The peak position and shape of the vibrational bands of silicates are influenced by the structure of the material, which can be described by the relative amount of non-bringing oxygen per tetrahedra (NBO/T, non-bringing oxygen atoms are oxygen atoms which belong to a single tetrahedra). They are also influenced by the presence and nature of the cations within the silicates. For Mg- and Fe-rich silicates, it is known that the position of the stretching band is shifted toward short wavelengths when the Fe content increases [@dorschner1995]. As seen from Table \[MIR\], this is verified by our two sets of samples. The peak position of the stretching vibration is 9.61 $\mu$m for sample E10 and it decreases to 9.38 $\mu$m for sample E40. The peak position is 9.56 and 9.37 $\mu$m for sample E10R and E40R, respectively. For comparison, it is 9.76 $\mu$m for sample E00. For a given iron content, the stretching modes of the unprocessed samples (Exx) and of the processed samples (ExxR) do not present strong differences in terms of peak position of the band nor in terms of width. The slight asymmetry of the stretching mode, which exhibits a shoulder at $\sim$ 8.3 $\mu$m, together with the weak band at 12.5 $\mu$m, might indicate the presence of some silica (SiO$_2$) within the samples. However it is not possible from the MIR spectra to be more specific regarding the amount of silica, its structure and the size of the inclusions within the silicate matrix. The presence of silica-rich material is likely associated with the formation of iron-oxide. The E00 sample does not present the same spectral feature and should not contain silica.
--------- ----------------- --------------
Samples Stretching mode Bending mode
E00 9.76 22.03
E10 9.61 21.56
E20 9.50 21.56
E30 9.40 21.69
E40 9.38 21.60
E10R 9.56 21.56
E20R 9.53 21.47
E30R 9.43 21.60
E40R 9.37 21.51
--------- ----------------- --------------
: Peak position of the vibrational bands observed in the MIR domain. []{data-label="MIR"}
\[default\]
-------------------------------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ ----- ------
10K 300K 10K 300K 10K 300K 10K 300K 10K 300K
E10 260.0 305.3 37.7 92.6 7.2 20.6 1.0 6.0 - -
E20 224.8 243.5 46.2 58.8 6.8 14.2 1.5 4.9 1.0 3.7
E30 195.2 217.8 41.0 52.9 7.6 14.1 2.8 6.0 2.4 5.1
E40 219.3 245.0 35.7 62.5 5.8 15.7 2.2 7.0 2.0 6.1
E10R 244.0 270.4 57.5 80.0 11.5 23.6 3.9 10.4 3.5 8.9
E20R 249.4 268.6 55.1 79.2 14.4 24.6 7.0 12.2 5.8 10.1
E30R 225.7 253.9 44.7 67.3 6.8 18.8 1.4 8.0 0.8 6.2
E40R 195.2 219.0 39.2 53.7 5.0 15.2 1.3 7.4 1.0 6.1
< MAC$\mathrm{_{Exx}}$> 225 253 40 67 6.8 16.1 1.9 6.0 1.4 4.8
< MAC$\mathrm{_{ExxR}}$> 229 253 49 70 9.4 20.6 3.4 9.5 2.8 7.8
< MAC$\mathrm{_{all}}$> 227 253 45 68 8.1 18.3 2.6 7.7 2.1 6.3
MAC sphere 0.1 $\mu$m
MAC distrib spherical grains
MAC distrib prolate grains
MAC CDE
-------------------------------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ ----- ------
The peak position of the bending band does not seem to follow a trend with the iron content. It varies only slightly in the ranges 21.56 - 21.69 $\mu$m and 21.56 - 21.60 $\mu$m for the Exx and ExxR samples, respectively (22.03 $\mu$m for sample E00). The band exhibits a shoulder peaking at $\sim$ 17 $\mu$m for all samples (unprocessed and processed) which is more and more pronounced as the iron fraction increases. It is therefore probably related to an iron phase which is not affected by the processing applied to the samples. We note that the position of the shoulder is close to the position of the vibrational stretching band calculated for small spherical grains of Fe$_x$Mg$_{1-x}$O oxides [@henning1995]. The main difference between the bending mode of the unprocessed and processed samples is the presence of a band at $\sim$ 32.3 $\mu$m in the spectra of the unprocessed samples but not in the one of the processed samples. The intensity of this band increases with the amount of iron, therefore it is probably related to iron in a form which is altered by the processing. It could be iron oxides but it is difficult to identify which oxides, since they are most likely amorphous and of very small size. The peak position of this band is in agreement with the transmission spectrum of fine particles of hematite measured by [@marra2011], the other features characteristic of hematite being hidden by the silicate bands. The fact that this band is not seen in the spectra of the processed samples indicates that the reduction process has operated even though the Mössbauer spectra show that it is not complete (see Sect. \[carac\]). The processed samples might contain some iron oxides but in small amounts since no IR spectral feature may be assigned to them. To summarize, the analysis of the MIR spectra suggests that the samples are not chemically homogeneous at small scales ($\le$ 100 nm, see Sect. \[carac\]). They might contain some three-dimensional structures compatible with SiO$_2$ and some iron oxide phases which should be different in the unprocessed and processed samples.\
The MAC of all the samples, measured from room temperature down to 10 K (in the range 30 - 1000 $\mu$m), are shown in Fig. \[kappafir\] in the 5 - 1000 $\mu$m spectral domain. In the FIR domain, the MAC of the eight samples exhibits the same dependency with temperature: Above 30 K the MAC increases with the grain temperature. We do not observe any change of the MAC from 10 K to 30 K for any of the samples. The wavelength above which the variation of the MAC with temperature is detectable depends on the sample and on the grain temperature. For a given sample, it appears at a shorter wavelength at high temperature than at low temperature. Typically, the MAC variations with temperature are visible for wavelengths longer than $\sim$ 100/200 $\mu$m depending on the samples studied.
This variation of the MAC intensity is accompanied by a change of its spectral shape which cannot be reproduced by a single power law in ${\lambda}^{-\beta}$, where the spectral index, $\beta$, is defined as the slope of the MAC in the FIR/submm in the log-log representation. To derive $\beta$ at each wavelength, we have fit the MAC of each sample, at each temperature, with a sixth order polynomial in the wavelength range 30 - 1000 $\mu$m and calculated the derivative (Fig. \[beta\]). This emphasizes that, at a given temperature, $\beta$ is changing with wavelength. In addition, at a given wavelength in the FIR/submm, $\beta$ increases when the grain temperature decreases, and the amplitude of the variation of $\beta$ with temperature is higher at long wavelengths. In the red wing of the bending vibrational band, around $\sim$ 30 - 80 $\mu$m, the value of $\beta$ decreases below 1 whereas, above $\sim$ 100 $\mu$m, it increases up to values greater than 2. This reflects the presence of the “bump” observed in the MAC spectra with a peak maximum around 100 $\mu$m and is further discussed in Sect. \[comp\_labo\]. The values of the MAC of all samples are reported in Table \[table\_kappa\] for a selection of wavelengths. At 100 $\mu$m, the MAC varies little with temperature, no more than 10 to 17 % from 10 K to 300 K depending on the samples. As the wavelength increases, the variation of the MAC gets stronger and, at 1 mm, it varies by a factor in the range 1.7 to 6 from 10 K to 300 K according to the samples.\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Discussion
==========
Influence of the composition and processing of the analogues on the MAC {#MAC_proc_comp}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[kappa\_TbyT\] compares, for a given temperature (10 K and 300 K), the spectra of the samples with different iron contents, for each series of samples, Exx and ExxR. The MAC of the pure Mg-rich sample, E00, is also added for comparison. The MAC of the unprocessed samples E00, E10, E20, E30 and E40, look remarkably similar below $\sim$ 700/800 $\mu$m whereas above $\sim$ 700/800 $\mu$m, the MAC of the four samples are different. The MAC of samples E10 and E20 gets steeper at long wavelengths whereas the MAC of samples E30 and E40 flattens. The MAC of the E00 sample is closer to samples E30 and E40 than to samples E10 and E20. As for the unprocessed samples, the MACs of E10R, E20R, E30R and E40R are very similar at short wavelengths whereas above 300/400 $\mu$m, depending on the temperature, the MACs of the four processed samples differ. The MAC of samples E10R and E20R flattens at long wavelengths whereas the MAC of samples E30R and E40R steepens. Hence, no clear trend emerges from these measurements about the influence of the iron content on the MAC of the samples, for either of the two series. However, we know from the results of the MIR and Mössbauer spectroscopic measurements that the samples of each series contain a small amount of iron oxides (less than 5 - 10%, see Sect. \[carac\]). This certainly complicates the interpretation of the FIR spectroscopic data, since in this domain, the MAC depends on the structure at microscopic scale of the materials, a structure which is influenced by the form in which the iron is present in the samples (within the silicate network or iron in oxides).
In the FIR, the difference between the MAC of the samples having various iron content is more important for the processed samples than for the unprocessed samples. This should reflect the effect of the processing applied to the ExxR samples. This processing induces changes of the chemical and structural nature of the samples as indicated by the Mössbauer and MIR spectroscopic results (Sects. \[carac\] and \[spectro\]). However, the modifications of the MAC induced by the processing do not show a common behavior in terms of spectral shape and intensity. It is different from one sample to another. For example, the MAC of the unprocessed samples E10 and E20 are weaker than the MAC of the processed samples E10R and E20R whereas this is the opposite for samples E30/E30R and E40/E40R. The similarity of the MAC of the samples containing 10 % and 20 % iron on one side, and 30 % and 40 % iron on the other side, both for the normal and processed series, is probably related to the fact that, as indicated in Sect. \[carac\], the samples E10 and E20 have comparable composition, as do samples E30 and E40. In addition, the two pairs of samples E10/E20 and E30/E40 were synthesized in separate runs. Consequently, the samples of each pair should be very similar in terms of structure or chemical and/or structural homogeneity at microscopic scale, whereas it is possible that the two pairs differ slightly.
Despite the fact that the processing of the samples does not show any clear trend, it has a non negligible effect, which is emphasized when comparing the MAC averaged over the four processed samples, <MAC$_\mathrm{ExxR}$>, with the MAC averaged over the four unprocessed samples, <MAC$_\mathrm{Exx}$>, and the MAC averaged over the eight samples <MAC$_{\mathrm{all}}$> (Fig. \[kappa\_mean\] and Table \[table\_kappa\]). In addition it is clear from Fig. \[kappa\_mean\] that averaging the MAC over different combinations of samples does not suppress the temperature variation of the MAC in the FIR domain. In addition, even though the average MAC is smoother than the MAC of each sample, they retain a complex spectral shape incompatible with a single power law (Fig. \[beta\_mean\]).
Comparison with previous experimental data {#comp_labo}
------------------------------------------
The observed behavior of the MAC with temperature and its complex spectral shape are similar to those already observed for the MAC of amorphous silicate materials by @mennella1998 [@boudet2005; @coupeaud2011; @demyk2017]. All these studies show that the MAC of amorphous silicate analogues is temperature dependent, that it increases when the grain temperature increases, and that the spectral shape of the MAC cannot be fitted with a single power law in ${\lambda}^{-\beta}$. Most of the samples from these studies are iron free and the overall qualitative agreement of all these samples thus reflects that, more than the composition (Mg vs. Fe content), the structure at nanometer and atomic scales (e.g., degree of polimerization of the Si tetrahedra, presence of defects, presence of Si atoms not tetrahedrally linked to oxygen in a chaotic structure) governs the FIR/submm absorption.
[@mennella1998] present a study of an Fe-rich amorphous silicate at low temperature in the FIR/submm range (20 $\mu$m - 2 mm). They synthesized amorphous Fe-rich olivine-like grains by laser vaporization of the natural crystalline target mineral (fayalite), in an oxygen atmosphere, ending up with a sample of composition Mg$_{0.18}$Fe$_{1.82}$SiO$_4$ in the form of small spherical particles of diameters in the range 13 - 35 nm, aggregated in chains for the smallest particles. The MAC of this sample, named FAYA, is similar with our measurements. The MAC values are in the same range as the Exx and ExxR samples in the MIR and in the FIR. At 1mm, the MAC of the FAYA sample is $\sim$ 5.0 cm$^2$.g$^{-1}$ and $\sim$ 0.86 cm$^2$.g$^{-1}$ at 300 K and 24 K respectively. The main difference between this sample and the analogues studied here lies in the shape of the MAC curves. The absence of a band at $\sim$ 33 $\mu$m in the FAYA spectrum suggests that the iron contained in the FAYA sample is not in the same iron oxide phase as in the Exx samples. The prominent bump in the range 100 - 300 $\mu$m, present in our samples, is not observed in Mennella’s study. Such a bump was also observed in the Mg-rich glassy silicates from @demyk2017 and explained in terms of Boson peak (BP). Such BP appears to be a universal feature of solid state of different amorphous materials, nevertheless without any clear and widely shared understanding of the underlying physical process. The analytical model from [@gurevich2003] describes the BP as an excess in the vibrational density of states, $g_{BP}(\omega)$, over the usual Debye vibrational density of states, $g_{Debye}(\omega) \propto\omega^2$. Although it gives good fits of the MAC of the Mg-rich glassy silicates from @demyk2017 in the range 30 - 700 $\mu$m, it fails to reproduce the MAC of the ferromagnesium amorphous samples Exx and ExxR. The capacity of this model to produce a reasonable fit is restored if the Gurevich’s BP profile overlaps with an absorption process $ \propto\omega^n$, with n in the range 0 to 2, depending of the sample, but with no clear correlation with any sample characteristics. Clearly these experimental MAC curves fail to be modeled with any current physical model, and should be taken as experimental data to be considered by theoretical solid-state physicists.
[@richey2013] measured the transmission and reflexion spectra of FeSiO silicates produced in a condensation flow apparatus at low temperature (5 - 300 K) in the 15.4 - 330 $\mu$m domain. Dust produced in such an apparatus consists in small nanograins (2 - 30nm) aggregated in the form of fluffy, open clusters containing hundreds to thousands of grains. From these spectra @richey2013 calculated the optical constants of the FeSiO sample and they discussed their results in terms of n and k, the refractive index and the absorption coefficient, respectively, rather than in terms of MAC as in this study. They observe a small temperature variation in the absorption coefficient, k, in the vibrational band at 21.5 $\mu$m and a variation of $\sim$ 5% in k, above 100 $\mu$m, in the temperature range 100 - 300 K. In the 30 - 100 $\mu$m, these results on the absorption coefficient of the FeSiO sample are compatible with our results observed on the MAC of sample Exx and ExxR which show little or no variation.
These various measurements show that the MAC dependence on temperature appears above 100 $\mu$m with only very small variation in the MIR domain. This is true whatever the structure of the material, from the most highly disordered silicates from [@richey2013] to the disordered, but less “chaotic” silicates from [@mennella1998] and the present study.
Comparison with cosmic dust models and astrophysical implications {#dust_model}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cosmic dust models are built to interpret astronomical observations either to study dust itself or to use dust as a probe of the astrophysical environment. Most dust models consider two main dust components, the carbonaceous dust and the silicate dust, which may themselves be divided up into several dust populations. The carbonaceous dust component usually includes the very small grains (VSG, a $\le$ 15 nm) and the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Some models also include a population of large carbonaceous grains (a $\ge$ 50 nm) composed of graphite [@draine1984] or amorphous carbon grains more or less aliphatic [@compiegne2011; @jones2013]. All cosmic dust models include a population of large grains made of silicates, which are generally pure magnesian silicates. The “astrosilicates” from @li2001 are based on experimental data of Mg-rich silicates in the UV/VIS domain, on astronomical observations of the ISM dust in the MIR, and on the extrapolation of these data in the FIR/submm [see @draine1984 for the details]. The “Themis” model [@jones2013] considers two silicate dust components which are based on experimental data on Mg-rich amorphous silicates of composition MgSiO$_3$ and Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ in the MIR and in the UV/VIS [@scottduley1996], and which are extrapolated in the FIR/submm. Following the classical description of the amorphous state absorption such as the Debye model [@henning1997], the extrapolation of both models in the FIR/submm assumes that the MAC has an asymptotic behavior in ${\lambda}^{-2}$ for $\lambda$ $\ge$ 20 $\mu$m. To take into account the fact that iron is highly depleted from the gas phase [@jenkins2009] the silicate component of the “Themis” model contains inclusions of metallic iron (Fe) and of iron sulfide (FeS) [@koehler2014].
Figure \[comp\_model\_average\] shows the comparison of the averaged experimental MAC with those calculated from the “astrosilicates” model. The comparison of each sample with the “Themis” dust model and the “astrosilicates” model are shown in Figs. \[comp\_model\_E10\] to \[comp\_model\_E40R\]. We have calculated the MAC of a spherical particle of 100 nm in size, the MAC of two populations of particles having a log-normal size distribution centred at 1 $\mu$m (such size distribution should reflect the size of the grains within the pellets), and the MAC of a continuous distribution of ellipsoids (CDE model which assumes that all ellipsoidal shapes are equiprobable, @bohren1998). The first population of particles consists of spherical grains and the second one of spheroidal grains (prolate grains with an axis ratio of 2). The calculations are performed using Mie theory [@bohren1998] for spherical particles and using the DDA code DDSCAT 7.3 developed by @draine2013 for spheroidal particles.
The modeled and measured MACs are very different. In the MIR, where the vibrational bands occur, the discrepancy in the band shape is linked to the composition of dust analogues and to their structure at microscopic scale. As expected, the stretching mode of the Si-O bond of the iron-free samples used in the “Themis” model peaks at longer wavelengths (9.7 $\mu$m and 10.3 $\mu$m for MgSiO$_3$ and Mg$_2$SiO$_4$, respectively) than the iron-rich Exx and ExxR samples (see Table \[MIR\]). For the “astrosilicates”, which are derived, in the MIR, from astronomical observations, the stretching mode peaks at 9.5 $\mu$m which is close to the peak position of samples E20 and E10R. This suggests that the “astrosilicates” are compatible with silicates containing $\sim$ 10 - 20 % iron. The bending mode of the Exx and ExxR samples peaks at longer wavelengths than the bending mode of the models reflecting the fact that the structure of the material is different. Related to these structural differences, we note that the Exx and ExxR samples are less absorbant than the dust analogues from cosmic dust models. Interstellar dust is most likely diverse in terms of composition and structure in the various environments in which they are observed. Therefore, these discrepancies do not rule out the studied samples as relevant dust analogues.
Although in the MIR, the dust models are more absorbant than the measured samples, the opposite is true in the FIR. Table \[table\_kappa\] gives the value of the MAC of the measured samples and of the modeled MAC at selected wavelengths in the 100 $\mu$m - 1 mm range. In this range, the experimental MAC at 300 K is more than five times greater than the modeled MAC for all samples. At 10 K, the experimental MAC is lower than at 300 K and the factor of enhancement compared to the models is smaller, depending on the sample and on the wavelength, however it is always higher than two and usually of the order of four to five. The MAC value of the ferromagnesium silicate analogues in this study is very close the MAC of the pure Mg-rich samples from @demyk2017 and from @coupeaud2011. This shows that the enhancement of the measured MAC compared to the modeled MAC is not related to the iron content of the grains, that is, to differences in composition between the studied samples and the analogues used in the cosmic dust models. As discussed in detail by @demyk2017, an enhancement factor greater than two cannot be explained by the effect of grain size, grain shape, or by grain coagulation within the pellets. Grain size and grain shape effects are illustrated in Fig. \[comp\_model\_average\] and the increase of the MAC due to large (micronic) spherical grains is negligible in the FIR. Coagulation might happen during the process of fabrication of the pellets and it is taken into account during the analysis of the experimental data following the method explained in [@mennella1998] and based on the Bruggeman theory. More detailed treatment of dust coagulation by methods such as DDA have shown that it may increase the MAC by a factor of two at most [@kohler2011; @mackowski2006; @min2016], that is, not enough to fully account for the discrepancy of the cosmic dust models and the experimental data. The enhancement of the emissivity of iron-rich analogues compared to the MAC of cosmic dust models commonly used for interpreting FIR/submm dust emission observations is related to the disordered nature of the samples, to the number, distribution, and nature of defects in their structure at microscopic scale and to the existence of absorption processes added to the classical Debye model [we refer to @demyk2017 for more details]. These additional absorption processes are more or less important depending on the structural state of the material at the microscopic scale.\
This study shows that the MAC of ferromagnesium silicates has the same qualitative behavior as the one of pure Mg-rich silicates in terms of dependence on the temperature and wavelength. The presence of iron oxides in the samples does not suppress this behavior, probably because the iron oxide phases are amorphous and also are not very abundant. This emphasizes the universality of this behavior in amorphous solids, whatever their composition, and the fact that it has to be taken into account in astronomical modeling. Indeed, any cosmic dust composed of amorphous silicates and/or oxides will be characterized by a MAC (i.e., an emissivity) that is lower at low temperature than at high temperature and which deviates from a single power law such as ${\lambda}^{-\beta}$. As for previous studies from [@coupeaud2011] and [@demyk2017], the variation of the MAC of the Fe-rich analogues is observed for temperatures greater than 30 K. The MAC of the samples is identical in the 10 - 30 K range and then increases at 100, 200, and 300 K. In astronomical modeling, it is thus important to have a first guess of the dust temperature in order to use the MAC of the dust analogues measured at a temperature as close as possible to the dust temperature. In addition, considering the MAC averaged over all the samples and adopting the pessimistic assumption that coagulation effects are not properly taken into account (thus dividing the MAC by a factor of two), the value of <MAC$\mathrm{_{all}}$> at 10 K is two or three times higher than the modeled MAC at 1 mm and three or four times higher at 500 $\mu$m. The direct consequence of this is that cosmic dust models overestimate the dust mass compared to the use of an experimental MAC.
Conclusions
===========
The MAC of eight ferromagnesium amorphous silicate analogues were measured in the MIR (5 - 40 $\mu$m) at room temperature and in the FIR/submm (30 $\mu$m - 1mm) at various temperatures (10, 30, 100, 200 and 300 K). The analogues are amorphous silicates of the mean composition of pyroxene with varying amounts of magnesium and iron: Mg$_{1-x}$Fe$_x$SiO$_3$ with $x$ = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4. Four samples were processed to modify the iron oxidation state within the materials leading to four additional samples having a modified structure and chemical homogeneity at microscopic scale compared to the non-processed samples.
We find that the MAC of ferromagnesium amorphous silicates exhibits the same characteristics as other Mg-rich amorphous silicates. In the FIR, the MAC of the sample increases with the grain temperature as absorption processes are thermally activated. The wavelength at which the MAC changes depends on the samples and on the temperature in the range 100 - 200 $\mu$m. These thermal effects are observed above 30 K and we find that the MAC at 10 and 30K are identical for all samples. The overall spectral shape of the MAC differs from a power law in ${\lambda}^{-\beta}$, which is the usually adopted extrapolation in astronomical models. The value of $\beta$, defined as the local slope of the MAC, varies with the wavelength. For a given sample, and at a given wavelength, the value of $\beta$ is anti-correlated with the grain temperature.
The qualitative agreement of the MAC of Fe-rich and Mg-rich amorphous silicates shows that more than the composition (Mg vs. Fe content), the structure at nanometer scale governs the FIR/submm absorption. Hence, any amorphous silicate grain, whatever its composition, should present complex behavior with wavelength and temperature. The modifications of the MAC induced by the processing do not show a common behavior in terms of shape and intensity. However, the comparison of the averaged MAC of the unprocessed samples with the one of the processed samples shows that they are different. We attribute these differences to an evolution of the amorphous silicate network of the samples during the processing.
The MAC of the Fe-rich samples is much higher than the MAC in cosmic dust models. This is not due to compositional differences. We attribute this enhancement to absorption processes which are added to the Debye model. These absorption processes are characteristic of the amorphous nature of the dust and on the nature and distribution of defects of the disordered structure. This has important astronomical implications in terms of mass determination and elemental abundance constrains of cosmic dust models.
This work was supported by the French *Agence National pour la recherche* project ANR-CIMMES and by the Programme National PCMI of CNRS/INSU with INC/INP co-funded by CEA and CNES. We thank the referee, J. Nuth, for his comments that have helped to improve this manuscript. We thank A. Marra for providing us with the optical constant of hematite and V. Mennella for sharing its experimental data of the MAC of amorphous fayalite. We thank M. Roskosz for fruitful discussions about Mössbauer spectroscopy.
Comparison with astronomical models. {#astro_models}
====================================
We present here the comparison of the MAC of each sample with the MAC calculated for the “astrosilicate model” [@li2001] and for the “Themis” model [@jones2013]. The calculations are performed using Mie theory [@bohren1998] for a spherical particle of size of 100 nm, for spherical grain populations with a log-normal size distribution centred at 1 $\mu$m, and for a continuous distribution of ellipsoids (CDE). For the spheroidal (prolate grain with an axis ratio of 2) grain population (with a log-normal size distribution centred at 1 $\mu$m), we have used the DDA code DDSCAT 7.3 developed by @draine2013 to calculate the MAC.
\
\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This paper establishes that the Nahm transform sending spatially periodic instantons (instantons on the product of the real line and a three-torus) to singular monopoles on the dual three-torus is indeed a bijection as suggested by the heuristic. In the process, we show how the Nahm transform intertwines to a Fourier–Mukai transform via Kobayashi–Hitchin correspondences. We also prove existence and non-existence results.'
author:
- 'Benoit Charbonneau, Jacques Hurtubise'
date: 14 December 2017
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
This paper examines the intertwining, in an interesting geometric case, of three recurrent themes of the study of the anti-self-duality equations: the Nahm transform, the Kobayashi–Hitchin correspondence, and the Fourier–Mukai transform.
**The Nahm transform.** The Nahm transform is a heuristic which, in its basic form, relates solutions to the self-duality or anti-self-duality equation on a quotient $X$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^4$ by a closed subgroup $\Lambda$ to solutions on a quotient $X^*$ of ${{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^4}^*$ by the dual subgroup $\Lambda^*:=\{f\in{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^4}^*\mid
f(\Lambda)\subset{\ensuremath{\mathdj {Z}}}\}$. Because some of these quotients are not four-dimensional, one has to consider reductions of self-duality: the Bogomolny, Hitchin, and Nahm equations come into play, for example.
The different possibilities for correspondence $X\leftrightarrow X^*$ are given, up to diffeomorphism, by transposing the following diagram: $$\label{allquotients}\begin{matrix}
&T^4 &{{{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^{}\times T^{3}}}} & {{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^{2}\times T^{2}}} & {{{{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^{3}\times S^1}}}} &{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^4 &\\
&{{T^3}} &{{{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^{}\times T^{2}}}} & {{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^{2}\times T^{1}}} & {\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^3\\
&T^2 &{{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^{}\times S^1}} & {\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^2\\
&{{S^1}} & {\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}& & &X\\
&{*}^{}& & & X^*
\end{matrix}$$ The metrics on the tori, while all flat, depend on the $\Lambda$ chosen. We note that the transform interchanges $\Lambda$ with its dual.
In a nutshell, the heuristic starts with a connection $\nabla$ satisfying the ASD equation (or the appropriate dimensional reduction). One solves the Dirac equation in the background of a family of shifts of $\nabla$ by characters parameterized by $X^*$. Glued together, the spaces of solutions form a vector bundle ${\hat{E}}$ over $X^*$, embedded in a trivial infinite rank bundle of $L^2$ sections of the appropriate spinor bundles. Projecting on ${\hat{E}}$ the trivial connection of the trivial $L^2$ bundle, one obtains the transformed connection, and the necessary endomorphisms are produced by projecting the multiplication by the coordinates of the non-compact directions of $X$. This description is the cartoon picture; the actual transforms involve fixing appropriate singularities, boundary conditions, etc. A detailed description of the heuristic in our case is given in [@benoitpaper Section 3].
The transform was introduced by Nahm in [@nahmEqn; @Nahm] to explain the ADHM construction of instantons over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^4$ introduced in [@ADHM] in physicists’ language. Nahm then extended the heuristic to monopoles [@Nahm]. The heuristic given by Nahm was set on firmer mathematical ground by Corrigan–Goddard in [@corrigan-goddard], and Hitchin in [@hitchinMonopoles].
The transform provides a framework in which to think about the classification of all the solutions to the ASD equation whose curvature has finite $L^2$-norm. This framework, well explained in the survey paper [@jardimsurvey] and in [@FM-Nahm-book §5.2], guided several authors in the understanding of moduli spaces of instantons (or their appropriate dimensional reduction) on various quotients $X$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^4$: [@ADHM; @biquardjardim; @braam1989; @benoitpaper; @benoitjacques2; @Durcan-Cherkis; @Cherkis-Kapustin-Super-QCD; @CherkisWard-MonopoleWalls; @corrigan-goddard; @hitchinMonopoles; @hurtubiseMurray; @hurtubiseMurraySpectral; @jardim2002; @nakajima; @nye; @Osborn-ADHM; @schenk1988; @Szabo-SMF]. While the heuristic gives the general idea, carefully working out the details has proven to be necessary. One notable example is the case of ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^2\times T^2$ where to study the full moduli space of finite $L^2$ curvature instantons, one has to introduce wild singularities on the codomain of the transform, and in turn one has to get surjectivity one has to increase the domain to a larger set of filtered bundles. Mochizuki’s paper [@Mochizuki-doublyperiodic] recounting this story settled negatively a conjecture of Jardim (in [@jardim2002b]) on the asymptotic decay of doubly-periodic instantons, conjecture that had been standing for more than a decade.
The heuristic has been implemented for other families of spaces, first for the asymptotically locally Euclidean complete hyper-Kähler manifolds (the *ALE gravitational instantons*) by Kronheimer–Nakajima in [@kronheimer1990]. Extending the Nahm transform to other gravitational instantons had to wait for the corresponding flat case to be solved first. Cherkis proposed a framework to tackle the *ALF* case in [@Cherkis-InstantonsGravitons], informed by earlier successes on the Taub–NUT space in [@Cherkis-Taub-NUT; @Cherkis-instantonsTN]. This framework involves a mix of of Nahm and ADHM data on the representation of a bow. At this stage, we do not yet know that the Nahm transform is bijective for ALF spaces (except for the simplest [@Cherkis-Hurtubise]) but the transform from instantons to bow representations is established on solid footing in [@Cherkis-Larrain-Stern-1].
A general framework where the moduli space of flat connections that is normally the target of the transform is replaced by a moduli space of instanton connections has been proposed by [@Bartocci2004a; @Bartocci2004] to give a transform between moduli spaces of instantons on various hyper-Kähler manifolds, not all four dimensional. There is great current interest in studying instantons in higher dimension, and a Nahm transform in this context is understandably a desired tool given its success in lower dimension. Very little has been accomplished at this time, except perhaps for [@Nakamula-Sasaki-Takesue-ADHM].
In another direction, the Nahm transform gauge theoretic version of [@Bonsdorff-thesis; @Bonsdorff-Crelles] for Higgs bundles has been implemented in [@Frejlich-Jardim].
One notable hole in the literature is the case of ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times T^3$, addressed in this paper. After early work by van Baal (numerical approximations and remarks in [@vanBaal1996] and a computation in the case of charge 1 in [@vanBaal1999]), the singular monopole obtained by the Nahm transform in the case of structure group ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)$ was studied further by the first author in his PhD thesis [@benoitthesis; @benoitpaper]. Physical motivation for getting a deeper understanding of the Nahm transform in this case can be found in the recent paper [@Maxfield-Sethi-domain-walls] of Maxfield and Sethi.
**The Kobayashi–Hitchin correspondence.** If one is on a compact Kähler surface, part of the ASD equations implies the integrability of the $\bar\partial$-operator associated to the connection, and so gives a holomorphic vector bundle, which can be shown to be stable when the connection is irreducible [@Lubke-Teleman Thm 2.3.2]. The correspondence between irreducible ASD connections (mod gauge) and stable bundles turns out to be a bijection; this was first proven by Donaldson [@donaldson-surfaces]. The idea is that by solving a variational problem one can find a metric whose Chern connection has ASD curvature. The notion of antiselfduality is the two complex dimensional version of a general property of a connection in arbitrary dimension, that of being Hermitian–Yang–Mills (HYM); there is then a correspondence, in arbitrary dimension between HYM connections and stable holomorphic bundles. This correspondence goes back to Narasimhan and Seshadri in dimension one, and is due to Uhlenbeck and Yau in arbitrary dimensions. If one adds in singularities, boundaries, symmetries, Higgs fields, etc., the correspondence, appropriately modified, often still holds, and has been the subject of works by a wide variety of authors; let us mention Simpson [@Simpson-Hodge-structures], Biquard [@Biquard-fibresparaboliquesstables] and Biquard–Jardim [@biquardjardim] in particular, as their results are most particularly relevant our present discussion. For a more thorough history of the Kobayashi–Hitchin correspondence, one can read the introduction of [@Lubke-Teleman].
**The Fourier–Mukai transform.** For the Nahm transform, we twisted by a family of flat connections, and looked for solutions to the Dirac equation; the holomorphic analogue here is to twist by all line bundles and take a direct image onto the Jacobian. This transform, introduced by Mukai in the early eighties as a way of obtaining equivalences between derived categories on Abelian varieties [@FM], has become a standard element of the algebro-geometric toolkit; see, for instance, the very good books of Bartocci, Bruzzo, and Hernandez Ruipérez, or of Huybrechts [@FM-Nahm-book; @Huybrechts-FM].It is an interesting question of what the Nahm transform does to the holomorphic data that classifies the ASD connections. In the four-torus case, one obtains a Fourier–Mukai transform. Similar things occur in the case that interests us.
**The cases at hand.** Let $T$ be a two-torus, equipped with a flat metric; it is in a natural way a genus one curve. We set $T^*$ to be the dual torus, with $t^*\in T^*$ corresponding to a line bundle $L_{t^*}$ on $T$. We study several classes of data, showing that they are equivalent, with the relations fitting into the following commuting diagram: $$\label{basic-diagram}
\begin{diagram}
(F,\nabla,\phi)\text{ on }S^1\times T^*& && \rCorresponds^{\text{Nahm} }&&&\ (E,\nabla) \text{ on } {{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}\\
\dCorresponds>{\text{Kob.--Hit.}} &&&&&& \dCorresponds<{\text{Kob.--Hit.}}\\
\begin{matrix}\text{Pair } ({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)\\ {\rm on}\ T^*\end{matrix}&\rCorresponds{\rm Hecke\quad }&
\begin{matrix}\text{Pair } ({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)\\ \text{ on } T^*\end{matrix}&\rCorresponds{\text{Spectral}}&\begin{matrix}(C, {{{\mathcal{K}}}})\\ \text{ on }{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T^*\end{matrix}&\rCorresponds{\quad\text{Fourier--Mukai}}&\begin{matrix}\text{Bundle } {{\mathcal{E}}}\\ \text{ on } {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T\end{matrix}
\end{diagram}\hskip-5mm$$
Here (more complete definitions are given later):
- $(F,\nabla,\phi)$ is a ${\mathrm{U}}(k)$ monopole, defined on $ S^1\times T^*$, with Dirac type singularities of weight $(1,0,\ldots,0)$ at $n$ points $( \theta^+_i, t^{*,+}_i)\in S^1\times T^*$, and of weight $(-1,0,\ldots,0)$ at $n$ points $(\theta^-_i, t^{*,-}_i)\in S^1\times T^*$. The points $t^{*,+}_i, t^{*,-}_i$ are supposed distinct.
- $(E,\nabla)$ is a rank $n$ bundle with a finite energy charge $k$ anti-self-dual ${\mathrm{U}}(n)$ connection on the flat cylinder ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$. At $+\infty$, $(E,\nabla)$ is asymptotic to a fixed flat ${\mathrm{U}}(1)^n$ connection on $S^1 \times T $ which, on each $ \{\mu\}\times T$, corresponds to the sum of line bundles $\oplus_i L_{t^{*,+}_i}$, and on the $S^1$ factors, acts on the $L_{t^{*,+}_i}$ by $\frac{\partial}{\partial \mu} + i\theta^+_i$. One has, at $-\infty$, the same, but with $(t^{*,-}_i, \theta^-_i)$.
- $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$, and $({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$ are pairs consisting of a rank $k$ holomorphic vector bundle over $T$ equipped with a meromorphic automorphism $\rho$, with simple zeroes at ${t^{*,+}_i}$, simple poles at ${t^{*,-}_i}$; the map $\rho$ is an isomorphism elsewhere. The pairs satisfy stability conditions involving the $\theta^\pm_i$.
- $(C, {{{\mathcal{K}}}})$ is a pair consisting of a holomorphic curve $C$ of degree $(n,k)$ in $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T^*$, and a sheaf ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ supported on $C$. The curve $C$ intersects $\{0\} \times T^*$ in the points $(0, t^{*,+}_i)$, and $\{\infty\}\times T^*$ in $(\infty, t^{*,-}_i)$.
- ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a semi-stable holomorphic rank $n$ vector bundle of degree $0$ over $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T$, with $c_2({{\mathcal{E}}}) = k$. Over $\{\infty\}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$, the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is the sum $\oplus_i L_{t^{*,+}_i}$, and over $\{0\}$, it is $\oplus_i L_{t^{*,-}_i}$
- The vertical correspondences are the Kobayashi–Hitchin correspondences, which associate to anti-self dual connections some holomorphic data that classify them,
- The horizontal correspondences are Fourier-type transforms, the top one using the Dirac equation, and the bottom holomorphic data.
The sections, in what follows, in essence explore the various pieces of the diagram (\[basic-diagram\]) in turn. Section \[sec:monopolesandpairs\] begins with the left hand side with its vertical arrow, recalling the results of [@benoitjacques3]. Section \[sec:instantonsandholomorphicbundles\] considers the right hand side, examining the Kobayashi–Hitchin correspondence for this case. Section \[sec:FourierMukai\] treats the bottom row, and discusses the Fourier–Mukai transforms. Section \[sec:NahmTransform\] considers the top row, recalls results of Charbonneau [@benoitpaper] on the Nahm transform in this case, shows that the diagram commutes, and sums up the equivalences. Section \[sec:non\_moduli\] derives a few consequences on moduli, and discusses a few remaining questions.
The leftmost vertical arrow: monopoles and pairs $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ {#sec:monopolesandpairs}
===========================================================================
In this section we consider the left hand side of the basic diagram (\[basic-diagram\]), and describe the correspondence between monopoles and pairs $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ which is the subject of [@benoitjacques3], specialized to the case that concerns us. We begin with a definition of a family of singular monopoles over $S^1\times T^*$. Let $t^* $ be a holomorphic coordinate on $T^*$. We suppose chosen distinct points $t^{*,+}_i, t^{*,-}_i, i=1,\ldots, n$ of $T^*$.
For simplicity, we suppose that $S^1$ is equipped with a metric giving it circumference $1$, and denote by $\theta\in {\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}$ the corresponding multi-valued coordinate. Let ${\lfloor\ \rfloor}$ denotes the integer part. Also let $\widetilde\theta\in [0,1)$ parametrize the circle $S^1$ isometrically, with $\widetilde\theta=\theta-{\lfloor\theta\rfloor}$. As constants associated to these angular coordinates reappear throughout the paper, we pause to give some of our conventions.
We have points in the circle represented by $\theta_i^+, \theta_i^-, i = 1,\ldots,n$, which for convenience we suppose distinct, ordered, and not integers. One has $$\sum_i\theta_i^+-\sum_i\theta_i^-=0;$$ a priori this number could be any integer but we shall see that the normalisation to zero is natural. With our conventions, we set $$\begin{aligned}
0&<\theta_1^+<\theta_2^+<\cdots<\theta_n^+<\theta_n^+\leq\theta_1^++1<2,\\
0&<\theta_1^-<\theta_2^-<\cdots<\theta_n^-<\theta_n^-\leq\theta_1^-+1<2.\end{aligned}$$ We set $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat\theta^+_i&:= \theta_i^+ +1, & \widehat\theta^-_i&:= \theta_i^-,\\
\widetilde\theta^\pm_i&:= \theta_i^\pm - {\lfloor\theta_i^\pm\rfloor},&\widehat\Theta &:= \sum_i{\lfloor\theta_i^-\rfloor}-{\lfloor\theta_i^+\rfloor}.
\end{aligned}$$
Let $p_1^+,\ldots,p_n^+$ be the collection of points on $S^1\times T^*$ given by $p_i^+=( \widetilde \theta^+_i , t^{*,+}_i)$; similarly, set $p_i^- =(\widetilde\theta_i^- , t^{*,-}_i)\in S^1\times T^*$. We fix weights $w^+ = (w_{1}^+ ,\ldots,w_{ k}^+ ) =(1,0,\ldots,0)$, $w ^- = (w_{1}^- ,\ldots,w_{k}^-) = (-1,0,\ldots,0)$; these weights are to be thought of as cocharacters, mapping ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ to the maximal torus. Let $F$ be a ${\mathrm{U}}(k)$-bundle on $(S^1\times T^*)\setminus\{p_i^+, p_i^-\mid i=1,\ldots,n\}$ whose degree is $\widehat\Theta$ on $\widetilde\theta=0$, is $ 1$ on spheres around the $p_i^+$, and is $ -1$ on spheres around the $p_i^-$. As one moves the complex curves $\widetilde\theta=cst$ through the $p_i^\pm$, the degree of the restriction of $F$ thus changes by $\pm 1$. Let $\nabla$ be a ${\mathrm{U}}(k)$-connection on $F$, and let $\phi$ be a section of the associated (adjoint) ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(k)$ bundle. Following [@benoitjacques3], we say that $(F,\nabla,\phi)$ is a singular ${\mathrm{U}}(k)$ monopole on $(S^1\times T^*)\setminus\{p_i^+, p_i^- \mid i=1,\ldots,n\}$ of weights $w_i^\pm$ at $p_i^\pm$ if
- $(F,\nabla,\phi)$ satisfy the Bogomolny equation $[\nabla_i,\nabla_j] = \sum_k \epsilon_{ijk}\nabla_k\phi$ (equivalently $*F_\nabla=d_\nabla \phi$), and if
- we have Dirac type singularities in a neighbourhood of the $p_i^\pm$: in a neighbourhood of $p_i^\pm$, if $R$ is the geodesic distance to the singularity, one imposes that in a suitable gauge $$\begin{aligned}
\phi =& \frac {i}{2R}{\mathrm{diag}}(w_{i,1}^\pm,\ldots,w_{i,n}^\pm) + O(1)= \frac {i}{2R}{\mathrm{diag}}(\pm1,0,0,..,0) + O(1),
$$ and $\nabla (R \phi) = O(1)$ as $R\to 0$.
We can define from such a monopole a pair $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ consisting of a rank $k$ holomorphic vector bundle over $T^*$, and $\rho$ a meromorphic automorphism of ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$. For the first, we simply note that the connection defines a $\bar \partial$ operator $\nabla^{0,1}_{T^*}$ over the Riemann surface $T^*$ given by $ \theta= 0$, giving the bundle $F|_{\theta= 0}$ a holomorphic structure which we denote by ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$. The Bogomolny equations imply that $[\nabla^{0,1}_{T^*}, \nabla_\theta - i\phi] = 0$, so that parallel transport defined by integrating $ (\nabla_\theta - i\phi)s= 0$ preserves the holomorphic structure. Transporting around the circle defines a return map $\rho \colon {{\mathfrak{F}}}\to {{\mathfrak{F}}}$. It is holomorphic as long as one stays away from the $t^{*\pm}_i$. It is shown in [@benoitjacques3 Prop 2.5] that in a neighbourhood of the $t^{*\pm}_i$ one can write $\rho = a_i^\pm(t^*) {\mathrm{diag}}_j ((t^*- t^{*\pm}_i)^{w_{i,j}^\pm}) b_i^\pm(t^*)$ with $ a_i^\pm, b_i^\pm$ holomorphic and invertible. The pair $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ can be shown to satisfy a stability condition: for a $\rho$-invariant subbundle ${{\mathfrak{F}}}'$ of ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ of rank $k'$, degree $j_0'$, one lets the weights of the restriction $\rho'$ of $\rho$ to ${{\mathfrak{F}}}'$ at $p_i^\pm$ be denoted by $w_{i,j}^{\pm,{}'}, j= 1, \ldots ,k'$, and one can define a degree $$\delta_{\widetilde\theta^{\pm}}({{\mathfrak{F}}}' ,\rho') = \deg({{\mathfrak{F}}}') -\sum_{i,\pm} \widetilde\theta_i^\pm\sum_j (w_{i,j}^{\pm,{}'}),\label{eqn:degreedef}$$ and a slope $${\mathrm{sl}}_{\widetilde\theta^\pm}({{\mathfrak{F}}}' ,\rho') = \frac{\delta_{\widetilde\theta^{\pm}}({{\mathfrak{F}}}' ,\rho')}{{\mathrm{rk}}({{\mathfrak{F}}}')}.\label{eqn:slopedef}$$ Note that $\sum_j (w_{i,j}^{\pm,{}'})$ is the order of $\det(\rho')$ at $t^{*,\pm}$; in our case it is $0$ or $+1$ at the points $t^{*,+}$, and $0$ or $-1$ at the points $t^{*,-}$. One then has the (semi-)stability condition by asking that for all invariant subbundles ${{\mathfrak{F}}}'$, $${\mathrm{sl}}_{\widetilde\theta^\pm}({{\mathfrak{F}}}',\rho')\quad (\leq)< \quad {\mathrm{sl}}_{\widetilde\theta^\pm}({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho).$$ Here, as $\rho$ has poles, invariance of a subsheaf ${{\mathfrak{F}}}'$ is defined by asking that any section of ${{\mathfrak{F}}}'$ has image under $\rho$ lying in ${{\mathfrak{F}}}'$ as long as the image lies in ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$. An irreducible monopole gives a stable pair $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$; if the monopole is reducible, one gets a sum of stable $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ with same slope. As the stability depends on $\widetilde\theta_i^\pm$, we refer to this notion of stability as $\widetilde\theta^\pm$-stability.
We have from [@benoitjacques3 Remark 3.8] the proposition:
For bundles coming from monopoles and so defined on the complement of $p_i^\pm$ in $S^1\times T^*$, the quantity $ {\mathrm{sl}}_{\widetilde\theta^\pm}({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)\cdot {\mathrm{rk}}({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ is the average in $\widetilde\theta$ of the degree of the restriction of ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ to the curves $\{\widetilde\theta\}\times T^*$ as one moves $\widetilde\theta$ around the circle.
For the case of concern to us, we have $${\mathrm{sl}}_{\widetilde\theta^\pm}({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho) =0.$$
The main theorem of [@benoitjacques3], Theorem 4.1 (specialized to our case), states that the monopole to stable pair correspondence map is a bijection:
\[thm:main\] The moduli space ${{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{\widehat\Theta}^{ir}(S^1\times T^*,
p_1^\pm,\ldots,p_n^\pm,w_1^\pm \ldots,w_n^\pm)$ of ${\mathrm{U}}(k)$ irreducible monopoles on $S^1\times T^*$ with $F|_{\widetilde\theta=0}$ of degree $\widehat\Theta$ and Dirac type singularities at $p_j^\pm$ of type $w_i^\pm$ maps bijectively to the space ${{{\mathcal{M}}}}_s\bigl(T^*,\widehat\Theta, \bigl((w_i^\pm,t_i^{*,\pm}),i=1, \ldots,n\bigr),\widetilde\theta^\pm\bigr)$ of $\widetilde\theta^\pm$-stable holomorphic pairs $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ with
- ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ a holomorphic rank $k$ bundle of degree $\widehat\Theta$ on $T^*$,
- $\rho$ a meromorphic section of $\mathrm{Aut}({{\mathfrak{F}}})$ of the form $a_i^\pm(t^*)
{\mathrm{diag}}_j ((t^*- t^{*,\pm}_i)^{w_{i,j}^\pm})b_i^\pm(t^*)$ near $t_i^{*,\pm}$, with $ a_i^\pm, b_i^\pm$ holomorphic and invertible; $\det(\rho)$ has divisor $\sum_{i } t_i^{*,+}-t_i^{*,-}$.
More generally, the reducible monopoles correspond bijectively to $\widetilde\theta^\pm$-polystable, but unstable, pairs.
(The theorem is proven in [@benoitjacques3] for $\widetilde\theta_i^\pm$ distinct, but this restriction was simply for notational convenience, and removing it poses no problem; it is essential however that the $t^{*,+}_i, t^{*,-}_i$ be distinct; also, one can have different integer weights, and slopes that are not integers, though for the latter one must generalise the Bogomolny equation.)
The rightmost vertical arrow: instantons and holomorphic bundles {#sec:instantonsandholomorphicbundles}
================================================================
Holomorphic extension {#sec:holomorphic_extension}
----------------------
We have a finite energy instanton $(E, \nabla)$ on the cylinder $ {{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$, and we want to define a suitable bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ on $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$ corresponding to it.
Let therefore $(E, \nabla)$ be a bundle with a unitary anti-self-dual connection on $ {{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$. We suppose that the energy ($L^2$ norm of the curvature) of the connection is finite, which gives us a charge $k$ for the second Chern class, and some good asymptotic behaviour.
Indeed, let $\phi,\psi$ be angular coordinates on $T$, $\mu$ be an angular coordinate on the $S^1$, and $s$ a standard coordinate on the ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}$. As this $S^1$ is dual to the $S^1$ of the previous section, its circumference is $2\pi$. Write $\nabla$ as $d + iA_sds +iA_\mu d\mu + iA_\psi d\psi + iA_\phi d\phi$. Fortunately, the asymptotics of $A$ has been well developed in the context of Floer theory, in various places ([@Donaldson2002; @mrowkabook; @Taubes1993]). Let us just deal with the end $s = +\infty$, the treatment of the other end being the same. In a gauge with $A_s = 0$, the instanton is asymptotic at infinity to a flat unitary connection $\partial_\mu + iA^\infty_\mu, \partial_\psi+ iA^\infty_\psi, \partial_\phi + iA^\infty_\phi$. We suppose that we are in a generic situation:
1. that the connection on $T$ at $s=\infty$ corresponds to a sum $$L_{t_1^{*,+}}\oplus\cdots \oplus L_{t_n^{*,+}}$$ of distinct line bundles (this situation corresponds in our monopole picture to the locations of the singularities $t_i^{*,+}$ being distinct and also gives the condition of regularity; see [@Donaldson2002]), and
2. that the connection on $S^1$ has monodromy with distinct eigenvalues.
In a gauge with $A_s= 0$, we have for some $\rho>0$ that $$\begin{aligned} \nabla_\mu =&\ \partial_\mu + iA^\infty_\mu + O(\exp(-\rho s)),\\
\nabla_\psi =&\ \partial_\psi + iA^\infty_\psi + O(\exp(-\rho s)),\\
\nabla_\phi =&\ \partial_\phi + iA^\infty_\phi + O(\exp(-\rho s)). \end{aligned}\label{asymptotics}$$ The connection matrices at infinity $iA^\infty_\mu, iA^\infty_\psi, iA^\infty_\phi$ are constant, and commute. Also, all derivatives of the connection matrices also have exponential decay, with the same $\rho$. By hypothesis, the eigenvalues of $ A^\infty_\mu$ are distinct, and we suppose that $ A^\infty_\mu$ is diagonal, with real eigenvalues $\theta^+_1, \dots, \theta^+_n$, with $\theta^+_1<\theta^+_2<\cdots<\theta^+_n\leq \theta^+_1+1 $. The other connection matrices are then also diagonal. Note that gauge transformations asymptotic at infinity to $ \exp(i \mu {\mathrm{diag}}_i (n_i))$, which can be different at either end of the cylinder, shift the $\theta_i$ by integers.
We suppose similar behaviour at $s=-\infty$, with $t_i^{*,-}, \theta_i^-$ instead of $t_i^{*,+}, \theta_i^+$. The $\theta_i^+, \theta_j^-$ are supposed distinct. We also note that the determinant bundle is a ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ instanton, hence flat; this fact gives the natural normalisation $\sum_i\theta_i^+=\sum_i\theta_i^-$.
We complexify our picture: $T$ is to be thought of as an elliptic curve, with complex coordinate $w$; the cylinder ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1$ becomes complex, too, with a coordinate $z= \exp(-s-i\mu)$, so that $s= \infty$ is $z=0$. The complex cylinder ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1$ has a two-point compactification to ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$. An instanton on ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$ defines a holomorphic structure on the bundle, and the aim is to extend it to ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$.
As is typical when dealing with moduli spaces of holomorphic bundles, one needs a notion of stability. This notion is described immediately following the theorem.
\[thm1\] Let $(E,A)\to {{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$ be a rank $n$ instanton of charge $k$, with asymptotic behaviour given as above (that is by Equation (\[asymptotics\]) and the following paragraph). Then there is a holomorphic bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$ such that $${{\mathcal{E}}}|_{{{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}}{\cong}(E,{\bar{\partial}}_A),$$ with the extension to the compactification ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ chosen so that
1. $c_1({{\mathcal{E}}})=0$ and $c_2({{\mathcal{E}}})=k$,
2. ${{\mathcal{E}}}|_{\{+\infty\}\times T}{\cong}\oplus_{i=1}^n L_{t_i^{*,+}}$ and ${{\mathcal{E}}}|_{\{-\infty\}\times T}{\cong}\oplus_{i=1}^n L_{t_i^{*,-}}$, (thus, on the elliptic curves $T_0,T_\infty$ over the points $0$, $\infty$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$ and so for the generic $T_z$, the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a sum of line bundles of degree zero), and
3. ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is $\theta^\pm$-stable.
The stability criterion here is one of parabolic type: one considers only subbundles ${{\mathcal{E}}}'$ that are sums of line bundles of degree zero for $z=0,\infty$; this condition forces ${{\mathcal{E}}}'$ to be a sum $\oplus_{i\in I^+} L_{t_i^{*,+}}$ over $z=0$, and $\oplus_{i\in I^-} L_{t_i^{*,-}}$ over $z= \infty$ (that is, they are built from a subset of the line bundles involved in the direct sum decomposition of ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ at the corresponding infinity), and also $c_1({{\mathcal{E}}}') = j'[\omega_T]$. We define the ${\theta^\pm}$-degree of ${{\mathcal{E}}}'$ to be $$\label{eqn:deltathetapm}\delta_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}') = j' -\sum_{i\in I^+} \theta_i^+ + \sum_{i\in I^-} \theta_i^-,$$ with a corresponding slope ${\mathrm{sl}}_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}') = \delta_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}')/{\mathrm{rk}}({{\mathcal{E}}}')$. The definition of stability is the usual one: we ask that ${\mathrm{sl}}_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}') < {\mathrm{sl}}_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}) $ for all subbundles of the type we have restricted to. The slope ${\mathrm{sl}}_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}) $ turns out to be zero.
Let us first change coordinates. We set $$z = \exp(-s - i \mu), \bar z = \exp(-s+i\mu)$$ and choose an appropriate constant complex combination $w$ of $\phi$ and $\psi$ such that $w$ is a complex coordinate compatible with the conformal structure of $T^2$. One then has $z \bar z = \exp(-2s), \bar z/z = \exp(2i\mu)$, and so $$d\mu = \frac{1}{2i} (-\frac{dz}{z} +\frac {d\bar z}{\bar z}).$$ Thus, for the $(0,1)$ component of the connection $\nabla^{0,1} = (\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\bar z} + A_{\bar z})d\bar z+(\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\bar w} + A_{\bar w})d\bar w$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\bar z} &= \frac{1}{2} \frac{A^\infty_\mu}{\bar z} + O(|z|^{\rho-1}),\label{untransformed}\\
A_{\bar w} &= A^\infty_{\bar w} + O(|z|^{\rho}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The terms with an $\infty$ superscript are constants.
Note that the notation is chosen here with a different convention in real or complex coordinates. Indeed, we write $\nabla_{\bar z}=\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\bar z} + A_{\bar z} $ while we write $\nabla_{\mu}=\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\mu} + iA_{\mu}$ (notice the absence/presence of $i$).
We now want to show that this semiconnection is (complex) gauge equivalent locally in a neighbourhood of $z=0, w=0$ to $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\bar z} &= \frac{1}{2} \frac{A^\infty_\mu}{\bar z} ,\label{normalised} \\
A_{\bar w} &= 0.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
We follow the ideas of Biquard and Jardim [@biquardjardim] (and ultimately from [@Biquard-caslogarithmique Section 9]), and consider first the planes $w = $ constant. One wants to find a gauge transformation $ g (z)= 1+u(z,\bar z)$, with $u$ smooth away from $z= 0$ such that $u/|z|$ is bounded. Writing $A_{\bar z}$ in Equation (\[untransformed\]) as $$A_{\bar z} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{A^\infty_\mu}{\bar z} + a,$$ and applying $g$ to it, we want $$\label{eqn:for u complicated}
(1+u)\Bigl(\frac{1}{2} \frac{A^\infty_\mu}{\bar z} + a \Bigr)- \frac{\partial u}{\partial \bar z} = \Bigl(\frac{1}{2} \frac{A^\infty_\mu}{\bar z}\Bigr)(1+u),$$ or equivalently $\nabla_{\bar z}={\partial}_{\bar z}+\frac12\frac{A_\mu^\infty}{\bar z}$ in the new gauge. Let $$\bar \partial_{A^\infty_\mu}(u) := \frac{\partial u}{\partial \bar z} + [ \frac{1}{2} \frac{A^\infty_\mu}{\bar z},u].$$ We note, as do [@biquardjardim p. 354], that if $r^2(z) = z\bar z$, then for a matrix valued function $u$, $$\bar \partial_{A^\infty_\mu}(u) = r^{-A^\infty_\mu}\Bigl(\bar \partial\bigl(r^{A^\infty_\mu}\cdot u\cdot r^{-A^\infty_\mu}\bigr)\Bigr)r^{A^\infty_\mu}.$$ Equation can be written simply as $$\label{eqn:elliptic eqn for u}
\bar \partial_{A^\infty_\mu}(u) = ua +a.$$
A similar conjugation then holds for the Cauchy operators. The Cauchy operators provide inverses, at least for $C^1$ functions, but even here in our singular cases, as we now establish. Let ${\chi}\colon {\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}$ be a non-negative smooth function which is $1$ on $B(0,\frac R2)$ and $0$ outside $B(0, \frac 78R)$. We consider the operators $$\begin{aligned}
K(f)(\zeta) &:= \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}\frac{ f }{z-\zeta}dz\wedge d\bar z,\\
\hat K &:= {\chi}K\circ {\chi},\\
C(f) (\zeta) &= K(f)(\zeta) - K(f)(0),\\
\hat C &:= {\chi}C\circ {\chi}.\end{aligned}$$ These operator acts on scalar functions or on matrix valued functions $f$ by acting on each matrix entry $f_{ij}$ separately. Let $LT(f)$ denotes the lower triangular part of the matrix $f$. We set $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde K(f)(\zeta) &:= \hat K(f)(\zeta) -\hat K( LT(f))(0), \text{ and }\notag\\
\widetilde K_{A^\infty_\mu}(f) &:= r^{-A^\infty_\mu} \widetilde K({r^{A^\infty_\mu}fr^{-A^\infty_\mu}})r^{ A^\infty_\mu}.\label{eqn:Ktilde}\end{aligned}$$
On the smaller set $B(0,\frac R2)$, we have $\bar \partial_{A^\infty_\mu}\circ \widetilde K_{A^\infty_\mu}(f) = f$. We want to solve $$\label{eqn:def u implicit}
u = \widetilde K_{A^\infty_\mu} (ua +a).$$ While it could be prudent to carry $R$ along in our definitions (for instance, $\chi_R$, $\hat K_R$), we avoid doing so and the useful value of $R$ is determined by Lemma \[lemma:contraction\] below.
The strategy to solve this equation is to introduce the operator $$T(u):=\widetilde K_{A^\infty_\mu} (ua +a),$$ find an appropriate weighted Sobolev space domain for $T$ where it is a contraction, and show that the fixed point is smooth using elliptic regularity.
For $X\subset {\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}$ (and $X={\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}$ when omitted), consider the following norms $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|_{W^{\infty}_\alpha(X)}&:=\sup_{z\in X}\left||z|^{-\alpha}f(z)\right|,\\
\|f\|_{W^{1,\infty}_\alpha(X)}&:= \|f\|_{W^\infty_\alpha(X)}+\|df\|_{W^\infty_{\alpha-1}(X)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the $df$ in the second definition can be a weak derivative. Consider the function spaces $$\begin{aligned}
W^{\infty}_{\alpha}(X) =W^{0,\infty}_{\alpha}(X) &:=\{f\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\mid \|f\|_{W^{\infty}_{\alpha}}<\infty\},\\
W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}(X) &:=\{f\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\mid df\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\text{ and }\|f\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}}<\infty\},\\
W^{k,\infty}_{c,\alpha}(X)&:=\{f\in W^{k,\infty}_{\alpha}(X)\mid \exists R\text{ s.t. }f(x)=0\text{ for }|x|>R\},\\
W^{k,\infty}_{R,\alpha}(X)&:=\{f\in W^{k,\infty}_{\alpha}(X)\mid f(x)=0\text{ for }|x|>R\},\\
\widetilde W^{k,\infty}_{R,\alpha}&:=\text{closure of }C^1({\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}\setminus\{0\})\text{ in }W^{k,\infty}_{R,\alpha}({\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}).\end{aligned}$$
**Remarks:**
1. Because of the introduction of weights, the $k$ in the standard notation $L^p_k$ could be interpreted both as a weight or as the number of weak derivative considered. This issue suggests that we be deliberate in our choice of notation and weights are indices while number of derivatives are exponents.
2. Elements of $W^{1,\infty}_\alpha$ are locally in $W^{1,\infty}$ hence locally Lipschitz continuous, hence in $L^p_{\mathrm{loc}}$ (not just in $L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}$). They therefore can be integrated against the Cauchy kernel.
3. The inequality $\alpha\geq \beta$ implies $W_{R,\alpha}^{k,\infty}\subset W_{R,\beta}^{k,\infty}$ and the operator norm of the inclusion is $R^{\alpha-\beta}$.
4. Multiplication by $|z|^\beta$ is an isomorphism $W^{k,\infty}_{\alpha}\to W^{k,\infty}_{\alpha+\beta}$ (and an isometry if $k=0$).
5. One should note that $W_0^\infty=L^\infty$ but $W_0^{1,\infty}\neq W^{1,\infty}$.
Let $f\in W^{1,\infty}_{c,\alpha}$. If $\alpha>-2$ then $K(f)$ converges. \[lemma:converge\]
We use the fact that, as sets, $W^{1,\infty}={\mathrm{Lip}}\subset C^0$. Set $a\in{\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}\setminus\{0\}$. Let $U_j,V_j$ be open balls centered at $0$ if $j=0$ and $a$ if $j=1$ and such that $0\in V_0\subset U_0$ and $a\in V_1\subset U_1$, and $U_0\cap U_1=\emptyset$. Let $U_2= {\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}\setminus \overline {V_0\cup V_1}$ and $V_2= {\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}\setminus \overline {U_0\cup U_1}$. Suppose $\psi_1,\psi_2,\psi_3$ is a partition of unity subordinate to the covering $U_0,U_1,U_2$ with $\psi_j|_{V_j}=1$ for $j=0,1$. Let $u_j(z):=\frac1{2\pi i}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}}\frac{(\psi_j f)(\lambda)}{\lambda-z}d\lambda\wedge d\bar\lambda$.
For $z\in V_1$, the function $\zeta\mapsto\frac{\psi_2(\zeta)f(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}$ is in $C^0_c({\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}})$. Thus $u_2(z)$ converges.
For $z\in V_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
u_1(z)&=\frac1{2\pi i}\int_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}\frac{(\psi_1f)(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}d\zeta\wedge d\bar\zeta
=\frac1{\pi}\int_{0}^\infty\int_{0}^{2\pi} (\psi_1 f)(z+re^{i\theta})e^{-i\theta}d\theta dr.\end{aligned}$$ As $(\psi_1 f)$ is $C^0$ and compactly supported, the integral converges, hence $u_1\in C^0(V_1)$, as desired.
It remains to analyze $u_0$ and to prove that $u_0$ exists. Let $U_0^\epsilon=U_0\setminus B(0,\epsilon)$ and let $u_0^\epsilon(z)=\frac1{2\pi i}\int_{U_0^\epsilon}\frac{(\psi_0f)(\lambda)}{\lambda-z}d\lambda\wedge d\bar \lambda$. For any $z\in V_1$, the integrand is in $C^0(U_0^\epsilon)$, so the integral exists. We have, by definition, that $u_0(z) = \lim_{\epsilon\to 0}u_0^\epsilon(z)$.
Let $A_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2}=\overline{B(0,\epsilon_2)}\setminus B(0,\epsilon_1)$ when $\epsilon_1<\epsilon_2$. For $z\in V_1$, the norm of the denominator is bounded below by ${\mathrm{dist}}(V_1,U_0)>0$. It is thus of no concern. Since $f(\zeta)=O(|\zeta|^\alpha)$ then for $z\in V_1$ and some constant $k$, $$\begin{aligned}
|u_0^{\epsilon_1}(z)-u_0^{\epsilon_2}(z)|&\leq \frac1{2\pi i }\int_{A_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2}}\left|\frac{(\psi_0 f)(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}\right| d\zeta\wedge d\bar\zeta
\leq\frac{2k}{{\mathrm{dist}}(V_1,U_0)}\frac{|\epsilon_1^{\alpha+2}-\epsilon^{\alpha+2}_2|}{\alpha+2}. \end{aligned}$$ Thus $u_0^{\epsilon}(z)$ is a Cauchy sequence as long as $\alpha>-2$ and therefore $u_0(z)$ exists.
\[lemma:control\] We have that
1\) if $\alpha>-2$ but $\alpha\neq -1$ then $K\colon W^\infty_{R,\alpha}\to W^\infty_{\min(\alpha+1,0)}$ is continuous,
2\) if $\alpha>-1$ but $\alpha\neq 0$ then $C\colon W^\infty_{R,\alpha}\to W^\infty_{\min(\alpha+1,1)}$ is continuous.\
Moreover, their operator norms are bounded by a constant depending only on $\alpha$ when $R\leq 1$.
Let $f\in W^{\infty}_{R,\alpha}$ and let $k:=\|f\|_{ W^{\infty}_{R,\alpha}}$. Consider first the function $C(f)(\zeta)$. For simplicity, consider the large disk $D' = B(0,3R)$. We know that $f|_{D'\setminus B(0,R)}=0$. We divide $D'$ into into few parts and estimate four integrals in turn, whose sum bounds $C(f)(\zeta)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{B(0,|\zeta|/2)} \frac{f(z)}{z-\zeta}dz\wedge d\bar z \right|&\leq \frac{k}{2\pi }\int_{B(0,|\zeta|/2)} \frac{|z|^\alpha}{ |\zeta|/2} (idz\wedge d\bar z) =\frac{k}{2^\alpha(\alpha+2)}|\zeta|^{\alpha+1}
\quad &(\forall\alpha>-2),\\
\left|\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{B(\zeta,2|\zeta|)\setminus B(0,|\zeta|/2)} \frac{f(z)}{z-\zeta}dz\wedge d\bar z \right|&\leq \frac{k\max(3^\alpha,\frac1{2^\alpha})|\zeta|^\alpha}{2\pi }\int_{B(\zeta,2|\zeta|)} \frac{idz\wedge d\bar z}{|z-\zeta|} = 4 k\max(3^\alpha,2^{-\alpha_2})|\zeta|^{\alpha+1},
\\
\left|\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{B(\zeta,2|\zeta|)} \frac{f(z)}{z}dz\wedge d\bar z \right|&\leq \frac{k}{2\pi }\int_{B(0,3|\zeta|)}|z|^{\alpha-1}(idz\wedge d\bar z)=\frac{2\cdot 3^{\alpha+1}}{\alpha+1}k |\zeta|^{\alpha+1}\quad &(\forall\alpha>-1),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{D' \setminus B(0,2|\zeta|)} f(z) \bigg(\frac{1}{z-\zeta}-\frac{1}{z} \bigg)dz\wedge d\bar z\right|&\leq \frac{k|\zeta|}{2\pi }\int_{D'\setminus B(\zeta,2|\zeta|)} |z|^{\alpha-2}\biggl(\frac{|z|}{|z-\zeta|}\biggr)(idz\wedge d\bar z) \quad&\\
&\leq \frac{3k|\zeta|}{4\pi}\int_{D'\setminus B(0,|\zeta|)}|z| ^{\alpha-2} (idz\wedge d\bar z) \\
&= \frac{3k|\zeta|}{\alpha}\bigl((3R)^\alpha-|\zeta|^\alpha\bigr),\quad &(\forall \alpha\neq 0),
\\
&\leq \begin{cases}\frac{3^{\alpha+1} R^{\alpha}k}{|\alpha|}|\zeta|,& \text{ if }\alpha>0,\\
\frac{3k}{|\alpha|}|\zeta|^{\alpha+1},& \text{ if }\alpha<0.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
For the function $K(f)(\zeta)$, we have the first two integrals above, as well as a bound $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{D'\setminus B(\zeta,2|\zeta|)} \frac{f(z)}{z-\zeta}dz\wedge d\bar z\right|& \leq \frac k{2\pi} \int_{D'\setminus B(\zeta,2|\zeta|)} |z|^{\alpha-1}\biggl(\frac{|z|}{|z-\zeta|}\biggr)(idz\wedge d\bar z)\\
&\leq \frac{3k\max(R^{\alpha+1},1)}{|\alpha+1|}|\zeta|^{\min(\alpha+1,0)}\quad&(\forall\alpha\neq -1).\end{aligned}$$ The proof is now complete.
\[lemma:C1\] Let $f\in C^1({\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}\setminus\{0\})\cap W_{c,\alpha}^\infty$ for some $\alpha>-2$. Then $K(f)\in C^1({\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}\setminus\{0\})$ and $\frac{{\partial}K(f)}{{\partial}\bar z}=f$.
This result is the stated conclusion of Hörmander’s result [@Hormander Thm 1.2.2]
For all $R>0$, we have that
1\) if $\alpha>-2$ but $\alpha\not\in \{-1,0\}$ then $\hat K\colon \widetilde W^{1,\infty}_{R,\alpha}\to \widetilde W^{1,\infty}_{R,\min(\alpha+1,0)}$ is continuous,
2\) if $\alpha>-1$ but $\alpha\neq 0$, then $\hat C \colon \widetilde W^{1,\infty}_{R,\alpha}\to \widetilde W^{1,\infty}_{R,\min(\alpha+1,1)}$ is continuous.\
Moreover, their operator norms are bounded by a constant depending only on $\alpha$ when $R\leq 1$.
That the target spaces are set correctly is guaranteed by Lemma \[lemma:C1\], we just need to see continuity. Suppose now that $f\in C^1({\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}\setminus\{0\})\cap W^{1,\infty}_{R,\alpha}$ and that $k=\|f\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}}$. We use the same notation as in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:C1\].
The control on the $W^{\infty}_{\min(\alpha+1,0)}$-norm of $C(f)$ and $\hat K(f)$ comes from Lemma \[lemma:control\]. We now tackle the derivative at the point $a$. We assume that $|\xi|=1$. We take $$\begin{aligned}
V_0&=B(0,\frac{|a|}4),&U_0&= B(0,\frac{|a|}3),&
V_1&=B(a,\frac{|a|}4),&U_1&= B(a,\frac{|a|}3).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\tilde\psi$ be a bump function supported on $B(0,\frac13)$ and equal to $1$ on $B(0,\frac14)$. Suppose that $C=\sup |d\tilde\psi|$. Then let $\psi_0(z)=\tilde\psi(\frac z{|a|})$ and $\psi_1(z)=\tilde\psi(\frac{z-a}{|a|})$. Then $|(D_\xi\psi_0)(z)|=\frac1{|a|} |(D_\xi\tilde\psi)(\frac{z}{|a|})|\leq \frac{C}{|a|}$ and $|(D_\xi\psi_1)(z)|=\frac1{|a|} |(D_\xi\tilde\psi)(\frac{z-a}{|a|})|\leq \frac{C}{|a|}$, thus $|(D_\xi\psi_2)(z)|\leq \frac{2C}{|a|}$ as $\psi_2=1-\psi_0-\psi_1$. We thus get that $$|d(\psi_if)(z)|\leq |\psi_i(z)df(z)+f(z)d\psi_i(z)|\leq (1+2C\frac{|z|}{|a|})k|z|^{\alpha-1}.$$
We have $$\begin{aligned}
|D_\xi u_0(a)|&=\lim_{h\to 0}\left|\frac{\xi}{2\pi i}\int_{U_0}\frac{(\psi_0f)(\zeta)}{(\zeta-a-h\xi)(\zeta-a)} d\zeta d\bar\zeta\right|\\
&\leq \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{2k}{(\alpha+2)3^{\alpha+2}}\frac{{\mathrm{radius}}(U_0)^{\alpha+2}}{{\mathrm{dist}}(V_1,U_0)^2}\leq \frac{18}{(\alpha+2)3^{\alpha+2}}k|a|^\alpha.\end{aligned}$$
We can have $D_\xi(\psi_1f)(a+re^{i\theta})\neq 0$ when $a+re^{i\theta}\in U_1= B(a,\frac{|a|}3)\subset B(0,2|a|)$, so only when $\frac{|a|}2\leq |a+re^{i\theta}|\leq 2|a|$. Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
|D_\xi u_1(a)|&\leq\frac1\pi \int_0^\infty \int_0^{2\pi} |D_\xi(\psi_1f)(a+re^{i\theta})e^{-i\theta}| d\theta dr\\
&\leq \frac{(1+2C) 2^{|\alpha-1|}}{3}k|a|^\alpha.\end{aligned}$$
For $\lambda\in U_2$, we have $|a-\lambda|\geq \frac{|a|}{4}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
u_2(z) &= \frac1{2\pi i}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}} \frac{(\psi_2f)(z+\zeta)}{\zeta} d\zeta d\bar \zeta,\end{aligned}$$ thus $$(D_\xi u_2)(a)
= \frac1{2\pi i}\int_{-a+U_2} \frac{D_\xi(\psi_2f)(a+\zeta)}{\zeta} d\zeta d\bar \zeta.$$ First note that $a+\zeta\in U_2$ implies that $|a+\zeta|\leq 5 |\zeta|$. Since moreover $U_2\subset B(0,|a|/4)^c$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|(D_\xi u_2)(a)|
&\leq \frac{10k(1+2C)}{2\pi} \int_{-a+U_2}|a+\zeta|^{\alpha-2}dxdy\\
&\leq \frac{10k(1+2C)}{2\pi}\int_{B(0,R)\setminus B(0,\frac{|a|}4)}|\zeta|^{\alpha-2}dxdy\\
&\leq \begin{cases} \frac{10(1+2C)}{|\alpha|4^\alpha}k|a|^\alpha,&\text{ if }\alpha\in (-2,0),\\ \frac{10(1+2C)R^\alpha}{\alpha}k,&\text{ if }\alpha>0.\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Using this information and Lemma \[lemma:control\], we find for $\alpha\in(-2,\infty)\setminus\{-1,0\}$ a constant $c_{R,\alpha}$ such that $$\|K(f)\|_{W^\infty_{\min(0,\alpha)}}\leq c_{R,\alpha}\|f\|_{W^{\infty}_{\alpha}}\quad \text{ and }\quad \|d(K(f))\|_{W^\infty_{\min(0,\alpha)}}\leq c_{R,\alpha}\|f\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}}.$$ Moreover, $c_{R,\alpha}\leq c_{1,\alpha}$ if $R\leq 1$. Overall, we get that, if $f\in W^{1,\infty}_\alpha$ then $d(K(f))\in W^\infty_{\min(0,\alpha)}$. To prove the lemma, we need $d( K(f))\in W^\infty_{\min(0,\alpha+1)-1}=W^\infty_{\min(-1,\alpha)}$. By introducing the cut off function ${\chi}$ in the definition of $\hat K$, we can land in the right target space. Let $c'_{R,\alpha}$ be the operator norm of the inclusion $W^\infty_{\min(0,\alpha)}\subset W^{\infty}_{\min(-1,\alpha)}$. We get $$\begin{aligned}
\|d(\hat K(f))\|_{W^\infty_{\min(0,\alpha+1)-1}}&=\|d(\hat K(f))\|_{W^\infty_{\min(-1,\alpha)}}\\
&\leq c'_{R,\alpha}\|d(\hat K(f))\|_{W^\infty_{\min(0,\alpha)}} \leq c'_{R,\alpha}c_{R,\alpha}\|f\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}}, \end{aligned}$$ hence $\|\hat{K}(f)\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\min(0,\alpha)}}\leq c'_{R,\alpha}c_{R,\alpha}\|f\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}}$.
Note that $c'_{R,\alpha}=R$ if $\alpha>0$, $c'_{R,\alpha}=R^{\alpha+1}$ if $\alpha\in (-1,0)$, and $c'_{R,\alpha}=1$ if $\alpha\in(-2,-1)$. So certainly $c'_{R,\alpha}\leq 1$ for $R\leq 1$.
The treatment of $C$ is easier. If $\alpha>-1$ but $\alpha\neq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|d(C(f))\|_{W^{\infty}_{\min(1,\alpha+1)-1}}&= \|d(K(f))\|_{W^{\infty}_{\min(0,\alpha)}}
\leq c_{R,\alpha}\|f\|_{W_\alpha^{1,\infty}},\end{aligned}$$ hence $\|C(f)\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\min(1,\alpha)}}\leq c_{R,\alpha}\|f\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}}$.
For conceptual convenience, let’s drop the superscript $\pm$ on the $\theta_i^\pm$. Since for the moment we deal with the behaviour at $s=\infty$, let $\theta_i=\theta_i^+$. Let $\mathrm{gaps}:=\{|\theta_i-\theta_j|\mid \theta_i\neq \theta_j\}$. Let $\theta^{min}_{gap}:=\min \mathrm{gaps}$ and $\theta^{max}_{gap}:=\max \mathrm{gaps}$. For any $\alpha$, let $$\hat\alpha=\min(\alpha+1,\theta_{gap}^{min},1-\theta_{gap}^{max}).$$
\[cor:controlf\] Suppose $\alpha\in \Bigl((-1,0)\cup (0,\infty)\Bigr)\setminus \Bigl(\pm\mathrm{gaps}\cup (\mathrm{gaps}-1)\Bigr)$. Then for matrix valued functions, $\widetilde K_{A^\infty_\mu}\colon \widetilde W^{1,\infty}_\alpha\to \widetilde W^{1,\infty}_{\hat\alpha}$ is continuous.
We check on the various components. Note that $$\bigl(\widetilde{K}_{A^\infty_\mu}(f)\bigr)_{ij}
=\begin{cases} |z|^{\theta_j-\theta_i}\hat C(|z|^{\theta_i-\theta_j}f_{ij}),& \text{ if }j\leq i,\\
|z|^{\theta_j-\theta_i}\hat K(|z|^{\theta_i-\theta_j}f_{ij}),& \text{ if }i<j.
\end{cases}$$
Suppose first that $0\leq \theta_j\leq \theta_i\leq 1$. Then $\alpha+\theta_i-\theta_j>-1$. We use here that $\alpha\not\in -\mathrm{gaps}$ and that $\alpha\neq 0$ when $\theta_i=\theta_j$. Then the commutative diagram $$\begin{diagram}
W_{\alpha}^{1,\infty}&&\rTo^{f_{ij}\mapsto (\tilde K_{A^\infty_\mu}(f))_{ij}}&&W^{1,\infty}_{\hat\alpha}\\
\dTo_{|z|^{\theta_i-\theta_j}}&&&&\uTo\\
W_{\alpha+\theta_i-\theta_j}^{1,\infty}&\rTo^{\hat C}&W_{\min(\alpha+\theta_i-\theta_j+1,1)}^{1,\infty}
&\rTo^{|z|^{\theta_j-\theta_i}}&W^{1,\infty}_{\min(\alpha+1,1+\theta_j-\theta_i)}
\end{diagram}$$ exhibits $f_{ij}\mapsto (\widetilde K_{A^\infty_\mu}(f))_{ij}$ as a composition of continuous maps.
Suppose now that $0\leq \theta_i< \theta_j\leq 1$. Then $\alpha+\theta_i-\theta_j>-2$. We use here both conditions that $\alpha\not\in \mathrm{gaps}$ and that $\alpha+1\not\in \mathrm{gaps}$. Then the commutative diagram $$\begin{diagram}
W_{\alpha}^{1,\infty}&&\rTo^{f_{ij}\mapsto (\tilde K_{A^\infty_\mu}(f))_{ij}}&&W^{1,\infty}_{\hat\alpha}\\
\dTo_{|z|^{\theta_i-\theta_j}}&&&&\uTo\\
W_{\alpha+\theta_i-\theta_j}^{1,\infty}&\rTo^{\hat K}&W_{\min(\alpha+\theta_i-\theta_j+1,0)}^{1,\infty}
&\rTo^{|z|^{\theta_j-\theta_i}}&W^{1,\infty}_{\min(\alpha+1,\theta_j-\theta_i)}
\end{diagram}$$ exhibits $f_{ij}\mapsto (\widetilde K_{A^\infty_\mu}(f))_{ij}$ as a composition of continuous maps. The proof is now complete.
This corollary allows us to see the need to use $C$ on the lower triangular part, in view of the conjugation involved in the definition of $\tilde K$ in Equation . If one had used $K$ throughout instead of $C$, when $\theta_i>\theta_j$, the function $|z|^{\theta_j-\theta_i}K(|z|^{\theta_i-\theta_j}f_{ij})$ would have growth rate $\min(\alpha+1, \theta_j-\theta_i)<0$, so would not be bounded.
In view of solving Equation , let $Z(u)=\widetilde{K}_{A^\infty_\mu} (ua +a)$.
\[lemma:contraction\] Suppose $\alpha$ to be as in Corollary \[cor:controlf\], and suppose that $a\in W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}$. Then $Z\colon W^{1,\infty}_{R,\hat \alpha}\to W^{1,\infty}_{R,\hat \alpha}$ is continuous. Moreover, for a suitable $R<1$, this map is a contraction.
The map $$\begin{aligned}
R_a\colon W^{1,\infty}_{R,\hat\alpha}&\to W^{1,\infty}_{R,\alpha+\hat\alpha}\\
u&\mapsto ua\end{aligned}$$ is continuous with operator norm $\|R_a\|=\|a\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}}$. Since $\hat\alpha>0$, the inclusion $\iota\colon W^{1,\infty}_{R,\alpha+\hat\alpha}\to W^{1,\infty}_{R,\alpha}$ is continuous, with operator norm $\|\iota\|=R^{\hat\alpha}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
W^{1,\infty}_{R,\hat\alpha}&\to W^{1,\infty}_{R,\alpha}\\
u&\mapsto ua+a\end{aligned}$$ is continuous and therefore its composition $Z$ with the continuous map $\widetilde K_{A_\mu^\infty}\colon W^{1,\infty}_{R,\alpha}\to W^{1,\infty}_{R,\hat\alpha}$ is continuous as desired.
For $u_1,u_2\in W^{1,\infty}_{R,\hat\alpha}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|Z(u_1)-Z(u_2)\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\hat\alpha}}&=\|\tilde K_{A^{\infty}_\mu}\bigl((u_1-u_2)a\bigr)\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\hat\alpha}}\\
&\leq \|\tilde K_{A^{\infty}_\mu}\| \|\bigl((u_1-u_2)a\bigr)\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}}
\leq \|\tilde K_{A^{\infty}_\mu}\| \|\iota\| \|R_a\| \|u_1-u_2\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\hat\alpha}}\\
&=C\|u_1-u_2\|_{W^{1,\infty}_{\hat\alpha}}\end{aligned}$$ for $C=\|\widetilde K_{A^{\infty}_\mu}\| R^{\hat\alpha}\|a\|_{W^{1,\infty}_\alpha}$. By choosing $R$ small enough, we can ensure that $C<1$.
\[cor:fixed point of T\] Suppose $\alpha$ to be as in Corollary \[cor:controlf\], and suppose that $a\in W^{1,\infty}_{\alpha}$. For suitable $R<1$, guaranteed by Lemma \[lemma:contraction\], there exists $u\in \widetilde W^{1,\infty}_{\hat\alpha}$ such that $\widetilde K_{A^{\infty}}(ua+a)=u$.
There exists a smooth bounded function $u$ such that $\bar\partial_{A^\infty_\mu}u=ua+a$ on $B(0,\frac R2)$.
The candidate is of course the fixed point $u$ of $Z$ guaranteed by Corollary \[cor:fixed point of T\]. We know that on the smaller domain $B(0,\frac R2)$, the function $u$ is a $\widetilde W^{1,\infty}_{\hat\alpha}$ solution to Equation .
We now observe $u$ in a compact ball $B\subset B(0,\frac R2)$ away from the singularity. We have $u\in W^{1,\infty}(B)\subset W^{1,2}(B)$. Since $u$ solves the elliptic equation , we can bootstrap and obtain that $u$ is smooth on $B$.
Thus, we have the desired gauge transformation on each disk $w$ = constant; but then, it is straightforward to make this solution into a parametrised version (parametrised by $w$) and find the desired gauge given in Equation .
From this gauge, which is asymptotic to a unitary gauge, and in which the $\bar\partial$-operator is in a standard form $\nabla_{\bar z}={\partial}_{\bar z}+\frac12\frac{A^\infty_\mu}{\bar z}$, one can pass to a holomorphic gauge where $\nabla_{\bar z}={\partial}_{\bar z}$ by a gauge transformation $$\label{unitary-to-holomorphic}g = {\mathrm{diag}}(r^{\theta_1 },r^{\theta_2},\ldots, r^{\theta_n}).$$ We use this $g$ as a clutching function to extend the bundle over $z=0$.
We can now check that the bundle we have produced has the required properties stipulated in Theorem \[thm1\]. A first remark is that this (complex) gauge transformation preserves the connection in the $w$-direction, and so the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ one obtains over $z=0$ is the one given by the operator $\bar \partial_w + A^\infty_{\bar w}$; by our hypothesis, this restricted bundle is a sum of distinct line bundles $L_{t_i^{*,+}}$, and so ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ does indeed have the structure we want over infinity. Secondly, the growth rates of unitary sections in a holomorphic basis as one approaches $z=0$ define a flag ${{\mathcal{E}}}_1\subset {{\mathcal{E}}}_2\subset \cdots\subset {{\mathcal{E}}}_n$ in ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ over $z=0$. The flatness at infinity of our original connection (the matrices $ A^\infty_\mu, A^\infty_\psi, A^\infty_\phi$ commute), referring to the ordering of the ${t_i^{*,+}}$, tells us that this flag coincides with the filtration $L_{t_1^{*,+}}\subset L_{t_1^{*,+}}\oplus L_{t_2^{*,+}}\subset \cdots $, so that the flag is in essence an ordering of the line bundles $L_{t_i^{*,+}}$.
Now repeat all of this game at the other end of the cylinder, at $s= -\infty$; one has opposite signs on the decay rates. We note that the determinant of ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ instanton, decaying at infinity, and so is flat. From the boundary conditions at infinity, one already knows that the first Chern class on the tori is trivial. One can choose a basis along the cylinder so that the connection on the determinant bundle is given by $\nabla_r = \partial_r, \nabla_\theta =\partial_\theta + i\sum_j \theta_j^+ = \partial_\theta + i\sum_j \theta_j^-$, so that $\sum_i\theta_i^+ =\sum_i\theta_i^-$. Referring to the construction of the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$, one then has that $\det({{\mathcal{E}}})$ is trivial. We note that one can have other choices of trivialisations at the ends, essentially shifting some of the $\theta_i^\pm$ by integers. This shift corresponds to taking a Hecke transform of the bundle along $z=0$, or $z=\infty$. Independently of choices, however, one has ${\mathrm{sl}}_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}) = 0$.
There remains the question of stability. One wants to investigate the integral of the trace of curvature of subbundles. Indeed, as for example in [@biquardjardim Eqn. (45)], this quantity is the parabolic degree, the topological degree being the sum of the curvature integral (the parabolic degree) and a parabolic correction due in essence to the singular nature of the transition function (\[unitary-to-holomorphic\]). Thus to show stability in our case, we want the curvature integral for a subsheaf on our cylinder to be negative. This negativity follows as in Lübke and Teleman [@Lubke-Teleman]; the presence of an ASD connection implies that the curvature of a subbundle must have negative or zero integral. If the degree of the bundle restricted to the elliptic curves is negative, then the total curvature is negative, as our cylinder is of infinite length, and so this case is automatic; on the other hand, on the elliptic curves near the ends and so generically, the only possibility for a subbundle of positive or zero degree of $E$, which is a sum of line bundles of degree zero, is for the subbundle to be a sum of a subset of these line bundles, and so of zero degree when restricted to the elliptic curves; the curvature integral then in essence measures the (parabolic) degree in the ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$ direction.
Stable holomorphic bundle to instanton
---------------------------------------
Let us now examine the inverse problem, that of starting with a holomorphic bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$, with a decomposition ${{\mathcal{E}}}= \oplus L_{t_i^{*,\pm}}$ at $z= 0,\infty$, and producing an instanton on ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$. We suppose that the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ satisfies the conclusion of Theorem \[thm1\]: it has Chern classes $c_1({{\mathcal{E}}}) =0, c_2({{\mathcal{E}}}) = k$, it is $\theta^\pm$-stable, and is equipped with the decomposition at $z=0,\infty$ given as above by the $ L_{t_i^{*,\pm}}$.
Let ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ as above. There is a unique unitary bundle with anti-self-dual connection $(E,A)$ on ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$ with curvature of finite $L^2$-norm and trivializations near plus and minus infinity such that
- ${{\mathcal{E}}}|_{{{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}}{\cong}(E,{\bar{\partial}}_A)$,
- The connection $A$ has flat limits at plus or minus infinity : $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu =&\ \partial_\mu + iA^{\pm \infty}_\mu ,\\
\nabla_\psi =&\ \partial_\psi + iA^{\pm \infty}_\psi ,\nonumber\\
\nabla_\phi =&\ \partial_\phi + iA^{\pm \infty}_\phi ,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where the $A^{\pm \infty}$ are constant.
- The relative Chern classes of $E$ are $c_1(E)= 0, c_2(E) = k$.
Our proof of this theorem follows a well established procedure, in essence following Donaldson [@donaldson-surfaces; @Donaldson-boundary], and Simpson [@Simpson-Hodge-structures]. Others who have dealt with the question of existence for non compact varieties include Guo [@guo; @guo2], Kronheimer–Mrowka [@Mrowka-Kronheimer-1; @Kronheimer-Mrowka-embedded-Donaldson], Biquard [@Biquard-fibresparaboliquesstables], Owens [@owens], Li–Narasimhan [@Li-Narasimhan-HE-Parabolic; @Li-Narasimhan-Note-on-HE-Parabolic].
We want a connection whose $(0,1)$-part coincides with that of the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$; as we are building a Chern connection, it is then sufficient to give a metric. To get this metric, the idea is to start with a suitable initial condition, and apply a heat flow; the infinite time value gives us the desired connection. We are in a different situation from the heat flows in [@Simpson-Hodge-structures], essentially because our manifold has infinite volume. Nevertheless, many of the same techniques apply, and our proof follows Simpson’s closely.
[*An initial condition.* ]{} For the bundle $E$, we restrict the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ to the cylinder ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$. Let us now consider trivializations near infinity. We focus on the neighbourhood of $s= +\infty$, the case $s= -\infty$ being similar. For $s$ near infinity, the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a sum $\oplus_i L_{t_i^{*,+}(s,\mu)}$, given in suitable trivializations by flat connections with constant connection matrices $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\psi =&\ \partial_\psi + iA _\psi(s,\mu) ,\nonumber\\
\nabla_\phi =&\ \partial_\phi + iA _\phi(s,\mu) ,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with constant coefficients along the elliptic curves. On the complement of $t= +\infty$, we modify the trivialization by the inverse of the gauge transformation considered in Equation (\[unitary-to-holomorphic\]) $$g^{-1} = {\mathrm{diag}}(r^{-\theta_1^+ },r^{-\theta_2^+},\ldots, r^{-\theta_n^+}) = {\mathrm{diag}}(e^{-s\theta_1^+ },e^{-s\theta_2^+},\ldots, e^{-s\theta_n^+}).$$ This modified trivialization is the unitary trivialization that we use for our initial condition. The corresponding Chern connection is $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu =&\ \partial_\mu + iA^{\pm \infty}_\mu ,\nonumber\\
\nabla_\psi =&\ \partial_\psi + iA _\psi(s,\mu) ,\nonumber\\
\nabla_\phi =&\ \partial_\phi + iA _\phi(s,\mu) ,\nonumber\\
\nabla_s =&\ \partial_s.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
We note that the holomorphic types and so the connection matrices $ iA _\psi(s,\mu), iA _\phi(s,\mu)$ decay at an exponential rate in $s$ to their limits at infinity. Do the same in a neighbourhood of $s= -\infty$, and choose a metric on a compact region $[-R,R]\times S^1\times T^2$, and patch the three metrics together using a partition of unity. The metric obtained is be our initial value $H^0$ of the metric which we use for the heat flow. Implicit in our choices is a homotopy class of trivialisations at infinity, and this fixes the relative Chern classes of the bundle.
[*Solving the heat equation on finite spatial intervals $[-R,R]$, for all positive times $t$.* ]{} Given a Hermitian metric $H$, let $F_H$ be the curvature of the Chern connection, and $\Lambda F_H^\perp$ be its Kähler component. Following Simpson [@Simpson-Hodge-structures], and Donaldson [@Donaldson-boundary] one solves the heat flow for the metric $$\label{eqn:heatflow}
H^{-1} \frac{dH}{dt} = - \sqrt{-1}\Lambda F_H^\perp.$$ The proof of Simpson ([@Simpson-Hodge-structures Section 6]) goes through verbatim. One starts with a compact spatial interval $s\in [-R,R]$; Simpson shows that Equation can be solved for all time $t$ with either Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions, obtaining a flow $H_R(t)$ for $t\in[0,\infty)$. Simpson shows that $\sup(|\Lambda F_H^\perp|)$ decays in $t$; Donaldson shows in addition that it decays exponentially. There are two maximum principles for the theory of instanton heat flow which are of great use. The first is on the functional $\sigma(H_1, H_2)$, a pseudo-distance between metrics; the second is on the quantity $|\Lambda F|$. Both are subharmonic on solutions, and so the maximum is reached either at the boundary of the manifold, or in the initial conditions.
[*Solving the heat equation on the full space ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$.*]{} Again, following Simpson, Proposition 6.6 verbatim, one can solve the heat equation on the full space ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$, as a limit of the $H_R$; the solution is bounded on finite time intervals. (For his lemma 6.7, one can use the function $s^2$.) Let us call the solution $H$.
[*Convergence and stability*]{}. One then must ask what happens as the time $t$ goes to infinity to our solution $H$. Let us concentrate on a large interval $s\in [-R,R]$. Again following [@Simpson-Hodge-structures Sections 5 and 7], one can define the Donaldson functional $M(H^0, H(t))$; it decreases along the flow, and indeed satisfies $$\frac{d}{dt} M(H^0, H(t)) = -\int_{[-R,R]\times S^1\times T} |\Lambda F_{H(t)}^\perp|^2_{H(t)}.$$ If $M(H^0, H(t))$ is unbounded below, one has, as in [@Simpson-Hodge-structures Section 5], writing $H(t)$ as $H^0\exp (h(t))$, a subsequence $t_i$ such that $h(t_i)$ converges, after rescaling to unit norm, to a limit $u$ whose (constant) eigenspaces allow one to define a projection onto a holomorphic subbundle $E'$ of positive degree. The degree here is the one given by the curvature integral, that is, the parabolic degree. This projector is invariant in $R$. One now has one of three possibilities:
1\) The subbundle has negative degree when restricted to the tori $\{(s,\mu)\}\times T$. Hence the norm of the curvature on each $\{(s,\mu)\}\times T$ is bounded below uniformly, and so the limiting connection has $L^p$ norm bounded below by a constant times $R$. As all our constructions involve limits with uniform bounds in $L^p$, this situation cannot occur. 2) The subbundle has zero degree when restricted to the tori $\{(s,\mu)\}\times T$. For $s$ large, the subbundle is basically a uniform choice $\oplus_{i\in I^+} L_{t_i^{*,+}(s,\mu)}$ for a subset $I^+$ of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$, and so the subbundle extends to infinity in a uniform way. By stability, the parabolic degree of the bundle would then have to be zero or negative, a contradiction 3) The subbundle has positive degree when restricted to the tori $\{(s,\mu)\}\times T$. This case is impossible, as the bundle would have to map in a non-zero way to $\oplus_i L_{t_i^{*,+}(s,\mu)}$.
One then has, as in [@Simpson-Hodge-structures Section 7], that the Donaldson functional is bounded below on ${[-R,R]\times S^1\times T}$, and so there is a subsequence of $t_i$ with $|\Lambda F_{H(t_i)}^\perp|^2_{H(t_i)}$ tending to zero. Elliptic theory then gives a smooth limit, solving the Hermite–Einstein equation.
The bottom horizontal arrows: Fourier–Mukai transforms {#sec:FourierMukai}
======================================================
Correspondences between sheaves
-------------------------------
We now consider the bottom row of our sets of equivalent data. It is associated to the diagram
&&[$\mathdj {P}$]{}\^1T T\^\*\
&\
[$\mathdj {P}$]{}\^1T &&&& [$\mathdj {P}$]{}\^1T\^\* &\_& T\^\*.
For $a\in{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$, let $D_a$ be the divisor $\{a\}\times T^*$ on $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$; the $D_a$ are all linearly equivalent.
We relate the items on the bottom row of Diagram :
1. Pairs $({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho) $ on $ T^*$, consisting of a holomorphic vector bundle ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ and a meromorphic section $\rho$ of its automorphism bundle. We write ${\mathrm{ch}}({{{\mathcal{F}}}}) = k + \ell [\omega_{T^*}] $ (so that it has rank $k$, degree $\ell$) and ask that the determinant of the automorphism $\rho$ has zeroes at $n$ points $t^{*,+}_j$, and poles at $n$ other points $t^{*,-}_j$. We assume that these singularities are simple, in the sense that there exists $g_j$, $h_j$ holomorphic and invertible matrix valued functions such that $\rho$ has the local form $g_j(t-t_j^{*,+}){\mathrm{diag}}((t-t_j^{*,+}),1,1,\ldots,1)h_j(t-t_j^{*,+})$ at $t_j^{*,+}$ and the form $g_j(t-t_j^{*,-}){\mathrm{diag}}((t-t_j^{*,-})^{-1},1,1,\ldots,1)h_j(t-t_j^{*,-})$ at $t_j^{*,-}$; $\rho$ is invertible everywhere else.
We focus on a case of interest to us, when $\ell = n$; in addition, we ask that the sheaves be $\widehat\theta^\pm$-stable, in the sense of section 2; the slope ${\mathrm{sl}}_{\widehat\theta^\pm}({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$ is then zero.
2. Sheaves ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ on $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$, supported on a curve $C$ in the linear system $[kT^* + n{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1]$. The Chern character of ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is $${\mathrm{ch}}({{{\mathcal{K}}}})= n[\omega_{T^*}] + k [\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}] + (\ell-n)[\omega_{T^*}\wedge \omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}].$$ The curve $C$ intersects each $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times \{t^*\}$ in a discrete set of points; it intersects $\{0\}\times T^*$ in the $n$ points $t^{*,+}_j$, and $\{\infty \}\times T^*$ in the $n$ other points $t^{*,-}_j$, all with multiplicity one. In the neighbourhood of $\{0,\infty \}\times T^*$, the curve $C$ is reduced and intersects $\{0,\infty \}\times T^*$ transversely; the sheaf ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is a line bundle over the curve near these points.
Again, we focus on the case $\ell = n$. We define a $\widehat\theta^\pm$-degree for $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})$ , and its subobjects $(C', {{{\mathcal{K}}}}')$; for the pair $(C', {{{\mathcal{K}}}}')$, with $C'$ intersecting $z= 0,\infty$ in $n'$ points, and ${\mathrm{ch}}({{{\mathcal{K}}}}') = k'[\omega_{T^*}] + n' [\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}] + (\ell'-n') [\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}\wedge \omega_{T^*}]$ the degree becomes $$\delta^{T^*}_{\widehat\theta^\pm}(C',{{{\mathcal{K}}}}') = \ell' - \sum_{t_i^{*,+}\in C'\cap \{z=0\}} \!\!\! \!\!\! \widehat\theta_i^+ \quad + \sum_{t_i^{*,-}\in C'\cap \{z=\infty\}} \!\!\! \!\!\! \widehat\theta_i^-.$$ The pair $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})$ has $\widehat\theta^\pm$-degree zero; it is stable when there is no subobject $(C',{{{\mathcal{K}}}}')$ with positive or zero $\widehat\theta$-degree. We ask that the pair be stable.
3. Bundles ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ on $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$, such that for all $t^*\in T^*$, there is no non-trivial map for generic $a\in {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$ from $L_{t^*}$ to ${{\mathcal{E}}}|_{\{a\}\times T}$. The Chern character of ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is $n +(\ell-n)[\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}] - k [\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}\wedge \omega_T]$. Over $\{0\}\times T$, the bundle decomposes as the holomorphic sum of degree zero line bundles $\oplus_j L_{t^{*,+}_j}$ over $\{\infty\}\times T$, it decomposes as $\oplus_j L_{t^{*,+}_1}$.
Again, we focus on the case for which $\ell-n= 0$, so that ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ has first Chern class zero. One has a notion of parabolic degree, for subbundles ${{\mathcal{E}}}'$ of ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ which are of rank $n'$, first Chern class $d[\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}]$, and so of first Chern class zero on the $\{a\}\times T$. These must also be sums $\oplus_{j\in J^+({{\mathcal{E}}}')}L_{t^{*,+}_j}$ at $a= 0$, and $\oplus_{j\in J^-({{\mathcal{E}}}')}L_{t^{*,-}_j}$ at $a=\infty$, and we set, for our parabolic degree $$\delta_{ \theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}') = d -\sum_{j\in J^+({{\mathcal{E}}}')} { \theta}^+_i + \sum_{j\in J^-({{\mathcal{E}}}')} { \theta}^-_i.,$$ as in Equation . One has $\delta_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}) = 0.$ Again, one asks that the bundle be stable, in the sense that any subbundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}'$ must have $\delta_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}') < 0.$
The aim of this section is to show the following theorem.
\[holomorphic-equivalences\] These three types of object are equivalent, that is they are related by bijective transforms, under the hypotheses of degree and stability that we have given.
The passage from the first to the second item is a spectral curve construction and the passage from the second to the third is via a Fourier–Mukai transform.
### From pair to sheaf on spectral curve
Let $\widetilde{{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ be the subsheaf of sections $s$ of ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ such that $\rho(s)$ is holomorphic; it has degree $\ell-n$. (If ${\mathrm{rk}}{{{\mathcal{F}}}}=1$, then $\widetilde{{{\mathcal{F}}}}={{{\mathcal{F}}}}(-t_1^{*,-}-\cdots-t_n^{*,-})$.) Let $D_a$ be the divisor $\{a\}\times T^*$. There are two maps $I, \rho$ from $\psi^*\widetilde{{{{\mathcal{F}}}}}(-D_\infty)$ to $\psi^*{{{{\mathcal{F}}}}}$; the first is the inclusion, and the second is given by the automorphism $\rho$. One defines ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$ by the exact sequence $$\label{FtoK}
\begin{diagram}
0& \rTo& \psi^*\widetilde{{{{\mathcal{F}}}}}(-D_\infty)&\rTo^{\rho -z I}& \psi^*{{{{\mathcal{F}}}}}&\rTo^\pi&{{{\mathcal{K}}}}&\rTo& 0.\end{diagram}$$ The Chern character of ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is $n[\omega_{T^*}] + k [\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}] + (\ell-n)[\omega_{T^*}\wedge \omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}]$; ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is supported on the curve $C$ cut out by $\det(\rho -zI) = 0$, which lies in the linear system $k[ {T^*}] + n [ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1]$. Near the points $t_i^{ *,\pm}$, the normal form of the endomorphism $\rho$ tells us that the curve is reduced, intersects $z=0,\infty$ transversely, with ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ a line bundle near those points.
We note one feature of the curve $C$ supporting ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$, when ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is obtained as above: its fibre for the projection $C\rightarrow T^*$ is everywhere discrete. In other words, $C$ contains no “horizontal" component of the form ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times \{t^*\}$. (On the other hand, “vertical" components of the form $\{a\}\times T^*, a\neq 0,\infty$ are possible.)
Subbundles of ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ invariant under $\rho$ give directly subobjects $(C',{{{\mathcal{K}}}}')$ of $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})$, the degrees coincide, and the stability criteria are a direct translation.
### From sheaf on spectral curve to a pair
Conversely, starting out with the sheaf ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$, one sets ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}= \psi_*({{{\mathcal{K}}}})$, and, assuming $z$ is the affine coordinate of ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$, $\rho = \psi_*(\times z)$. This transform ${{\mathcal{S}}}'\colon {{{\mathcal{K}}}}\mapsto (\psi_*{{{\mathcal{K}}}},\psi_*(\times z))$ is the inverse of the spectral transform ${{\mathcal{S}}}\colon ({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)\mapsto {{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ defined by Equation , as we now prove.
First, note that $\psi^*{{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ is trivial on the ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$ fibers, so $\psi_*\psi^*{{{\mathcal{F}}}}={{{\mathcal{F}}}}$. On the other hand, $\psi^*\widetilde{{{\mathcal{F}}}}(-D_\infty)$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathcal{O}}}(-1)^{\oplus k}$ on the fibers, hence $R^i\psi_*(\psi^*\widetilde{{{\mathcal{F}}}}(-D_\infty))=0$ for all $i$. Hence applying $\psi_*$ to the exact sequence defining ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$, we obtain ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}=\psi_*{{{\mathcal{K}}}}$. Now it only remains to see that $\psi_*(\times z)=\rho$ to prove that ${{\mathcal{S}}}'\circ{{\mathcal{S}}}({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)=({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$. To prove this equation, we note that we have a commuting diagram $$\begin{diagram}
\psi^*{{{{\mathcal{F}}}}}&\rTo^\pi&{{{\mathcal{K}}}}\\
\dTo<\ \ \rho &&\dTo<\ \ z&\\
\psi^*{{{{\mathcal{F}}}}}&\rTo^\pi&{{{\mathcal{K}}}}\\
\end{diagram}$$ since $\pi\circ(\rho-zI) = 0$, and so $\pi\circ \rho = \pi \circ zI= z\pi$. But then on the pushdown, with the isomorphism given by $\pi$, we have $\psi_*(\times z)=\rho$.
Now we aim to prove that ${{\mathcal{S}}}\circ{{\mathcal{S}}}'({{{\mathcal{K}}}})={{{\mathcal{K}}}}$. Consider the sheaf ${{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}(-D_\infty)$; there are two maps of ${{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}(-D_\infty)$ into ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$; the first is simply the inclusion $i$, while the second is the multiplication by the coordinate $z$. Let $I, \rho$ respectively denote the maps that they induce on direct images: $$I, \rho\colon \psi_*({{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}(-D_\infty)) \rightarrow \psi_*{{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}.$$ Now lift back; one can define ${\widehat{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}$ by $$\begin{diagram}
0&\rTo& \psi^*\psi_*({{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}(-D_\infty))(-D_\infty) &\rTo^{(\rho-zI )}& \psi^*\psi_*{{{{\mathcal{K}}}}} &\rTo^{ev}& {\widehat{{{\mathcal{K}}}}} &\rTo& 0.
\end{diagram}$$ It is then straightforward to see that ${\widehat{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}$ is isomorphic to ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$. Indeed, we have that the evaluation/restriction map $ ev\colon \psi^*\psi_*{{{{\mathcal{K}}}}} \rTo {{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is zero on $\psi^*\psi_*({{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}(-D_\infty))(-D_\infty)$, essentially because $ev(zs) -z\ ev(s) = 0$. Thus we get a map on the quotient $\mu\colon {\widehat{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}\rTo {{{\mathcal{K}}}}$. On the other hand, pushing down the defining sequence of ${\widehat{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}$ gives an isomorphism $\psi_*{{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}\rightarrow \psi_*{\widehat {{{\mathcal{K}}}}}$, whose composition $ev_*$ with $\mu_*$ is also an isomorphism. Thus $\mu_*$ is an isomorphism on sections, which, since the support of ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is discrete on the fiber, tells us that $\mu $ is also. Thus ${{\mathcal{S}}}\circ{{\mathcal{S}}}'({{{\mathcal{K}}}})={{{\mathcal{K}}}}$.
### Fourier–Mukai: from sheaf on a curve to bundle on PxT {#sec:FM sheaf on curve to bundle}
Now consider the passage between the last two items on our list. The sheaf ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is obtained as the Fourier–Mukai transform of ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$, as follows. Let $\Delta $ be the diagonal in $T\times T^*$ obtained by the identification of ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^2$ and $({\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}^2)^*$ given by the symplectic form. Let $\eta_\Delta$ be the Poincaré dual of the homology class of $\eta$. The normalized Poincaré bundle on $T\times T^*$ is represented by the divisor $\Delta-\{p_0\}\times T^*-T\times \{p_0^*\}$ and its restriction to $T\times \{t^*\}$ is the degree zero line bundle $L_{t^*}$. Let ${{\mathcal{P}}}$ be its pullback to ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T \times T^*$, a line bundle represented by the divisor ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times (\Delta - \{p_0\}\times T^* - T \times \{p^*_0\}) $. We pull back ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T \times T^*$ and tensor it with ${{\mathcal{P}}}$. We then have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{ch}}(\pi^*_2({{{\mathcal{K}}}})\otimes{{\mathcal{P}}})&=\Bigl(n[\omega_{T^*}]+k[\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}]+(\ell-n)[\omega_{T^*}\wedge\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}]\Bigr)\Bigl(1+\eta_\Delta-[\omega_T]-[\omega_{T^*}]-[\omega_T\wedge\omega_{T^*}]\Bigr)\\
&=n[\omega_{T^*}]+k[\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}]+(\ell-n-k)[\omega_{T^*}\wedge \omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}]+k[\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}]\Bigl(\eta_\Delta-[\omega_T]\Bigr)
-k[\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}\wedge\omega_T\wedge\omega_{T^*}]\end{aligned}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
(\pi_1)_*{\mathrm{ch}}(\pi^*_2({{{\mathcal{K}}}})\otimes{{\mathcal{P}}}) = n+(\ell-n)[\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}]-k[\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}\wedge \omega_T].\end{aligned}$$
Since the relative tangent bundle of the projection $\pi_1$ is trivial, this cohomology class, by the Grothendieck–Riemann–Roch theorem, is the Chern character of $(\pi_1)_!(\pi_2^*({{{\mathcal{K}}}})\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}})$; there remains the problem of representing this element derived category by a single locally free sheaf.
Under the hypotheses governing $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})$, the sheaf $R^1 (\pi_1)_*(\pi_2^*({{{\mathcal{K}}}})\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}}) =0$, and so $(\pi_1)_!(\pi_2^*({{{\mathcal{K}}}})\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}})= (\pi_1)_*(\pi_2^*({{{\mathcal{K}}}})\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}})$.
When $C$ has no components of the form $\{a\}\times T^*$, this proposition is straightforward: the fiber of the map consists of discrete points, possibly with multiplicity, and there is no $H^1$. One then has $(\pi_1)_!(\pi_2^*({{{\mathcal{K}}}})\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}})= (\pi_1)_*(\pi_2^*({{{\mathcal{K}}}})\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}})$ which we then set to be ${{\mathcal{E}}}$; the spaces of sections over the fibers have constant rank, and so ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is locally free.
One must now deal with the case when there are components of $C$ of the form $\{a\}\times T^*$, if they exist; this can only occur, by our hypotheses, if $a\neq 0,\infty$. The argument is local over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$, so one may assume that there is a unique such vertical component.
We have just seen that the datum of $({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$ is equivalent to that of ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$. We note that the (generalized) eigenspace associated to $a$ can be “isolated” into a subsheaf: indeed, consider the sheaf ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}_a$ defined as the kernel of $(\rho-a{\mathbf{I}})^m$, for a power $m$ large enough for it to stabilise.
One then has a diagram on ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$:
$$\begin{diagram}
0&\rTo&\psi^*\widetilde{{{\mathcal{F}}}}_a(-D_\infty)&\rTo &\psi^*\widetilde{{{\mathcal{F}}}}(-D_\infty)&\rTo&\psi^*\widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}_a&\rTo&0\\
&&\dTo<\ \ (\rho-z{\mathbf{I}})&&\dTo<\ \ (\rho-z{\mathbf{I}})&&\dTo&&\\
0&\rTo&\psi^*{{{\mathcal{F}}}}_a&\rTo & \psi^*{{{\mathcal{F}}}}&\rTo&\psi^*{{\mathcal{Q}}}_a&\rTo&0\\
&&\dTo&&\dTo&&\dTo&&\\
0&\rTo&{{{\mathcal{K}}}}_a&\rTo & {{{\mathcal{K}}}}&\rTo&{{\mathcal{L}}}_a&\rTo&0\\
\end{diagram}$$
Here the last row are the cokernels of the maps $\rho-z{\mathbf{I}}$; the sheaf $ {{{\mathcal{K}}}}_a$ is supported over $D_a=\{a\}\times T^*$; the sheaf ${{\mathcal{L}}}_a$ is supported on a curve $C'$ which near $D_a$ has discrete fibers over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$.
We want to show that $R^1(\pi_1)_*(\pi_2^*{{{\mathcal{K}}}}\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}})=0$. It suffices to show that $H^1(D_A, {{{\mathcal{K}}}}\otimes L) = 0$ for any line bundle $L$ of degree zero. One has over $D_a$ that $ {{{\mathcal{K}}}}= {{{\mathcal{F}}}}/ (\rho-a{\mathbf{I}})(\widetilde{{{\mathcal{F}}}})$. In turn, $(\rho-a{\mathbf{I}})(\widetilde{{{\mathcal{F}}}})$ is a subsheaf of ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$, and completes to a $\rho$-invariant subbundle ${\mathcal{I}}$ of ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ of the same rank (invariant in the sense that $\rho({\mathcal{I}}\cap \widetilde{{{\mathcal{F}}}})\subset {\mathcal{I}}$); ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ then maps to a bundle $\widetilde{{{\mathcal{K}}}}= {{{\mathcal{F}}}}/{\mathcal{I}}$ of the same rank, essentially quotienting out torsion. It suffices that $H^1( \{a\}\times T^*, \widetilde{{{\mathcal{K}}}}\otimes L) = 0$.
This vanishing then follows from stability. Indeed:
Let $$\begin{diagram}[size=1.5em]
0&\rTo& {\mathcal{I}}&\rTo & {{{\mathcal{F}}}}&\rTo& \widetilde {{{\mathcal{K}}}}&\rTo&0
\end{diagram}$$ be our sequence of $\rho$-invariant bundles. Then $H^1(\{a\}\times T^*, \widetilde{{{\mathcal{K}}}}\otimes L)=0$ for any line bundle $L$ of degree zero.
This vanishing can be seen to follow from the stability of $({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$, or, what is equivalent, the stability of $({{{\mathcal{F}}}}^*,\rho^*)$. We note that $H^1(T^*, \widetilde{{{\mathcal{K}}}}\otimes L)$ is dual to $H^0(T^*, \widetilde{{{\mathcal{K}}}}^*\otimes L^*)$; the bundle $ \widetilde{{{\mathcal{K}}}}^*\otimes L^*$ is an invariant subbundle of ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}^*\otimes L^*$, and the weights on this bundle are all zero, as the sheaf $\widetilde{{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is associated to the eigenvalue $a\neq 0, \infty$. Thus the degree of $ \widetilde{{{\mathcal{K}}}}^*$ for stability is the ordinary degree, and must be negative; the same holds for any invariant subbundle. On the other hand, a section of $\widetilde{{{\mathcal{K}}}}^*\otimes L^*$ would give a subsheaf of positive or zero degree; it might not be invariant, but iterating $\rho^*$ on it gives a map, generically an isomorphism, from a bundle of zero degree to an invariant subbundle of $ \widetilde{{{\mathcal{K}}}}^*\otimes L^*$, which would then be of non-negative degree, a contradiction.
We thus have that $(\pi_1)_!(\pi_2^*({{{\mathcal{K}}}})\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}}) = (\pi_1)_*(\pi_2^*({{{\mathcal{K}}}})\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}})$, and we set this to be ${{\mathcal{E}}}$. It is locally free, by Grauert’s theorem, as the fibers have constant rank. On $\{a\}\times T$, near $a=0,\infty$, the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a sum of line bundles of degree zero, essentially determined by the curve $C$ over $a \in {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$. In particular, over $a =0$, the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a sum $\oplus_j L_{t^{*,+}_j}$; over $\{\infty\}\times T$, it decomposes as $\oplus_j L_{t^{*,+}_1}$. As these sets of line bundles are supposed disjoint, there is no line bundle of degree zero that maps to the bundles over $a= 0,\infty$, and so for generic $a$, as promised.
### Fourier–Mukai: from bundle on PxT to a sheaf on a curve
Using results of Mukai [@FM], one has an inverse to this operation:
Suppose that over $\{0\}\times T$, the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a sum $\oplus_j L_{t^{*,-}_j}$ and that over $\{\infty\}\times T$, it decomposes as $\oplus_j L_{t^{*,-}_j}$, with these two sets of line bundles disjoint. The transform ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}\mapsto {{\mathcal{E}}}$ has as inverse: $ {{\mathcal{E}}}\mapsto R^1(\pi_{2})_*(\pi_1^*({{\mathcal{E}}})\otimes {{{\mathcal{P}}}^*})$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T\times T^* \times T$ have projections $\pi_{12}, \pi_{23},\pi_{13} $ onto ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T\times T^*$, ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*\times T$, ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T\times T$, and $\pi_{1}, \pi_{2},\pi_{3} $ onto ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T $, ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^* $, ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$.
Lifting to ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T\times T^* \times T$, and applying results of [@FM Section 2] the composition of the derived functors ${{\mathcal{E}}}\mapsto {{\mathcal}R}_*\pi_2 (\pi_1^*{{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes \pi_{12}^*{{{\mathcal{P}}}^*})$ and $K\mapsto {{\mathcal}R}_*\pi_3 (\pi_2^*K\otimes \pi_{23}^*{{\mathcal{P}}})$ is given by ${{\mathcal{E}}}\mapsto {{\mathcal}R}_*\pi_3 (\pi_1^*{{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes {{\mathcal}H})$, where $H$ is the ${{\mathcal}R}_*\pi_{13}(\pi_{12}^*{{\mathcal{P}}}\otimes \pi_{23}^*{{\mathcal{P}}})$. By the results of section 3 of the same paper, $H$ is the lift to ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T\times T$ of the structure sheaf of the diagonal $(x, x)$ in $T\times T$. We see that the derived functor in this case is concentrated in one degree (that is, on $H^1$) and so we have our sheaf.
Indeed, the inverse transform, on generic $\{a\}\times T$, essentially gives us the decomposition as a sum of line bundles. Thus, the curve $C$ over $a\in {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$ encodes the line bundles of degree zero which map non-trivially to ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ over $\{a\}\times T$, so that $C$ intersects $\{0\}\times T^*$ at the points ${t_i^{*,+}}$, counted with multiplicity, and $\{\infty\}\times T^*$ at the points ${t_i^{*,-}}$, again counted with multiplicity. The Chern character of ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ tells us that these multiplicities need to be one, since the $ {t_i^{*,+}},{t_i^{*,-}}$ are all distinct, as we have supposed. The curve $C$ is smooth and reduced near $z=0, \infty$, and the sheaf ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is of rank one over the smooth locus of $C$.
Note that if one supposes that the sets $\{t_i^{*,-}\}$, $\{t_i^{*,+}\}$ are disjoint, this precludes the possibility of vertical fibres ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times \{t^*\}$ in $C$. (In particular, if ${{\mathcal{E}}}= {{{\mathcal{E}}}'} \oplus L_{t^*_0}$, with $L_{t^*_0}$ pulled back from $T$, then the spectral curve would have a vertical component over $t^*_0$; this corresponds to adding a flat ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ connection to an instanton of rank $(n-1)$.) The fact that this decomposition is different at zero, infinity, tells us that the curve contains no lines ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times \{t^*\}$.
It also forces $H^0({\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T, {{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes L_{t^*}) = 0$, and dually, $H^2({\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T, {{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes L_{t^*}) = 0$; this then means that $H^1({\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T, {{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes L_{t^*})$ is of constant dimension in $t^*$, which forces ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ to be locally free, by Grauert’s theorem. In turn, then ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is supported on the curve $C$, with support strictly of codimension one. The Chern character of the pushdown tells us that the curve has intersection of degree $n$ on the generic $\{a\}\times T^*$, and the decompositions over $a=0,\infty$ tell us that this intersection is transverse, as advertised, with the sheaf ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ being a line bundle on the curve near $a=0,\infty$.
Summarizing, the correspondences give the relation of Chern characters:
\[tableau\]
$({{{\mathcal{F}}}}, \rho)$ ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ ${{\mathcal{E}}}$
----------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$k + \ell[\omega_{T^*}]$ $k[\omega_{T^*}] + n [\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}] + (\ell-n)[\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}\wedge \omega_{T^*}]$ $n +(\ell-n)[\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}] - k [\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}\wedge \omega_T]$
$\det(\rho)$ has $n$ poles
We recall that we are specializing to $\ell = n$.
### Correspondences between stability criteria
We have stability criteria for the first and the third types of data above. Let us see how those criteria correspond.
For the pairs $({{{\mathcal{F}}}}, \rho)$, one only considers $\rho$-invariant subsheaves ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}'$; the restriction $\rho'$ of $\rho$ to ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}'$ has a well defined determinant, which has an order ${\mathrm{ord}}_{t_i^{*,\pm}}(\det(\rho'))$ at the singularities $t_i^{*,\pm}$. If ${\mathrm{ch}}({{{{\mathcal{F}}}}}') = k' +\ell'[\omega_{T^*}]$, we define a degree $$\delta^{T^*}_{\widehat\theta^\pm}({{{\mathcal{F}}}}', \rho') = \ell' - \sum_{i} \widehat\theta_i^+ {\mathrm{ord}}_{t_i^{*,+}}(\det(\rho'))+\widehat\theta_i^- {\mathrm{ord}}_{t_i^{*,-}}(\det(\rho')),$$ and dividing by the rank $k'$, a slope. The pair is (semi-)stable if and only if for all invariant ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}'$, the slope of ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}'$ is less (resp. less than or equal to) that of ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$.
We note that the condition of invariance is quite strong. Indeed, for example, switching perspectives from $({{{\mathcal{F}}}}, \rho)$ to the associated $(C, {{{\mathcal{K}}}})$, there are no proper non-zero invariant subsheaves ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}'$ if $C$ is irreducible (it is then necessarily reduced, as it is reduced near $z=0,\infty$). More generally, if $C$ is reduced, invariant subsheaves ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}'$ are associated to components $C'$ of $C$; in particular, the order of the determinant of $\rho'$ at $t_i^{*,+}$ is in our case $0$ if $C'$ does not intersect $z=0$ at that point, and $1$ if it does; similarly, at $t_i^{*,-}$, the order of the determinant is $0$ if $C'$ does not intersect $z= \infty$ at that point, and $-1$ if it does. Thus for the pair $(C', {{{\mathcal{K}}}}')$, with $C'$ intersecting $z= a$ in $n'$ points, and ${\mathrm{ch}}({{{\mathcal{K}}}}') = k'[\omega_{T^*}] + n' [\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}] + (\ell'-n') [\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}\wedge \omega_{T^*}]$ the degree becomes $$\delta^{T^*}_{\widehat\theta^\pm}({{{\mathcal{F}}}}', \rho') = \ell' - \sum_{t_i^{*,+}\in C'\cap \{z=0\}} \widehat\theta_i^+ \quad + \sum_{t_i^{*,-}\in C'\cap \{z=\infty\}} \widehat\theta_i^-.$$
The stability condition for pairs $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})$ is simply a translation of the one for $({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$.
On the other hand, for bundles ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$, of degree zero when restricted to the $\{a\}\times T$, with ${\mathrm{ch}}({{\mathcal{E}}}) = n +(\ell-n)[\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}] - k [\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}\wedge \omega_T]$ then one has a stability condition as follows: one looks at all subbundles ${{\mathcal{E}}}'$ with ${\mathrm{ch}}({{\mathcal{E}}}') = n' +(\ell'-n')[\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}] - k' [\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}\wedge \omega_T]$. These bundles are topologically trivial over each $\{a\}\times T$, and near zero or infinity in ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$. If ${{\mathcal{E}}}|_{\{a\}\times T} = \oplus_iL_{t_i^*(a)}$, then ${{\mathcal{E}}}'|_{\{a\}\times T}$ is given by summing a subset of the $L_{t_i^*(a)}$. In other words, ${{\mathcal{E}}}'$ corresponds to a component $C'$ of the spectral curve. The (parabolic) $\theta^\pm$-degree then becomes $$\delta_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}') = (\ell'-n') - \sum_{t_i^{*,+}\in C'\cap \{a=0\}} \theta_i^+ \quad +\sum_{t_i^{*,-}\in C'\cap \{a=\infty\}} \theta_i^-.$$ In the general case, the slopes of our two sets of data are not terribly well related. The reason is that for bundles ${{\mathcal{E}}}$, one is dividing $\delta^T_\theta$ by $n'$, while for ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}'$, one is dividing $\delta^{T^*}_\theta$ by $k'$. On the other hand, in the case which is of interest to us, of bundles associated to instantons, one has $\sum_i \theta_i^+=\sum_i\theta_i^-$, as well as $\ell = n$. The (semi)-stability condition for ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ reduces to $$\delta_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}') = (\ell'-n') - \sum_{t_i^{*,+}\in C'\cap \{z=0\}} \theta_i^+ \quad +\sum_{t_i^{*,-}\in C'\cap \{z=\infty\}} \theta_i^- \quad < (\leq)\quad 0.$$ Now since $\hat\theta_i^+= \theta_i^+ +1, \hat \theta_i^-= \theta_i^- $, this condition becomes $$\delta_{\theta^\pm}({{\mathcal{E}}}') = \ell' - \sum_{t_i^{*,+}\in C'\cap \{z=0\}} \hat\theta_i^+ \quad +\sum_{t_i^{*,-}\in C'\cap \{z=\infty\}} \hat\theta_i^- \quad < (\leq) \quad 0.$$
Since $\delta^{T^*}_{\widehat\theta^\pm}({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)= 0$ (see the data in the table of page ), we can compare this criterion criterion to the one for $({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$: $$\delta^{T^*}_{\widehat\theta^\pm}({{{\mathcal{F}}}}', \rho') = \ell' - \sum_{t_i^{*,+}\in C'\cap \{z=0\}} \widehat\theta_i^+ \quad +\sum_{t_i^{*,-}\in C'\cap \{z=\infty\}} \widehat\theta_i^- \quad < (\leq) \quad 0.$$
The bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ associated to an instanton is $\theta^\pm$-stable iff the associated pair $({{{\mathcal{F}}}}, \rho)$ or the pair $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})$ is $\widehat\theta^\pm$-stable.
This concludes our set of equivalences of the holomorphic data; Theorem \[holomorphic-equivalences\] is proven.
The top horizontal arrow: the Nahm transform {#sec:NahmTransform}
============================================
We are concerned in this section with the top row of our diagram \[basic-diagram\]. We examine this row in the instanton to monopole direction, with some comments at the end on the inverse direction. More specifically, the Nahm transform gives us an equivalence between
- $(E,\nabla)$, a rank $n$ bundle with a finite energy charge $k$ anti-self-dual ${\mathrm{U}}(n)$ connection on the flat cylinder ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$. At $+\infty$, $(E,\nabla)$ is asymptotic to a fixed flat ${\mathrm{U}}(1)^n$ connection on $S^1 \times T $ which, on each $ \{\mu\}\times T$, corresponds to the sum of line bundles $\oplus_i L_{t^{*,+}_i}$, and on the $S^1$ factors, acts on the $L_{t^{*,+}_i}$ by $\frac{\partial}{\partial \mu} + i\theta^+_i$. One has, at $-\infty$, the same, but with $(t^{*,-}_i, \theta^-_i)$. The set $\{t^{*,+}_1,\ldots,t^{*,+}_n, t^{*,-}_1,\ldots,t^{*,-}_n\}$ contains $2n$ distinct points.
- $(F,\nabla,\phi)$, a ${\mathrm{U}}(k)$ monopole, defined on $ S^1\times T^*$, with Dirac type singularities of weight $(1,0,\ldots,0)$ at $n$ points $( \theta^+_i, t^{*,+}_i)\in S^1\times T^*$, and of weight $(-1,0,\ldots,0)$ at $n$ points $(\theta^-_i, t^{*,-}_i)\in S^1\times T^*$.
We show in this section that the objects involved in the transform can also be given in a round about way through our basic diagram , with the same results, by going through the holomorphic data. This alternative allows us, for example, to obtain in a fairly straightforward way the bijective nature of the transform, which is more difficult to obtain via the direct analytical route.
From $E$ to $F$; definitions
----------------------------
This direction has been examined in detail in the paper [@benoitpaper], for the case of rank two (see in particular [@benoitpaper Sec. 3] for a concise description of Nahm’s heuristic). We recall how the the transform works. We consider the kernel of a Dirac operator ${{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}^*_{\theta,t^*}$ in the instanton background, shifted by the central characters $(-i\theta, -it^*), \theta \in S^1, t^*\in T^*$. We realise the spin bundles as the product of the quaternions with ${{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}}\times S^1\times T$, with $\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3$ acting by $i,j,k$. With these conventions, and writing $t^*$ in orthonormal coordinates as a pair of real numbers $(t_1^*, t_2^*)$, one is considering the Dirac operators $${{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}^*_{\theta,t^*} := {{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}^*_\nabla-i\sigma_3\theta -i\sigma_1t_1^* -i\sigma_2t_2^*\colon \Gamma({{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}};S^-\otimes E)\to\Gamma({{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}};S^+\otimes E)\label{eqn:def-Dirac}$$ acting on sections the tensor product of $E$ with the spin bundle $S^-$, and more importantly the $L^2$-index bundle parametrized by $S^1\times T^*$.
The Weitzenbock formula $${{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}^*_\nabla {{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}_\nabla=\nabla^*\nabla+F_\nabla^+$$ guarantees that $L^2\text{-}\ker({{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}_\nabla)=\{0\}$ when $\nabla$ is ASD, so the index bundle is in fact a bundle of kernels. That we indeed have a bundle depends crucially on the invariance of the index for a continuous family of Fredholm operators. For a fixed $t^*\in T^*$, as long as the limit bundles over the ends $\{\pm\infty\}\times S^1\times T$ have no trivial summand, the operator is indeed Fredholm; see [@APS1]. The trivial summands occur when $$(\theta,t^*)\in W:= \{(\theta_1^\pm,t_1^{*,\pm}),\ldots,(\theta_n^\pm,t_n^{*,\pm})\}.$$ Elsewhere, that is on $(S^1\times T^*)\setminus W$, one has a bundle $F$ whose fiber at $(\theta,t^*)$ is $$F_{(\theta,t^*)}:=L^2\text{-}\ker({{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}^*_{\theta,t^*}).$$
One then defines a connection $\nabla$ and a Higgs field $\phi$ on $E$ by $L^2$ projection $P\colon \underline{L^2({{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}},E\times S^-)}\rightarrow F$ of the corresponding trivial operators $d , \times s, s\in {\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}$ on the trivial bundle with fiber $L^2({{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}},E\times S^-)$ over $ S^1\times T^*$, that is $$\nabla = P\circ d,\quad\phi = i P\circ (\times s).$$
From $E$ to $F$: Indices
------------------------
One would like to know the rank of $F$, as well as its degree. We restrict our attention for the moment to the case $\theta $ constant, and simply take $\theta = 0$, that is we consider the family of Dirac operators $${{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}_\nabla^* -i \sigma_1 t^*_1 -i \sigma_2t^*_2$$ parametrized by $t^*=(t^*_1,t^*_2)\in T^*$. This bundle is obtained by taking the standard fiberwise flat unitary connection over the Poincaré line bundle $P$ over $ T\times T^*$, lifting it as $\pi_{34}^*P$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T\times T ^*$, then taking the tensor product $\pi_{34}^*P\otimes \pi_{123}^*E$, equipping it with the fiberwise tensor product connection, and taking the index bundle of that over $T^*$.
We begin with a few homotopies and a gauge transformation. These operations preserve the Fredholmness of the Dirac operators.
- Modify the connection so that the exponentially decreasing term in the asymptotic form above is in fact zero. This modification allows us to assume that the support of the curvature of $\nabla$ is compact and contained in $(-s_0, s_0)\times S^1\times T$.
- We can move the $t^{*,\pm}_i$ to a constant, say $0$.
- We can move the $\theta^{\pm}_j$ to constants $ m^{\pm}_j+\frac12$, for integers $m^{\pm}_j$, in a way that has $\theta^{\pm}_j$ differing from $m^{\pm }_j+\frac12$ by less than $\frac12$ (so that $m^{\pm}_j$ is the integer part ${\lfloor\theta^{\pm }_j\rfloor}$ of $\theta^{\pm }_j$).
- Applying gauge transformations of the form $\exp (i \mu {\mathrm{diag}}(m^{-}_j))$, we can set all the $m^{-}_j$ to zero, shifting the ones at $+ \infty$ to $\hat m^{+}_j = m^{+}_j-m^{-}_j$. Let $M= \sum_j \hat m^{+}_j=\sum_{j} {\lfloor\theta_j^+\rfloor}-{\lfloor\theta_j^-\rfloor}=-\widehat\Theta$.
We apply the excision principle for indices (see for instance [@benoitthesis Appendix B]), for the following spaces, equipped with bundles and connections. We begin with line bundles. First pick $s_1>s_0$. We let
- $L_+$ be the line bundle with connection $f(s) d\mu $ on $(-s_1, s_1)\times S^1\times T$, flat with connection $ \frac i2 d\mu $ on $(-s_1, -s_0)$, and flat with connection $\frac{i(2m+1)}2 d\mu $ on $(s_0, s_1)$,
- $L_- $ be the flat line bundle with connection $\frac i2 d\mu $ on $ (-s_1, s_1)\times S^1\times T$,
- $L^+$ be the flat line bundle with connection $\frac i2 d\mu $ on $ \Bigl((-\infty, -s_0)\cup (s_0,\infty)\Bigr)\times S^1 \times T$, and
- $L^-$ be the flat line bundle with connection $\frac i2 d\mu $ on $ (-s_1, s_1)\times S^1\times T$.
Now we do some glueings.
- Glue $L_+$ to $L^+$, to obtain $L_+^+$, a line bundle with connection on ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$, flat with connection $ \frac i2 d\mu $ on $(-\infty, -s_0)$, and flat with connection $\frac{i(2m+1)}2d\mu$ on $(r_0, \infty)$. On the negative interval, the glueing is trivial; on the positive interval, one needs to glue via a bundle automorphism.
- Glue $L_-$ to $L^+$, to obtain $L_-^+$, a line bundle with flat connection $ \frac i2 d\mu $ on ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$.
- Glue $(-s_1, s_1)$ to $(-s_1, s_1)$ so as to obtain a circle, identifying $(-s_1,-s_0)$ to $(s_0, s_1)$ and $(s_0,s_1)$ to $(-s_1, -s_0)$ at the ends of the interval; on the bundle level, glue $L_+$ to $L^-$, to obtain a line bundle $L_+^-$ over $ S^1\times S^1\times T$ with connection $\frac i2d\mu $ on $ \Bigl(S^1\setminus (-s_0,s_0)\Bigr)\times S^1\times T$. This glueing requires a bundle automorphism at one of the two ends of the circle, and introduce a first Chern class $-m[\omega_{S^1\times S^1}]$ for the resulting bundle on $ S^1\times S^1\times T$.\[L\_+\^-\]
- In the same way, glue $L_-$ to $L^-$ to obtain a flat line bundle $L_-^-$ with connection $\frac i2d\mu $ on $ S^1\times S^1\times T $.
With these constructions, twisting now by our family of connections in $T^*$, one has for the index bundles over $T^*$ $${\mathrm{Ind}}(L_+^+)\oplus {\mathrm{Ind}}(L_-^-)\ominus {\mathrm{Ind}}(L_-^+)\ominus {\mathrm{Ind}}(L_+^-)=0.$$ Now consider the Chern characters of these bundles.
- For ${\mathrm{Ind}}(L_-^+)$, one sees explicitly that there is no kernel or cokernel for any of the twists; the index bundle is trivial.
- \[index theorem families\] For ${\mathrm{Ind}}(L_-^-), {\mathrm{Ind}}(L_+^-)$, one can apply the index theorem for families for bundles over a compact manifold; we note that the first Chern class of $L_+^-$ is $-m[\omega_{S^1\times S^1}]$; for $L_-^-$ it is zero. Using ${\mathrm{ch}}(P) =1+\eta_\Delta -[\omega_T]-[\omega_T^*]- [\omega_T\wedge\omega_{T^*}]$, one has that ${\mathrm{ch}}({\mathrm{Ind}}(L_-^-))= 0, {\mathrm{ch}}({\mathrm{Ind}}(L_-^+)) = m[\omega_{T^*}]$.
Combining these facts, we obtain the result we want, namely that $${\mathrm{ch}}({\mathrm{Ind}}(L_+^+)) = m [\omega_{T^*}].\label{Abelian}$$ We now apply our excision again. Take
- $E_+$= vector bundle with connection $A$ on $(-s_1, s_1)\times S^1\times T$, flat with connection $\frac i2{\mathbf{I}}d\mu $ on $(-s_1, -s_0)$, and flat with connection $i {\mathrm{diag}}(\frac{2\hat m_j+1}2 )d\mu $ on $(s_0, s_1)$;
- $E_- $= vector bundle with Abelian connection ${\mathrm{diag}}(f_i(s))d\mu$ on $ (-s_1, s_1)\times S^1\times T$, flat with connection $\frac i2{\mathbf{I}}d\mu $ on $(-s_1, -s_0)$, and flat with connection $i {\mathrm{diag}}(\frac{2\hat m_j+1}2 )d\mu $ on $(s_0, s_1)$;
- $E^+$ = flat line bundle with connection $\frac i2{\mathbf{I}}d\mu $ on $ \Bigl((-\infty, -s_0)\cup (s_0,\infty)\Bigr)\times S^1\times T$;
- $E^-$ = flat line bundle with connection $\frac i2{\mathbf{I}}d\mu $ on $ (-s_1, s_1)\times S^1\times T$;
As above, glue these to obtain bundles plus connection $ E_+^+, E_-^+$ on $ {{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$, and $E_+^-, E_-^-$ on $ S^1\times S^1\times T$; one has $c_1(E_+^-) = -M[\omega_{S^1\times S^1}], c_2(E_+^-) = k[\omega_{S^1\times S^1}\wedge \omega_T]$, while $c_1(E_-^-) =-M[\omega_{S^1\times S^1}], c_2(E_-^-) = 0$, Our index calculation over the compact manifolds for the Dirac operator for the family of twists parametrised by $T^*$ is ${\mathrm{ch}}({\mathrm{Ind}}(E_+^-)) = -k +M [\omega_{T^*}], {\mathrm{ch}}({\mathrm{Ind}}(E_-^-)) = M [\omega_{T^*}]$; the previous calculation done in the Abelian case above applied to ${\mathrm{ch}}({\mathrm{Ind}}(E_-^+))$ gives $M [\omega_{T^*}]$. Combining this result with the excision principle, we obtain $${\mathrm{ch}}({\mathrm{Ind}}(E_+^+)) = -k + M [\omega_{T^*}].$$
We thus have the index bundle $ F= -{\mathrm{Ind}}(E_+^+)$ for our fixed values of $\theta^{\pm }_j$; its first Chern class is the sum $\widehat\Theta=\sum_i -{\lfloor\theta^{+ }_i]+[\theta^{- }_i\rfloor}$. For different reasons, as we have seen, the sum $\sum_i -\theta^{+ }_i+\theta^{- }_i$ is also an integer, in fact zero; it does not, however, have to be the same integer.
We also note that the full Nahm transform involves a shift of the $\theta^{\pm }_j$ to $\theta^{\pm }_j + \theta$, so that one is considering the index of ${{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}_{\theta,t^*}$; let ${ F}_\theta$ be the index bundle over $T^*$, as $\theta$ varies. When one of the $\theta^{\pm }_j + \theta$ is an integer, there is a point on the dual torus $T^*$ at which the operator is non-Fredholm, and so the index bundle is not defined at this point; passing through this value of $\theta$, the first Chern class jumps, negatively if it is a $\theta^{+ }_j - \theta$ that is passing through an integer, and positively if it is a $\theta^{- }_j + \theta$: the degree is the sum $\sum_i -{\lfloor\theta^{+ }_i +\theta\rfloor}+{\lfloor\theta^{- }_i+ \theta\rfloor}$. As $\theta$ varies from $0$ to $1$, all the $\theta^{\pm }_j + \theta$ pass in turn through an integer value, and the degree of ${ F}_\theta$ comes back to the initial value.
The family of bundles ${ F}_\theta$ has a natural notion of degree $\delta({ F})$, which is the average degree of ${ F}_\theta$ as one moves $\theta$ from $0$ to $1$; this notion is used in [@benoitjacques3 Definition 3.7] to define an appropriate notion of stability for the pair $({ F},\psi)$. From the easily seen fact $$\int_0^1 {\lfloor\alpha +\theta\rfloor} d\theta = \alpha,$$ one has that, while the degree of $F$ along $\theta$ = constant is $\sum_i -{\lfloor\theta^{+ }_i +\theta \rfloor}+{\lfloor\theta^{-}_i+\theta \rfloor}$, the average degree over the three-fold is $$\delta({F}) = \sum_i (-\theta^{+ }_i+\theta^{-}_i) = 0.$$
We have thus defined on the complement of our singular points a bundle $F$ equipped with a connection and Higgs field, and computed its degree and rank; we know that it satisfies the Bogomolny equation. The results of [@benoitpaper] tell us that the Higgs field has asymptotic behaviour $\frac{i}{2R}{\mathrm{diag}}(\pm1,0,\ldots,0)+O(1)$ at $R\to 0$ but doesn’t prove that $\nabla(R\phi)=O(1)$. The next section, in addition to proving the commutativity of , tells us that we have actual Dirac type singularities.
From $E$ to $F$: Nahm transform versus the Fourier–Mukai transform {#sec:NTvsFM}
------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a diagram of operations with the top row a Nahm transform taking us between monopole and instanton, and the lower row two holomorphic transforms. The vertical correspondences are Hitchin–Kobayashi correspondences. One would like to see that this diagram commutes. We establish this fact by seeing that starting with an instanton $(E,\nabla)$ on ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$, the pairs $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$,$({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$ corresponding to it via the upper route and the lower route are the same, at least up to some twists.
Let us start with the upper route. The kernel ${{\mathfrak{F}}}_{\theta,t^*} $ of the Dirac operator ${{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}^*_{\theta,t^*}$ of Equation can be thought of as the space of harmonic sections ${{\mathcal}H}^1$ of a Dolbeault complex $$\label{Dirac}
\begin{diagram}
L^2(E)&\rTo^{\begin{pmatrix} \nabla_\theta^{0,1}\\ \nabla_{t^*}^{0,1}\end{pmatrix}} & L^2(E \otimes \Lambda^{0,1}( {{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}))
&\rTo^{\begin{pmatrix} \nabla_{t^*}^{0,1}, -\nabla_\theta^{0,1} \end{pmatrix}}& L^2(E\otimes \Lambda^{0,2}( {{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}})).\end{diagram}$$ Here $\nabla_{t^*}^{0,1}$ is the $\bar\partial$-operator given by the connection in the $T$-direction, shifted by the character $-it^*$, and $\nabla_{\theta}^{0,1}$ is the $\bar\partial$-operator given by the connection in the ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\subset {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$-direction, shifted by the character $-i\theta$. The harmonic sections of course get identified with the first cohomology of the complex, which is a holomorphic object. The bundle ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ is given by the restriction to $\theta = 0$, and so ${{{\mathfrak{F}}}}_{t^*} = H^1_b( {{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}, E\otimes L_{-t^*})$, where the subscript $b$ refers to those cohomology classes satisfying the appropriate boundary conditions, and $ L_{-t^*}$ is the flat line bundle on $T$ associated to the character $-it^*$. In other words, one lifts the bundle with connection to ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T \times T^*$, tensors by the dual of the Poincaré bundle ${{\mathcal{P}}}$ equipped with its natural flat connection, and considers the projection $\phi= \psi\circ \pi_2$ to $T^*$; one is taking the direct image, $R^1\phi_*(\pi_1^* E\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}}^*)$.
For the lower route, one first extends to a holomorphic bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$, then ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}=\psi_*R^1(\pi_2)_*(\pi^*_1{{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}}^*)$. Thus ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}_{t^*}$ is given by the first cohomology of the complex $$\begin{diagram}
\Omega^{0,0}( {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T, {{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes L_{-t^*})&\rTo^{{\bar\partial}} &\Omega^{0,1}( {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T, {{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes L_{-t^*}) &\rTo^{{\bar\partial}}&\Omega^{0,2}( {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T, {{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes L_{-t^*})\end{diagram}\label{Dolbeault}.$$ Almost the same complex, with different boundary behaviours at $z=0,\infty$.
*Identifying the bundles*. There is a natural way of identifying the two cohomology bundles $F$ and ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$, at least over the points $t^*$ where the map $\rho$ is holomorphic and invertible; the reason, as we shall see, is that for a given $t^*$ the cohomology can localise onto a compact set on the cylinder, so that the $L^2$ boundary condition and the compactification boundary conditions coincide. For ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$, the Fourier–Mukai transform splits into two steps, so that one has ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}= R^1(\pi_2)_*(\pi_1^*{{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}}^*)$, and ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}= \psi_*({{{\mathcal{K}}}})$. One can do the same for $E$, setting ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}= R^1(\pi_2)_*(\pi_1^*E\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}}^*)$; away from $z= 0,\infty$, the sheaf ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}$ is supported on the same curve $C$ as ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$; indeed, away from $z=0,\infty$, ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}$ and ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ are naturally identified, and so ${{\mathfrak{F}}}= \psi_* {{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}$ and ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}= \psi_*{{{\mathcal{K}}}}$, away from the points of intersection of $C$ with $z=0,\infty$.
For later use, we would like to build cocycles representing local sections of ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}$ and ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ fairly explicitly, giving Dolbeault representatives that work for both cohomologies, on a neighbourhood of a smooth point of the curve $C$. First, we build a cocycle on $T^* \times T$ for the first direct image of the Poincaré bundle, supported over an open set $D \times T$, where $D$ is a small disk centred on the origin in $T^*$. Note that since $H^1(T,L)=0$ for any non-trivial $L$ of degree 0, this cocycle can be a bump form supported near $0\in T^*$. Write our elliptic curve $T$ as a quotient ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}^*/(t\rightarrow \nu t)$. Let $t^*$ belong to our small disk $D$ containing the origin in $T^*$. We can define line bundles $L_{t^*}$ by saying that sections of $L_{t^*}$ are functions over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}^*$ satisfying $f(\nu t) = (\nu\overline \nu)^{t^*} f(t)$; the ${t^*}$ can be complex, and ${t^*} = 0$ corresponds to the trivial bundle. We build a cocycle over $D\times T$. Consider the function $r^{2{t^*}} = (t\overline t)^{t^*}$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}^*$. This function is a section of $L_{t^*}$; now note that $\frac{\partial }{\partial \overline t}(r^{2{t^*}})d\overline t = {t^*}(t\overline t)^{({t^*}-1)} (td\overline t)$. We consider the $L_{t^*}$-valued $(0,1)$-form $$\mu (t) = (t\overline t)^{({t^*}-1)} (td\overline t) = \frac{1}{{t^*}}\frac{\partial (r^{2{t^*}})}{ \partial \overline t}d\overline t.$$ Note that for ${t^*}$ away from the origin, $\mu$ is a coboundary in $t$. Now take a bump function $\phi({t^*})$ supported in $D$, with $\phi= 1$ on an open set containing the origin. Consider on $D\times T$ the compactly supported form $$M({t^*}, t) = \phi({t^*}) \mu +\frac{\partial }{\partial {\overline {t^*}}}(\phi({t^*}))\frac{(r^{2{t^*}})}{{t^*}}d\overline {t^*}.$$ This $M$ is our generator for the first direct image of the Poincaré line bundle ${{\mathcal{P}}}^*$, projecting from $D\times T$ to $T^*$.
We now use this to write out an explicit Dolbeault cocycle for the first direct image of ${{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}}^*$, away from $z=0,\infty$. This direct image ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is supported on the curve $C$. For a family of points $(z(\iota), t^*(\iota)) $ on the smooth locus of $C$ , one has that there exist local sections $\sigma(\iota)$ of ${{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes {{\mathcal{P}}}^*$: the space $H^0(\{z\}\times T, {{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes L^*_{-t^*})$ is non-zero if and only if $H^1(\{z\}\times T, {{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes L^*_{-t^*})$ is. One then has that $$\label{cocycle}
\sigma(\iota) \cdot M({t^*(\iota)},t)$$ represents sections both of ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}$ and ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$. Thus, projecting out the ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$ factor, away from the $t^{*,\pm}_i\in T^*$ over which $C$ intersects $z=0,\infty$, one then has a natural identification of ${{\mathfrak{F}}}= \psi_* {{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}$ and ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}= \psi_*{{{\mathcal{K}}}}$, away from the points of intersection of $C$ with $z=0,\infty$.
*Identifying the endomorphisms*. We next want to see that the endomorphisms $\rho$ are identified also. From the Nahm transform side, the endomorphism is given at $t^*$ by solving $(\nabla_\theta - i\phi)(S(\theta,t^*))= 0$ around the circle $\theta\in [0,1]$, and defining $\rho(S(0,t^*)) = S(1,t^*)$. On the cohomology of the complex , the operator $\nabla_\theta - i\phi$ is represented on cocycles by $\partial_\theta +s$. If one has $\Xi(s,\mu, t) $ representing a cocycle for a fixed $t^*$ and for $\theta=0$, then $S(\theta,t^*)=\exp(-\theta s)\Xi(s,\mu, t) $ solves $(\nabla_\theta -i\phi)(S(\theta,t^*))= 0$. At $\theta = 1$, one then has the cocycle $\exp(-s)\Xi(s,\mu, t) $, representing the cocycle; one notes, however, that the identification of the cohomology at $\theta= 0$ and $\theta = 1$, so that one is integrating over a circle, and not over an interval, involves an additional shift by a factor $\exp (-i \mu)$, so that the full monodromy of the cocycle is by $\Xi(s,\mu, t) \mapsto \exp(-s-i\mu)\Xi(s,\mu, t)=z\Xi(s,\mu, t) $. Hence the monodromy is given by $[\Xi(s,\mu, t)] \mapsto [z\Xi(s,\mu, t)] $, or, in other words, by multiplying by the complex coordinate $z$. Thus on ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}\cong {{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ over $z\neq 0$ and $z\neq \infty$, one has the same operation on fibers $\psi^{-1}(t^*)$ of multiplication by $z$. Taking direct images, the two versions of $\rho$ are therefore identical.
*Behaviour at infinity.* We thus have $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ and $({{{\mathcal{F}}}}, \rho) $ identified away from the points $t^*_i$ over which the spectral curve $C$ intersects $z= 0,\infty$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$. One can ask what happens at these points; the answer, basically, is that one is a Hecke transform of the other; equivalently, on the level of sheaves over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$, ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}$ is obtained from ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ by twisting by a divisor whose support is the set of points $(0, t_i^{*,+}), (\infty, t_i^{*,-})$, and whose coefficients depend on the values of $\theta_i^\pm$. We recall that the (ordinary) degree of $F$ is the sum $\sum -{\lfloor\theta_i^+\rfloor}+{\lfloor\theta_i^-\rfloor}$, while the (ordinary) degree of ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ is $n$.
The comparison between ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}$ and $ {{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ revolves around whether a cocycle lying in $L^2$ also lies in our compactification, and vice versa. Let us look at the situation around $z=0$. Here, the spectral curve is, locally, a graph of a function $t^*_i(z)$ which has a finite limit $t_i^{*,+}$ as $z$ tends to zero. One then has, in a holomorphic trivialisation (corresponding to ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$), as in , cocycles $c= \sigma(z,t) \cdot M({t^*},t)$. These are finite at $0$. Let us now consider what happens when one goes to the unitary trivialisation, which is related to the holomorphic one by a transition function $(z\bar z)^{-\theta_i^+/2}$. The cocycle, instead of being of order zero at infinity, now has order $-\theta_i^+$; to get a non-zero holomorphic $L^2$ section, one must multiply it by $z^{{\lfloor\theta_i^+\rfloor}+1}$; in other words, near the singular point $q_i^+ = (0, t_i^{*,+})$, ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}= {{{\mathcal{K}}}}((-{\lfloor\theta_i^+\rfloor}-1) q_i^+)$. If one considers the relation between ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}$ and $ {{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ near $q_i^- = (\infty, t_i^{*,-})$, one has in a similar vein that, locally, ${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}= {{{\mathcal{K}}}}({\lfloor\theta_i^-\rfloor} )$. Thus, globally $${{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}}= {{{\mathcal{K}}}}\bigl( - \sum_i ({\lfloor\theta_i^+\rfloor}+1) q_i^+ - {\lfloor\theta_i^-\rfloor}q_i^-)\bigr).$$ Correspondingly, the bundles ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ and ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ are related by a Hecke transform; as the transform is on eigenspaces of $\rho$, the endomorphism $\rho$ remains well defined on both bundles.
[*Stability.*]{} We recall the relevant definitions of stability for $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ and $({{{\mathcal{F}}}}, \rho)$. In both cases, we have a degree for invariant subsheaves. For ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$, the appropriate notion of degree is defined using $$\widetilde\theta_i^+ = \theta_i^+- {\lfloor\theta_i^+\rfloor},\quad \widetilde\theta_i^- = \theta_i^- - {\lfloor\theta_i^-\rfloor},$$ and for ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$, by $$\widehat\theta_i^+ = \theta_i^+ + 1,\quad \widehat\theta_i^- = \theta_i^- .$$ For subsheaves, one sets by $$\delta^{T^*}_{\widetilde\theta}({{\mathfrak{F}}}', \rho') = \ell' - \sum_{q^+_i\in C'\cap \{z=0\}} \widetilde\theta_i^+ \quad +\sum_{q^-_i\in C'\cap \{z=\infty\}} \widetilde\theta_i^-$$ for subsheaves $({{\mathfrak{F}}}', \rho')$ of $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$, and $$\delta^{T^*}_{\widehat\theta}({{{\mathcal{F}}}}', \rho') = \ell' - \sum_{q^+_i\in C'\cap \{z=0\}} \widehat\theta_i^+ \quad +\sum_{q^-_i\in C'\cap \{z=\infty\}} \widehat\theta_i^-.$$ for subsheaves $({{{\mathcal{F}}}}', \rho')$ of $({{{\mathcal{F}}}}, \rho)$. One has $\delta^{T^*}_{\widetilde\theta}({{\mathfrak{F}}}, \rho) = \delta^{T^*}_{\widehat\theta}({{{\mathcal{F}}}}, \rho) = 0$, and if $({{\mathfrak{F}}}', \rho')$ corresponds to $({{{\mathcal{F}}}}', \rho')$ via the Hecke transform which relates ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ and ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$, then $\delta^{T^*}_{\widetilde\theta}({{\mathfrak{F}}}', \rho') = \delta^{T^*}_{\widehat\theta}({{{\mathcal{F}}}}', \rho')$. Therefore
Thus $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ is $\widetilde\theta$-(semi)-stable iff $({{{\mathcal{F}}}}, \rho)$ is $\widehat\theta$-(semi)-stable.
The proof is a straightforward unwinding of the definitions.
*The Nahm transform gives us a monopole*. Let us consider what this equivalence gives us. The roundabout complex route takes us from $E$, to ${{\mathcal{E}}}$, to $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})$, to $(C,{{{{\mathfrak{K}}}}})$ and then to $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$. The latter, from [@benoitjacques3] is the holomorphic data of a singular monopole $(\widehat F,\widehat \nabla, \widehat \phi)$ on $S^1\times T^*$. On the other hand, the Nahm transform gives us a solution $( F, \nabla, \phi)$ with the same singularities, and with the same holomorphic data $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$. On the monopoles, this gives us an identification of $\widehat F$ and $F$ which intertwines the “complex" part of the connections, that is $\partial^{0,1}_{T^*}$ and $ \nabla_\theta - i\phi$, and which is bounded at the singularities. The Bogomolny equations on $S^1\times T^*$ are just reductions of the anti-selfduality equations on $S^1\times S^1\times T^*$, and an equivalent statement would be that the lifts of $\widehat F$ and $F$ are holomorphically equivalent. One has however for ASD connections the Weitzenböck identity $\nabla_A^*\nabla_A = (\partial^{0,1}_A)^*\partial^{0,1}_A$, and so the identification is flat, that is it intertwines the connection. This then shows that $(F,\nabla,\phi)$ is one of our desired singular monopoles.
We can now summarize our circle of equivalences.
One has the following equivalent data:
- $(E,\nabla)$ is a rank $n$ bundle with a finite energy charge $k$ anti-self-dual ${\mathrm{U}}(n)$ connection on the flat cylinder $S^1\times {\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times T$. At $+\infty$, $(E,\nabla)$ is asymptotic to a fixed flat ${\mathrm{U}}(1)^n$ connection on $S^1 \times T $ which, on each $ \{\mu\}\times T$, corresponds to the sum of line bundles $\oplus_i L_{t^{*,+}_i}$, and on the $S^1$ factors, acts on the $L_{t^{*,+}_i}$ by $\frac{\partial}{\partial u} + i\theta^+_i$. One has, at $-\infty$, the same, but with $(t^{*,-}_i, \theta^-_i)$.
- $(F,\nabla,\phi)$ is a ${\mathrm{U}}(k)$ monopole, defined on $ S^1\times T^*$, with Dirac type singularities of weight $(1,0,\ldots,0)$ at $n$ points $( \theta^+_i, t^{*,+}_i)\in S^1\times T^*$, and of weight $(-1,0,\ldots,0)$ at $n$ points $(\theta^-_i, t^{*,-}_i)\in S^1\times T^*$. The points $t^{*,+}_i, t^{*,-}_i$ are supposed distinct.
- $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ is a pair consisting of a rank $k$ holomorphic vector bundle ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$ over $T$ of degree $\sum_i -{\lfloor\theta_i^+\rfloor} +{\lfloor\theta_i^-\rfloor}$, and a meromorphic automorphism $\rho$ of ${{\mathfrak{F}}}$, with simple zeroes of type $(1,0,\ldots,0)$ at ${t^{*,+}_i}$, simple poles of type $(-1,0,\ldots,0)$ at ${t^{*,-}_i}$; the map $\rho$ is an isomorphism elsewhere. The pair satisfies the $\widetilde\theta$ polystability condition
- $({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$ is a pair consisting of a rank $k$ holomorphic vector bundle ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ over $T$ of degree $n$, and a meromorphic automorphism $\rho$ of $ {{{\mathcal{F}}}}$, with simple zeroes of type $(1,0,\ldots,0)$ at ${t^{*,+}_i}$, simple poles of type $(-1,0,\ldots,0)$ at ${t^{*,-}_i}$; the map $\rho$ is an isomorphism elsewhere. The pair satisfies the $\widehat\theta$ polystability condition.
- $(C, {{{\mathcal{K}}}})$ is a pair consisting of a holomorphic curve $C$ of degree $(n,k)$ in $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T^*$, and a coherent sheaf $ {{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$ supported on $C$, with support strictly of codimension one over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$, and with Chern character $k[\omega_{T^*}] + n [\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}] + (\ell-n)[\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}}\wedge \omega_{T^*}]$. The curve $C$ intersects $\{0\} \times T^*$ in the points $(0, t^{*,+}_i)$, and $\{\infty\}\times T^*$ in $(\infty, t^{*,-}_i)$; it is smooth, reduced in a neighbourhood of these points, and ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ is a line bundle over $C$ in these neighbourhoods.
- ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a $\theta$-semi-stable holomorphic rank $n$ vector bundle of degree $0$ over $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T$, with $c_2({{\mathcal{E}}}) = k$. Over $0$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$, the bundles ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is the sum $\oplus_i L_{t^{*,+}_i}$, and over $ \infty $, it is $\oplus_i L_{t^{*,-}_i}$
The passage from the first item to the second is the Nahm transform (Section \[sec:NahmTransform\]); the passages from the other items to the next were shown to be bijections, with $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\nabla,\phi)$ to $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ given by a Kobayashi–Hitchin correspondence (Section \[sec:monopolesandpairs\]), that from $({{\mathfrak{F}}},\rho)$ to $({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$ a Hecke transform (this Section), that from $({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$ to $(C, {{{\mathcal{K}}}})$ a spectral transform (Section \[sec:FourierMukai\]), that from $(C, {{{\mathcal{K}}}})$ to ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ a Fourier–Mukai transform (Section \[sec:FourierMukai\]). The passage from the first item to the last is given directly by a Kobayashi–Hitchin correspondence (Section \[sec:instantonsandholomorphicbundles\]), and by the results of this last section this correspondence is equivalent to the chain of correspondences given by descending through the list.
From $F$ to $E$: the inverse Nahm transform
-------------------------------------------
There is an inverse Nahm transform, taking us from one of our singular monopoles to a an instanton on ${{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}}\times T^3$, given by again considering the Dirac equation for the monopole. We do not examine it in detail, but give a few brief comments. Given a singular monopole $(F,\nabla,\phi)$, one can shift the connections for the monopole by central ${{\mathfrak{u}}}(1)$ characters: $\nabla \rightarrow \nabla + i\mu d\theta + i\psi_1 dt_1 + i\psi_2 dt_2,\mu,\psi_1,\psi_2\in {{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}}$, and shift the Higgs field by a scalar $\phi\rightarrow \phi+ is,s\in {{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}}$; hence one can define a shifted Dirac operator ${{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}_{s, \mu,\psi_1,\psi_2}$. There is a periodicity which allows to think of $(\mu,\psi_1,\psi_2)$ as an element of $T^3$, and one defines a bundle over ${{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}}\times T^3$ by $$E_{s, \mu,\psi_1,\psi_2} =\ L^2\ {\mathrm {kernel\ of}}\ {{\,\,\,\makebox[0pt]{$\mathfrak{D}$}\raisebox{1pt}{\makebox[0pt]{$\slash$}}\hspace{3pt}}}_{s,\mu,\psi_1,\psi_2}.$$
One defines the connection on the bundle $E$ over ${{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}}\times T^3$ by $L^2$-projection onto the bundle of the operators $\partial/ \partial s, \partial/ \partial \mu,\partial/ \partial \psi_1,\partial/ \partial \psi_2$.
Of course, here it is the singularities of the monopole that force us to be careful; one obtains a Fredholm operator, and one can compute its index by deformations and excision as before, deforming to the ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ Dirac monopoles in a neighbourhood of the singularities. Again, there is a lot of work in ensuring that the transform gives one a connection with an $L^2$ bound. One still, fortunately, has the holomorphic route; the kernel of the Dirac operator can be realized as the harmonic sections for a Dolbeault complex, and this geometry can be exploited to obtain a bijection, as we did above.
Moduli {#sec:non_moduli}
======
Parameter counts
----------------
We have not shown that the correspondences are homeomorphisms (they are, and we leave the proofs for elsewhere). The maps, starting from an instanton, are fairly easily seen however to be continuous when mapping to the data on the lower line of (\[basic-diagram\]). With this correspondence in hand, we can for example, count parameters, and obtain descriptions of the moduli.
For example, let us count the dimensions for the space of pairs $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})$ corresponding to instantons with fixed boundary conditions. For this count, one wants to count the dimension of the space of curves embedded in ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$, with fixed intersection with $\{0\}\times T^*$ and with $\{\infty\}\times T^*$, and add to it the genus of these curves; indeed, one has a description of a generic set of the moduli as a Jacobian fibration over this family of curves. Our curves are in the linear system $kT^* + n{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$; their self intersection number is $2kn$. The adjunction formula tells us that $N_C = K^*_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*}\otimes K_C$; the sections of the normal bundle corresponding to our deformations are, however, constrained to vanish at $\{0\}\times T^*$ and $\{\infty\}\times T^*$, yielding $$N_C (-2T^*)= K^*_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*}(-2T^*)\otimes K_C = K_C,$$ and identifying the infinitesimal deformations of the curve with sections of the canonical bundle. The degree of the canonical bundle $K_C$ is then $2(k-1)n$, and the genus of $C$ is then $(k-1)n +1$. The dimension of the deformations of the curve $C$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$ is then the genus. There are thus $(k-1)n +1$ parameters for the curve, and $(k-1)n +1$ parameters for what must generically be a line bundle over the curve, giving $2(k-1)n + 2$ parameters in all.
The count, along with additional results, was performed in [@benoitjacques3 Proposition 5.3] using results from [@HuMa2]. In the case which concerns us of monopoles with $n$ singularities of weight $(1,0,\ldots,0)$ and $n$ singularities of weight $(0,0,\ldots,0,-1)$ at fixed loci, we have from [@benoitjacques3 Proposition 5.3] and [@HuMa2]:
\[thm:elliptic\] The moduli space ${{{\mathcal{M}}}}_s(T^*, j_0)$ of simple pairs $({\mathcal{F}},\rho)$ with ${\mathcal{F}}$ of degree $j_0$ and with singularities of the type given above is smooth, of complex dimension $2(k-1)n + 2$. It has a holomorphic symplectic structure, and the map $$({\mathcal{F}},\rho)\mapsto {\mathrm{Spec}}(\rho)$$ is Lagrangian, with generic fibre a smooth compact Abelian variety, so that the moduli space has the structure of a holomorphic integrable system.
One can check that the parameter count coincides with that obtained for bundles ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$ of rank $n$, second Chern class $k$: here the infinitesimal deformations of the bundle are given by $H^1\bigl({\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T, {\mathrm{End}}({{\mathcal{E}}})\bigr)$; if the bundle is irreducible, $H^0({\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T, {\mathrm{End}}({{\mathcal{E}}})) ={\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}$, while $H^2\bigl({\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T, {\mathrm{End}}({{\mathcal{E}}})\bigr) = H^0\bigl({\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T, {\mathrm{End}}({{\mathcal{E}}})\otimes K_{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\otimes T}\bigr) =0$, so that the dimension of $H^1\bigl({\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T, {\mathrm{End}}({{\mathcal{E}}})\bigr)$ can be computed by Hirzeburch–Riemann–Roch, to be $2kn + 1$.\[deformation count\] The deformations for our problem are constrained, however, to be trivial over $\{0\}\times T$ and $\{\infty\}\times T$; these constraints impose $2n-1$ constraints. (The $-1$ is due to the fact that if the deformation of the top exterior power of ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is trivial over $\{0\}\times T$, then it is automatically trivial over $\{\infty\}\times T$.) The number of parameters is then $2(k-1)n +2$, as above.
Charge one
----------
One can compute the moduli space quite easily in case of charge one. In this case, the curve $C$ is the graph of a map $\mu\colon T^*\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$, of degree $n$. By fixing the intersections of $C$ with $\{0\}\times T^*$, $\{\infty\}\times T^*$, one is fixing the divisor $D = \sum_it_i^{*,+}-t_i^{*,-}$ of $\mu$; the fact that as an element of $T^*$, $\sum_it_i^{*,+}-t_i^{*,-} =0 $ tells us by Abel’s theorem that the map $\mu$ exists. Thus the map $\mu$ is determined up to scale, and so up to a (free) action of ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}^*$. The other element is the sheaf ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$, a line bundle supported over $C=T^*$. The map $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})\rightarrow {{{\mathcal{K}}}}\in {{\mathrm{Pic}}}^n(T^*)= T^*$ commutes with the action of ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}^*$, and so one has $${{\mathcal{M}}}= {\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}^*\times T^*.$$ We note that the isometry group of translations of ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$ acts on the moduli of instantons; moving over to the moduli of pairs $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})$, the ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1$-action becomes the ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}^*$-action; the $T$ summand acts on ${{{\mathcal{K}}}}$, a line bundle of degree $n$, by the natural translation action, so that the points of order $n$ in $T$ act trivially.
One can also use the holomorphic correspondence to see that some instantons do not exist. While this paper only treats the Nahm transform for instantons on ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$ with distinct limits at $s=\pm\infty$, the correspondence to a holomorphic object on ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$ and its Fourier–Mukai transform to a pair $(C,{{{\mathcal{K}}}})$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$ are well defined even when some of the $t_i^{*,+}$ coincide with some of the $t_i^{*,-}$. Let us focus on the case $n=2, k=1$. If $t_1^{*,+} = t_1^{*,-}= t^*_1$, then $t_2^{*,+} = t_2^{*,-}=t^*_2$ also, since $\sum_it_i^{*,+}-t_i^{*,-} =0 $. Suppose here that $t_1^*\neq t_2^*$ The divisor $C$ lies in the linear system $|T^*+2{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1|$, and so, as there are only constant maps $T^*\to {\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}^*$, must be of the form $( {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times \{t_1^*\}) + ( {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times \{t_2^*\}) + (\{a\} \times T^*),$ for $a\in {\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}^*$.
One can build a bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ with this spectral curve over ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T^*$ by choosing a bundle $L$ of degree $-1$ over $T$. If $\alpha_1\colon L \rightarrow L_{t_1^{*}}, \alpha_2\colon L \rightarrow L_{t_2^{*}}$ are non-zero maps, one takes a quotient $Q$ $$0 \rTo L( - \{\infty\}\times T^*) \rTo^{(z-a, \alpha_1, \alpha_2)} L\oplus L_{t_1^{*}}\oplus L_{t_2^{*}}\rTo Q\rTo 0.$$ Its restriction to $D_+= \{0\}\times T$ is $L_{t_1^{*}}\oplus L_{t_2^{*}}$, as is its restriction to $D_- = \{\infty\}\times T$.
The bundle $Q$ has the right structure over each $\{z\}\times T$ to give our spectral curve, but has degree $1$ in the ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$ direction. One can make one of four elementary modifications ($i= 1,2, \pm=+,-$) to bring the degree down to zero: $$0\rTo {{\mathcal{E}}}_{i,\pm} \rTo Q \rTo L_{t_i^{*}}|_{D_\pm}\rTo 0.$$
The bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}_{i,\pm}$ has two subsheaves, given as the images of $L_i(-D_\pm), L_j, j\neq i$, which could destabilise it, of degree $-1,0$ respectively in the ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$ direction. Whether they do or not depends on the parabolic weights $\theta_i^\pm$. We recall that they satisfy $\theta_1^+ + \theta_2^+ -\theta_1^- -\theta_2^- = 0$. Suppose that the weights are distinct, and order them : $\theta_1^+ -1\leq \theta_2^+ < \theta_i^- \leq\theta_j^- <\theta_1^+$. For the bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}_{2,\pm}$, the potential destabilising bundles are $ L_{t_1^{*}}, L_{t_2^{*}}(-D_\pm)$, but these have $\theta$-degree $-\theta_1^++\theta_1^-$, and $-1-\theta_2^++\theta_2^-$, both of which are negative, and so ${{\mathcal{E}}}_{2,\pm}$ is stable. We note that the parameters are again a point $a\in {\ensuremath{\mathdj {C}}}^*$, and a line bundle $L\in {{\mathrm{Pic}}}^{-1}(T) = T$, and so we have the same moduli space.
If all the $\theta_i^+ =\theta_i^-$, the bundles we have built are semistable but not stable. On the other hand, one can see that this construction basically exhausts possible candidates for a bundle ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ with $t_1^{*+} = t_1^{*,-}= t^*_1$, $t_2^{*+} = t_2^{*,-}=t^*_2$ with $t_1^*\neq t_2^*$. Indeed, as we have seen it must have spectral curve $({\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times \{t_1^*\}) + ({\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times \{t_2^{* }\}) + \{ a\} \times T^*$. Hence ${{\mathcal{E}}}|_{\{z\}\times T}\cong L_{t_1^*}\oplus L_{t_2^*}$ for a generic $z\in{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$, and so if one takes the direct image of $(L_{t_i^{*}})^*\otimes {{\mathcal{E}}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$, one obtains a line bundle, which has degree $k_i$. This in turn translates into an exact sequence $L_{t_1^{*}}(-k_1D_-)\oplus L_{t_2^{*}D_-}(-k_2)\rightarrow {{\mathcal{E}}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal}S}$ defining. As the spectral curve has a component $ \{ a\} \times T^*$, taking the Fourier–Mukai transform of this sequence tells us that the sheaf ${{\mathcal}S}$ must be a line bundle supported over $ \{ a\} \times T^*$. A computation with Chern characters tells us that it is a line bundle of degree $-1$, and that $k_1+ k_2 = 1$. One thus has extensions, and these are given by the construction above. If all the $\theta_i^+ =\theta_i^-$, since these bundles are semi-stable but not stable, one has
Let us fix the asymptotics of a connection to be the same flat connection $\nabla_\infty$ on $S^1\times T$ at both ends of the cylinder, with $\theta_i^+ = \theta_i^-$, and $t_1^{*+} = t_1^{*,-} \neq t_2^{*+} = t_2^{*,-} $. Then there are no ${\mathrm{U}}(2)$ instantons of charge one with these asymptotics on the cylinder.
Indeed, the fact that there are no stable bundles of charge one tells us that there are no irreducible instantons of charge one; on the other hand a reducible instanton would be a sum of ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ instantons; as the asymptotics give topologically trivial bundles in the $T$-direction, a sum of ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ instantons must have charge zero.
Summary of Notation {#sec:summary_of_notation}
===================
In this appendix, we summarize the notation used in the paper.
- Coordinates on $S^1\times T^*$: $\theta, t^*$, with $t^*$ complex.
- Coordinates on ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$: $s, \mu, \phi, \psi$, with $w$ a complex coordinate on $T$ combining $\phi, \psi$, and $z = \exp(-s - i \mu), \bar z = \exp(-s+i\mu)$, so that $z=0$ corresponds to $s=\infty$.
- $t$ is the time coordinate in the heat flow.
- $(F,\nabla,\phi)$ is a ${\mathrm{U}}(k)$ monopole, defined on $ S^1\times T^*$, with Dirac type singularities of weight $(1,0,\ldots,0)$ at $n$ points $( \theta^+_i, t^{*,+}_i)\in S^1\times T^*$, and of weight $(-1,0,\ldots,0)$ at $n$ points $(\theta^-_i, t^{*,-}_i)\in S^1\times T^*$. The points $t^{*,+}_i, t^{*,-}_i$ are supposed distinct.
- $(E,\nabla)$ is a rank $n$ bundle with a finite energy charge $k$ anti-self-dual ${\mathrm{U}}(n)$ connection on the flat cylinder ${{{\ensuremath{\mathdj {R}}}\times S^1\times T}}$. At $+\infty$, $(E,\nabla)$ is asymptotic to a fixed flat ${\mathrm{U}}(1)^n$ connection on $S^1 \times T $ which, on each $ \{\mu\}\times T$, corresponds to the sum of line bundles $\oplus_i L_{t^{*,+}_i}$, and on the $S^1$ factors, acts on the $L_{t^{*,+}_i}$ by $\frac{\partial}{\partial u} + i\theta^+_i$. One has, at $-\infty$, the same, but with $(t^{*,-}_i, \theta^-_i)$.
- $({{{\mathcal{F}}}},\rho)$ is a pair consisting of a rank $k$ holomorphic vector bundle over $T$, and $\rho$ a meromorphic automorphism of ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$, with simple zeroes at ${t^{*,+}_i}$, simple poles at ${t^{*,-}_i}$, and an isomorphism elsewhere. The pair satisfies a stability condition involving the $\theta^\pm_i$. The degree of ${{{\mathcal{F}}}}$ is $\widehat\Theta$.
- $({{{\mathcal{K}}}},C)$ is a pair consisting of a holomorphic curve $C$ of degree $(n,k)$ in $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T^*$, and a sheaf $K$ supported on $C$. The curve $C$ intersects $\{0\} \times T^*$ in the points $(0, t^{*,+}_i)$, and $\{\infty\}\times T^*$ in $(0, t^{*,-}_i)$.
- ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a semi-stable holomorphic rank $n$ vector bundle of degree 0 over $ {\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1 \times T$, with $c_2({{\mathcal{E}}}) = k$. Over $0$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1$, the bundles ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is the sum $\oplus_i L_{t^{*,+}_i}$, and over $\infty$, it is $\oplus_i L_{t^{*,-}_i}$
- Basis for cohomology: Let $\omega_{\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}, \omega_{S^1\times S^1}, \omega_T, \omega_{T^*}$ be 2-forms on ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1,{S^1\times S^1}, T, T^*$ respectively which integrate to one, we will denote the lifts of these forms to products ${\ensuremath{\mathdj {P}}}^1\times T$, etc. by the same letters; we will also define the two-form $\omega_\Delta$ on $T\times T^*$ as the Poincaré dual to the diagonal divisor.
Acknowledgements. {#acknowledgements. .unnumbered}
-----------------
The authors would like to thank Marcos Jardim, Tomasz Mrowka and Mark Stern for useful discussions and for their encouragements. Concentrated bouts of joint work were accomplished during various programmes: at the University of Leeds, during the programme *Gauge Theory and Complex Geometry* in 2011; the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, during the programme *Metric and Analytic Aspects of Moduli Spaces* in 2015; the Banff International Research Station for Mathematical Innovation and Discovery (BIRS), during their workshop 17w5149 *The Analysis of Gauge-Theoretic Moduli Spaces* that took place in 2017. We thank them all for a fertile intellectual environment. At some point of writing, BC was on sabbatical at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics: many thanks for this quiet space and time away from teaching and administrative duties. BC is supported by NSERC, and JH by NSERC and FQRNT. The diagrams in this paper were created using Paul Taylor’s Commutative Diagram package.
[10]{}
M. F. Atiyah, V. G. Drinfeld, N. J. Hitchin, and Y. I. Manin. Construction of instantons. 65(3):185–187, 1978, [doi:10.1016/0375-9601(78)90141-X](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(78)90141-X).
M. F. Atiyah, V. K. Patodi, and I. M. Singer. Spectral asymmetry and [R]{}iemannian geometry. [I]{}. 77:43–69, 1975, [doi:10.1017/S0305004100049410](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100049410).
P. van Baal. Instanton moduli for [$T^3\times{\mathbb R}$]{}. 49:238–249, 1996, [doi:10.1016/0920-5632(96)00340-4](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0920-5632(96)00340-4), [arXiv:hep-th/9512223](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9512223).
P. van Baal. Nahm gauge fields for the torus. 448(1-2):26–32, 1999, [doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00024-6](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00024-6), [arXiv:hep-th/9811112](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9811112).
C. Bartocci, U. Bruzzo, and D. H. Ruipérez. , vol. 276. Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 2009, pp. xvi+423, [doi:10.1007/b11801](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b11801).
C. Bartocci and M. Jardim. Hyper-[K]{}ähler [N]{}ahm transforms. , vol. 38, pp. 103–111. Amer. Math. Soc., CRM Proc. Lecture Notes, 2004, [arXiv:math.DG/0312045](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0312045).
C. Bartocci and M. Jardim. A [N]{}ahm transform for instantons over [ALE]{} spaces. , vol. 34, pp. 155–166. Birkhäuser Boston, Prog. Math. Phys., 2004.
O. Biquard. Fibrés paraboliques stables et connexions singulières plates. 119(2):231–257, 1991, <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=BSMF_1991__119_2_231_0>.
O. Biquard. Fibrés de [H]{}iggs et connexions intégrables: le cas logarithmique (diviseur lisse). 30(1):41–96, 1997, [doi:10.1016/S0012-9593(97)89915-6](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0012-9593(97)89915-6).
O. Biquard and M. Jardim. Asymptotic behaviour and the moduli space of doubly-periodic instantons. 3(4):335–375, 2001, [doi:10.1007/s100970100032](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100970100032), [arXiv:math/0005154](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0005154).
J. Bonsdorff. . Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, 2002, <http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/~hitchin/hitchinstudents/bonsdroff.pdf>.
J. Bonsdorff. A [F]{}ourier transformation for [H]{}iggs bundles. 2006(591):21–48, 2006, [doi:10.1515/CRELLE.2006.013](http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CRELLE.2006.013), [arXiv:math/0104253](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0104253).
P. J. Braam and P. van Baal. Nahm’s transformation for instantons. 122(2):267–280, 1989, <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1104178397>.
B. Charbonneau. . Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, September 2004, <http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/26746>.
B. Charbonneau. . 14(1):183–214, 2006, [arXiv:math.DG/0410561](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0410561).
B. Charbonneau and J. Hurtubise. The [Nahm]{} transform for calorons. , 2010, [doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199534920.003.0004](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199534920.003.0004), [arXiv:0705.2412](http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2412).
B. Charbonneau and J. Hurtubise. Singular [H]{}ermitian–[E]{}instein monopoles on the product of a circle and a [R]{}iemann surface. 2011(1):175–216, 2011, [doi:10.1093/imrn/rnq059](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnq059), [arXiv:0812.0221](http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0221).
S. Cherkis. Instantons on gravitons. 306:449–483, 2011, [doi:10.1007/s00220-011-1293-y](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-011-1293-y), [arXiv:1007.0044](http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0044).
S. A. Cherkis. Moduli spaces of instantons on the [Taub-NUT]{} space. 290(2):719–736, 2009, [doi:10.1007/s00220-009-0863-8](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-009-0863-8), [arXiv:0805.1245](http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1245).
S. A. Cherkis. Instantons on the [T]{}aub-[NUT]{} space. 14(2):609–641, 2010, [arXiv:0902.4724](http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4724), <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.atmp/1288619154>.
S. A. Cherkis and B. Durcan. Singular monopoles via the nahm transform. 2007, [doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/070](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/070), [arXiv:0712.0850](http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0850).
S. A. Cherkis and J. Hurtubise. . 2017, [arXiv:1709.00145](http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00145).
S. A. Cherkis and A. Kapustin. Periodic monopoles with singularities and [$\mathcal{N}=2$]{} super-[QCD]{}. 234(1):1–35, 2003, [doi:10.1007/s00220-002-0786-0](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-002-0786-0), [arXiv:hep-th/0011081](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011081).
S. A. Cherkis, A. Larrain-Hubach, and M. Stern. Instantons on multi-taub-nut spaces i: Asymptotic form and index theorem. Aug. 2016, [arXiv:1608.00018](http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00018).
S. A. Cherkis and R. S. Ward. Moduli of monopole walls and amoebas. no. 5, pp. 090, front matter+36, 2012, [doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2012)090](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2012)090), [arXiv:1202.1294](http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.1294).
E. Corrigan and P. Goddard. Construction of instanton and monopole solutions and reciprocity. 154(1):253–279, 1984, [doi:10.1016/0003-4916(84)90145-3](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(84)90145-3).
S. K. Donaldson. Anti self-dual [Y]{}ang–[M]{}ills connections over complex algebraic surfaces and stable vector bundles. 50(1):1–26, 1985, [doi:10.1112/plms/s3-50.1.1](http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/plms/s3-50.1.1).
S. K. Donaldson. Boundary value problems for [Y]{}ang–[M]{}ills fields. 8(1-4):89–122, 1992, [doi:10.1016/0393-0440(92)90044-2](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0393-0440(92)90044-2).
S. K. Donaldson. , vol. 147. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, pp. viii+236, [doi:10.1017/CBO9780511543098](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543098). With the assistance of M. Furuta and D. Kotschick.
P. Frejlich and M. Jardim. Nahm transform for [H]{}iggs bundles. 58(9):1221–1230, September 2008, [doi:10.1016/j.geomphys.2008.04.006](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2008.04.006).
G.-Y. Guo. Yang–[M]{}ills fields on cylindrical manifolds and holomorphic bundles [I]{}. 179(3):737–775, 1996, <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1104287124>.
G.-Y. Guo. Yang–[M]{}ills fields on cylindrical manifolds and holomorphic bundles [II]{}. 179(3):777–788, 1996, <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1104287125>.
N. J. Hitchin. On the construction of monopoles. 89(2):145–190, 1983, <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103922679>.
L. H[ö]{}rmander. . North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-London; American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York, revised edition, 1973, pp. x+213. North-Holland Mathematical Library, Vol. 7.
J. Hurtubise and M. K. Murray. On the construction of monopoles for the classical groups. 122(1):35–89, 1989, <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1104178316>.
J. Hurtubise and M. K. Murray. Monopoles and their spectral data. 133(3):487–508, 1990, <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1104201504>.
J. C. Hurtubise and E. Markman. Elliptic [S]{}klyanin integrable systems for arbitrary reductive groups. 6(5):873–978 (2003), 2002, [doi:10.4310/ATMP.2002.v6.n5.a4](http://dx.doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.2002.v6.n5.a4), [arXiv:math.AG/0203031](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/0203031).
D. Huybrechts. . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, pp. viii+307, [doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296866.001.0001](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296866.001.0001).
M. Jardim. Classification and existence of doubly-periodic instantons. 53(4):431–442, 2002, [doi:10.1093/qjmath/53.4.431](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qjmath/53.4.431), [arXiv:math.DG/0108004](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0108004).
M. Jardim. Nahm transform and spectral curves for doubly-periodic instantons. 225(3):639–668, 2002, [doi:10.1007/s002200100596](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002200100596), [arXiv:math.AG/9909146](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/9909146).
M. Jardim. A survey on [N]{}ahm transform. 52(3):313–327, 2004, [doi:10.1016/j.geomphys.2004.03.006](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2004.03.006), [arXiv:math.DG/0309305](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0309305).
P. B. Kronheimer and T. S. Mrowka. Gauge theory for embedded surfaces. [I]{}. 32(4):773–826, 1993, [doi:10.1016/0040-9383(93)90051-V](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-9383(93)90051-V).
P. B. Kronheimer and T. S. Mrowka. Embedded surfaces and the structure of [D]{}onaldson’s polynomial invariants. 41(3):573–734, 1995, <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.jdg/1214456482>.
P. B. Kronheimer and H. Nakajima. Yang–[M]{}ills instantons on [ALE]{} gravitational instantons. 288(2):263–307, 1990, [doi:10.1007/BF01444534](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01444534).
J. Li and M. S. Narasimhan. Hermitian–[E]{}instein metrics on parabolic stable bundles. 15(1):93–114, 1999, [doi:10.1007/s10114-999-0062-8](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10114-999-0062-8).
J. Y. Li and M. S. Narasimhan. A note on [H]{}ermitian–[E]{}instein metrics on parabolic stable bundles. 17(1):77–80, 2001, [doi:10.1007/s101140000091](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s101140000091).
M. L[ü]{}bke and A. Teleman. . World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., River Edge, NJ, 1995, pp. x+254, [doi:10.1142/2660](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/2660).
T. Maxfield and S. Sethi. Domain walls, triples and acceleration. no. 8, pp. 066, front matter+50, 2014, [doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)066](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2014)066), [arXiv:1404.2564](http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2564).
T. Mochizuki. Asymptotic behaviour and the [N]{}ahm transform of doubly periodic instantons with square integrable curvature. 18(5):2823–2949, 2014, [doi:10.2140/gt.2014.18.2823](http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/gt.2014.18.2823), [arXiv:1303.2394](http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2394).
J. W. Morgan, T. Mrowka, and D. Ruberman. . Monographs in Geometry and Topology, II. International Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994, pp. ii+222.
S. Mukai. Duality between [$D(X)$]{} and [$D(\hat X)$]{} with its application to [P]{}icard sheaves. 81:153–175, 1981, <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.nmj/1118786312>.
W. Nahm. All self-dual multimonopoles for arbitrary gauge groups. , vol. 82, pp. 301–310. Plenum, NATO Adv. Study Inst. Ser. B: Physics, 1983.
W. Nahm. Self-dual monopoles and calorons. , vol. 201, pp. 189–200. Springer, Lecture Notes in Phys., 1984, [doi:10.1007/BFb0016145](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0016145).
H. Nakajima. Monopoles and [N]{}ahm’s equations. , vol. 145, pp. 193–211. Dekker, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 1993.
A. Nakamula, S. Sasaki, and K. Takesue. construction of (anti-)self-dual instantons in eight dimensions. 910:199–224, 2016, [doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.06.026](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.06.026).
T. M. W. Nye. . Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2001, [arXiv:hep-th/0311215](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311215).
H. Osborn. On the [A]{}tiyah-[D]{}rinfeld-[H]{}itchin-[M]{}anin construction for self-dual gauge fields. 86(2):195–219, 1982, <http://projecteuclid.org/getRecord?id=euclid.cmp/1103921698>.
B. Owens. Instantons on cylindrical manifolds and stable bundles. 5:761–797 (electronic), 2001, [doi:10.2140/gt.2001.5.761](http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/gt.2001.5.761).
H. Schenk. On a generalised [F]{}ourier transform of instantons over flat tori. 116(2):177–183, 1988, <http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1104161298>.
C. T. Simpson. Constructing variations of [H]{}odge structure using [Y]{}ang–[M]{}ills theory and applications to uniformization. 1(4):867–918, 1988, [doi:10.2307/1990994](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1990994).
S. Szab[ó]{}. Nahm transform for integrable connections on the [R]{}iemann sphere. no. 110, pp. ii+114 pp. (2008), 2007, [arXiv:math.DG/0511471](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0511471).
C. H. Taubes. . Monographs in Geometry and Topology, I. International Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993, pp. iv+205.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we demonstrate far-field acoustic superresolution using shaped acoustic vortices. Compared with previously proposed near-field methods of acoustic superresolution, in this work we describe how far-field superresolution can be obtained using an acoustic vortex wave antenna. This is accomplished by leveraging the recent advances in optical vortices in conjunction with the topological diversity of a leaky wave antenna design. In particular, the use of an acoustic vortex wave antenna eliminates the need for a complicated phased array consisting of multiple active elements, and enables a superresolving aperture to be achieved with a single simple acoustic source and total aperture size less than a wavelength in diameter. A theoretical formulation is presented for the design of an acoustic vortex wave antenna with arbitrary planar arrangement, and explicit expressions are developed for the radiated acoustic pressure field. This geometric versatility enables variously-shaped acoustic vortex patterns to be achieved, which propagate from the near-field into the far-field through an arrangement of stable integer mode vortices. Two examples are presented and discussed in detail, illustrating the generation and transmission of an “X" and “Y" shape into the far-field. Despite the total aperture size being less than a wavelength in diameter, the proposed acoustic vortex wave antenna is shown to achieve far-field superresolution with feature sizes 4-9 times smaller than the resolution limit.'
author:
- 'Matthew D. Guild'
- 'Christina J. Naify'
- 'Theodore P. Martin'
- 'Charles A. Rohde'
- 'Gregory J. Orris'
title: Superresolution through the topological shaping of sound with an acoustic vortex wave antenna
---
Introduction {#Sec:Intro}
============
Since the observation of a diffraction limit by Ernst Abbe over a century ago, overcoming this limit to achieve superresolution has been an ongoing topic of great interest in the scientific community. While originally observed in optics, a similar diffraction limit occurs for acoustic waves. Various mechanisms have been pursued over the years to sidestep this limitation, through either signal processing mechanisms or near-field imaging techniques to enhance the resolution. One of the most promising advances in recent years has been in the use of acoustic metamaterials, which has enabled the realization of exotic macroscopic effective properties, including negative mass density, negative bulk modulus and negative phase speed [@Cummer2016; @Ma2016]. With effective material properties that are double-negative (superlens) or possess hyperbolic dispersion (hyperlens), acoustic metamaterials create negative refraction, enabling amplification of evanescent waves and subdiffraction-limit focusing [@Pendry2000; @Zhang2008; @Zhang2009; @Zhu2011; @GarciaChocano2014]. However, such techniques require a negative refraction lens in the near-field, to either amplify the evanescent wave or convert it to a propagating wave.
Alternatively, helicoidal (vortex) waves can provide a method for creating stable propagating vortices well into the far-field and the creation of features smaller than the resolution limit without the need for an additional near-field focusing aperture. While previous success has been achieved with superresolved optical microscopy[@Sheppard2004; @Watanabe2004; @Bokor2007], this potential for superresolution using acoustic vortex waves has thus far not been realized. In this paper, superresolution is investigated using shaped acoustic vortices; by building on the recent advances in shaped optical vortices we propose an acoustic vortex wave antenna that is both topologically diverse and geometrically versatile.
A background on the relevant work relating to vortex waves and the methods for generating them are presented in Sec. \[Sec:Background\]. A detailed development based on an acoustic leaky-wave antenna is presented in Sec. \[Sec:2Dprism\] for the two-dimensional (2D) case, and these results are expanded to circular and arbitrarily-shaped acoustic vortex wave antennas in Sec. \[Sec:VortexPrism\]. Specifically, the use of an acoustic antenna with a single acoustic source eliminating the need for a phased array consisting of multiple active elements is discussed.
In addition to the propagating wave characteristics inside the acoustic antenna, a formulation for the radiated pressure field is presented in Sec. \[Sec:VortexPrism\] as well. The radiated pressure is examined for a circular axisymmetric arrangement, and the near-field and far-field characteristics of the topological modes are examined. In Sec. \[Sec:ShapedVortex\], the theoretical formulation is expanded to arbitrarily shaped acoustic vortex wave antennas, and the acoustic vortices of two canonical shapes (a square and a triangle) are examined. Results are presented showing how such structures enable the creation of arbitrary subdiffraction-limited shapes by the arrangement of stable integer mode vortices, to achieve far-field superresolution with a total aperture size less than a wavelength.
Background {#Sec:Background}
==========
First demonstrated in acoustics [@Nye1974; @Berry2004], vortex waves have found broad interest in optics, including use in communications, superresolution imaging and particle manipulation. Optical vortex waves carry both spin angular momentum (SAM) due to the circular polarization of light and orbital angular momentum (OAM) associated with the helical phase fronts [@Allen1992], the transmission of which enable a means for manipulation of particles through the transfer of angular momentum [@Yao2011] and improved communications through data multiplexing [@Wang2012; @Bozinovic2013]. The total strength of the vortices are characterized by the topological charge (mode), and is related to the total phase change along a closed path around the axis of the beam [@Berry2004; @Dennis2009].
In addition to the transport of OAM, the highly localized vortices have been combined with radially polarized illumination to achieve superresolved optical microscopy [@Sheppard2004; @Watanabe2004; @Bokor2007]. Superresolution has been proposed using the interaction of optical vortices with a metamaterial lens [@DAguanno2008]. Utilization of the sharpened dark spot (null) along the beam axis has also been demonstrated as a means for enhanced edge-detection imaging as a vortex-based coronagraph [@Dennis2009; @Foo2005; @Swartzlander2008]. More recently, there has been an interest in the ability to created shaped optical vortices, through either the spatial distribution of topological charge or diffractive optical elements. Through the use of non-axisymmetric topological distributions, splitting of the on-axis vortex occurs, leading to an off-axis constellation of vortices which can be arranged into arbitrary shapes while maintaining the same topological charge [@Brasselet2013]. This has enabled the creation of arbitrarily shaped non-axisymmetric optical structures with sharp features, including corners, triangles, and multi-point stars [@Hickman2010; @Brasselet2013; @Amaral2013; @Amaral2014].
Acoustic vortex waves, like their optical counterpart, also carry orbital angular momentum, but do not exhibit spin angular momentum due to the scalar nature of longitudinal acoustic waves [@Thomas2003; @Wilson2010]. While comprising a somewhat less extensive body of work, there has also been sustained interest in acoustic vortex waves, focused on particle manipulation, acoustic communications and precision alignment of acoustic systems. Acoustic vortex waves have previously been generated with either single-mode resonators [@Hefner1998], or more often using a phased array, which enables a wide range of topological modes to be realized with a single aperture [@Hong2015; @Thomas2003; @Wilson2010; @Hefner1999; @Marzo2015; @Skeldon2008; @VolkeSepulveda2008; @Thomas2010].
Driven in part by the successes with optical vortices and the possibilities of precise wave interactions from afar, work in recent years has largely focused on the interaction of acoustic vortex waves with objects. Such work includes investigations into the ability of acoustic vortex waves to excite the torsional modes of scatterers [@Skeldon2008; @VolkeSepulveda2008; @Marston2008; @Mitri2011], in addition to efforts determining the radiation pressures resulting from the interaction of acoustic vortex waves with submerged objects [@Hong2015; @Marston2009]. Recently, acoustic vortex waves were used to levitate and manipulate millimeter-sized particles in air, using a spherical phased acoustic array without the need for a confining structure to obtain the necessary radiation pressure [@Marzo2015]. Recent advances have also been made with regards to the radiation forces of fractional topological modes [@Hong2015], and the fractional topological modes which arise from finite time duration pulses with helical phase fronts [@Thomas2010].
![ (Color online) Geometry of a 2D acoustic antenna. The acoustic antenna consists of a waveguide with incident time harmonic plane wave propagating to the right (in the positive x-direction). The acoustic waves are refracted through the arrangement of openings (acoustic shunts) into the surrounding fluid at transmission angle $\theta_{\mathrm{trans}}$. The magnitude of a representative pressure field radiated into the surrounding fluid is shown, with the colors denoting the normalized magnitude ranging from a peak value of unity (yellow) to a minimum value of zero (dark blue). []{data-label="Fig:Geom2D"}](VortexWave_SuperResolution_Fig01.png){width="0.99\columnwidth" height="0.3\textheight"}
One of the key considerations associated with vortex waves in either of acoustics or optics is the means of generating the vortex waves. Generation of optical vortex waves are typically achieved using a spiral phase plate (SPP) or a computer-generated hologram based on diffractive optical elements [@Yao2011]. Extensive work has been performed on optical vortex waves with both integer [@Allen1992; @Yao2011; @Dennis2009; @Berry2005; @Kotlyar2006] and fractional topological charges [@Berry2004; @Vasnetsov1998; @Lee2004; @Tao2005; @GarciaGracia2009; @Marston2009a; @Vyas2010]. Although robust, these methods of generating optical vortex waves are limited to operation at a single mode with a fixed topological charge. To address this issue, recent work has shown promising results for topologically diverse microwave vortex wave generation using a circular leaky-wave antenna (LWA) [@AlBassam2014]. While extensively studied for microwaves [@Jackson2012; @Monticone2015] and more recently using metamaterials [@Grbic2002; @Liu2002; @Caloz2004; @Lim2004; @Lai2004; @Lai2006; @Caloz2008; @Abielmona2011; @Li2011], optical LWAs present various challenges which are the subject of ongoing research [@Monticone2015; @Liu2010]. In addition to electromagnetic (EM) waves, acoustic LWAs have recently been demonstrated to generate one-dimensional (1D) axisymmetric planar acoustic waves [@Naify2013; @Esfahlani2016], two-dimensional (2D) planar waves [@Naify2015] and topologically diverse circular acoustic vortex waves [@Naify2016]. A detailed theoretical formulation for an acoustic antenna utilizing these recent advances with acoustic leaky-wave antennas is presented in Sec. \[Sec:2Dprism\].
Formulation of a two-dimensional acoustic antenna {#Sec:2Dprism}
==================================================
An acoustic leaky wave antenna (LWA) is a device which utilizes a waveguide with a finite impedance interface, such as a series of subwavelength acoustic shunts (openings), to transmit or receive acoustic signals [@Naify2013; @Naify2015; @Naify2016; @Esfahlani2016; @Bongard2010; @BongardThesis]. For the LWA, this is achieved using the refraction of the propagating signal within the waveguide into an exterior fluid medium, and therefore has been referred to as an *acoustic prism* [@Naify2015; @Esfahlani2016]. The dispersive nature of the waveguide combined with the refraction through the interface leads to a frequency-dependent transmission angle. A simple 2D configuration is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Geom2D\]. The propagation of acoustic waves within the waveguide and the subsequent refraction across the interface are discussed in Sec. \[Sec:2Dprop\] and \[Sec:2Drefraction\], respectively.
Propagation within the acoustic antenna {#Sec:2Dprop}
---------------------------------------
From the Helmholtz equation in cartesian coordinates, a general solution for the pressure field inside a rigid-walled waveguide is given by $$\label{Eq:PressureXZ}
P_{\mathrm{in}}(x,z,t) = p_{0} \cos(\gamma_{n} z) e^{j \left( \omega t - \beta_{x}x \right)},$$ where $p_{0}$ is the pressure amplitude, $j \! = \! \sqrt{-1}$, $\omega$ is the angular frequency, $\beta_{x}$ is the wavenumber in the x-direction and $\gamma_{n}$ is the wavenumber in the z-direction. From separation of variables, the relationship between the wavenumbers is $$\label{Eq:SepVarBetaX}
\beta_{x}^{2} = \left( \frac{\omega}{c_{\mathrm{ph}}} \right)^{2} = k_{0}^{2} - \gamma_{n}^{2},$$ where $k_{0}$ is the wavenumber in the host fluid, and $c_{\mathrm{ph}}$ is the phase speed in the waveguide.
With the wavenumber $k_{0}$ known, this means that the wavenumber $\beta_{x}$ in the direction of propagation can be evaluated once the transverse wavenumber $\gamma_{n}$ is determined. On the interface of the acoustic antenna, the presence of the shunts will lead to a complex acoustic impedance, denoted by $Z_{\mathrm{int}}$. For the airborne sound examined in this work, the boundary conditions at all other surfaces are assumed to be rigid.
To determine the propagation characteristics of the waveguide, we will consider the acoustic modes in the vertical (z-axis) direction, as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Geom2D\]. The boundary conditions for these modes are a rigid wall at the bottom surface (at $z \!=\! 0$), and an impedance condition (with complex impedance $Z_{\mathrm{int}}$) at the interface of the shunts. Application of these boundary conditions yield a spatial dependence of the pressure in the z-direction proportional to $\cos(\gamma_{n} z)$, as given in Eq. (\[Eq:PressureXZ\]). From the impedance boundary condition at $z \!=\! h_{\mathrm{wg}}$, the relationship in terms of the wavenumber $\gamma_{n}$ is given by [@Morse] $$\label{Eq:TanGamma}
\tan(\gamma_{n}h_{\mathrm{wg}}) = j \frac{k_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}} Z_{0}}{\gamma_{n} h_{\mathrm{wg}} Z_{\mathrm{int}} },$$ where $Z_{0} \!=\! \rho_{0} c_{0}$ is the acoustic impedance of the host fluid (air). Although this transcendental equation for $\gamma_{n}h_{\mathrm{wg}}$ is indexed by the integer $n$, it is only the lowest mode ($n \!=\! 0$) which is of interest for the case of plane propagating waves, and in particular when $\gamma_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}} \ll 1$. Therefore, with $n \!=\! 0$ and $\tan z \approx z + (1/3)z^{3}$, Eq. (\[Eq:TanGamma\]) yields $$\label{Eq:GammaO2}
\left( \gamma_{0}h_{\mathrm{wg}} \right)^{2} = -\frac{3}{2} \left[ 1 - \sqrt{ 1 + \frac{4}{3} j\frac{ k_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}} Z_{0}}{ Z_{\mathrm{int}} } } \right].$$ When the acoustic wavelength is much larger than the height of the waveguide, Eq. (\[Eq:GammaO2\]) simplifies to $$\label{Eq:GammaLF}
\gamma_{0}h_{\mathrm{wg}} = \sqrt{ j\frac{ k_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}} Z_{0}}{ Z_{\mathrm{int}} } }, \qquad k_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}} \ll 1.$$
Substituting Eq. (\[Eq:GammaLF\]) into Eq. (\[Eq:SepVarBetaX\]), an approximate expression for the wavenumber in the direction of propagation can be obtained such that $$\label{Eq:BetaX}
\beta_{x} \approx k_{0} \sqrt{ 1 - j\frac{1}{ k_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}} } \frac{ Z_{0} }{ Z_{\mathrm{int}} } }.$$ Noting that $\beta_{x} = \omega / c_{\mathrm{ph}}$, the phase speed in the waveguide can therefore be given by $$\label{Eq:PhaseSpeed}
c_{\mathrm{ph}} \approx \frac{c_{0}}{\sqrt{ 1 - j\frac{1}{ k_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}} } \frac{ Z_{0} }{ Z_{\mathrm{int}} } } }.$$ The phase speed is plotted as a function of normalized frequency in Fig. \[Fig:Beta\_v\_Freq\](a).
Refraction across the acoustic antenna interface {#Sec:2Drefraction}
------------------------------------------------
The transmission angle $\theta_{\mathrm{trans}}$ that results from the refraction between the sound in the waveguide and the surrounding fluid can be obtained from Snell’s law. From Eq. (\[Eq:PhaseSpeed\]), this yields an expression for $\theta_{\mathrm{trans}}$ in terms of the acoustic antenna geometry, given by $$\label{Eq:ThetaRad}
\theta_{\mathrm{trans}} \approx \sin^{-1} \!\! \left( \sqrt{ 1 - j\frac{1}{ k_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}} } \frac{ Z_{0} }{ Z_{\mathrm{int}} } } \right).$$ From Eqs. (\[Eq:BetaX\]) and (\[Eq:PhaseSpeed\]), it is observed that the wavenumber and phase speed will in general be complex, leading to a wave that decays as it travels along the waveguide. In the particular case of a purely imaginary interface impedance, however, it is seen that both $\beta_{x}$ and $c_{\mathrm{ph}}$ are real, leading to a propagating wave through the waveguide and a real transmission angle according to Eq. (\[Eq:ThetaRad\]), which is plotted in Fig. \[Fig:Beta\_v\_Freq\](c).
As observed in Eqs. (\[Eq:PhaseSpeed\]) and (\[Eq:ThetaRad\]), the complex-valued interface impedance plays a critical role in determining the propagation through, and across the interface of, the acoustic antenna. For the design given in Fig. \[Fig:Geom2D\], the series of subwavelength shunts can be treated collectively as a distributed impedance at the surface of the interface. The input impedance of an interface consisting of a rigid wall with shunts can be expressed as[@Blackstock] $$\label{Eq:Zint}
\frac{ Z_{\mathrm{int}} }{ Z_{0} } = j k_{0} \frac{ h'_{\mathrm{shunt}} }{ \phi } + \frac{ R_{\mathrm{rad}} }{ Z_{0} },$$ where $\phi = S_{\mathrm{shunt}} / S_{\mathrm{unit}}$ is the area filling fraction of shunts in a unit cell having length $l_{\mathrm{unit}}$ and width $w_{\mathrm{unit}}$, $h'_{\mathrm{shunt}}$ is the effective height of the shunt and $R_{\mathrm{rad}}$ is the radiation impedance of the shunt.
Note that except for the contribution of the radiation resistance, the input impedance of the shunts leads to an imaginary impedance at the surface of the interface. Thus, assuming the effects of the radiation resistance are small, the imaginary input impedance in Eq. (\[Eq:Zint\]) will give a *real* phase speed based on Eq. (\[Eq:PhaseSpeed\]), and thus lead to a propagating wave along the waveguide for a range of frequencies. From this, it is clear that the shunts are critical in the operation and effectiveness of the acoustic antenna in air. In addition to enabling sound to pass through the interface and thereby facilitating the transmission and reception of acoustic signals, the shunts also are a key parameter of the input interface impedance and play an important role in determining the cutoff frequency of the acoustic antenna. Due to the difference under the square root in the denominator of Eq. (\[Eq:PhaseSpeed\]), a cutoff frequency will occur, below which the waves are evanescent and do not propagate through the waveguide. From Eqs. (\[Eq:PhaseSpeed\]) and (\[Eq:Zint\]), the cutoff frequency is found to be $$\label{Eq:CutoffFreq}
f_{c} = \frac{ c_{0} }{ 2 \pi } \sqrt{ \frac{\phi}{ h_{\mathrm{wg}} h'_{\mathrm{shunt}}} }.$$ This cutoff frequency denotes the transition between evanescent and propagating waves within the waveguide, and is used to normalize the frequency parameter in Fig. \[Fig:Beta\_v\_Freq\].
In addition to the impedance of the shunt, there is an additional contribution to the input impedance of the interface that arises from the acoustic waves radiated through the shunt, in the form of the radiation impedance. The radiation impedance, $Z_{\mathrm{rad}}$, is based on the size, shape, baffle arrangement, and is in general complex: with the real part (radiation resistance, $R_{\mathrm{rad}}$) corresponding to the acoustic waves that propagate to the far-field and the imaginary part (radiation reactance, $X_{\mathrm{rad}}$) corresponding to the evanescent waves, which can be expressed as $$\label{Eq:Zrad}
Z_{\mathrm{rad}} = R_{\mathrm{rad}} + j X_{\mathrm{rad}}.$$ Although generally complicated and often intractable to determine for arbitrary geometries, an approximate form of the radiation resistance for a long thin rectangular element with a rigid baffle is given by [@Mellow2011] $$\label{Eq:Rrad}
\frac{ R_{\mathrm{rad}} }{ Z_{0} } = \frac{1}{2} \frac{ k_{0} l_{\mathrm{shunt}} }{ \phi }, \qquad k_{0} l_{\mathrm{shunt}} \ll 1.$$ It is worthwhile to note that $R_{\mathrm{rad}}$ represents the portion of the wave that is radiated from the waveguide to the far-field into the surrounding fluid. As a result, this radiated acoustic energy represents a loss in terms of the propagating wave within the waveguide. This can be seen in Eq. (\[Eq:Zint\]), with the radiation resistance contributing to the real component of the interface impedance, and therefore leading to a decay in the propagating wave along the waveguide according to Eqs. (\[Eq:BetaX\]) and (\[Eq:PhaseSpeed\]).
![ (Color online) (a) Phase speed, (b) mode number and (c) transmitted angle for an acoustic antenna with the properties given in Table \[Tab:Props\], plotted as a function of the frequency normalized by the cutoff frequency given by Eq. (\[Eq:CutoffFreq\]). Theoretical results are presented for interior wave propagation in a 3D circular formulation (solid line) using Eqs. (\[Eq:BetaTheta\])–(\[Eq:RadialBC\]) and 2D linear formulation (dashed line) using Eqs. (\[Eq:BetaX\])–(\[Eq:ThetaRad\]). Results for the radiated field are calculated using Eq. (\[Eq:VortexStrength\]) for the total vortex strength. []{data-label="Fig:Beta_v_Freq"}](VortexWave_SuperResolution_Fig02.png){width="0.99\columnwidth" height="0.5\textheight"}
For a source (or in this case, an external open port transmitting the acoustic wave as shown in Fig. \[Fig:Geom2D\]) with dimensions that are much smaller than a wavelength, the radiation impedance effects can be accounted for by using an effective height of fluid in the shunt, $$\label{Eq:Heff}
h'_{\mathrm{shunt}} = h_{\mathrm{shunt}} + \Delta h_{\mathrm{shunt}},$$ where $\Delta h_{\mathrm{shunt}}$ is the end correction and in general is a frequency dependent quantity resulting from the radiation reactance, $X_{\mathrm{rad}}$. The radiation impedance will also be affected by the radiation from the 2D shape of the shunt opening. For a single rectangular opening (length $l_{\mathrm{shunt}}$ and width $w_{\mathrm{shunt}}$, with the width denoting the dimension in the out-of-plane direction in Fig. \[Fig:Geom2D\]) surrounded by a rigid baffle, the end correction for each side of the shunt is given by [@Ingard1953] $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta h_{\mathrm{shunt}} = \frac{2}{\pi} \sqrt{S_{0}} & \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \nu_{mn} \left[ \frac{ \sin(m \pi \xi) }{ m \pi \xi } \frac{ \sin(n \pi \eta) }{ n \pi \eta } \right]^{2} \notag \\
& \times \left[ \frac{ w_{\mathrm{shunt}} }{ l_{\mathrm{unit}} } m^{2} + \frac{ l_{\mathrm{shunt}} }{ w_{\mathrm{unit}} } n^{2} \right]^{-\frac{1}{2}}, \label{Eq:EndCorr}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{Eq:XiEta}
\xi = \frac{ l_{\mathrm{shunt}} }{ l_{\mathrm{unit}} }, \quad \eta = \frac{ w_{\mathrm{shunt}} }{ w_{\mathrm{unit}} }, \quad S_{0} = l_{\mathrm{shunt}} w_{\mathrm{shunt}},$$ and the coefficient $\nu_{mn}$ is given by $\nu_{00} \!=\! 0$ and $\nu_{0n} \!=\! \nu_{m0} \!=\! \frac{1}{2}$, with $\nu_{mn} \!=\! 1$ otherwise.
Parameter Value (mm) Description
---------------------- ------------ --------------------------------------------------
$l_{\mathrm{shunt}}$ $2.0$ Shunt length (tangential direction)
$h_{\mathrm{shunt}}$ $10.0$ Shunt height
$w_{\mathrm{shunt}}$ $5.0$ Shunt width (radial direction)
$h_{\mathrm{wg}}$ $6.5$ Waveguide height
$r_{\mathrm{in}}$ $17.5$ Inner radius of waveguide
$r_{\mathrm{out}}$ $22.5$ Outer radius of waveguide
$r_{\mathrm{mid}}$ $20.0$ Midline radius of waveguide
$w_{\mathrm{wg}}$ $5.0$ Waveguide width (radial direction)
$L$ $125.7$ Midline circumference ($2 \pi r_{\mathrm{mid}}$)
: Dimensions of the acoustic antenna examined in Sections \[Sec:2Dprism\]–\[Sec:ShapedVortex\]. In each case, the number of shunts $N$ in the acoustic antenna is 36. []{data-label="Tab:Props"}
In Eq. (\[Eq:EndCorr\]), the end correction for the shunt height was given for a single shunt. However, as described by Ingard[@Ingard1953], the interaction of two (or more) elements in close proximity leads to an increase in the effective end correction. In the low frequency limit, it was found that this converges to that of all the elements arranged side by side into one large, single element of the same area[@Ingard1953]. While the exact calculations of an array of shunts are impractical to determine analytically, a reasonable approximate solution can be obtained using the results from the low-frequency limit by noting that the shunts in the acoustic antenna are deeply subwavelength. For the acoustic antenna design under consideration in this work, the interaction of $N$ shunts corresponds to using Eqs. (\[Eq:EndCorr\]) and (\[Eq:XiEta\]) with the shunt length, $l_{\mathrm{shunt}}$, and unit cell length, $l_{\mathrm{unit}}$, replaced by $N l_{\mathrm{shunt}}$ and $N l_{\mathrm{unit}}$, respectively.
![ (Color online) Geometry of an acoustic vortex wave antenna. By wrapping a linear acoustic leaky wave antenna (left) in a circular arrangement (right), an acoustic vortex wave can be generated. The direction of propagation through the acoustic antenna is denoted by the red arrow. The boundary between the inlet and outlet of the waveguide is represented by the orange-colored plane shown in the right panel. A top view of the vortex wave antenna is illustrated in the inset. []{data-label="Fig:Geom3D"}](VortexWave_SuperResolution_Fig03.png){width="0.99\columnwidth" height="0.3\textheight"}
Acoustic vortex wave antenna {#Sec:VortexPrism}
============================
A basic acoustic vortex wave antenna configuration is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Geom3D\]. In this case, the waveguide is curved into an annulus shape, with the sound entering into the annulus from a source, propagating around the circular path, and then exiting the annulus, similar to the arrangement examined in Ref. . Although the physical structure consists of circular annulus, a spacer at $\theta \!=\! 0$ prevents the interaction of sound within the waveguide between the signals entering and exiting the annulus. This facilitates the plane progressive propagation of the sound wave along the channel, in a similar manner to that of the 2D acoustic antenna discussed in Section \[Sec:2Dprism\].
Propagation within the acoustic antenna {#Sec:VortexProp}
---------------------------------------
From the Helmholtz equation in cylindrical coordinates, the general solution for the pressure is $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\mathrm{in}}(r,\theta,z,t) = p_{0} & \cos(\gamma_{n} z) \, e^{j \left( \omega t - m \theta \right)} \notag \\
& \times \left[ A J_{m}(k_{r} r) + B Y_{m}(k_{r} r) \right], \label{Eq:PressureRthetaZ}\end{aligned}$$ where $J_{m}$ and $Y_{m}$ are the Bessel functions of the first and second kind, respectively, and $A$ and $B$ are coefficients determined by the boundary conditions. Note that the wavenumber in the theta direction can be defined based on the order $m$ by $$\label{Eq:BetaTheta}
\beta_{\theta} = \frac{m}{r_{\mathrm{mid}}} = \frac{2 \pi m}{L},$$ where $L = 2 \pi r_{\mathrm{mid}}$ is the circumference and $r_{\mathrm{mid}}$ is the radius at the midpoint of the waveguide. Note that due to the lack of a periodic boundary condition at $\theta \!=\! 0$ and $\theta \!=\! 2 \pi$, $m$ is not restricted to being an integer value, and in general will be a non-integer and complex-valued.
The method to solve for the vertical wavenumber $\gamma_{n}$ is identical to that of the 2D acoustic antenna, and therefore Eqs. (\[Eq:TanGamma\])–(\[Eq:GammaLF\]) can be used. In a similar manner to the separation of variables in cartesian coordinates, the wavenumbers in cylindrical coordinates are related by $$\label{Eq:kr}
k_{r}^{2} = k_{0}^{2} - \gamma_{n}^{2}.$$ Note that from this equation, it is apparent that $k_{r}$ in cylindrical coordinates is equivalent to $\beta_{x}$ in cartesian coordinates given by Eq. (\[Eq:SepVarBetaX\]). Thus, in cylindrical coordinates it is the wavenumber in the radial direction, $k_{r}$, that is equivalent to $\beta_{x}$, and the wavenumber in the theta direction $\beta_{\theta}$ (the direction of propagation) does not appear in Eq. (\[Eq:kr\]). In cylindrical coordinates, the radial and angular motion within the waveguide is coupled, and can be related through the radial boundary conditions. Assuming rigid walls at the inner and outer radii of the waveguide, the radial boundary condition can be expressed as [@Blackstock] $$\label{Eq:RadialBC}
J_{m}'(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{in}}) Y_{m}'(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{out}}) - Y_{m}'(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{in}}) J_{m}'(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{out}}) = 0,$$ where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the argument of the Bessel function.
Equation (\[Eq:RadialBC\]) combined with Eq. (\[Eq:BetaTheta\]) provides the exact relationship between $k_{r}$ and $\beta_{\theta}$. For arbitrary waveguide dimensions these equations must be solved numerically, to implicitly determine the relationship between $\beta_{\theta}$, which appears in the order of the Bessel functions (through the mode number $m$), and $k_{r}$ which appears in the argument. However, for most cases of practical interest, the waveguide width will be sufficiently narrow so as to support propagating waves in the theta direction without generating standing waves in the transverse (radial) direction.
To determine an explicit approximate relationship between $k_{r}$ and $m$ (and therefore $\beta_{\theta}$), $J_{m}'$ and $Y_{m}'$ can be expanded in a Taylor series about $r = r_{\mathrm{mid}}$, in which case Eq. (\[Eq:RadialBC\]) can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
&J_{m}'(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{in}}) Y_{m}'(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{out}}) - Y_{m}'(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{in}}) J_{m}'(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{out}}) \notag \\
&\approx \varepsilon \left[ J_{m}'(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{mid}}) Y_{m}''(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{mid}}) - J_{m}''(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{mid}}) Y_{m}'(k_{r}r_{\mathrm{mid}}) \right], \label{Eq:ApproxRadialBC}\end{aligned}$$ where the approximation is valid for $\varepsilon^{2} \ll 1$, with $\varepsilon = k_{r}r_{\mathrm{mid}} \delta$ and $$\label{Eq:Delta}
\delta = 1 - \frac{ r_{\mathrm{in}} }{r_{\mathrm{mid}} } = \frac{ r_{\mathrm{out}} }{r_{\mathrm{mid}} } - 1.$$ Noting the identity $$\label{Eq:BesselCrossProd}
J_{m}'(z) Y_{m}''(z) - J_{m}''(z) Y_{m}'(z) = \frac{2}{\pi z} \left[ 1 - \left( \frac{m}{z} \right)^{2} \right],$$ Eqs. (\[Eq:RadialBC\]) and (\[Eq:ApproxRadialBC\]) lead to the simple relationship that $$\label{Eq:krBetaTheta}
\beta_{\theta} \approx k_{r} + O(\varepsilon^{2}) \approx \beta_{x}.$$ Therefore, to order $O(\varepsilon^{2})$, $\beta_{\theta}$ is equal to $\beta_{x}$ for a straight 2D acoustic antenna, and likewise the phase speed is given by Eq. (\[Eq:PhaseSpeed\]). This result is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Beta\_v\_Freq\], which shows the negligible difference between an acoustic antenna with a 3D circular waveguide (solid line) and that of a 2D linear arrangement (dashed line).
Thus, in terms of the wave propagation within the waveguide, the wavenumber is primarily determined by the vertical dimensions and shunt properties (via the complex interface impedance, $Z_{\mathrm{int}}$), and radial curvature is a secondary effect. Although analytically investigated in this section in terms of a circular arrangement, this also holds for other geometries as well. Even in the relatively extreme case of a right-angle bend, negligible reflections will occur for the sufficiently low frequencies at which only plane waves propagate[@Fahy2001], which corresponds to the same frequency range under investigation in this work. As a result, this enables the use of simple but powerful analytic methods to be utilized in the preliminary design of acoustic vortex wave antennas. Note that exact values of $\beta_{\theta}$ can be obtained by numerical evaluation of Eq. (\[Eq:RadialBC\]) using the approximate solution from Eq. (\[Eq:krBetaTheta\]) as an initial guess to ensure rapid convergence.
Radiated field of the acoustic antenna {#Sec:VortexRad}
--------------------------------------
A key feature of the acoustic antenna is the ability to not only control the wave propagation within the waveguide, but also effectively radiate the acoustic signals to the surrounding medium. Previous work relating to leaky wave antennas has focused on treating them as a line array, which assumes that the waves emanate from point sources with appropriate phasing. More advanced analysis of line arrays can also account for the diffraction from finite-sized elements using the so-called Product Theorem [@ShermanButler]. While simple and robust, such an approach is restricted to the far-field of the array, which prevents analysis of the near-field Fresnel zone effects which have been predicted and observed in optics and are explored in this work.
One approach that has been extensively utilized to investigate vortex waves is the use of Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) beams. LG beams are solutions to the paraxial wave equation, and have previously been applied to acoustic vortex waves [@Hefner1998; @Hefner1999]. While this accounts for both the radial and angular modes generated by the vortex wave source, these modes are restricted to integer values. Another limiting factor is that the formulation assumes an infinite aperture, which is not appropriate for the ring-shaped acoustic antennas (with overall dimensions on the order of a wavelength or less) considered here.
Alternatively, the total pressure field radiating from an arbitrarily shaped acoustic antenna aperture can be formulated by summing the pressure radiating from each shunt. Here we will consider a uniform rectangular source of length $l$ and width $w$, centered at the origin with a rigid baffle. From the paraxial solution of the Rayleigh integral, an explicit expression for the radiated pressure of the element can be obtained [@Mast2007] $$\begin{aligned}
P&_{\mathrm{elem}}(x,y,z,t) = \frac{1}{4} P_{0} \, e^{j \omega t} e^{-j \frac{1}{2} k \zeta \left[1 + \left(z/\zeta \right)^{2} \right] } \notag \\*
\times & \left\{ \! \mathrm{erf} \! \left[ \sqrt{ j \frac{z_{l}}{\zeta} } \left( 1 \!+\! \frac{x}{l} \right) \right] + \mathrm{erf} \! \left[ \sqrt{ j \frac{z_{l}}{\zeta} } \left( 1 \!-\! \frac{x}{l} \right) \right] \right\} \notag \\*
\times & \left\{ \! \mathrm{erf} \! \left[ \sqrt{ j \frac{z_{w}}{\zeta} } \left( 1 \!+\! \frac{y}{w} \right) \right] + \mathrm{erf} \! \left[ \sqrt{ j \frac{z_{w}}{\zeta} } \left( 1 \!-\! \frac{y}{w} \right) \right] \right\},\label{Eq:Pxyz}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{0}$ is the complex pressure at the face of the element, $\mathrm{erf}$ is the complex error function, $z_{l} \!=\! kl^{2}/2$ and $z_{w} \!=\! kw^{2}/2$ are the Rayleigh distances in the $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively, and $$\label{Eq:ZetaCases}
\zeta \!=\!
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{x^{2} + y^{2} + z^{2}} \quad \text{for spherical diffraction,} \\
\sqrt{x^{2} + z^{2}}\quad \text{for cylindrical diffraction (xz-plane).} \\
\end{cases}$$ The approximation of spherical diffraction gives the most accurate results for small sources, and is useful for 2D acoustic arrays of rectangular elements. Alternatively, when one dimension of the source is small and the other is very large, such as for a 1D array, the approximation of cylindrical diffraction is the most appropriate. This approach combines the versatility of array theory to model arbitrarily large and complicated acoustic antennas with accuracy in the near-field (Fresnel zone) obtained using paraxial solutions like those for LG beams. Furthermore, the near-field restriction in this case is based on the size of elements, which are deeply subwavelength in scale, rather than for the size of the entire aperture, as in the solutions used in previous works on vortex waves.
To fully make use of this approach, the locations of each element must be accounted for to sum the total pressure field properly. For the $q^{\mathrm{th}}$ element located in the source plane $z \!=\! 0$ with center ($x_{q},y_{q}$) and rotation angle $\theta_{q}$, the pressure field can be obtained by a coordinate translation and rotation to the ($\bar{x}_{q},\bar{y}_{q}$) space such that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{x}_{q} &= \ \ (x - x_{q})\cos \theta_{q} + (y - y_{q}) \sin \theta_{q}, \label{Eq:CoordTransX} \\
\bar{y}_{q} &= -(x - x_{q})\sin \theta_{q} + (y - y_{q}) \cos \theta_{q}. \label{Eq:CoordTransY}\end{aligned}$$
Although the overall arrangement of the shunts plays an important part of determining the total pressure field, the most important feature connecting the radiated field with the interior field of the acoustic antenna is the complex pressure term, denoted by $P_{0}$ in Eq. (\[Eq:Pxyz\]). As described in Section \[Sec:VortexProp\], the acoustic antenna waveguide is primarily affected by the waveguide height and shunt characteristics, with much smaller (higher order) corrections due to the curvature of the waveguide. To obtain nearly uniform pressure across a given shunt, the waveguide should be designed with a sufficiently narrow width, $w_{\mathrm{wg}} \!=\! r_{\mathrm{out}} \!- r_{\mathrm{in}}$ (i.e. radial dimension illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Geom3D\]).
In this case, according to Eq. (\[Eq:krBetaTheta\]) it is therefore possible to describe the wavenumber within the curved waveguide using the 2D theory described in Sec. \[Sec:2Dprism\]. Thus, from Eqs. (\[Eq:PressureXZ\]) and (\[Eq:Pxyz\])–(\[Eq:CoordTransY\]) it is possible to write an explicit approximate expression to describe the pressure radiated from an arbitrarily shaped acoustic antenna of total path length $L$ with $N$ shunts, $$\begin{aligned}
P&_{\mathrm{tot}}(x,y,z,t) \approx \notag \\*
& \frac{1}{4} p_{0} \cos(\gamma_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}}) \, e^{j \omega t} e^{-j \frac{1}{2} k \zeta \left[1 + \left(z/\zeta \right)^{2} \right] } \sum_{q=1}^{N} e^{-j \beta_{x} (q/N)L } \notag \\*
\times & \left\{ \! \mathrm{erf} \! \left[ \sqrt{ j \frac{z_{l}}{\bar{\zeta}_{q}} } \left( 1 \!+\! \frac{\bar{x}_{q}}{l} \right) \right] + \mathrm{erf} \! \left[ \sqrt{ j \frac{z_{l}}{\bar{\zeta}_{q}} } \left( 1 \!-\! \frac{\bar{x}_{q}}{l} \right) \right] \right\} \notag \\*
\times & \left\{ \! \mathrm{erf} \! \left[ \sqrt{ j \frac{z_{w}}{\bar{\zeta}_{q}} } \left( 1 \!+\! \frac{\bar{y}_{q}}{w} \right) \right] + \mathrm{erf} \! \left[ \sqrt{ j \frac{z_{w}}{\bar{\zeta}_{q}} } \left( 1 \!-\! \frac{\bar{y}_{q}}{w} \right) \right] \right\}, \label{Eq:Ptot}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{0}$ is the source pressure in the waveguide, and $$\label{Eq:ZetaBar}
\bar{\zeta}_{q} = \sqrt{\bar{x}_{q}^{2} + \bar{y}_{q}^{2} + z^{2}},$$ for spherical diffraction with $\bar{x}_{q}$ and $\bar{y}_{q}$ given by Eqs. (\[Eq:CoordTransX\]) and (\[Eq:CoordTransY\]), respectively. Note that approximate expressions of $\gamma_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}}$ and $\beta_{x}$ valid for $k_{0} h_{\mathrm{wg}} \ll 1$ are given by Eqs. (\[Eq:GammaLF\]) and (\[Eq:BetaX\]).
{width="99.00000%" height="0.7\textheight"}
The implications and potential impact of Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]) are explored in the remainder of this paper. One particularly interesting aspect of the total pressure field is phasing which occurs as the wave within the acoustic antenna propagates in a closed loop, leading to the generation of vortex waves. When the phase term $\beta_{x}L$ does not equal an integer multiple of $2 \pi$, a phase discontinuity will occur where the start and end points meet. The near-field and far-field vortex structures which occur under both integer and fractional modes generated by the acoustic antenna for a circular, axisymmetric shape is examined in detail in Section \[Sec:VortexRad\]. An important feature regarding the use of Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]) is that it is not limited to circular shapes. This enables the analysis of non-axisymmetric acoustic antenna arrangements, which are demonstrated to enable far-field superresolution features in Section \[Sec:ShapedVortex\].
Integer and fractional topological modes {#Sec:FractModes}
----------------------------------------
As demonstrated in Sec. \[Sec:VortexProp\], one of the advantages of the circular acoustic antenna is its topological diverse nature, allowing one to generate a continuum of modes, including those with either integer or non-integer (fractional) values. Even though the wave propagation within the acoustic antenna exhibits this continuum of topological modes, the radiated field of the fractional modes leads to a non-integer multiple of $2 \pi$, resulting in a phase discontinuity in the pressure. While fractional modes have been studied in optics for many years, confusion still persists about how to properly account for these effects [@Marston2009a]. Furthermore, some contradictory concepts of fractional vortices have emerged throughout the years, with theoretical results showing the total vortex strength of fractional vortices being quantized to integer values in the far-field [@Berry2004], yet extensive experimental and numerical evidence indicating that optical fractional vortices lead to near-field phase discontinuities [@Vasnetsov1998; @Lee2004; @Tao2005; @GarciaGracia2009; @Marston2009a; @Vyas2010], including recent work expanding this to fractional acoustic vortices [@Hong2015].
![ (Color online) Pressure (magnitude) obtained analytically using Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]) for an acoustic vortex wave antenna in a circular arrangement at various distances from the source at (a)–(d) $m \!=\! 1.0$, and (e)–(h) $m \!=\! 1.5$. The distances along the $z$ direction from the source plane are normalized by the circumference $L$ of the acoustic antenna. The corresponding Rayleigh distances from the source for each $z/L$ are tabulated in Table \[Tab:RaylDist\], and the solid lines denote the resolution limit calculated using Eq. (\[Eq:CircRes\]). []{data-label="Fig:CircMagnitudes"}](VortexWave_SuperResolution_Fig05.png){width="0.99\columnwidth" height="0.7\textheight"}
Due to its ability to independently vary the frequency of operation and therefore generate a wide range of topological modes, the acoustic vortex wave antenna represents a topologically diverse aperture. This presents an ideal means to examine the generation of both integer and non-integer topological modes. In this section, a circular ring arrangement is used, which due to the axial symmetry, provides conceptually analogous phase features to previously examined optical vortices. Figure \[Fig:CircModes\](a)–(h) shows the magnitude and phase of the source plane at $z \!=\! 0$ for a circular acoustic vortex wave antenna based on Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]) at topological modes $m \!=\! 0.5$, $1$, $1.5$, and $2$. In these plots, the vortices can be identified by the spiral phase fronts, with a null in the pressure magnitude at the vortex center. For the case of integer modes, the number of “arms" of the spiral phase fronts is equal to the mode number, and for axisymmetric arrangements, the vortices converge along the axis of the beam for integer values of $m$.
To validate the phase variations generated in the source plane, finite element model (FEM) simulations using COMSOL multiphysics have also been performed, and are presented in Fig. \[Fig:CircModes\](i)–(l). The FEM was constructed in a similar manner to previous work by the authors[@Naify2016], and consisted of a circular arrangement with the same waveguide geometry and boundary conditions as those used to obtain the analytical results. Comparing Fig. \[Fig:CircModes\](e)–(h) with Fig. \[Fig:CircModes\](i)–(l), it can be seen that there is good agreement between the analytical and FEM results. For all the topological modes ($m \!=\! 0.5$, $1$, $1.5$, and $2$), the approximate analytical results predict very similar phase fields as those determined using FEM.
At half-step fractional modes, like $m \!=\! 0.5$ and $m \!=\! 1.5$ illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:CircModes\] for both the analytical results and FEM, a distinct line discontinuity is present in the phase plots. This discontinuity can also be seen in the magnitude, which appears as a large null region in the pressure field and illustrates the formation of the next topological mode, as observed in optical vortices [@Berry2004]. However, even though the discontinuity between the start and end point of the acoustic vortex wave antenna is at $\theta \!=\! 0$ (along the positive x-axis denoted by the dashed line in Fig. \[Fig:CircModes\]), the line discontinuity in the phase of the radiated pressure field occurs at a distinctly different angle. Unlike the case of optical vortices formulated and generated using very large apertures such as SPPs which prescribed the discontinuity at $\theta \!=\! 0$ in the source plane, the acoustic vortex wave antenna generates the acoustic waves from a small aperture. The resulting discontinuity in the phase is rotated in the direction of propagation within the waveguide and the resulting angle of transmission from the acoustic antenna.
![ (Color online) Pressure (phase) obtained analytically using Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]) for an acoustic vortex wave antenna in a circular arrangement at various distances from the source at (a)–(d) $m \!=\! 1.0$, and (e)–(h) $m \!=\! 1.5$. The distances along the $z$ direction from the source plane are normalized by the circumference $L$ of the acoustic antenna. The corresponding Rayleigh distances from the source for each $z/L$ are tabulated in Table \[Tab:RaylDist\]. []{data-label="Fig:CircPhases"}](VortexWave_SuperResolution_Fig06.png){width="0.99\columnwidth" height="0.7\textheight"}
A more quantitative analysis of the topological modes can be achieved by calculation of the total vortex strength. The total vortex strength $S_{\mathrm{tot}}$ can be determined by integrating the phase around a closed non-intersecting loop $C$, such that [@Berry2004; @GarciaGracia2009] $$\label{Eq:VortexStrength}
S_{\mathrm{tot}} = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \oint_{C} d \varphi \frac{ \partial }{ \partial \varphi } \arg P_{\mathrm{tot}} ,$$ where $\arg P_{\mathrm{tot}}$ is the argument of the the total radiated pressure, and $P_{\mathrm{tot}}$ can be calculated using Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]). Previous analysis of the optical vortex strength has demonstrated that in the limit of a large closed loop (and thus far from the source), the vortex strength for an aperture of infinite spatial extent approaches a step function, resulting in a topological mode rounded to the nearest integer [@Berry2004]. Thus, as the topological mode of the source is increased through a half-mode, the total radiated vortex strength far from the source jumps from one integer value to the next.
The total vortex strength plotted in Fig. \[Fig:Beta\_v\_Freq\](b) is calculated using Eq. (\[Eq:VortexStrength\]) for the circular acoustic vortex wave antenna shown in Fig. \[Fig:CircModes\]. From these results, it can be seen that even with a topologically diverse acoustic antenna generating both integer and non-integer modes, the radiated total vortex strength is always an integer value. Thus, even when a phase discontinuity is present at a particular angle due to a fractional mode, the *integrated* total over a closed loop will still produce a net change in phase that is an integer multiple of $2 \pi$.
------- --------- ----------------------- --------- ---------
$z/z_{\mathrm{Rayl}}$
$z/L$ $m = 1$ $m = 1.5$ $m = 2$ $m = 3$
$0.2$ $2.05$ $1.40$ $1.18$ $0.82$
$0.4$ $4.10$ $2.80$ $2.37$ $1.63$
$0.6$ $6.14$ $4.20$ $3.55$ $2.45$
$0.8$ $8.19$ $5.60$ $4.73$ $3.27$
$1.0$ $10.24$ $7.00$ $5.91$ $4.08$
$2.0$ $20.48$ $14.00$ $11.83$ $8.17$
------- --------- ----------------------- --------- ---------
: Corresponding values of z normalized by the Rayleigh distance for several values of $z/L$ used in this work, denoting the relative distance in the far-field. The values for $z/z_{\mathrm{Rayl}}$ are calculated based the expression given by Eq. (\[Eq:z2zR\]). []{data-label="Tab:RaylDist"}
While the phase discontinuities from fractional modes illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:CircModes\] have been observed numerically and experimentally, such results have previously been limited to near-field observations of the phase. Based on the analysis using the total vortex strength, it is apparent that the fractional vortices decay before making it to large distances away from the source. However, there remains a disconnect in the scientific literature on this topic regarding the transition of the fractional vortices from near-field to far-field, and the connection of the discretized total source strength with the observed phase discontinuities.
An important question, particularly related to the objective of far-field superresolution examined in Sec. \[Sec:ShapedVortex\], is determining how these fractional modes decay as a function of distance from the source. Figures \[Fig:CircMagnitudes\] and \[Fig:CircPhases\] show the magnitude and phase, respectively, for a representative integer mode ($m \!=\! 1$) and fractional mode ($m \!=\! 1.5$) at different distances in the transition from the near-field to the far-field. The distances are denoted by $z/L$, which correspond to the distance along the vertical (out of the page) $z$ direction normalized by the total aperture length (circumference) $L$, and is related to Rayleigh distance $z_{\mathrm{Rayl}}$ (denoting the distance from the source to the beginning of the far-field) in terms of the properties of the acoustic antenna according to $$\label{Eq:z2zR}
\frac{z}{ z_{\mathrm{Rayl}} } = \frac{4 \pi}{m} \frac{c_{0}}{c_{\mathrm{ph}}} \frac{z}{L},$$ where $m$ is the mode number based on Eq. (\[Eq:BetaTheta\]) and $c_{\mathrm{ph}}$ and $c_{0}$ are the phase speeds in the acoustic antenna and surrounding fluid, respectively, given by Eq. (\[Eq:PhaseSpeed\]). A tabulated list comparing $z/L$ and $z/z_{\mathrm{Rayl}}$ is given in Table \[Tab:RaylDist\] for modes $m \! = \! 1$, $m \! = \! 1.5$, $m \! = \! 2$, and $m \! = \! 3$.
In Fig. \[Fig:CircMagnitudes\], negligible change is observed in the shape of the magnitude for the integer mode, except for the scaled increase in the overall dimensions due to geometric spreading. The overall shape is similar to that of a first order LG beam, with a sharp null in the pressure field at the origin of the xy-plane due to the vortex. Note that although the overall width of the doughnut-shaped beam is larger than the resolution limit denoted by the solid line (the details of this are discussed in Sec. \[Sec:ResLimit\]), the vortex null is significantly smaller than the resolution limit (about 8 times smaller than the resolution limit as tabulated in Table \[Tab:Res\]), and has previously been exploited in optics to achieve superresolved microscopy [@Sheppard2004; @Watanabe2004; @Bokor2007].
{width="99.00000%" height="0.7\textheight"}
This uniform doughnut-shaped ring around the vortex is not present for the case of non-integer modes. For $m \!=\! 1.5$ as shown in Fig. \[Fig:CircMagnitudes\], the peak magnitude occurs at two large lobes, which surround the sharp null of the vortex. Note that while this null is also significantly smaller than the resolution limit, its location is shifted away from the origin due to the formation of a second vortex in the upper half of the xy-plane, resulting from the fractional component of the topological mode. This can also be observed in the phase plots of Fig. \[Fig:CircPhases\], with the progressive weakening of the line discontinuity with increasing distance from the source plane. At even the modest change in distance from source plane (z/L = 0) to z/L = 0.8 (where $L$ is the circumference of the acoustic antenna), the fractional component has diminished significantly, and the resulting spiral phase resembles that of a single vortex with an integer vortex strength.
The results illustrated in panels (e)–(h) of Fig. \[Fig:CircMagnitudes\] and \[Fig:CircPhases\] highlight the rapid decay of the fractional topological modes into the far-field. While the total vortex strength given by Eq. (\[Eq:VortexStrength\]) has previously been used to emphasize that only the integer mode components propagate to the far-field, the total vortex strength of a small finite source exhibits integer values of this metric in the transition from the near-field to far-field as well. The examination of the detailed pressure fields using Fig. \[Fig:CircMagnitudes\] and \[Fig:CircPhases\] (e)–(h), however, enable a clearer picture of this change from fractional to integer modes. As observed in Fig. \[Fig:CircMagnitudes\] and \[Fig:CircPhases\] (a)–(d), the integer mode vortex remains stable and constant (excluding geometric spreading effects) in both the magnitude and phase of the pressure field throughout the transition from near-field to far-field. In addition to their robustness, these integer modes also demonstrate vortex nulls that are much smaller (more than a factor of 8 times smaller for $m \!=\! 1$) than the resolution limit, and therefore offer the possibility of creating far-field sub-resolution limit features.
Shaped acoustic vortices and superresolution {#Sec:ShapedVortex}
============================================
In Sec. \[Sec:FractModes\], localized nulls in the pressure field generated by circular acoustic vortex wave antennas were observed and examined, and shown to be smaller than the resolution limit. While these localized nulls have been used in optics as a means to obtain superresolution, the sub-resolution limit null is surrounded by a large doughnut-shaped peak, which is larger than the resolution limit. As a result, such an approach is limited to creating single sub-resolution points, yet does not enable generating more complex sub-resolution structures useful for communications or particle manipulation applications. While recent work has begun to examine the ability to manipulate the acoustic pressure field from circular arrays using fractional mode shaped acoustic vortices [@Hong2015], the rapid decay of fractional mode components discussed in Sec. \[Sec:FractModes\] limit such an approach to near-field applications.
Alternatively, shaped acoustic vortices can be generated using a non-axisymmetric source, which has previously been examined in optics using the spatial distribution of topological charge or diffractive optical elements[@Hickman2010; @Brasselet2013; @Amaral2013; @Amaral2014]. Unlike these optical means, which are limited to operation at single topological modes, the acoustic antenna described in this work enables a topologically diverse method of generating the vortex waves. Furthermore, the theoretical formulations developed in Sec. \[Sec:VortexPrism\] enable the design of arbitrarily shaped acoustic antenna arrangements, facilitating a geometrically versatile means to shape the acoustic vortices. In this section, the use of shaped acoustic vortices using an acoustic vortex wave antenna is explored as a means for generating superresolved features and shapes. This analysis begins with quantifying the metric of the resolution limit, which is examined in Sec. \[Sec:ResLimit\]. In Sec. \[Sec:Shaped\], the generation of shaped acoustic vortices is discussed, followed by a demonstration of superresolution from a square-shaped and triangular-shaped ring.
![ (Color online) Pressure (magnitude) obtained analytically using Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]) for a square-shaped arrangement at the mode $m \! = \! 3$ at various distances from the source for (a)–(c) an acoustic vortex wave antenna, and (d)–(f) a uniform acoustic array. The distances along the $z$ direction from the source plane are normalized by the circumference $L$ of the acoustic antenna. The corresponding Rayleigh distances from the source for each $z/L$ are tabulated in Table \[Tab:RaylDist\], and the solid lines denote the resolution limit calculated using Eq. (\[Eq:CircRes\]). []{data-label="Fig:SquareMagnitudes"}](VortexWave_SuperResolution_Fig08.png){width="0.99\columnwidth" height="0.7\textheight"}
Resolution limit {#Sec:ResLimit}
----------------
The resolution limit for an acoustic source can be obtained from the beam width of the radiated pressure field. Due to diffraction, a discrete finite source will not produce a perfectly collimated beam, but rather exhibits a roll-off from the on-axis peak value down to some local off-axis minimum. Different criteria have been used over the years to denote the width of the beam, and in this work we will use the 3 dB point (half power, or where the amplitude is 0.707 the peak value) to define the edge of the beam, and therefore denotes the resolution limit of the source. The 3 dB resolution, $d_{r}$, at a distance $z$ from the source can be obtained theoretically for an acoustic aperture of effective radius $r_{\mathrm{eff}}$, which can be expressed as [@Kino] $$\label{Eq:CircRes}
d_{r} = 0.51 \frac{ \lambda_{0} z}{ r_{\mathrm{eff}} } = 1.02 \pi \frac{ z}{ k_{0} r_{\mathrm{eff}} },$$ where $\lambda_{0}$ and $k_{0}$ are the wavelength and wavenumber in the surrounding fluid, respectively.
![ (Color online) Pressure (phase) obtained analytically using Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]) for a square-shaped arrangement at the mode $m \! = \! 3$ at various distances from the source for (a)–(c) an acoustic vortex wave antenna, and (d)–(f) a uniform acoustic array. The distances along the $z$ direction from the source plane are normalized by the circumference $L$ of the acoustic antenna, with the corresponding Rayleigh distances from the source for each $z/L$ are tabulated in Table \[Tab:RaylDist\]. []{data-label="Fig:SquarePhases"}](VortexWave_SuperResolution_Fig09.png){width="0.99\columnwidth" height="0.7\textheight"}
The resolution limit given by Eq. (\[Eq:CircRes\]) applies to both unfocused (circular) and focused (spherical) acoustic sources. Although the resolution limit is the same for focused and unfocused sources in this case, the use of a focused acoustic source allows for a significant increase in the amplitude in the focal region. From Eq. (\[Eq:CircRes\]) it can be seen that the resolution can be made smaller than the diameter of the source at distances $z \! \lesssim \! 0.8 \, z_{\mathrm{Rayl}}$, where $z_{\mathrm{Rayl}} \!=\! kr_{\mathrm{eff}}^{2}/2$ is the Rayleigh distance denoting the start of the far-field. However, this reduction in resolution compared to the diameter is limited to the near-field, and in the far-field geometric spreading will lead to an increase in $d_{r}$ with increasing distance from the source.
{width="99.00000%" height="0.7\textheight"}
Shaped acoustic vortices {#Sec:Shaped}
------------------------
In addition to the circular, axisymmetric arrangements explored in Sec. \[Sec:VortexPrism\], acoustic vortex wave antennas can be constructed into arbitrary shapes, enabling the creation of shaped acoustic vortices. Vortices created using circular or axisymmetric sources converge along the central axis for integer topological modes, as discussed in Sec. \[Sec:FractModes\] and illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:CircMagnitudes\]. However, shaped optical vortices have been shown to exhibit vortex splitting for non-axisymmetric arrangements at higher topological modes [@Brasselet2013]. Such a feature has not previously been exploited for acoustic waves, and the use of the acoustic vortex wave antenna enables multiple topological modes to be investigated using a single aperture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aperture Mode Shape Resolution
--------------- ------ --------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Circular ring $1$ point $0.12 \, d_{r}$
Square ring $1$ point $ 0.11 \, d_{r}$
Square ring $3$ “X" & $0.23 \, d_{r}$\
Triangular ring & $1$ & point & $ 0.12 \, d_{r}$\
Triangular ring & $2$ & “Y" & $0.19 \, d_{r}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Resolution, mode number and resulting far-field pressure shape for the different acoustic antenna arrangements examined in this work. The resolution is determined using a 3-dB criteria from the pressure magnitudes illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:CircMagnitudes\], \[Fig:SquareModes\], \[Fig:SquareMagnitudes\], \[Fig:TriangleModes\], and \[Fig:TriangleMagnitudes\], and is written as a function of the resolution limit, $d_{r}$, for a traditional source given by Eq. (\[Eq:CircRes\]). []{data-label="Tab:Res"}
In general, the design and numerical evaluation of such acoustic pressure fields would be computationally quite time consuming. For each iterative design, the 3D acoustic pressure field would need to calculated over a wide range of frequencies to determine the modal frequencies of interest. For the case of a topologically diverse aperture such as the acoustic vortex wave antenna, the numerical meshing of the source would need to be sufficiently small to capture the detail of each radiating element. At the same time, the range of geometric parameters that govern the dispersive wave propagation within the acoustic antenna, including those listed in Table \[Tab:Props\], would each need to be varied and optimized to achieve a desired performance. While technically possible, such a numerical approach would prove impractical to explore the design space of complex arrangements. Alternatively, the theoretical formulation developed in Sec. \[Sec:VortexPrism\] enables one to determine the wavenumber within the acoustic antenna, and from this determine the corresponding magnitude and phase at each radiating shunt. For a given arbitrary arrangement of the acoustic antenna, the total radiated pressure (valid in the near-field and far-field of the aperture) can then be explicitly calculated from Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]), as was done for the circular arrangement examined in Sec. \[Sec:FractModes\].
Throughout the remainder of this section, two representative cases will be examined to demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach and capabilities for achieving far-field superresolution using shaped acoustic vortices: (1) a square-shaped ring and (2) a triangular-shaped ring. The square- and triangular-shaped rings both have a total waveguide length of $L$ and have the same geometric properties given in Table \[Tab:Props\]. In both cases, use of the acoustic vortex wave antenna enables multiple topological modes to be examined using a single aperture design. Based on the results of Sec. \[Sec:FractModes\], the current analysis will focus on integer modes, since they are the only topological components that contribute to the far-field vortices.
Figure \[Fig:SquareModes\] shows the pressure magnitude for a square-shaped acoustic vortex wave antenna at the first four topological modes. The magnitude of the radiated pressure field is shown at the source plane ($z/L \! = \! 0$) in (a)–(d), and at $z/L \! = \! 0.5$ in (e)–(h), with the solid line denoting the 3-dB resolution limit given by Eq. (\[Eq:CircRes\]). One of the most noticeable characteristics of the radiated pressure fields illustrated is the distinct difference from the square-shaped ring of the aperture, visible in yellow in (a)–(d), compared with the more complicated vortex patterns that are radiated in (e)–(h). However, the origins of these complex pressure fields can be seen in the nulls of the source plane created within the boundary formed by the square-shaped ring, and the overall beam pattern extending out beyond the ring.
![ (Color online) Pressure (magnitude) obtained analytically using Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]) for a triangular-shaped arrangement at the mode $m \! = \! 2$ at various distances from the source for (a)–(c) an acoustic vortex wave antenna, and (d)–(f) a uniform acoustic array. The distances along the $z$ direction from the source plane are normalized by the circumference $L$ of the acoustic antenna. The corresponding Rayleigh distances from the source for each $z/L$ are tabulated in Table \[Tab:RaylDist\], and the solid lines denote the resolution limit calculated using Eq. (\[Eq:CircRes\]). []{data-label="Fig:TriangleMagnitudes"}](VortexWave_SuperResolution_Fig11.png){width="0.99\columnwidth" height="0.7\textheight"}
In Fig. \[Fig:SquareModes\](e)–(h), the effects of vortex splitting at higher topological modes can also be observed. Whereas the single vortex at $m \! = \! 1$ remains centered along the beam axis with the peak pressure forming a uniform doughnut-shaped ring (similar to the circular acoustic vortex wave antenna results from Fig. \[Fig:CircMagnitudes\]), vortices for progressively higher topological modes form increasingly complex off-axis vortex arrangements. In particular, it can be observed that at $m \! = \! 3$, the resulting vortex arrangement forms an “X" shape, which contains sub-resolution detail. The resolution for the square-shaped ring based the size of these features are tabulated in Table \[Tab:Res\], and give a resolution that is 4-9 times *smaller* than the resolution limit. A similar effect can be observed at $m \! = \! 4$, and although the center-to-center distances between the vortices extends beyond the resolution limit, the finer detail in the pressure field is smaller than that of the resolution limit denoted by the solid line.
![ (Color online) Pressure (phase) obtained analytically using Eq. (\[Eq:Ptot\]) for a triangular-shaped arrangement at the mode $m \! = \! 2$ at various distances from the source for (a)–(c) an acoustic vortex wave antenna, and (d)–(f) a uniform acoustic array. The distances along the $z$ direction from the source plane are normalized by the circumference $L$ of the acoustic antenna, with the corresponding Rayleigh distances from the source for each $z/L$ are tabulated in Table \[Tab:RaylDist\]. []{data-label="Fig:TrianglePhases"}](VortexWave_SuperResolution_Fig12.png){width="0.99\columnwidth" height="0.7\textheight"}
To further explore the far-field acoustic pressure, the magnitude and phase of the $m \!=\! 3$ mode are presented in Fig. \[Fig:SquareMagnitudes\] and \[Fig:SquarePhases\], respectively, in panels (a)–(c). To illustrate the enhanced resolution achieved using the acoustic vortex waves, results for an equivalent uniform array (using the same square-shaped ring but without the spiral phase created by the acoustic vortex wave antenna) is shown in panels (d)–(f). The stability of the superresolved “X" shape can be seen from the results shown in Fig. \[Fig:SquareModes\](g) through well into the far-field in Fig. \[Fig:SquareMagnitudes\](a)–(c), which remains the same except for the overall scaling due to geometric spreading. By comparison, the uniform array illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:SquareMagnitudes\](d)–(f) achieves a similar resolution as that predicted by Eq. (\[Eq:CircRes\]), and the square-shaped features of the ring (present in the source plane) are lost as the beam propagates through the far-field. Similar results can be observed in the plots of the phase, shown in Fig. \[Fig:SquarePhases\]. In particular, the near-axis phase information retains a detailed, sub-resolution limit structure, whereas the uniform array decays from the square-shaped ring into a circular shape, losing the identifiable detailed information of the particular shape of the source.
Similar results can be also observed for shaped acoustic vortices generated from a triangular-shaped ring. Figure \[Fig:TriangleModes\] shows the pressure magnitude for a triangular-shaped acoustic vortex wave antenna at the first four topological modes, at the source plane ($z/L \! = \! 0$) in panels (a)–(d), and at $z/L \! = \! 0.5$ in panels (e)–(h). As in the previous case of the square-shaped ring, the solid line denoting the 3-dB resolution limit is given by Eq. (\[Eq:CircRes\]), and the radiated pressure fields in panels (e)–(h) create complicated sub-resolution limit vortex patterns which are 5-8 times smaller than the resolution limit, as summarized in Table \[Tab:Res\]. While these radiated pressure fields are distinctly different from the triangular-shaped ring of the aperture, visible in yellow in (a)–(d), similarities can be found in the nulls of the source plane within the boundary formed by the triangle, and the overall beam pattern extending out beyond the ring.
In Fig. \[Fig:TriangleModes\](e)–(h), the effects of vortex splitting at higher topological modes can also be observed. In a similar manner to the circular and square-shaped acoustic vortex wave antenna results, the single vortex at $m \! = \! 1$ remains centered along the beam axis. For progressively higher topological modes, increasingly complex off-axis vortex arrangements can be observed in Fig. \[Fig:TriangleModes\](e)–(h). In particular, it can be observed that at $m \! = \! 2$, the resulting vortex arrangement forms a “Y" shape, which contains sub-resolution detail. A similar effect can be observed at $m \! = \! 3$ and $m \! = \! 4$, with finer sub-resolution limit detail in the pressure field occurring within the central triangular region between the vortices.
To further explore the far-field acoustic pressure for the triangular-shaped ring, the magnitude and phase of the $m \!=\! 2$ mode are presented in Fig. \[Fig:TriangleMagnitudes\] and \[Fig:TrianglePhases\], respectively, in panels (a)–(c). To illustrate the enhanced resolution achieved using the acoustic vortex waves, results for an equivalent uniform array are shown in panels (d)–(f). The uniform array in this case consists of the same triangular-shaped ring, but without the spiral phase created by the acoustic vortex wave antenna. The stability of the superresolved “Y" shape can be seen from both the results shown in Fig. \[Fig:TriangleModes\](f) and in Fig. \[Fig:TriangleMagnitudes\](a)–(c), which remains the same except for the overall scaling due to geometric spreading. By comparison, the uniform array illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:TriangleMagnitudes\](d)–(f) achieves a similar resolution as that predicted by Eq. (\[Eq:CircRes\]), and the triangular-shaped features of the ring (present in the source plane) are lost as the beam propagates through the far-field, appearing indistinguishable from a circular aperture.
Similar results can be observed in Fig. \[Fig:TrianglePhases\] for the phase of the pressure field, for which vortex nodes connected by line discontinuities form a “Y" pattern near the axis. In particular, the near-axis phase information retains a detailed yet stable sub-resolution limit “Y" shape well into the far-field, whereas the uniform array decays from the triangular-shaped ring into a circular shape, losing the identifiable detailed information of the particular shape of the source.
Conclusions {#Sec:Conclusions}
===========
In conclusion, an acoustic vortex wave antenna can provide a method for creating shaped acoustic vortices that are stable well into the far-field and enable subdiffraction-limited features without the need for a near-field lens. In this work, a detailed development of the acoustic antenna was presented based on an acoustic leaky-wave antenna. A key feature of the acoustic antenna is the ability to not only control the wave propagation within the waveguide, but also effectively radiate the acoustic signals to the surrounding medium. Due to its topological diversity, the acoustic vortex wave antenna is shown to be an ideal means to examine the generation of integer and non-integer topological modes. Through the use of an acoustic vortex wave antenna and the formulations developed in this work, the decay of fractional topological modes were examined, showing how they change from fractional to integer modes in the far-field. It was also shown that these integer modes create acoustic vortices that are much smaller than the resolution limit and produce far-field sub-resolution limit features and shapes.
An important aspect of the theoretical formulation developed here is that it is not limited to axisymmetric shapes, and the results of this work were demonstrated for both circular and arbitrarily-shaped acoustic vortex wave antennas. In both arrangements, it was shown that far-field superresolution could be achieved, and that in particular a non-axisymmetric aperture enabled the creation of complex superresolved off-axis pressure fields due to vortex splitting at higher topological modes, which is useful for communications or particle manipulation applications. Superresolution using shaped acoustic vortices was demonstrated for the two representative cases of a square- and triangular-shaped ring. In both cases, superresolved features were demonstrated, with feature sizes 4-9 times smaller than the resolution limit, enabling the creation of shapes including the letter “X" and “Y" (for the square- and triangular-shaped rings, respectively), which were stable well into the far-field. These results were compared with a uniform array, which had the same arrangement of radiating elements but did not generate acoustic vortex waves, and it was shown that these traditional arrays where unable to maintain the relevant detail from the source plane to create sharp features and sub-resolution limit detail.
The results presented here demonstrate how far-field superresolution from an acoustically small source can be achieved through the use of an acoustic vortex wave antenna. This enables the ability to extend beyond the traditional diffraction-limits on the generation and transmission of acoustic waves, leading to higher precision and control of the far-field pressure. The improved precision and control of the acoustic pressure using shaped acoustic vortices offers the potential for wide applicability, including acoustic communication and particle manipulation.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research.
[71]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{}, (, , ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} (, , ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} **, @noop [Ph.D. thesis]{}, () @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , )
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
I discuss how an extra light scalar meson multiplet could be understood as an effective Higgs nonet of a hidden local $U(3)$ symmetry. There is growing evidence that low energy data requires in addition to a conventional $^3P_0$ $\bar q q$ nonet near 1.4 GeV, another light scalar nonet-like structure below 1 GeV, ($\sigma(600)$, $a_0(980)$, $f_0(980)$, $\kappa$), which could be interpreted as such a Higgs nonet.\
Pacs numbers: 11.15.Ex, 11.30.Hv, 12.39.Fe, 14.80.Cp 0.20cm
address: |
Department of Physical Sciences\
University of Helsinki\
POB 64, FIN–00014, Finland
author:
- 'Nils A. Törnqvist[^1]'
date: today
title: The Lightest Scalar Nonet as Higgs Bosons of Strong Interactions
---
¶[$0^{-+}$]{} §[$0^{++}$]{} ß[$s\bar s$]{} ¶[$0^{-+}$]{} §[$0^{++}$]{} ß[$ s\bar s $]{}
The mesons with vacuum quantum numbers are known to be crucial for a full understanding of the symmetry breaking mechanisms in QCD, and presumably also for confinement. The lightest scalar mesons have been controversial since their first observation over thirty years ago. Due to the complications of the nonperturbative strong interactions there is still no general agreement as to where are the $q\bar q$ states, whether there is necessarily a glueball among the light scalars, and whether some of the too numerous scalars are multiquark, $K\bar K$ or other meson-meson bound states. The main problem is that there are too many[@kyoto] light scalars below 1.5 GeV.
A likely solution[@CloseNT] is that in addition to a nonet and a glueball above 1.2 GeV, there is another nonet of more complicated nature below 1 GeV ($\sigma(600),\ a_0(980)$, $f_0(980)$, $\kappa(\sim 800)$[@kappa], i.e., 18 scalar states in all. The latter nonet should have large 4-quark and meson-meson components. There is a heated current debate as to whether the and especially the really are true resonances or just due to very strong attractions in the $\pi\pi$ and $K\pi$ channels. Here we do not want to enter into this debate, we shall only assume that one can approximately model these effects by effective fields. We discussed this with Close in in more detail in a recent review[@CloseNT].
The is sometimes called a Higgs boson of strong interactions since in a simple NJL model and in a linear sigma model the acts like a Higgs giving the constituent $u$ and $d$ quarks most of their mass, and one has the celebrated Nambu relation $m_\sigma
=2m_u^{const}$. But, in such models one generally breaks only a global symmetry spontaneously. For a true analogy with the Higgs mechanism one should have a local symmetry which is broken spontaneously or dynamically. Can one construct[@nils0201171] such a model?
I shall argue that two coupled linear sigma models may provide a first step for an understanding of this and of such a proliferation of 18 light scalar states. After gauging a hidden $U(3)$ symmetry one can then look at the lightest scalars as Higgs-like bosons for the nonperturbative low energy strong interactions.
Let me first remind the reader of the simple $U(N_f)\times
U(N_f)$ linear sigma model[@u3u3] which includes one scalar and one pseudoscalar multiplet. As well known this agrees with chiral perturbation theory at the lowest order in $p^2$[@schech], but includes explicit scalars. The scalar nonet is put into the hermitian part of a $3\times 3$ matrix $\Phi$ and the pseudoscalar nonet into the anti-hermitian part of $\Phi$. One has $\Phi=S+iP=
\sum_{a=0}^8(\sigma_a+ip_a)\lambda_a/\sqrt 2$, where $\lambda_a$ are the Gell-Mann matrices, and $\lambda_0 = (2/N_f)^{1/2} {\bf
1}$. Then the potential V() =-1 2 \^2[Tr]{} \[\^\] +\[\^\^\] +’ ([Tr]{}\[\^\])\^2+[L\_[SB]{}]{}, where $\lambda '$ is a small parameter compared to $\lambda$ (which breaks the scalar singlet mass from that of the octet) and where ${\cal L_{SB}}$ contains a flavor symmetry breaking term $\propto$Tr$(\Phi M_q+M_q\Phi^\dagger)$ (where $M_q$ is the diagonal matrix composed of $m_u,m_d,m_s$), and an $U_A(1)$ breaking term $\propto($det$\Phi$+det$\Phi^\dagger ) $, is not a too bad representation of the lightest pseudoscalars and scalars, already at the tree level. If five of the six parameters are fixed by the experimental $m_\pi^2, m_K^2, (m_\eta^2+m_{\eta '}^2)$, $f_\pi$ and $f_K$, one finds with a small sixth parameter ($\lambda '$) the scalar nonet to be near 1 GeV (a very broad near 650 MeV, an $a_0$ at 1040 MeV, an $f_0$ near 1200 MeV, and a very broad near 1120 MeV[@lsm]). This is quite reasonable considering that unitarizing a similar model can, and in fact and does[@NAT12], shift these states in the second sheet by hundreds of MeV. The essential features we recall here is that neglecting the $U_A(1)$ term one has, after a shift to the minimum $\Phi\to\Phi +v\one$ (where $v^2=m^2/(4\lambda) + {\cal
O}(m_q)$, a nearly massless pseudoscalar nonet of squared mass of ${\cal O}(m_q)$ and a massive scalar nonet of squared mass $=2m^2+{\cal O}(m_q)$.
Now, for two scalar nonets in a chiral model we need two such $3\times 3$ matrices $\Phi$ and $\hat \Phi$. (Let the scalar states above 1 GeV be in $\Phi$, and let those below 1 GeV be in $\hat\Phi$). Then model both $\Phi$ and $\hat\Phi$ by a gauged linear sigma model, but with different sets of parameters ($\mu^2, \lambda$ ) and ($\hat\mu^2, \hat\lambda$). For $\Phi$ without any symmetry breaking nor a $\lambda'$ term we have simply () = 1 2 [Tr]{} \[D\_D\_\^\] +1 2 \^2[Tr]{} \[\^\] -\[\^\^\], and similarly for $\hat\Phi$: () = 1 2 [Tr]{} \[D\_D\_\^\] +1 2 \^2[Tr]{} \[\^\] -\[\^\^\].\[Lagtot\] Neglect to begin with the gauging. We have doubled the spectrum and initially we have two scalar, and two pseudoscalar multiplets, altogether 36 states for three flavors.
These lagrangians are invariant under a global symmetry: $\Phi
\to L\Phi R $ and $\hat \Phi \to L\hat \Phi R $, where $L$ and $R$ are independent $U(3)=SU(3)\times U(1)$ transformations. If there were no coupling between $\Phi$ and $\hat \Phi$ the symmetry would be even larger as the $U(3)$ transformations on $\Phi$ could be independent of those on $\hat \Phi$. We refer to that symmetry as the [*relative*]{} symmetry. But, it is natural to introduce a small coupling[@black]) between the two sets of multiplets, which breaks this relative symmetry[@nils0201171].
The full effective Lagrangian for both $\Phi$ and $\hat\Phi$ thus becomes, \_[tot]{}(,) =[L]{}()+ ()+ 4 [Tr]{}\[\^+h.c.\].If $\Phi_a$ is interpreted as $q\bar q$ and $\hat \Phi_a$ as $q\bar qq\bar q$ states then the $\epsilon^2$ term would allow for $q\bar q\to q\bar qq\bar q$ transitions[@bogli]. This Lagrangian is still invariant under the above $U(3)\times U(3)$ symmetry, but not under the relative symmetry when $\Phi$ is transformed differently from $\hat\Phi$.
Now as a crucial assumption (differently from[@black]), let both $\Phi$ and $\hat\Phi$ have vacuum expectation values (VEV), such that $v=< \sigma_0>/\sqrt N_f \neq 0$ and $\hat v= <\hat
\sigma_0>/\sqrt N_f \neq 0$ even if $\epsilon=0$. Then one has $v^2(\epsilon)=(\mu^2+\epsilon^2\hat v/v)/(4\lambda)$, and $\hat
v^2(\epsilon)=(\hat \mu^2+\epsilon^2 v/\hat v)/(4\hat\lambda)$. If $\epsilon$ would vanish all pseudoscalars would be massless, but with $\epsilon\neq 0$ the $2\times 2$ submatrix between two pseudoscalars with same flavor becomes: m\^2 (0\^[-+]{})=
(
[cc]{} 4v\^2()-\^2 & -\^2\
-\^2& 4v\^2()-\^2\
) =+\^2 (
[cc]{} v/v& -1\
-1 & v/v\
)
,which is diagonalized by a rotation $\theta=\arctan
(v/\hat v)$, such that the eigenvalues are 0 and $\epsilon^2v\hat
v/(v^2+\hat v^2)$: (
[cc]{} c & -s\
s& c\
)m\^2 (0\^[-+]{})(
[cc]{} c & s\
-s& c\
)= \^2(
[cc]{} 1 & 0\
0 & 0\
). Here $s=\sin\theta\propto v$ and $c=\cos\theta\propto \hat v$. Thus the two originally massless pseudoscalar nonets mix through the $\epsilon^2$ term, with a mixing angle $\theta$, such that one nonet remains massless, while the other nonet obtains a mass $\epsilon^2(v^2+\hat v^2)/v\hat v $. This is, of course, just what is expected, since we still have one exact overall $U(3)\times
U(3)$ symmetry, while the relative symmetry is broken through the $\epsilon$ term.
The approximation is valid only if neither $v$ nor $\hat v$ vanishes. Thus one has one massive $|\pi>$ and one massless $|\hat
\pi
>$ would-be pseudoscalar multiplet. Denoting the the original pseudoscalars $|p>$ and $|\hat p>$, we have $|\pi>=c|p>-s|\hat
p>$, and $|\hat \pi>=s|p>+c|\hat p>$. The mixing angle is determined entirely by the two vacuum expectation values, and is large if $v$ and $\hat v$ are of similar magnitudes, independently of how small $\epsilon^2$ is, as long as it remains finite. On the other hand the scalar masses and mixings are only very little affected if $\epsilon^2/(\mu^2-\hat\mu^2)$ is small. They are still close to $\sqrt 2 \mu $ and $\sqrt 2 \hat \mu$ as in the uncoupled case.
In order that this should have anything to do with reality, one must of course get rid of the massless Goldstones. By gauging the overall axial symmetry ($\Phi\to H\Phi H$ and $D_\mu=\partial_\mu-i
g/2(\lambda_aA_a+A_a\lambda_a)$) and reparameterizing the fields = v[**1**]{}+ (\_a+ip\_a) H’\[ v[**1**]{}+(\_a+ic\_a)\]H’,
=v[**1**]{} +(\_a+ip\_a)H’\[v[**1**]{}+(\_a-is\_a)\]H’. Here $H'$ is a fixed gauge for the axial symmetry H’= ) . The validity of these reparametrizations can be seen most easily by expanding $H'=$ $1+i\frac{s}{2v} \frac{\hat \pi_a\lambda_a}{\sqrt 2} ... $ $ =1+i\frac{c}{2\hat v} \frac{\hat \pi_a \lambda_a}{\sqrt 2} ... $ Thus by choosing a special gauge for the hidden symmetry $H$ the $\hat \pi_a$ fields vanish from the spectrum. The axial symmetry $H$ remains as a hidden symmetry while the $\hat \pi$ fields are gauged away. But, these degrees of freedom enter instead as longitudinal axial vector mesons and give these mesons (an extra) mass ($m_A^2=2g^2(v^2+\hat v^2)$. This is like the conventional Higgs mechanism and it has similarities to the original Yang-Mills theory and the work of Bando et al.[@bando] on hidden local symmetries, in that mesons are gauge bosons, but is different both in the scalar particle spectrum and in the realization of the hidden symmetry. The axial vector-pseudoscalar-scalar couplings ($APS$) can be read off from the lagrangian. For the $\sigma$ multiplet one finds $gcA_{\mu,a}[\pi_b\partial_\mu
\sigma_c+\sigma_b\partial \pi_c]{\rm
Tr}(\lambda_a\lambda_b\lambda_c)_+/4$, while for the $\hat \sigma$ multiplet $c$ is replaced by $s$. Other trilinear couplings also follow, in particular for scalar to 2 pseudoscalar couplings ($SPP$) one has: $g_{\hat \sigma_a \pi_b \pi_c}= v cs {\rm
Tr}(\lambda_a\lambda_b\lambda_c)_+/\sqrt 2$ and, $g_{ \hat
\sigma_a \pi_b \pi_c}/g_{ \sigma_a \pi_b \pi_c} = v/ \hat v=\tan
\theta$.
Now, having gauged away the massless Goldstones one can interpret the massive pseudoscalars as the physical pseudoscalars. The would-be axial current related to the overall hidden symmetry is like the $\hat \pi $ gauged away, while the explicitly broken relative symmetry defines a current which is only “partially conserved” when $\epsilon$ differs from 0. Denoting the axial vector current obtained from ${\cal L}(\Phi
) $ by $j_{A\mu,a}=\sqrt N_f v\partial_\mu p_a + ...$ and the one from $\hat{\cal L}(\hat \Phi )$ by $ \hat j_{A\mu}=\sqrt N_f\hat
v\partial_\mu \hat p_a + ...$, then both currents would before gauging be conserved if $\epsilon=0$, because of the masslessness of both $0^-$ nonets. Adding the $\epsilon$ term the sum $j_{A\mu}+\hat j_{A\mu}$ would still be exactly conserved, because of the $H$ symmetry and since it would be $\propto
\partial_\mu \hat \pi$, but this current is like the $\hat \pi$ gauged away. On the other hand $j_{A\mu,a}$ or $\hat j_{A\mu,a}$ alone is only “partially conserved”, $\partial_\mu j_{A\mu,a}$= $-\partial_\mu
\hat j_{A\mu,a}=\sqrt N_f v\hat v/\sqrt(v^2+\hat v^2)m^2_\pi
\pi_a$, because the $\epsilon^2$ term explicitly breaks the relative symmetry when the $\pi$ nonet obtains mass. Identifying this with PCAC one has f\_= N\_f vv/(v\^2+v\^2) ,\
m\_\^2=\^2(v\^2+v\^2)/vv . Comparing this with the conventional relation $m_\pi^2=2B\hat m_q$, where $\hat
m_q$ is the average chiral quark mass one sees that $\epsilon^2$ should be proportional to $\hat m_q$. In fact a natural way to break flavor symmetry is obtained by replacing 4 [Tr]{}\[\^+h.c.\]\[M\_q \^+h.c.\], \[sbt\]
Then the $v{\bf 1}$ and $\hat v{\bf 1}$ will be replaced by a diagonal matrix with elements $v_{i\bar i}$ which includes corrections due to unequal quark masses and satisfy $v_{i\bar i}^2=(\mu^2+2B'm_{q_i}\hat v_{i\bar i}/v_{i\bar i})/(4\lambda)$ $i\bar i= u\bar u,d\bar d,s\bar s$ and a similar equation for $\hat v_{i\bar i}^2$. For small $m_{q_i}$ one then recovers the usual relations that squared pseudoscalar masses are $\propto (m_{q_i} +m_{q_j})$, whereas the two scalar nonets as well as the vectors get split by the equal spacing rule.
If the $\hat \sigma$ nonet is predominantly of the 4-quark form of Jaffe[@Ja77] it should, with the appropriate symmetry breaking term, before unitarization obey the inverted mass spectrum with the $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$ as the heaviest followed by the $\kappa$ and the $\sigma(600)$.
Also, if $\hat v_{i\bar i} << v_{i\bar i}$ one recovers for the lighter multiplet ($\hat \sigma_a$) the predictions of the simple $U(3)\times U(3) $ model discussed above in connection with Eq. (1). (The term $\det \Phi + h.c$ in ${\cal L}_{SB}$ of Eq. (1) would here be replaced by $\propto \det\Phi\hat\Phi + h.c$.) From the fact that $\hat \mu<\mu$ and that the $SPP$ couplings of the lower multiplet should be larger than the heavier one expects, in fact, that $\hat v_{i\bar i} < v_{i\bar i}$ or $\tan\theta_i
>1$, but it is crucial that both $v_{i\bar i}\neq 0 $, and $\hat v_{i\bar i}\neq 0$.
The main prediction of this scheme is that one have doubled the light scalar meson spectrum, as seems to be experimentally the case. Of course in order to make any detailed comparison with experiment one must include loops and unitarize the model, which is not a simple matter as the couplings are very large.
The dichotomic role of the pions in conventional models, as being at the same time both the Goldstone bosons and the pseudoscalars, is here resolved in a particularly simple way: One has originally two Goldstone-like pions, out of which only one remains in the spectrum, and which is a particular linear combination of the two original pseudoscalar fields.
Both of the two scalar multiplets remain as physical states and one of these (formed by the $\sigma(600)$ and the $ a_0(980)$ in the case of two flavors), or the $\sigma,\ a_0(980),\ f_0(980)$ and the $ \kappa\ $ in the case of three flavors can then be looked upon as effectively a Higgs multiplet of strong nonperturbative interactions when a hidden local symmetry is spontaneously broken.
One may ask is there any other source for the symmetry breaking term (12), except for the chiral quark masses put in by hand? The Syracuse group[@black] argues for instanton effects. Another way of reasoning is that with quarks and quark loops there would be anomalous couplings $AVV$ for each flavor[@wein]. Anomaly related loops (like $P\to VV\to P$) could then be another source of the symmetry breaking.
Acknowledgements
================
Support from EU-TMR program, contract CT98-0169 is gratefully acknowledged. I thank J. Schechter, Syracuse for emphasizing that it should be the axial vectors which get mass through this mechanism.
[99]{} Conference: “Possible existence of the light $\sigma$ resonance and its implications to hadron physics“, Kyoto, Japan 11-14th June 2000, KEK-proceedings/2000-4; E. M. Aitala et al. (E791 collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} 765 (2001); D.E. Groom et al., (Particle Data Group) Eur. J. Phys. [**C 15**]{}, 1 (2000). E. M. Aitala et al. (E791 collaboration, ”Dalitz plot analysis of $D^+\to K^-\pi^+\pi^+ ... $“), hep-ex/0204018. F. E. Close and N.A. Törnqvist hep-ph/0204205, (J. Physics G to appear). N. A. Törnqvist, (talk at IPN Orsay workshop on ”Chiral fluctuations in hadronic matter", Sept. 26-28. 2001), hep-ph/0201171, Paris, France, Proceedings edited by Z. Aouissat et al. J. Schechter and Y. Ueda, Phys. Rev. [**D3**]{}, 2874 (1971). J. Schechter, hep-ph/0112205. G. Parisi and M. Testa Nuov. Cim. [**LXVII**]{}, 13 (1969); N.A. Törnqvist, Eur. J. Phys. [**C11**]{}, 359 (1999); M. Napsusciale, hep-ph/9803396. N.A. Törnqvist and M. Roos, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 1575 (1996); N.A. Törnqvist, Z. Phys [**C68**]{}, 647 (1995); D. Black, A. Fariborz, S. Moussa, S. Nasri, J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. [**D64**]{}, 014031 (2001). Unitarisation also generates similar virtual transitions, and with strong enough effective couplings unitarization can even generate new resonances from a $q\bar q$ model. See Ref. \[7\] and M. Boglione and M. R. Pennington, hep-ph/0203149. M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki,T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{} (1985) 1215. R.L. Jaffe, Phys.Rev. D [**15**]{} 281 (1977); R.L.Jaffe and F.E. Low, Phys.Rev. D [**19**]{} 2105 (1979); M. Alford and R.L. Jaffe, hep-lat/0001023; R.L. Jaffe, hep-ph/0001123; N.N. Achasov and V.V. Gubin Phys. Rev. [**D63**]{}, 094007 (2001). Private communication with S. Weinberg in connection with the papers: N.A. Törnqvist, Phys. Lett. [**B406**]{} 70 (1997); [**B 426 105**]{} (1998).
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The adjustment of students to a school environment is fundamentally linked to the friendship networks they form with their peers. Consequently, the complete picture of a student’s adjustment can only be obtained by taking into account both their friendship network and their reported perceptions of the school environment. However, there is a lack of flexible statistical models and methods that can jointly analyze a social network with an item-response data matrix. In this paper, we propose a latent space model for heterogeneous (multimodal) networks (LSMH) and its extension LSMH-Item, which combine the framework of latent space modeling in network analysis with item response theory in psychometrics. Using LSMH, we summarize the information from the social network and the item responses in a person-item joint latent space. We use a Variational Bayesian Expectation-Maximization estimation algorithm to estimate the item and person locations in the joint latent space. This methodology allows effective integration, informative visualization and prediction of social networks and item responses. We apply the proposed methodology to data collected from 16 third-grade classrooms comprised of 451 third-grade students’ self-reported friendships and school liking, which were collected as part of the Early Learning Ohio project. Through the person-item joint latent space, we are able identify students with potential adjustment difficulties and found consistent connection between students’ friendship networks and their well-being. We believe that using LSMH, researchers will be able to easily identify students in need of intervention and revolutionize the the understanding of social behaviors.'
author:
- |
Selena Shuo Wang, Department of Psychology\
Subhadeep Paul, Department of Statistics\
Jessica Logan, Department of Educational Studies\
Paul De Boeck, Department of Psychology\
The Ohio State University
bibliography:
- 'cluster.bib'
- 'vc.bib'
- 'hetgen.bib'
- 'triads.bib'
- 'triads1.bib'
- 'GraphTheory.bib'
- 'Networks.bib'
- 'psychology.bib'
title: '**Joint Analysis of Social and Item Response Networks with Latent Space Models [^1]**'
---
\#1
1
[1]{}
0
[1]{}
[**Joint Analysis of Social and Item Response Networks with Latent Space Models**]{}
[*Keywords:*]{} Multimodal Heterogeneous Networks, Multidimensional Item Response Theory, Item Responses, Social Networks, Latent Space Models, School Adjustment
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Understanding interactions among sets of entities, often represented as complex networks, is a central research task in many data-intensive scientific fields, including: Statistics, Machine learning, Physics, Biology, Psychology, and Economics [@watts1998collective; @barabasi1999emergence; @albert2002statistical; @jackson2008social; @girvan2002community; @shmulevich2002probabilistic; @bc09; @bullmore09; @rubinov10]. However, an overwhelming majority of methodological and applied studies have only considered interactions of one type among a set of entities of the same type. More recent studies have pointed to the heterogeneous and multimodal nature of such interactions, whereby a complex networked system is composed of multiple types of interactions among entities that themselves are of multiple types [@kivela14; @boccaletti14; @mucha10; @pc15; @paul2017spectral; @sengupta2015spectral; @sun2009ranking; @lmw14; @ferrara2014online; @he2014comment; @nickel2016review].
Social relationships are known to affect individual outcomes including dementia [@fratiglioni2000influence], decision making [@kim2007impact], adolescent smoking [@mercken2010dynamics], and online behavior choices [@kwon2014social]. At the same time, individual attributes, such as race, age, and gender can affect whether and how people form friendships or romantic partnerships [@dean2017friendship; @mcpherson2001birds]. The effect of social relationships on individual outcomes and its reciprocal are observable through disparities in the item responses across different individuals when their friendship structures differ and through disparities in the friendship structures when individuals’ attributes differ, respectively. Therefore, a flexible joint modeling of the social relationships and the individual outcomes is needed in order to effectively investigate their interrelationships.
In recent years, the integration of network analysis with psychometrics has gained new ground, yet a flexible modeling of both social networks and item responses is still lacking. *Network Psychometrics*, as the name suggests, is a framework that connects network analysis with psychometrics by treating variables as nodes and pairwise correlations as edges [@borsboom2013network; @schmittmann2013deconstructing; @epskamp2017generalized]. Under this framework, an ising model is shown to be statistically equivalent to an item response theory (IRT) model, and therefore a similar fit to the data is obtained when applying the two different models [@marsman2018introduction]. Though it is an important framework that bridges a gap between network analysis and psychometrics, *network psychometrics* can not be used to jointly model social networks and individual outcomes. A recent development in this effort is [@liu2018structural], which allows latent personality traits as covariates in a structural equation model. Unlike [@liu2018structural]’s approach converting item responses to latent factors, we propose a model that preserves item-level information using IRT. Our method is also different from [@jin2018doubly]’s recent integration of network analysis with IRT to estimate IRT’s item and person parameters. While only item responses are model through their approach, both social networks and item responses are modeled through our approach, and thus the relationship between social relationships and individual outcomes can be examined.
A joint modeling of social networks and item responses is needed to study students’ school adjustment in relation to their friendship. It is well known that friendship structures affect students’ school adjustment [@ladd1996friendship; @ladd1997classroom; @ladd1996linkages; @erath2008early; @bagwell1998preadolescent; @kingery2011peer]. For example, close friendships with same-aged peers promote positive school attitude and academic performance [@berndt1995friends; @wentzel2004friendships]. Students with at least one friend show higher academic accomplishments compared to students without friends [@wentzel2004friendships]. Friendships that provide emotional support promote classroom involvement, while friendships with conflicts exacerbate school adjustment problems in childhood [@ladd1996friendship] and early adolescence [@berndt1995friends]. School adjustment also affects friendship formation as students choose academically similar friends [@kindermann2007effects; @rambaran2017academic; @shin2014early]. In particular, it is shown that students who adjust well in schools befriend other academically-oriented students, whereas less academically-oriented students tend to befriend those who are similarly disengaged [@ryan2000self]. Though there is extensive literature that investigates the relationships between school adjustment and friendships, statistical models that effectively identify students with potential adjustment difficulties while simultaneously using both social networks and students’ survey responses are lacking. In addition, previous studies often use univariate summary measures, like density of the friendship network or the number of friends each student has, to simplify the analysis of friendship networks, thus failing to explore the rich information and dependence structure associated with such complex networks.
To directly connect the analysis of social networks with the analysis of item responses, we introduce the latent space random graph model for heterogeneous networks (LSMH) and its extension for item diagnosis (LSMH-I), which jointly analyze students’ friendship networks and their school adjustment survey results. LSMH and LSMH-I retain information from friendship networks in their totality, and therefore provide more nuance when studying friendship structures and their relations to school adjustment. Using LSMH and LSMH-I, we create a joint latent space, in which estimated latent item and person positions abide by same geometric rules, for items and persons to coexist and interact. In other words, the latent item positions are determined by the information from the friendship networks and the item responses. Similarly, the latent person positions are determined by the information from both social networks and item responses. The LSMH can be used to effectively identify students with potential adjustment difficulties and to understand how students’ friendships might influence their school adjustment, or vice versa. Using LSMH-I, we calculate the item difficulty and discrimination parameters taking into account both social networks and item responses.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce the motivating application and the school adjustment data. In section 3 we introduce our models. Section 4 describes the estimation approach. Section 5 presents a simulation study and Section 6 applies the proposed methodology to the school adjustment data. Finally, in Section 7 we summarize our findings and discuss its extensions and future directions.
Classroom friendship and school adjustment data from the Early Learning Ohio project
====================================================================================
Understanding the relationship between friendships and school adjustment from the data collected from the Early Learning Ohio project is our motivation for proposing the LSMH methodology. We start by briefly describing the data collected.
### Classrooms {#classrooms .unnumbered}
The sample in this study is drawn from a larger study called Early Learning Ohio, which was developed in part to investigate how children grow and change in their academic skills from pre-kindergarten through third grade. All research was conducted with the approval of the Institutional Review Board. Teachers were recruited through informational meetings with project personnel that took place at their schools. Every child in an enrolled teacher’s classroom was eligible for participation, and was asked to participate via an informational packet sent home to caregivers. On average, $80\%$ of children per classroom were enrolled in the study. Children who were not consented did not participate in the child interviews. However when collecting information about the social network, children were able to nominate any child in the class as a friend, regardless of whether the child was an active study participant.
### Current Sample {#current-sample .unnumbered}
The sample in this study focuses on 16 selected third-grade classrooms from one school district, located near central Ohio. Classrooms spanned urban, suburban, and rural schools. The number of students in each classroom ranges between 20 and 33.
### Procedures for data collection {#procedures-for-data-collection .unnumbered}
To incentivize participation in the study, caregivers received $10$ dollars after completing a family questionnaire, and enrolled children received age appropriate books at assessment periods in fall and spring. Children were assessed in a quiet area of their school by a trained field assessor in the fall and spring. Data used in the present study were collected via child interviews, which were conducted by trained and experienced assessors to ensure accurate and reliable administration.
### Measures {#measures .unnumbered}
The social network measure was collected during an individual interview between a student and a project-based assessor. The assessor provided the student with a list of the names of all of the children in his or her classroom, and asked the child to indicate who they liked to play with the most. Children’s responses were recorded, and an individual matrix of connections was used as the basis for the social networks examined in this study. The child interview questionnaire consisted of 23 items in 4 sub-scales: three items measuring the negative student experiences, eleven items measuring students’ perceived peer social support, six items measuring how much students like school, three items measuring how lonely the students are. These items are based on *Student Experience scale*, *Perceived Peer Social Support Scale: The peer support at school scale*, and *School Liking Questionnaire* from [@birch1997teacher]. The students were asked to indicate whether their experience on each item was Never (0), Sometimes (1) or A Lot (2).
[0.5]{}
![(A) Correlations of items across all students (B) Principal Component Analysis of item sample correlation matrix[]{data-label="cor"}](Cor.png){width="\textwidth"}
[0.5]{}
![(A) Correlations of items across all students (B) Principal Component Analysis of item sample correlation matrix[]{data-label="cor"}](PCA){width="\textwidth"}
In Figure \[cor\] (A), we present the collective responses of the $451$ students by showing the correlations of the items. The items were designed to measure four psychological construct, namely: negative student experience, perceived peer social support, school-liking, and loneliness. Three of the four sub-scales consist of items associated with only one type of emotional affect, i.e., either a positive affect or a negative affect. There are only negative items in the negative student experience and loneliness sub-scales and only positive items in the perceived peer social support sub-scale. There are both negative and positive items in fourth sub-scale, corresponding to school-liking. The consistency of the emotional affect in one sub-scale helps us reduce the complexity of and interpret the dimensions in the students’ responses to the child interview questionnaire. Therefore, we re-coded the negative items (items $17$, $18$ and $21$) in the school-liking sub-scale to maintain its overall positive affect.
The dimensions in the students’ responses were examined using a principle component analysis (PCA). The results show that $25.39\%$, $13.60\%$ of the variability in the questionnaire responses are explained by the first two components, respectively. In Figure \[cor\](B), we show the bi-plot of these two components. As can be seen, items in the same sub-scale are positioned in similar directions. In particular, items 1,2 and 4 (the negative student experience items) are positioned in the similar directions as items 22, 23 and 24 (the loneliness items). Together, they can be seen as items of negative emotional affect (the NEA items). If we rotate the co-ordinate axes by 45 degrees clockwise, then the NEA items are differentiated from the perceived social support (PSS) items (items 5–15) by the first dimension of the new co-ordinate axes. We refer to this dimension as the NEA dimension since a student’s positive position on this dimension indicates a high score on the NEA items and a low score on the PSS items. The school liking (SL) items (items 16–21) are positioned in the same direction as the second dimension of the new co-ordinate axes. We refer to this dimension as the SL dimension since a student’s positive position on this dimension indicates a high score on SL items. We believe that the NEA and SL dimensions give us meaningful interpretations of the students’ responses, and we aim to discover similar dimensions in the joint latent space model using LSMH.
Latent Space Model for Heterogeneous Networks
=============================================
Consider a more general yet similar scenario as the Early Learning Ohio Project, where data are collected from a group of individuals about their friendships, and also their attitudes or behavioral outcomes using a set of survey or test questions. Optionally, additional information about the items, e.g. their relations to each other, can also be found. Under such a scenario, the data can be represented as a heterogenous multimodal network. In this section, we propose a latent space model, LSMH to model such heterogeneous multimodal networks. Though modeling social networks and item-response networks is our primary focus in this paper, LSMH can also be used to model general heterogenous multimodal networks.
Let $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ denote the $N \times N$ adjacency matrix of the social network among $N$ individuals. The $(i,j)$ th element of the matrix $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$, denoted as $y^{I}_{ij}$ is $1$ if person $i$ and person $j$ are related, for $i, j =\{1,2,\ldots,N\}$ and $i\neq j $. Similarly, let $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ be the $M \times M$ adjacency matrix of the item relationship network among $M$ items, whose $(a,b)$ th element, denoted as $y^A_{ab}$ is $1$ if items $a$ and $b$ are related, for $a, b =\{1,2,\ldots,M\}$ and $a\neq b $. Finally, let $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ denote the $N \times M$ item response matrix, whose $(i,a)$ th element $y^{IA}_{ia}$ is $1$ if person $i$ responded positively or correctly (depending upon context) to item $a$ in the survey, for $i =\{1,2,\ldots,N\}$ and $a =\{1,2,\ldots,M\}$.
A multimodal network can be equivalently represented as a supra-adjacency matrix [@kivela2014multilayer]. We define an item-person supra-adjacency matrix as a block matrix that has the friendship network adjacency matrix $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ and the item relationship adjacency matrix $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ in the diagonal blocks and the item response matrix $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ and its transpose $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}^T$ in the off-diagonal blocks (see Figure \[supra\] (A)).
[0.45]{}
![(A) item-person supra-adjacency matrix (B) The LSMH[]{data-label="supra"}](supra.png){width="\textwidth"}
[0.45]{}
![(A) item-person supra-adjacency matrix (B) The LSMH[]{data-label="supra"}](model.png){width="\textwidth"}
Using the proposed model LSMH, we define a item-person joint latent space as a hypothetical multidimensional space, in which the locations of the persons and the items follow predefined geometric rules reflecting each node’s connection with another. Our formulation of the joint latent space is motivated by merging the philosophy of Latent Space Model (LSM) framework with that of the Multidimentional Item-Response Theory (MIRT). The LSM framework allows us to specify and interpret the interactions among persons, whereas the MIRT framework allows us to model the items into the same latent space as the persons, i.e. the joint latent space. Next we briefly review the LSM and MIRT frameworks and then introduce our model.
### The Latent Space Model {#the-latent-space-model .unnumbered}
The LSM, introduced by [@hoff2002latent] assumes that each node $i$ has a latent position $\boldsymbol{z_i} = (z_{i,1}, z_{i,2}, ..., z_{i,D})^T$ in a D-dimensional Euclidean latent space [@hrt07; @gollini2016joint; @sewell2015latent; @salter2013variational; @salter2017latent; @krivitsky2009representing; @friel2016interlocking] and that the probability of node $i$ and node $j$ forming a connection depends on the distance between them in the latent space. The greater the distance is between two latent positions, the less likely they form a connection. In [@hoff2002latent], the Euclidean distance $|\boldsymbol{z_i}- \boldsymbol{z_j}|$ was proposed as the distance measure of undirected networks, and the projection distance $\frac{\boldsymbol{z_i}\boldsymbol{z_j}}{|\boldsymbol{z_j}|}$ was proposed as the distance measure of directed networks. Extensions of [@hoff2002latent]’s original latent space models have been proposed in literature. In [@hrt07], a mixture of Gaussian distributions was proposed to model the distribution of the latent variables $\boldsymbol{z_i}$ instead of only one Gaussian distribution in order to account for possible community structures. A node specific random effect was included by [@krivitsky2009representing] to model the nodes’ differing “propensity" to form ties. This model was extended to multiple networks by [@gollini2016joint] and to bipartite networks by [@friel2016interlocking].
### The Multidimensional Item Response Theory {#the-multidimensional-item-response-theory .unnumbered}
The multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) model, as a multidimensional two-parameter logistic model [@reckase2009multidimensional], is a member of the intensively studied model in psychometrics—namely, the Item Response Theory (IRT) model (e.g. [@embretson2000item; @mellenbergh1994unidimensional; @van1997item]).
IRT, unidimensional or multidimensional, are models that mathematically represent locations of persons in a hypothetical multidimensional space using the persons’ responses to a set of items. To achieve this, it is assumed by [@reckase2009multidimensional] that persons can be ranked on each of the $D$ dimensions that individuals differ. Under this assumption, person $i$ is attributed a latent vector of $D$ personal characteristics, $\boldsymbol{z_i} = (z_{i,1}, z_{i,2}, \ldots, z_{i,D})$. Using this latent vector, we describe the attributes of the person evaluated by the items, which is conceptually different from the latent vector in LSM. Similarly, item $a$, $a=1,2, \ldots, M$ is represented by a latent vector of $D$ item characteristics, $\boldsymbol{z_a} =(z_{a1},z_{a2},\ldots, z_{aD})$. In the MIRT framework, an item can be assessed of its threshold (also called difficulty in an ability test) and sensitivity with respect to the respondents through the estimated item difficulty and discrimination parameters.
The LSMH model
--------------
In this section, we define the latent space model for heterogeneous networks (LSMH). We assume that the persons and items can be positioned in an item-person joint latent space, which is a subset of the $D$ dimensional Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^{D}$. Let $\boldsymbol{Z_I}$ be a $N \times D$ matrix of latent person positions, each row of which is a $D$ dimensional vector $\boldsymbol{u_i} =(u_{i1},u_{i2},\ldots, u_{iD})$ indicating the latent position of person $i$ in the Euclidean space. Similarly, let $\boldsymbol{Z_A}$ be a $M \times D$ matrix of latent item positions, each row of which is a $D$ dimensional vector $\boldsymbol{v_a} =(v_{a1},v_{a2}, \ldots, v_{aD})$ indicating the latent position of item $a$ in the Euclidean space. As shown in Figure \[supra\] (B), LSMH is used to estimate the latent person and item positions $\boldsymbol{Z_I}$ and $ \boldsymbol{Z_A} $ using three data matrices: the friendship network $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$, the item relationship matrix $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and the item response matrix $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$. The data matrices $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ are modeled borrowing the philosophy of the LSM framework, and the data matrix $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ is modeled borrowing the philosophy of the MIRT framework. In LSMH, we extend the conditional independence assumption of LSM and MIRT by assuming that the probability of forming any connection in an item-person supra-adjacency matrix is independent of all other connections given the latent positions of the two nodes involved.
In LSMH, the joint distribution of the elements of the item-person supra-adjacency matrix can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
p(\boldsymbol{Y_I}, \boldsymbol{Y_A}, \boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}| \boldsymbol{Z_I}, \boldsymbol{Z_A}, \alpha_0, \alpha_1, \alpha_2 ) & = \prod_{i =1}^N \prod_{j=1, j \neq i}^N p_1(y_{i,j}^I| \theta_{i,j}^I) \prod_{a =1}^M \prod_{b=1, b \neq a}^N p_2(y_{a,b}^A| \theta_{a,b}^A) \prod_{i =1}^N \prod_{a=1}^M p_3(y_{i,a}^{IA}| \theta_{i,a}^{IA}), \nonumber \\
E(y_{i,j}^I | \theta_{i,j}^I) = g_1(\theta_{i,j}^I), \qquad
& E(y_{a,b}^A | \theta_{a,b}^A) = g_2(\theta_{a,b}^A), \qquad E(y_{i,a}^{IA} | \theta_{i,a}^{IA}) = g_3(\theta_{i,a}^{IA}), \nonumber \\
\theta_{i,j}^I = \alpha_0-|\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j}|^2, \qquad
& \theta_{a,b}^A = \alpha_1-|\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b}|^2, \qquad
\theta_{i,a}^{IA} = \alpha_2+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a},
\label{LSMH}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_i(\cdot)$ are the link functions, and $p_i(\cdot|\cdot)$ are the parametric families of distributions suitable for the type of data in the supra-adjacency matrix. We set the priors $\boldsymbol{u_i}\overset{iid}{\sim} N(0,\lambda^2_0\textbf{I}_D)$, and $\boldsymbol{v_a}\overset{iid}{\sim} N(0,\lambda^2_1\textbf{I}_D)$. $\alpha_0, \alpha_1, \alpha_2, \lambda^2_0, \lambda^2_1$ are unknown parameters that need to be estimated.
If the data in $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$, $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ are binary, then the link functions $g_1(\theta_{i,j}^I)$, $g_2(\theta_{a,b}^A)$ and $g_3(\theta_{i,a}^{IA})$ are inverse logistic link functions, i.e., $g_1(\theta_{i,j}^I) = \frac{\exp(\alpha_0-|\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j}|^2)}{1+\exp(\alpha_0-|\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j}|^2)}, g_2(\theta_{a,b}^A)
= \frac{\exp(\alpha_1-|\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b}|^2)}{1+\exp(\alpha_1-|\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b}|^2)}$, and $g_3(\theta_{i,a}^{IA}) = \frac{ \exp(\alpha_2+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a})}{1+\exp(\alpha_2+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a})}$, and the $p_i(\cdot|\cdot)$ are Bernoulli PDFs.
While it is common for the edges in the friendship networks to be binary, the data in the item response matrix can be more general. If the data in $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ are of discrete numerical scales, they can be modeled with other parametric families. For example, we can use $g_2(\theta_{i,a}^{IA})
= \exp(\alpha_2+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a})$ as the inverse Poisson link function to model count data in $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$, and thus $p_3(y_{i,a}^{IA}| \theta_{i,a}^{IA})$ becomes the PDF of the Poisson distribution. Alternatively, we can model the presence (or absence) of an edge separately from the weight of the edge (if it is present). For example, a zero inflated normal distribution was used by [@sewell2016latent] to model weighted edges, and the same goal was achieved by [@agarwal2019model] using a combination of a Bernoulli distribution and a non-parametric weight distribution.
In a similar fashion, LSMH can be used to handle weighted edges. A zero inflated Poisson model for the distribution of $y_{i,a}^{IA}|\theta_{i,a}^{IA}$ can be seen as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
p_3(y_{i,a}^{IA}|\theta_{i,a}^{IA}) & = (1-(\kappa(\theta_{i,a}^{IA}))^{(y_{i,a}^{IA}=0)} \times \bigg \{(\kappa(\theta_{i,a}^{IA}) \prod \frac{\exp(-\gamma(\theta_{i,a}^{IA}))\gamma(\theta_{i,a}^{IA})^{y_{i,a}^{IA}}}{y_{i,a}^{IA!}}\bigg \} \\
\kappa(\theta_{i,a}^{IA}) & = \frac{ \exp(\alpha_2+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a})}{1+\exp(\alpha_2+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a})} \\
\gamma (\theta_{i,a}^{IA}) &= \exp(\alpha_2+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a}).\end{aligned}$$
In LSMH, we use the squared Euclidean distances $|\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j}|^2$ and $|\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b}|^2$ instead of the Euclidean distance. It is shown by [@gollini2016joint] that squared Euclidean distances are computationally more efficient and that the latent positions obtained using squared Euclidean distances are extremely similar to those obtained using Euclidean distances. In LSMH, we also use a global scalar intercept instead of an item vector intercept, which is the functional form of MIRT to model the $Y_{IA}$ matrix. In the next section, we retain the item vector intercept and introduce the latent space model with item intercept, the LSMH-I.
The item relationship matrix comes from an exogenous source of information regarding items, independent from the item response matrix and the friendship network. For example, an item relationship matrix can be obtained from previously known correlations of items. Alternatively, the latent item and person positions can be estimated without the information in $Y_{A}$ in that $\boldsymbol{u_i}$s and $\boldsymbol{v_a}$s can be estimated without $f(\boldsymbol{Y_A}|\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_1)$ in Equation \[LSMH\]. To model students’ adjustment well-being within their classroom, we use $Y_{A}$ to incorporate responses from students outside of their classroom, and thus our $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ comes from an exogeneous source of information, independent from $\boldsymbol{Y_{I}}$ or $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$.
In LSMH, the interactions among persons and the connections among items are interpreted following the LSM distance framework. The probability of person $i$ and person $j$ forming a friendly connection depends on the distance of $\boldsymbol{u_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{u_j}$ in the joint latent space. The smaller the latent distance between person $i$ and $j$, the higher the chance that person $i$ and person $j$ are friends. Similarly, the closer the latent positions of item $a$ and $b$ are, the more likely that item $a$ and $b$ measure the same individual attitudes or attributes. The relationships among persons and the connections among items also retain the transitivity and reciprocity properties of the LSM: if person $i$ and $j$ form a bond, and person $i$ and $k$ are also friends, then person $j$ befriending person $i$ (reciprocity), and befriending person $k$ (transitivity) are both more likely. The same is true for relationships among items.
The interactions among persons and items are interpreted following the latent space projection model framework [@hoff2002latent]. In the latent space projection model framework, we reparameterize $\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a}$ with unit-length $D$-dimensional vectors $\boldsymbol{w_i}$, $\boldsymbol{w_a}$, and scalars $c_i$, $c_a$. Let $\boldsymbol{u_i} = c_i \boldsymbol{w_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{v_a} = c_a \boldsymbol{w_a}$. Then $\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a} = c_ic_a\boldsymbol{w_i}^T \boldsymbol{w_a}$, which is the signed magnitude of the projection of $\boldsymbol{u_i}$ in the direction of $\boldsymbol{v_a}$ ($c_a \boldsymbol{w_i}^T \boldsymbol{w_a}$) multiplied by $c_i$. The projection of $\boldsymbol{u_i}$ in the direction of $\boldsymbol{v_a}$ can be interpreted as the extent to which item $a$ measures the attitudes and attributes of person $i$. The angle between $\boldsymbol{w_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{w_a}$ captures the “similarity" between person $i$ and item $a$. Item $a$ and person $i$ are favorable to having ties when $\boldsymbol{w_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{w_a}$ are in the same direction, i.e. $ \boldsymbol{w_i}^T \boldsymbol{w_a} >0$; are averse to having ties when $\boldsymbol{w_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{w_a}$ are in the opposite directions, i.e. $ \boldsymbol{w_i}^T \boldsymbol{w_a} <0$; and are neutral to having ties when the angle is a right angle, i.e. $ \boldsymbol{w_i}^T \boldsymbol{w_a} =0$. The magnitudes of $c_i$ and $c_a$ capture the activity levels of node $i$ and $a$ [@hoff2002latent].
According to [@reckase2009multidimensional], a coordinate system is necessary to specify the locations of the items and the persons for any model development, but the coordinates themselves do not always coincide with meaningful dimensions. This arbitrariness of coordinate system is seen in our item-person joint latent space. Each dimension of the coordinate system is found through the optimization procedures, therefore can seem arbitrary at times. Using an arbitrary set of coordinates to describe constructs is quite common. Yet, the arbitrariness of the coordinates does not limit our interpretations of the relative positions and inter-relationships of the persons and items in the joint latent space.
The LSMH with Item Intercept (LSMH-I)
-------------------------------------
We propose an extension of the model in Equation \[LSMH\] by replacing the scalar intercept $\alpha_2$ with a vector of item specific “fixed effects", $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ of length $a$. We call this model LSMH-I. $$\theta_{i,a}^{IA} = \beta_{a}+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a},
\label{LSMHI}$$ where $\beta_a$ is the $a$th element in vector $\boldsymbol{\beta}$. In LSMH-I, the $\beta_a$ parameters are used to model the inherent “properties" of the items and are similar to the “degree correction" parameters in the degree corrected stochastic block models [@zlz12] or the “sociability" parameters in the latent space models [@krivitsky2009representing]. In LSMH-I, we also directly incorporate the functional form of MIRT, which allows us to estimate item difficulty and discrimination parameters while taking into account students’ friendship information.
In this paper, we follow [@reckase2009multidimensional]’s notation and use $A_a$ and $B_a$ to summarize the item discrimination and difficulty information in the multidimensional space. In [@reckase2009multidimensional], $A_a$ is used as the multidimensional discrimination for item $a$, which is also $\text{MDISC}_{a}$ in other articles. $B_a$ is used to represent the multidimensional difficulty of item $a$, which is also represented by MDIFF. Regardless of the notations, an item with higher discrimination power more easily distinguishes persons with differing “ability”. A more difficult item requires higher ability of the test takers to be answered correctly. In our LSMH-I, $A_a$ and $B_a$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
A_a = \sqrt{\sum_{d=1}^D v^2_{ad}}, \quad \quad \quad \quad B_a=\frac{-\beta_a}{\sqrt{\sum_{d=1}^D v^2_{ad}}}, \quad \quad i=\{1,\ldots,N\}, a =\{1,\ldots M\}\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{ad}$ is the coordinate of item $a$ on dimension $d$ and $\beta_a$ is the intercept for item $a$. $A_a$ and $B_a$ relate to the item response surface (IRS), which describes the probability of a positive answer as a function of a person’s “ability” in $D$ dimensions. $A_a$ represents the steepest slope of the IRS in the direction where item $a$ is most differentiable and most sensitive. $B_a$ is the distance from the origin to the point of steepest slope in the direction most differentiated by item $a$. Large values of $A_a$ and $B_a$ indicate a high discrimination and high difficulty of an item respectively.
Both LSMH and LSMH-I can be used to jointly summarize information in the social network and item response data. In modeling the item responses, both models retain the term $\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a}$. The difference is that a global item intercept is used in the LSMH, while a vector item intercept is used in the LSMH-I. If we are interested in the outcomes of the persons, it is appropriate to apply LSMH. The global intercept in the LSMH accounts for any mean differences in the estimated latent person and item positions, which allows us to readily observe how persons are responding to different items in the joint latent space. There is more reason to apply LSMH-I with large datasets as they allow us to accurately estimate the $\beta_a$ parameters. Using LSMH-I, we can also estimate item discrimination and difficulty parameters that take into account the friendship information. Researchers should select the appropriate model based on the research focuses.
The primary goal of our paper is to investigate students’ adjustment well-being within each classroom using LSMH. A comprehensive study of the items using LSMH-I is also possible. We propose a LSMH-I model that takes into account the item responses for all students in different classrooms and their friendship networks within each classroom. We have $C$ classroom friendship networks, and we use $N_c$ to denote the number of students in the $c$th classroom. We use $\boldsymbol{Y_I^{c}}$ to denote the corresponding $c$th classroom friendship network and use $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ to denote the overall item-response matrix. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
p & (\boldsymbol{Y_I^1}, ..., \boldsymbol{Y_I^{C}}, \boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}| \boldsymbol{Z_I}, \boldsymbol{Z_A}, \alpha_1,...,\alpha_{C}, \beta_{a}) = \prod_{c=1}^{C} \prod_{i =1}^{N_c} \prod_{j=1, j \neq i}^{N_c} p(y_{i,j}^{I,c}| \theta_{i,j}^{I,c}) \prod_{i =1}^{N} \prod_{a=1}^M p(y_{i,a}^{IA}| \theta_{i,a}^{IA})\label{LSMHI2}\\
& \theta_{i,a}^{IA} = \beta_{a}+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a}, \qquad \qquad \theta_{i,j}^{I,c} = \alpha_c-|\boldsymbol{u_{i}}-\boldsymbol{u_{j}}|^2, \quad \quad c=\{1,\ldots,C\}, , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$, where $N=\sum_c N_c$ is the total number of students from the $C$ classrooms. $\boldsymbol{u_{i}}$ and $\boldsymbol{v_{a}}$ are the latent positions of the $i$th student and $a$th item, and $\alpha_c$ and $\beta_a$ are the intercepts for the $c$th classroom and the $a$th item. The $\beta_a$ parameters model the properties of the items, and the $\alpha_c$ parameters model the variations in the density of friendship networks in different classrooms.
The Variational Bayesian Inference
==================================
We are interested in the posterior inference of the latent variables $\boldsymbol{u_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{v_a}$ conditioning on the observed data. The (conditional) posterior distribution is the ratio of the joint distribution of the observed data and unobserved latent variables to the observed data likelihood. $$P(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}) = \frac{ P(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}| \boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A}) P(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A})}{P(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}.$$ We can completely characterize the distribution of latent positions and thus obtain the point and interval estimates by computing this posterior distribution. However, to compute this conditional posterior, we need to evaluate the normalizing constant in the denominator above, which involves integration over the latent variables. This posterior distribution is therefore intractable. The variational inference algorithm is commonly used to estimate latent variables whose posterior distribution is intractable [@beal2003variational; @attias1999inferring; @beal2006variational; @blei2017variational]. In network analysis, the variational approach has been proposed for the stochastic blockmodel [@dpr08; @cdp11], the mixed-membership stochastic blockmodel [@airoldi2008mixed], the multi-layer stochastic blockmodel [@xu14; @pc15], the dynamic stochastic blockmodel [@matias15], the latent position cluster model [@salter2013variational] and the multiple network latent space model [@gollini2016joint]. Here, we propose a Variational Bayesian Expectation Maximization (VBEM) algorithm to approximate the posterior of the person and the item latent positions in LSMH and in LSMH-I. We propose a class of suitable variational posterior distributions for the conditional distribution of $(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})$ and obtain a distribution from the class that minimizes the Kulback Leibler (KL) divergence from the true but intractable posterior.
For LSMH, we assign the following variational posterior distribution: $q(\boldsymbol{u_i})=N(\tilde{\textbf{u}}_i,\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})$ and $q(\boldsymbol{v_a})=N(\tilde{\textbf{v}}_a,\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})$. We set the joint distribution as $$q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})= \prod_{i=1}^Nq(\boldsymbol{u_i}) \prod_{a=1}^Mq(\boldsymbol{v_a}),$$, where $\tilde{\textbf{u}}_i,\tilde{\Lambda}_{0},\tilde{\textbf{v}}_a,\tilde{\Lambda}_{1}$ are the parameters of the distribution, known as variational parameters.
We can estimate the variational parameters by minimizing the Kullback-Leiber (KL) divergence between the variational posterior $q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A}|\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})$ and the true posterior $f(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A}|\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})$. Minimizing the KL divergence is equivalent to maximizing the following Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO) function [@blei2017variational], (see detailed derivations in the Supplementary Materials) $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{ELBO} = -\mathbb{E}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2| \boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\frac{\log q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2| \boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}{\log p(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)}] \\
&=-\int q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})\log \frac{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}{f(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}d(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\\
&=-\int \prod_{i=1}^Nq(\boldsymbol{u_i}) \prod_{a=1}^Mq(\boldsymbol{v_a})
\log \frac{ \prod_{i=1}^Nq(\boldsymbol{u_i}) \prod_{a=1}^Mq(\boldsymbol{v_a})}{f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)
\prod_{i=1}^N f(\boldsymbol{u_i})\prod_{a=1}^M f(\boldsymbol{v_a})}d(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\\
&= - \sum_{i=1}^N \int q(\boldsymbol{u_i}) \log \frac{q(\boldsymbol{u_i})}{f(\boldsymbol{u_i})} d \boldsymbol{u_i}
- \sum_{a=1}^M \int q(\boldsymbol{v_a}) \log \frac{q(\boldsymbol{v_a})}{f(\boldsymbol{v_a})} d \boldsymbol{v_a} \\
& + \int q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})\log f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)d(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\\
&= - \sum_{i=1}^N\text{KL}[q(\boldsymbol{u_i})| f(\boldsymbol{u_i})]
- \sum_{a=1}^M\text{KL}[q(\boldsymbol{v_a})| f(\boldsymbol{v_a})]\\
& + \mathbb{E}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)]\\
& = - \frac{1}{2} \Big( DN \log (\lambda^2_0)- N\log (\det(\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})) \Big) - \frac{N \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_0)}{2 \lambda^2_0} - \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}}{2 \lambda^2_0} \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{2} \Big( DM \log (\lambda^2_1)- M\log (\det(\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})) \Big)
-\frac{M \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_1)}{2 \lambda^2_1} -\frac{\sum_{a=1}^M \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^T\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}}{2 \lambda^2_1} + \frac{1}{2}(MD + ND) \\
& \quad + \mathbb{E}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A})] \end{aligned}$$ After applying Jensen’s inequality [@jensen1906fonctions], a lower-bound on the third term is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)]\\
& \quad \quad \geq \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M y_{ia}^{IA} ( \tilde{\alpha}_2+ \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} )
+\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N y_{ij}^I \Bigg[ \tilde{\alpha}_0-2 \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_{0} )- (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Bigg]\\
&+ \sum_{a=1}^M \sum_{b=1, b \neq a}^M y_{ab} \Bigg[ \tilde{\alpha}_1-2 \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_{1} )- (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Bigg]\\
&-\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M \log \Bigg( 1+\frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_2 )}{\det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2}}\\
&\exp \Big( \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} + \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T \big( \textbf{I} -2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\big)^{-1} (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)
\Bigg)\\
&-\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N \log \Bigg( 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_0)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Big) \Bigg)\\
&- \sum_{a=1}^M \sum_{b=1, b \neq a}^M \log \Bigg( 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_1)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Big) \Bigg)\\\end{aligned}$$ We use the Variational Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm [@jordan1999introduction; @baum1970maximization; @dempster1977maximum] to maximize the ELBO function. Following the variational EM algorithm, we replace the E step of the celebrated EM algorithm, where we compute the expectation of the complete likelihood with respect to the conditional distribution $f(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A}|\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})$, with a VE step, where we compute the expectation with respect to the best variational distribution (obtained by optimizing the ELBO function) at that iteration.
The detailed procedures are as follows. We start with the initial parameter, $\Theta^{(0)} = \tilde{\alpha}_0^{(0)},\tilde{\alpha}_1^{(0)}, \tilde{\alpha}_2^{(0)},$ and $\tilde{\textbf{u}}_i^{(0)},\tilde{\Lambda}_{0}^{(0)},\tilde{\textbf{v}}_a^{(0)},\tilde{\Lambda}_{1}^{(0)}$, and then we iterate the following VE (Variational expectation) and M (maximization) steps. During the VE step, we maximize the $\text{ELBO}(q(\bf{Z}),\Theta)$ with respect to the variational parameters $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}, \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}, \tilde{\lambda}_0$ and $\tilde{\lambda}_1$ given the other model parameters and obtain $\text{ELBO}(q^{*}(\bf{Z}),\Theta)$ . During the M step, we fix $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}, \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}, \tilde{\Lambda}_0$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}_1$ and maximize the $\text{ELBO}(q(\bf{Z}),\Theta)$ with respect to $\tilde{\alpha}_0, \tilde{\alpha}_1$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_2$. To do this, we differentiate $\text{ELBO}(q(\bf{Z}),\Theta)$ with respect to each variational parameter. Closed form update rules are obtained by setting the partial derivatives to zero while introducing the first- and second-order Taylor series expansion approximation of the log functions in $\text{ELBO}(q(\bf{Z}),\Theta)$ (see detailed derivations in supplementary material). The Taylor series expansions are commonly used in the variational approaches. For example, three first-order Taylor expansions were used by [@salter2013variational] to simplify the Euclidean distance in the latent position cluster model, and first- and second-order Taylor expansions were used by [@gollini2016joint] to simplify the squared Euclidean distance in LSM. Following the previous publications using Taylor expansions, we approximate the three log functions in our $\text{ELBO}(q(\bf{Z}),\Theta)$ function to find closed form update rules for the variational parameters. The three log functions are $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{F_{IA}}=&\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M \log \Bigg( 1+\frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_2 )}{\det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2}}\\
&\exp \Big( \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} + \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T \big( \textbf{I} -2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\big)^{-1} (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)
\Bigg)
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{F_I}=&\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N \log \Bigg( 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_0)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Big) \Bigg)
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{fia}
\boldsymbol{F_{A}}=& \sum_{a=1}^M \sum_{b=1, b \neq a}^M \log \Bigg( 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_1)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Big) \Bigg)
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The closed form update rules of the ($t+1$)th iteration are as follows\
**VE-step**: Estimate $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t + 1)}$, $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t + 1)}$, $\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{(t + 1)}$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{(t + 1)}$ by minimizing $\text{ELBO}(q(\bf{Z}),\Theta)$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t + 1)} =
\Bigg[ \Bigg( \frac{1}{2 \lambda_0} + \sum_{j =1, j \neq i}^N (y_{ji}^I + y_{ij}^I) \Bigg) \boldsymbol{I} + \boldsymbol{H_I} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}) + \frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{H_{IA}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}) \Bigg]^{-1} \\
&\Bigg[ \sum_{j =1, j \neq i}^N (y_{ji}^I + y_{ij}^I) \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{a=1}^M y_{ia}^{IA} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)} - \boldsymbol{G_I} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)})\\
&+ \Big( \boldsymbol{H_I} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}) + \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{H_{IA}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}) \Big) \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)} -\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{G_{IA}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}) \Bigg] \\
\\
& \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t + 1)} =
\Bigg[ \Bigg( \frac{1}{2 \lambda_1} + \sum_{b =1, b \neq a}^M (y_{ba}^A + y_{ab}^A) \Bigg) \boldsymbol{I} + \boldsymbol{H_A} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)}) + \frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{H_{IA}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)}) \Bigg]^{-1} \\
&\Bigg[ \sum_{b =1, b \neq a}^M (y_{ba}^A + y_{ab}^A) \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^N y_{ia}^{IA} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)} - \boldsymbol{G_A} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)})\\
&+ \Big( \boldsymbol{H_A} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)}) + \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{H_{IA}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)}) \Big) \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)} -\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{G_{IA}} ( \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)}) \Bigg] \\
\\
&\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{(t + 1)} =
\Bigg[ \Bigg( \frac{1}{ \lambda_0} + \frac{\sum_{i =1}^N \sum_{j =1}^N y_{ij}^I}{N} \Bigg) \boldsymbol{I} + \frac{2}{N} \boldsymbol{G_I} (\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{(t)}) + \frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{G_{IA}} (\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{(t)}) \Bigg]^{-1} \\
&\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{(t + 1)} =
\Bigg[ \Bigg( \frac{1}{ \lambda_1} + \frac{\sum_{a =1}^M \sum_{b =1}^M y_{ij}^I}{N} \Bigg) \boldsymbol{I} + \frac{2}{M} \boldsymbol{G_A} (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{(t)}) + \frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{G_{IA}} (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{(t)}) \Bigg]^{-1} \end{aligned}$$where $\boldsymbol{G_I}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)})$, $\boldsymbol{G_A}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)})$, $\boldsymbol{G_{IA}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)})$and $\boldsymbol{G_{IA}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)})$ are the partial derivatives (gradients) of $\boldsymbol{F_I}, \boldsymbol{F_A}, \boldsymbol{F_{IA}}$ and $\boldsymbol{F_{IA}}$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}, \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}, \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$, evaluated at $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}, \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)}, \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)}$ respectively. In $\boldsymbol{G_I}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)})$, the subscript $I$ indicates that the gradient is of function $\boldsymbol{F_I}$, and the subscript $i$ in $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}$ indicates that the gradient is with respect to $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$, evaluated at $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}$. Similarly, $\boldsymbol{H_I}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)})$, $\boldsymbol{H_A}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)})$, $\boldsymbol{H_{IA}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)})$ and $\boldsymbol{H_{IA}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)})$ are the second-order partial derivatives of $\boldsymbol{F_I}, \boldsymbol{F_A}, \boldsymbol{F_{IA}}$ and $\boldsymbol{F_{IA}}$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}, \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}, \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$, evaluated at $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}, \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)}, \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^{(t)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^{(t)}$ respectively.\
**M-step**: Estimate $\tilde{\alpha}_0^{(t + 1)}$, $\tilde{\alpha}_1^{(t + 1)}$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_2^{(t + 1)}$ by maximizing $\text{ELBO}(q(\bf{Z}),\Theta)$
\_0\^[(t + 1)]{} =&&&\
\_1\^[(t + 1)]{} =&\
\_2\^[(t + 1)]{} =&
, where $g_I(\tilde{\alpha}_0^{(t)})$, $g_A(\tilde{\alpha}_1^{(t)})$ and $g_{IA}(\tilde{\alpha}_2^{(t)})$ are the partial derivatives (gradients) of $\boldsymbol{F_I}, \boldsymbol{F_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{F_{IA}}$ with respect to $\tilde{\alpha}_0, \tilde{\alpha}_1$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_2$, evaluated at $\tilde{\alpha}_0^{(t)}, \tilde{\alpha}_1^{(t)}$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_2^{(t)}$; and $h_I(\tilde{\alpha}_0^{(t)})$, $h_A(\tilde{\alpha}_1^{(t)})$ and $h_{IA}(\tilde{\alpha}_2^{(t)})$ are the second-order partial derivatives of $\boldsymbol{F_I}, \boldsymbol{F_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{F_{IA}}$ with respect to $\tilde{\alpha}_0, \tilde{\alpha}_1$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_2$, evaluated at $\tilde{\alpha}_0^{(t)}, \tilde{\alpha}_1^{(t)}$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_2^{(t)}$.
The VBEM approach for LSMH-I is similar to the VBEM approach for LSMH with the exception of $\tilde{\alpha}_a$, $a= 1,2,...M$ replacing $\tilde{\alpha}_2$. Therefore, the closed form update rule for $\tilde{\alpha}_a$ is
\_a\^[(t + 1)]{} = &&
, where $g_{IA}(\tilde{\alpha}_a^{(t)})$ is the partial derivative (gradient) of $\boldsymbol{F_{IA}}$ with respect to $\tilde{\alpha}_a$, evaluated at $\tilde{\alpha}_a^{(t)}$; and $h_{IA}(\tilde{\alpha}_a^{(t)})$ is the second-order partial derivative of $\boldsymbol{F_{IA}}$ with respect to $\tilde{\alpha}_a$, evaluated at $\tilde{\alpha}_a^{(t)}$.
Simulation Study
================
In this section, we conduct a simulation study to evaluate the performance of the proposed VBEM algorithm in terms of fitting the data and recovery of the link probabilities, model parameters and latent positions.
[0.5]{}
![The histogram of AUC values for predicting $Y_A,Y_I, Y_{IA}$ matrices over 100 simulations. Under the (left) first and (right) second settings, the $\alpha$ values are $1, .5, -0.5$ and $3, 3.5, -2$ respectively.[]{data-label="sims"}](SIM1.png){width=".9\textwidth"}
[0.5]{}
![The histogram of AUC values for predicting $Y_A,Y_I, Y_{IA}$ matrices over 100 simulations. Under the (left) first and (right) second settings, the $\alpha$ values are $1, .5, -0.5$ and $3, 3.5, -2$ respectively.[]{data-label="sims"}](SIM5.png){width="90.00000%"}
![The boxplots of the average absolute error in estimating the true link probabilities in $\boldsymbol{Y_I}, \boldsymbol{Y_A}$, $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ matrices across $100$ simulations. The $\alpha$ values are set to be $2$, $1$ and $-2$ respectively. []{data-label="aae"}](AAE.png){width=".5\textwidth"}
Our first assessment is in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of predicting the presence or absence of a link from the estimated link probabilities. The LSMH defined by Equation \[LSMH\] is our data generating model. The true values of $\lambda_0,\lambda_1$ are set to be $1$ for this and all subsequent simulations. We sample $\boldsymbol{Z_I}$ and $\boldsymbol{Z_A}$ from the multivariate normal distributions using two sets of $\alpha$ parameter values: $\alpha_0=1, \alpha_1=.5$, $\alpha_2 = -0.5$ and $\alpha_0=3, \alpha_1=3.5$, $\alpha_2 = -2$. Following Equation \[LSMH\], we produce link probabilities between items, between persons and between items and persons using the inverse logistic link function. Next, we generated 100 datasets each consisting of the three matrices. Each element of the matrices (edge in the corresponding network) was generated from Bernoulli distribution using the corresponding link probability independent of all other elements. We apply the LSMH with the VBEM estimator to the simulated datasets and obtained the posterior distributions of the latent positions and estimates for the fixed parameters.
In Figure \[sims\], we present the distributions of the AUC values for $100$ simulations for $\boldsymbol{Y_I}, \boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$. To estimate the probability of an edge in $\boldsymbol{Y_I}, \boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$, we employ posterior means as point estimates of the latent positions following Equation \[LSMH\]. In the second and third rows of Figure \[sims\], we compare the LSMH’s performance against two “baseline” procedures. For the first “baseline” procedure, we fit LSMs to $\boldsymbol{Y_I} $ and $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ separately and calculated the link probability of an edge in $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$. The LSMs are fitted using the variational inference method as described in [@gollini2016joint]. Additionally, we apply a LSM to the item-person supra-adjacency matrix (a block matrix consisting of $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$, $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$) for the second “baseline" procedure. We refer to this method of applying the LSM as the supra-LSM. Contrary to our LSMH, the supra-LSM is fitted to $\boldsymbol{Y_I}, \boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ indiscriminately using a single $\alpha$ parameter and the same Euclidean distance measure across all three matrices. From Figure \[sims\], we can see that the AUC values are higher using LSMH for $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ than those using supra-LSM, while the AUC values are higher using LSMH for $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ than those using separate LSMs.
We can also compare the methods more directly in terms of the accuracy of estimating the link probabilities. In Figure \[aae\], we present the average of the absolute differences between the known link probabilities and the estimated link probabilities, where the average is taken over all elements of the matrix under consideration, $\boldsymbol{Y_I}, \boldsymbol{Y_A}$ or $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$. As can be seen, the AAEs are closer to $0$ in the $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ matrix using LSMH than those using the other two methods implying a much better model fit to the data using LSMH. The performance of all the three methods are identical for the other two matrices.
![Results of $150$ simulations. Distribution of the distance between the true and estimated $\alpha_0$ (left), $\alpha_1$ (middle) and $\alpha_2$ (right) with different true $\alpha$ values. []{data-label="alpha"}](Distalpha.png){width="100.00000%"}
### Recovery of parameters and latent positions
We also assess the ability of the VBEM method in recovering the unknown model parameters and the latent positions of the nodes. In Figure \[alpha\], we present the distributions of distances between estimated values and the true values for $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ respectively. We consider three sets of $\alpha$ values for this simulation, with $50$ samples simulated for each set of $\alpha$ values for a total of $150$ samples. Each density distribution in Figure \[alpha\] includes results from all the $150$ simulations. The three sets of $\alpha$ values are $2,2.5,-2$ and $2.5,2,,-1.5$ and $1.5,2,-1$. The distribution of distances for each of $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ is narrow and centered roughly around $0$, implying that the estimated $\alpha$ values are close to the true $\alpha$ values for a range of different true $\alpha$ values.
![Distributions of pairwise distance ratios over $50$ simulation samples, comparing $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ with $\boldsymbol{u_i} $(left) and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$ with $\boldsymbol{v_a}$ (right) when $\alpha$ values are $2,2.5,-2$. []{data-label="Z"}](distZ.png){width="100.00000%"}
In Figure \[Z\], we compare the pairwise distances from the estimated latent positions to those from the true latent positions similar to the comparison made in [@sewell2015latent]. Even though the latent positions can be recovered only upto the ambiguity of an orthogonal transformation, the relative distances between nodes should be preserved. This implies the ratio of the distance between node $i$ and $j$ obtained using the estimates $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}$ and the true distance between node $i$ and $j$ obtained using true locations $\boldsymbol{u_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{u_i}$ should be close to $1$ if the VBEM estimation algorithm successfully maintained and recovered the relationship between node $i$ and $j$. Therefore in Figure \[Z\] we plot the distribution of this ratio for all pairs, where each plot is the distribution of this ratio for a pair of nodes over 50 samples. As can be seen in both plots in Figure \[Z\], these distributions are narrow and centered around 1 for both sets of latent positions, implying successful recovery of the nodes’ relationships to each other through the estimated latent positions.
Analysis of the Early Learning Ohio Data
========================================
We applied LSMH to the data from each of the sixteen classrooms with $D=2$ to study the relationship between friendship circles and students’ well-being in order to identify students with adjustment difficulties in each of these classrooms. We chose one of the classrooms, classroom 36, to illustrate in details the utility of LSMH, while results from 3 other classrooms are also presented in brief summaries. There were 28 students in classroom 36, 17 of which did not answer any item in the child interview questionnaire, and 7 of which did not report their friendship information. Using the non-missing data we were able to obtain a $11 \times 11$ friendship matrix, $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$, and a $11 \times 23$ item response matrix, $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ from classroom 36. The $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ contained the dichotomized student responses, where both 1 and 2 responses are considered positive links between the students and the items.
We used the item relationship matrix $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ to include into our model the students’ responses to the same items from other classrooms. In particular, the item relationship matrix was derived from the pairwise correlations of the $23$ items measured over students across the remaining 15 classrooms. The $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ matrix then provides a source of information that is exogenous to or independent of the information from classroom 36. Including the item responses from the other classrooms in this way, we believe, will help solidify the positions of the items in relations to each other in the joint latent space. Items with strong positive correlations were considered to be connected in the item relationship matrix. We performed $253$ one-tailed hypotheses tests ($H_0: \rho \leq 0$, $H_a: \rho > 0$) on the pairwise Spearman’s correlations [@best1975algorithm] of the $23$ items. The items were considered to be connected in $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ if their correlations were significantly positive with adjusted $p$ values ($p \leq .005$). The $p$ values were adjusted to control for multiple comparisons following [@benjamini1995controlling]. In this way, the expected number of false positive connection is roughly one. The density of $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ is $0.2986767$.
[r]{}[0.5]{}
{width="45.00000%"}
The results of LSMH from classroom 36 are shown in Figure \[dim\] and Figure \[latent\]. We performed varimax rotation on the resulting latent item and person positions to improve the interpretability of the latent dimensions. The rotated latent positions of the items in the joint latent space can be seen in Figure \[dim\]. In the joint latent space, the items are colored according to the sub-scales they belong to. Similar to the PCA results, items from the same sub-scale are also found in similar directions. The second dimension of the joint latent space differentiates the NEA items from the PSS items. This dimension is similar to the first dimension of the PCA and is interpreted as the NEA dimension. The first dimension of the joint latent space has the same direction as the SL items and is interpreted as the SL dimension.
Joint versus Person Latent Space
--------------------------------
![Latent positions $\tilde{\textbf{u}}_i$ and $\tilde{\textbf{v}}_a$ (left) with directed friendship edges (middle) and with directed item-response edges (right) for the joint modeling of the social network, the item relationship matrix and the item response matrix from classroom 36. The grey ellipses represent the $95\%$ approximate credible intervals for the $\tilde{\textbf{u}}_i$. The red, blue and green ellipses represent the $95\%$ approximate credible intervals for the $\tilde{\textbf{v}}_a$ in the NEA, PPS and SL sub-scale, respectively. The black edges represent the directed friendship edges after adjusting for missing data. The red, blue and green edges represent the students’ positive responses to items under the NEA, PSS and SL sub-scales, respectively. The numbers are randomly assigned student identification numbers. []{data-label="latents"}](LatentSpaces.png){width="100.00000%"}
The estimated latent positions of the persons and items are shown in Figure \[latents\] as well as in Figure \[latent\]. In Figure \[latents\], we present the latent positions along with 95% approximate credible intervals. In addition, the middle and right plot in Figure \[latents\] also contain the directed friendship edges and directed item-response edges respectively. In Figure \[latent\], we present the latent positions without the distraction of the edges. From Figure \[latents\] to Figure \[latent\], we will see that the information from the rather complex item-response edges is summarized through the latent positions of the students in relation to the latent positions of the items. More specifically, through an interpretation of the joint latent space, we are able to summarize students’ response patterns, and thus assess their adjustment well-being.
![The latent positions of the students for the full social network in classroom 36 fitting the LSM. The directed arrows represent the directed friendship edges in the network.[]{data-label="latentp"}](LatentPerson.png){width=".5\textwidth"}
To assess whether and how the latent person positions changed after adding students’ survey responses, we applied the LSM to the students’ full social network from classroom 36. This full latent person space can be found in the left panel of Figure \[latent\]. Due to $17$ students’ missing item responses, there are more students in the latent person space than in the joint latent space. Three major friendship clusters were observed using Euclidean distances, shown as the three purple circles. These friendship clusters were confirmed by the directed friendship edges in Figure \[latentp\]. To help visually compare the joint latent space with person latent space, we also circled out the completely isolated students with red. These circles are not direct products of our model. We refer to the cluster in the lower right quadrant (away from the origin) as $A$, the cluster in the upper right quadrant (and close to the origin) as $B$, and the cluster to the left of the origin as $C$. Students 1071, 1055, 959 and 1069 were positioned away from $A$, $B$ and $C$, and therefore identified as isolated students. Students 1053 and 1073 are more isolated than the average of class 36 with only one friendship edge each.
![The latent positions of the students in the (left) latent person space and the (right) joint latent space[]{data-label="latent"}](latent36.png){width="100.00000%"}
In the joint latent space in Figure \[latent\], each student is shown as a black dot and is positioned following the predefined geometric rules. Euclidean distances are used to describe the person-person and item-item links. The smaller the Euclidean distance is between persons $i$ and $j$, the more likely that person $i$ and person $j$ are friends; the smaller the Euclidean distance is between items $a$ and $b$, the more likely that item $a$ and item $b$ measure similar adjustment attributes.
To interpret the links between item $a$ and student $i$, we find [@hoff2002latent]’s latent space project model as most fitting. The links between item $a$ and student $i$ are described with the dot product $\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a}$, which is the signed magnitude of the projection of $\boldsymbol{u_i}$ in the direction of $\boldsymbol{v_a}$ ($c_a \boldsymbol{w_i}^T \boldsymbol{w_a}$) multiplied by $c_i$ resulting in $c_i c_a \boldsymbol{w_i}^T \boldsymbol{w_a}$. The magnitude of $c_i$ captures student $i$’s adjustment well-being, and magnitude of $c_a$ captures the overall adjustment outcome of students measured by item $a$. The angle between $\boldsymbol{w_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{w_a}$ captures the “similarity” between student $i$ and item $a$. Together, $\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a}$ can be interpreted as the extent to which student $i$ and item $a$ share characteristics, multiplied by the well-being of student $i$ and the adjustment outcome measured by item $a$. Items and the persons coexist and interact in the joint latent space through the shared adjustment information following the above geometric rules.
The positions of an item and a person are determined by the joint effect of how students in classroom 36 responded to different items, the student’s friendships with their peers and how similar the items are. By studying the positions of the students in relations to the items and other students, we can identify students with potential adjustment difficulties. For example, student 1055 seemed to be having a relatively difficult time. Student 1055 was positioned high on the NEA dimension and low on the SL dimension. Equivalently, the student was positioned at less-than-45-degree angles to the NEA items and at more-than-90-degree angles to the PPS and SL items. Meanwhile, most students in classroom 36 were positioned high on the SL dimension and low on the NEA dimension. Equivalently, they were positioned at more-than-90-degree angles to the NEA items and at less-than-45-degree angles to the PPS and SL items. This position of student 1055 compared to other students suggests that student 1055 had an opposite and unfavorable response pattern on the different items. More specifically, student 1055 scored high on the NEA items and low on the PSS and SL items while most students scored low on the NEA items and high on the PSS and SL items. In addition, student 1055 student was completely isolated in the latent person space. Taking both factors into account, we suspect that student 1055 was experiencing difficulties adjusting to school.
The results from the joint latent space show that students of the same friendship circle were more likely to have similar response patterns. In Figure \[latent\], students of the friendship circle $B$ (students 1051, 1054, 1060, 1061, 1062 and 1072) were positioned low on the NEA dimension, and high on the SL dimension. Students of $A$ (students 1052, 1056) were positioned close to $0$ on the NEA dimension and also on the SL dimension. Student 1057 of $C$ were positioned close to $0$ on the NEA dimension and very low on the SL dimension. In general, we can see that students who are close in Euclidean distances in the latent person space are more likely to be at similar angles to different items (students’ responses to different items should always be interpreted following the vector products of $\tilde{\textbf{u}}_i$ and $\tilde{\textbf{v}}_a$) in the joint latent space. Using the joint latent space, we are able to find students’ with similar response patterns while taking into account of their friendship circles as shown in Table \[tab\]. As can be seen, students of the same friendship circles often reported similar sum scores of the items. This similarity in latent positions of students from the same friendship circle and dissimilarity of students from different friendship circles suggest that friends respond to different items similarly. It is unclear whether this similarity is a result of friendly connections or is the reason for friendship formation. The joint latent space allows us to observe this connection readily and distinctively. Future research should quantify and investigate further this connection between the friendship circle and the adjustment well-being.
\[tab\]
The joint latent space uniquely captures students’ individuality that is usually lost with traditional methods. Similar to students 1052 and 1056, student 1057 was also well socially supported. All three students were well-connected in the latent person space and positioned low in the NEA dimension. While students 1052 and 1056 were positioned neutral on the SL dimension, student 1057 was positioned in the opposite direction. Contrary to the common belief that well socially supported students have positive attitudes towards school, student 1057 had negative attitude towards school. This unusual perception of student 1057 was well captured in the joint latent space and would have been lost under traditional methods. In particular, if we simply summarized students’ friendship information with numbers of edges in the friendship network or if we simply summarized their item responses with sum scores of items, information regarding individual students such as student 1057 would have been lost. Using LSMH, we are able to capture distinctive variability at the individual node level.
![The person and joint latent spaces for classrooms (from top to bottom) 04, 32 and 80.[]{data-label="latent1"}](Latent1.png){width=".5\textwidth"}
Students’ experiences at school cannot be accurately reflected through their friendship circles alone. For example, students of $A$ perceived less social support, felt more alone and encountered more negative experiences than those of $B$ though students of friends group $A$ and $B$ were both all well-connected in the latent person space. This distinction in the well-being between students of $A$ and $B$ would not be readily observed through analyses of only the friendship network. Another example can be found by comparing student 1055 and 1053. Student 1055 reported negative attitude towards school (low on the SL dimension) while student 1053 reported fairly positive attitude though both were isolated in the latent person space. Therefore, we are able to identify student 1055 as as potential candidate for intervention, but not student 1053. Only when we take into account both sources of information, can we obtain a more complete picture of a student’s well-being.
In Figure \[latent1\], we present the latent person and joint latent spaces from classrooms 04, 32 and 80 (top to the bottom). Students of the same friend groups, circled by purple, are often positioned in proximity to each other in the joint latent space. Isolated students, circled by red, are often positioned at smaller angles to the NEA items than the well-supported students. Though this connection between social support and students’ well-being is consistently observed, variations at the individual nodes (i.e., the individuality of students) can also be observed. For example, students 953 and 951 from classroom 32 are both identified as isolated in the person latent space. However, in the joint latent space, student 953 was positioned at less-than-90-degrees angle with the NEA items while student 951 was positioned at more-than-90-degrees angle with the NEA items. This shows that student 951 perceived negative experiences while student 953 did not though both were socially isolated. The latent person and joint latent spaces from the other 12 classrooms can be found in the Supplementary Material.
Model Fit
---------
[0.5]{}
![(A) Comparison of model fit to $\boldsymbol{Y_I}, \boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ in terms of ROC curves among the LSMH, the LSM fitted separately to $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and LSM fitted to the item-person supra-adjacency matrix (the supra-LSM) for classroom 36. (B) A boxplot describing the distribution of the AUC values on the three matrices over the 16 classrooms using LSMH[]{data-label="aroc"}](ROC.png){width="95.00000%"}
[0.5]{}
![(A) Comparison of model fit to $\boldsymbol{Y_I}, \boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ in terms of ROC curves among the LSMH, the LSM fitted separately to $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and LSM fitted to the item-person supra-adjacency matrix (the supra-LSM) for classroom 36. (B) A boxplot describing the distribution of the AUC values on the three matrices over the 16 classrooms using LSMH[]{data-label="aroc"}](AUCs.png){width=".95\textwidth"}
We assessed the fit of the LSMH to the data and compared it with the fit from fitting the LSMs to $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ separately and from fitting the supra-LSM to the supra-adjacency matrix. We present the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for predicting $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$, $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ from classroom 36 in the left panel of Figure \[aroc\]. From left to right, each column presents the ROC curve for $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$, $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ matrices; from top to bottom, each row presents the ROC curves from fitting the LSMH, the LSMs separately and the supra-LSM.
The estimated $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$ from fitting LSMs separately included information in $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ only. In comparison, the estimated $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$ from fitting the LSMH included information in all three matrices. This difference in the $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$ from fitting the LSMH versus fitting the LSMs separately is manifested through an increase in the AUC values from $.613$ to $.9072$ for $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ and also an increase from $.9043$ to $.9414$ for $\boldsymbol{Y_{I}}$. The latter increase suggests that the $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ estimates were improved by including the information in $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$ resulting in an increase of fit for $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$. Overall, the results in Figure \[aroc\] show that the fit of the LSMH to the data is better than that of the separate LSMs and the supra-LSM as shown in our simulation.
In the right panel of Figure \[aroc\], we present the boxplot of AUC values from predicting the three matrices using LSMH across all 16 classrooms. As can be seen, LSMH fits the data from all classrooms well. In particular, LSMH fits $\boldsymbol{Y_A}$ really well with the AUC values close to $1$. The median of the AUC values for $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ is higher than that for $\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}}$; the spread of the AUC values for $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ is also higher indicating greater variation in the fit for $\boldsymbol{Y_I}$ across classrooms. Medians of the AUCs are close to $1$ suggesting good model fit across all three matrices.
Prediction
----------
![ Predicted latent person positions of the missing students in classroom 36.[]{data-label="cluspred"}](Prediction.png){width="50.00000%"}
The LSMH can be used to predict missing (unobserved) links. We predicted the latent person positions of the $17$ students from classroom 36 with missing item response information using their friendship information, their friends’ item responses and the item relationship matrix. The results can be seen in Figure \[cluspred\]. Using LSMH, students of the same friendship circles were predicted to have similar response patterns. For example, student 1070 was predicted to have similar response patterns as students 1052 and 1056. Students 958, 1066 and 1075 were predicted to have similar response patterns as student 1057. Isolated students (students 1071, 1069, 959) were predicted to respond high on the NEA items and low on the PSS and SL items.
LSMH-I
------
We applied the LSMH-I in Equation \[LSMHI\] with latent dimension $D=2$ to the data from classroom 36. Using LSMH-I, we can obtain the multidimensional item discrimination and difficulty parameters taking into account the social network as well as the item responses. We selected three representative items (item 1, 8 and 17), one from each sub-scale for an in-depth investigation. The difficulty and discrimination parameter estimates for the three items are shown in Table \[item\]; the associated surface plots and contour plots are shown in Figure \[itemplot\]. The surface plot of an item is a plot, where the probability of a positive answer on this item is a function of students’ “abilities” in the $D$-dimensional space. The contour plot of an item contains equiprobability lines of the item, where the same probability of a positive answer can be expected for all students that fall on the line. In Figure \[itemplot\], a red solid line indicates the direction of a equiprobability line. A red dashed line indicates the direction of the most rapid change in probabilities, which is also the direction the item has the most discriminating power. The length of the red dashed line indicates the discriminating power of the item. When the length is small, the item discriminates students’ of different adjustment well-being well. This discriminating power is summarized across the $D$ dimensions by $A_a$s in Table \[item\].
\[tab:within\]
Item $z_{a,1}$ $z_{a,2}$ $\beta_a$ $A_a$ $B_a$
------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -------- ---------
1 2.5006 -0.5066 -2.6128 2.5515 1.0241
8 -0.6927 -0.5154 0.4024 0.8634 -0.4661
17 -0.1679 2.1860 -2.6899 2.1924 1.2269
: *Item parameters and multidimensional statistics for the three test items*[]{data-label="item"}
![The surface plot and contour plot for the probability of positive response for items 1, 8 and 17[]{data-label="itemplot"}](ItemPlot.png){width="100.00000%"}
From Figure \[itemplot\], we can see that the three items discriminate different dimensions of students’ “abilities” and measure three different aspects of the school adjustment well-being. The red dashed line is almost parallel to the 1st dimension for item 1, almost parallel to the 2nd dimension for item 17, and is at 45 degree angle between the 1st and the 2nd dimension for item 8. This suggests that item 1 discriminates students of differing “abilities” in the 1st dimension best. Item 17 discriminates students of differing “abilities” in the 2nd dimension best. Item 8 discriminates students’ of differing “abilities” in both dimensions. The same conclusion can be drawn from the surface plots and the absolute values of $z_{a,1}$ and $z_{a,2}$ in Table \[item\].
In Table \[item\], we summarize the difficulty information of item $a$ across the $D$ dimensions using $B_a$. In a contour plot, the absolute value of $B_a$ is the distance between the $.5$ equiprobability line and the origin. A positive $B_a$ suggests that the $.5$ equiprobability line is to the left of the origin and that the item is difficult. A negative $B_a$ suggests that the $.5$ equiprobability line is to the right of the origin and that the item is easy. Among the three items in Table \[item\], items 1 and 17 are more difficult than item 8.
One can also aggregate item response data across classrooms for the purpose of studying the properties of the items using LSMH-I in Equation \[LSMHI2\]. However, since our primary goal is to understand students’ adjustment well-being within a classroom, and not the assessment of the items, we do not investigate this direction further using the present dataset.
Discussions and conclusion
==========================
The LSMH outlined in this article constitutes a principle strategy for jointly analyzing social networks and item responses. We have argued for and presented evidence that a joint analysis of friendships and individual outcomes is crucial in understanding human behaviors. In particular, using LSMH, we analyzed the data from the Early Learning Ohio Project, identified the students with potential adjustment difficulties and found consistent connections between students’ friendship circles and school adjustment well-being. We have shown that our joint analysis using LSMH provides more detailed information and more flexibility in analyzing the social and item-response network data than other currently available statistical models. Therefore, we believe that LSMH, as an exploratory analysis tool, can be used to greatly help researchers understand how friendships and item responses are intertwined and to inspire further model development in this area.
Supplementary materials
=======================
[**Supplementary Material for “Joint Analysis of Social and Item Response Networks with Latent Space Models"**]{}
Selena Shuo Wang, Subhadeep Paul, Jessica Logan and Paul De Boeck [^2]
The Ohio State University
The Estimation Procedure for LSMH
---------------------------------
### Derivation of KL Divergence
We set the variational parameter as $\Theta = \tilde{\alpha}_0,\tilde{\alpha}_1, \tilde{\alpha}_2$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i},\tilde{\Lambda}_{0},\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a},\tilde{\Lambda}_{1}$, where $q(\boldsymbol{u_i})=N(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i},\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})$, and $q(\boldsymbol{v_a})=N(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a},\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})$. We set the variational posterior as: $$q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})= \prod_{i=1}^Nq(\boldsymbol{u_i}) \prod_{a=1}^Mq(\boldsymbol{v_a})$$\
The Kullback-Leiber divergence between the variational posterior and the true posterior is:
$$\begin{aligned}
&\text{KL}[q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2| \boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})|f(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})]\\
&=\int q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})\log \frac{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}{f(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}d(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\\
&=\int \prod_{i=1}^Nq(\boldsymbol{u_i}) \prod_{a=1}^Mq(\boldsymbol{v_a})
\log \frac{ \prod_{i=1}^Nq(\boldsymbol{u_i}) \prod_{a=1}^Mq(\boldsymbol{v_a})}{f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)
\prod_{i=1}^N f(\boldsymbol{u_i})\prod_{a=1}^M f(\boldsymbol{v_a})}d(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^N \int q(\boldsymbol{u_i}) \log \frac{q(\boldsymbol{u_i})}{f(\boldsymbol{u_i})} d \boldsymbol{u_i}
+\sum_{a=1}^M \int q(\boldsymbol{v_a}) \log \frac{q(\boldsymbol{v_a})}{f(\boldsymbol{v_a})} d \boldsymbol{v_a} \\
&-\int q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})\log f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)d(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^N\text{KL}[q(\boldsymbol{u_i})| f(\boldsymbol{u_i})]
+\sum_{a=1}^M\text{KL}[q(\boldsymbol{v_a})| f(\boldsymbol{v_a})]\\
& -{\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2 |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A},\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \alpha_2)],\end{aligned}$$
where each of the components are calculated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{i=1}^N\text{KL}[q(\boldsymbol{u_i})|| f(\boldsymbol{u_i})] &\\
&= -\sum_{i=1}^N \int q(\boldsymbol{u_i}) \log \frac{f(\boldsymbol{u_i})}{q{(\boldsymbol{u_i})}} d \boldsymbol{u_i}\\
&=- \sum_{i=1}^N \int q(\boldsymbol{u_i}) \Bigg( \frac{1}{2} \bigg( - D \log (\lambda^2_0)+ \log (\det(\tilde{\Lambda}_{0}))- \frac{1}{\lambda^2_0} \boldsymbol{u_i}^T\boldsymbol{u_i} +(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{u_i}})^T \tilde{\Lambda}^{-1}_{0} (\boldsymbol{u_i}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{u_i}}) \bigg) \Bigg)\\
&= \frac{1}{2} \Big( DN \log (\lambda^2_0)- N\log (\det(\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})) \Big) + \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{2} \Bigg( \frac{1}{\lambda^2_0} {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{u_i})}[\boldsymbol{u_i}^T\boldsymbol{u_i}]- {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{u_i})}[(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{u_i}})^T \tilde{\Lambda}^{-1}_{0} (\boldsymbol{u_i}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{u_i}})] \Bigg)\\
&= \frac{1}{2} \Big( DN \log (\lambda^2_0)- N\log (\det(\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})) \Big) + \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{2 \lambda^2_0} \Big( \text{Var} (\boldsymbol{u_i}) +\big({\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{u_i})}[\boldsymbol{u_i}] \big)^2 \Big) -\frac{1}{2}ND\\
&=\frac{1}{2} \Big( DN \log (\lambda^2_0)- N\log (\det(\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})) \Big) +\frac{N \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_0)}{2 \lambda^2_0} +\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}}{2 \lambda^2_0}-\frac{1}{2}ND\\
&\sum_{a=1}^M\text{KL}[q(\boldsymbol{v_a})|| f(\boldsymbol{v_a})]\\
&=\frac{1}{2} \Big( DM \log (\lambda^2_1)- M\log (\det(\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})) \Big) +\frac{M \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_1)}{2 \lambda^2_1} +\frac{\sum_{a=1}^M \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^T\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}}{2 \lambda^2_1}-\frac{1}{2}MD\end{aligned}$$ ${\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A})]$ can be expanded into $6$ components:\
$$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A})]\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M y_{ia} {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\alpha_2+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a}]\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N y_{ij} {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\alpha_0-(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})^T(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})]\\
&+\sum_{a=1}^M \sum_{b=1, b \neq a}^M y_{ab} {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\alpha_1-(\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b})^T(\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b})]\\
&- \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log (1+ \exp(\alpha_2+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a}))]\\
&- \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log (1+ \exp(\alpha_0 -(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})^T(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})))]\\
&- \sum_{a=1}^M \sum_{b=1, b \neq a}^M {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log (1+ \exp(\alpha_1 -(\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b})^T(\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b})))]\end{aligned}$$
First $3$ components of ${\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A})]$ are calculated as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N y_{ij} {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\alpha_0-(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})^T]\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N y_{ij} \int \big(\alpha_0- (\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})^T \big) q(\boldsymbol{u_i}) q(\boldsymbol{u_j}) d ( \boldsymbol{u_i},\boldsymbol{u_j})\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N y_{ij} \Bigg[ \tilde{\alpha}_0 -\int (\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})^T q(\boldsymbol{u_i}) q(\boldsymbol{u_j}) d(\boldsymbol{u_i},\boldsymbol{u_j}) \Bigg]\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N y_{ij} \Bigg[\tilde{\alpha}_0 - \int \sum_{d=1}^D (u_{id} -u_{jd})^2 q(\boldsymbol{u_i}) q(\boldsymbol{u_j}) d(\boldsymbol{u_i},\boldsymbol{u_j}) \Bigg] \\
&= \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N y_{ij} \Bigg[ \tilde{\alpha}_0 -\bigg[ \sum_{d=1}^D \big[ \int u_{id}^2 q(u_{id}) d u_{id} + \int u_{jd}^2 q(u_{jd}) du_{jd} - \int \int 2 u_{id} u_{jd} q(u_{id}) q(u_{jd}) du_{id}, du_{jd} \big] \bigg] \Bigg] \\
&= \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N y_{ij} \Bigg[ \tilde{\alpha}_0-2 \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_{0} )- (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Bigg]\\
&\sum_{a=1}^M \sum_{b=1, b\neq a}^M y_{ab} {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\alpha_1-(\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b})(\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b})^T]\\
&=\sum_{a=1}^M \sum_{b=1, b\neq a}^M y_{ab} \Bigg[ \tilde{\alpha}_1-2 \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_{1} )- (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Bigg]\\
&\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M y_{ia} {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\alpha_2+\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a}]\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M y_{ia} ( \tilde{\alpha}_2+ \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} )\end{aligned}$$
The last $3$ expectations of the log functions can be simplified using Jensen’s inequality and ${\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\log f(\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}} |\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A})]$ can be written as:
&\_[q(, |,,)]{}\[f(,, |,)\]\
& \_[i=1]{}\^N \_[a=1]{}\^M y\_[ia]{} ( \_2+ \^T ) +\_[i=1]{}\^N \_[j=1, j i]{}\^N y\_[ij]{}\
&+ \_[a=1]{}\^M \_[b=1, b a]{}\^M y\_[ab]{}\
&-\_[i=1]{}\^N \_[a=1]{}\^M (1+ \_[q(, |,,)]{}\[(\_2+\^T )\])\
&-\_[i=1]{}\^N \_[j=1, j i]{}\^N (1+ \_[q(, |,,)]{}\[(\_0 -(-)\^T(-))\])\
&-\_[a=1]{}\^M \_[b=1, b a]{}\^M (1+ \_[q(, |,,)]{}\[ (\_1 -(-)\^T(-))\])
Recall $\boldsymbol{u_i},\boldsymbol{u_j}$ are $D \times 1$ column vectors. Define $\textbf{u} = \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} -\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}$. Then we have, $\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j} \overset{iid}{=} N(\textbf{u}, 2\tilde{\Lambda}_0)$, where $\textbf{u}$ is a $D \times 1$ vector and $\tilde{\Lambda}_0$ is an $n \times n$ positive semidefinite matrix. Further define $\textbf{Z}=(2\tilde{\Lambda}_0)^{-1/2}(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j}-(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} -\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}))$. Then clearly $\textbf{Z}$ follows $D$ dimensional multivariate standard normal distribution and its density function is given by $f_Z(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp(-\frac{1}{2}\textbf{z}^T \textbf{z})$. Consequently, we have $\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j}=2\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \textbf{Z} +\textbf{u}$.
Therefore, we can reparameterize $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[ \exp( -(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})^T(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j}))]\\
&={\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}\Bigg[\exp \Bigg(- \Big( \textbf{Z}^T (2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)^{1/2} +\textbf{u}^T
\Big) \Big( (2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)^{1/2}\textbf{Z} +\textbf{u}
\Big) \Bigg)\Bigg]&\\
&={\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}\Bigg[\exp \Bigg(- \textbf{Z}^T(2\tilde{\Lambda}_0 )\textbf{Z} -2\textbf{Z}^T (2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)^{1/2}\textbf{u} - \textbf{u}^T\textbf{u}
)\Bigg)\Bigg]&\\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int \exp \Bigg(- \textbf{Z}^T \big(2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0+ \frac{1}{2} \textbf{I}\big) \textbf{Z} -2\textbf{Z}^T (2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)^{1/2}\textbf{u} - \textbf{u}^T\textbf{u}
\Bigg) d \textbf{Z}\end{aligned}$$ Now define $Q= \textbf{u}(2\tilde{\Lambda}_0 +\frac{1}{2} \textbf{I})^{-1}(2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)^{1/2}$. Then the above integral becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int \exp \Bigg(- (\textbf{Z}-Q)^T(2\tilde{\Lambda}_0 +\frac{1}{2} \textbf{I} ) (\textbf{Z}-Q) -\textbf{u}^T\textbf{u} + \textbf{u}^T(2\tilde{\Lambda}_0 +\frac{1}{2} \textbf{I} )^{-1}(2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)\textbf{u}\Bigg) d \textbf{Z} \\
&= \exp \Big( -\textbf{u}^T\textbf{u} + \textbf{u}^T(2\tilde{\Lambda}_0 +\frac{1}{2} \textbf{I} )^{-1}(2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)\textbf{u}\Big) \det(\textbf{I} +4 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\\
&= \exp \Big( -\textbf{u}^T(\textbf{I}+(2\tilde{\Lambda}_0 +\frac{1}{2} \textbf{I} )^{-1}(2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0))\textbf{u}\Big) \det(\textbf{I} +4 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\\
&= \exp \Big( -\textbf{u}^T (4 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 +\textbf{I})^{-1} \textbf{u} \Big) \det(\textbf{I} +4 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \text{ }.\end{aligned}$$ The last line follows since for any two invertible matrices $A$ and $B$, if $A+B$ is also invertible, then by [@henderson1981deriving] $$(A+B)^{-1}=A^{-1} - A^{-1}B(I + A^{-1}B)^{-1}A^{-1}.$$ Letting $A= 4 \tilde{\Lambda}_0$ and $B=I$ gives: $${\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[ \exp( -(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j})^T(\boldsymbol{u_i}-\boldsymbol{u_j}))]= \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Big) \det(\textbf{I} +4 \tilde{\Lambda}_0)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$ Following similar reparameterization, we find that $${\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[ \exp( -(\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b})^T(\boldsymbol{v_a}-\boldsymbol{v_b}))] = \exp \Big( (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} -\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (4 \tilde{\Lambda}_1 +\textbf{I})^{-1} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} -\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Big)\det(\textbf{I} +4 \tilde{\Lambda}_1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$ Recall, $\textbf{Z}$ follows $D$ dimensional multivariate standard normal distribution and its density function is given by $f_Z(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp(-\frac{1}{2}\textbf{z}^T \textbf{z})$. Consequently, we have $\boldsymbol{u_i}^T = \textbf{Z}^T\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} +\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T$ and $\boldsymbol{v_a} = \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \textbf{Z} +\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$. Therefore, we can reparameterize $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})}[\exp(\boldsymbol{u_i}^T \boldsymbol{v_a})]\\
&={\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})} \Bigg[\exp \Big( ( \textbf{Z}^T\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} +\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T) (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \textbf{Z} +\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) \Big) \Bigg]&\\
&={\mathrm{E}}_{q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})} \Bigg[\exp \Big(\textbf{Z}^T (\tilde{\Lambda}_0\tilde{\Lambda}_1)^{1/2} \textbf{Z} + \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \textbf{Z} + \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^T \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \textbf{Z} + \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}
\Big)\Bigg]&\\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\int \exp \Big( \textbf{Z}^T \big( \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} -\frac{1}{2} \textbf{I}
\big) \textbf{Z} + \big( \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} + \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^T \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2}
\big) \textbf{Z} +\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}
\Big)&\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\int \exp \Big( -\frac{1}{2} (\textbf{Z}-Q)^T \big( \textbf{I} - 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\big) (\textbf{Z}-Q) + \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} - Q^T \big( \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} -\frac{1}{2} \textbf{I} \big) Q
\Big) d \textbf(Z),&\\
& \Big( Q^T= \big(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} +\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^T \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \big) \big( \textbf{I} - 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \big)^{-1}
\Big)&\\
&= \exp \Big( \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} - Q^T \big( \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} -\frac{1}{2} \textbf{I} \big) Q
\Big) \det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\Big)^{-1/2}&\\
&= \det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\Big)^{-1/2} \exp \Big( \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} + \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T \big( \textbf{I} -2 \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2}
\big)^{-1} (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)\\\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the Kullback-Leiber divergence between the variational posterior and the true posterior is $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{KL}[q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})||f(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})]\\
\geq
& \frac{1}{2} \Big( DN \log (\lambda^2_0)- N\log (\det(\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})) \Big) +\frac{N \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_0)}{2 \lambda^2_0} +\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}}{{2 \lambda^2_0}}-\frac{1}{2}ND\\
&+\frac{1}{2} \Big( DM \log (\lambda^2_1)- M\log (\det(\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})) \Big) +\frac{M \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_1)}{2 \lambda^2_1} +\frac{\sum_{a=1}^M \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}^T\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}}{2 \lambda^2_1}-\frac{1}{2}MD\\
&- \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M y_{ia} ( \tilde{\alpha}_2+ \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} )
-\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N y_{ij} \Bigg[ \tilde{\alpha}_0-2 \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_{0} )- (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Bigg]\\
&- \sum_{a=1}^M \sum_{b=1, b \neq a}^M y_{ab} \Bigg[ \tilde{\alpha}_1-2 \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_{1} )- (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Bigg]\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M \log \Bigg( 1+\frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_2)}{\det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2}}\\
&\exp \Big( \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} + \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T \big( \textbf{I} -2 \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2}
\big)^{-1} (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)
\Bigg)\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N \log \Bigg( 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_0)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Big) \Bigg)\\
&+ \sum_{a=1}^M \sum_{b=1, b \neq a}^M \log \Bigg( 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_1)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Big) \Bigg)\end{aligned}$$
### Derivations of EM algorithms
**E-step**: Estimate $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$, $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$, $\tilde{\Lambda}_0$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}_1$ by minimizing the KL divergence.
$$\begin{aligned}
&\text{KL}_{\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}}[q(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} | \boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})||f(\boldsymbol{Z_I},\boldsymbol{Z_A} |\boldsymbol{Y_I},\boldsymbol{Y_A},\boldsymbol{Y_{IA}})]\\
\geq
& \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}}{{2 \lambda^2_0}}- \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M y_{ia} ( \tilde{\alpha}_2+ \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} )
-\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N y_{ij} \Bigg[ \tilde{\alpha}_0-2 \operatorname{tr}(\tilde{\Lambda}_{0} )- (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Bigg]\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M \log \Bigg( 1+\frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_2)}{\det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2}}\\
&\exp \Big( \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} + \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T \big( \textbf{I} -2 \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2}
\big)^{-1} (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)
\Bigg) \\
& + \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N \log \Bigg( 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_0)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Big) \Bigg) + \text{Const} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}\end{aligned}$$
To find the closed form updates of $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$, we use second-order Taylor-expansions of
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}\label{fia}
\boldsymbol{F_{ia}}=&\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^M \log \Bigg( 1+\frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_2 )}{\det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2}}\\
&\exp \Big( \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} + \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T \big( \textbf{I} -2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2}
\big)^{-1} (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)
\Bigg)
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{fa}
\boldsymbol{F_i}=&\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1, j \neq i}^N \log \Bigg( 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_0)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Big) \Bigg)
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
To simplify the forms, we denote $ (\textbf{I} - 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_0 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2})^{-1}$ as B. The gradients of $\boldsymbol{F_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{F_{ia}}$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{G_i(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i})} = - 2 (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1} \sum_{j=1,j \neq i}^N (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Bigg[ 1+ \frac{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{1/2}}{\exp (\tilde{\alpha}_0)}\exp \Big( (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Big)\Bigg]^{-1}\\
&\boldsymbol{G_{ia}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i})} = \sum_{a=1}^M \Bigg( \bigg( .5 \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \big( B+B^T \big) \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} +\textbf{I} \bigg)
\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}+ .5 \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \big( B+B^T \big) \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}
\Bigg)\\
&\Bigg[ 1+ \frac{\det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_1 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2}}{\exp (\tilde{\alpha}_2)} \exp \Big( - \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} - \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T B^T (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)
\Bigg]^{-1}\end{aligned}$$
The second-order partial derivatives (Hessian matrices) of $\boldsymbol{F_i}, \boldsymbol{F_{ia}}$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{H_{i}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}) =
- 2 (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1} \sum_{j=1,j \neq i}^N \left[ 1+ \frac{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{1/2}}{\exp (\tilde{\alpha}_0)}\exp \Big( (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Big)
\right]^{-1}\\
&\left [\textbf{I} -\frac{ 2 (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1}
}{ 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_0)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{0})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j}) \Big)}
\right]\\
&\boldsymbol{H_{ia}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}) =
\sum_{a=1}^M \left[ 1+ \frac{\det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_1 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2}}{\exp (\tilde{\alpha}_2)}
\exp \Big( - \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} - \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T B^T (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)
\right]^{-1}\\
&\left [ \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} B \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} +\frac{ \left( \bigg( .5 \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} B \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} +\textbf{I} \bigg)
\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}+ .5 \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} B \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}\right) \left( \bigg( .5 \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} B \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} +\textbf{I} \bigg)
\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}+.5 \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} B \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}
\right)^T
}{ 1+ \frac{\exp (\tilde{\alpha}_2)}{ \det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_1 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2} }
\exp \Big( \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} + \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T B^T (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)}
\right]\end{aligned}$$
With the Taylor-expansions of the log functions, we can obtain the closed form update rule of $\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}$ by setting the partial derivative of KL equal to $0$. Finally, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} =
\Bigg[ \Bigg( \frac{1}{2 \lambda_0} + \sum_{j =1, j \neq i}^N (y_{ji} + y_{ij}) \Bigg) \boldsymbol{I} + \boldsymbol{H_i} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}) + \frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{H_{ia}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}) \Bigg]^{-1} \\
&\Bigg[ \sum_{j =1, j \neq i}^N (y_{ji} + y_{ij}) \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_j} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{a=1}^M y_{ia} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} - \boldsymbol{G_i} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}) + \Big( \boldsymbol{H_i} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}) + \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{H_{ia}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}) \Big) \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} -\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{G_{ia}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}) \Bigg] \\
\\
& \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} =
\Bigg[ \Bigg( \frac{1}{2 \lambda_1} + \sum_{b =1, b \neq a}^M (y_{ba} + y_{ab}) \Bigg) \boldsymbol{I} + \boldsymbol{H_a} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) + \frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{H_{ia}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) \Bigg]^{-1} \\
&\Bigg[ \sum_{b =1, b \neq a}^M (y_{ba} + y_{ab}) \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^N y_{ia} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} - \boldsymbol{G_a} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) + \Big( \boldsymbol{H_a} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) + \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{H_{ia}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) \Big) \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} -\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{G_{ia}} ( \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) \Bigg] \end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we can obtain the closed form update rule for $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$ by taking the second order Taylor-expansion of $\boldsymbol{F_a}$ and $\boldsymbol{F_{ia}}$ (see Equation \[fia\]) $$\boldsymbol{F_{a}}= \sum_{a=1}^M \sum_{b=1, b \neq a}^M \log \Bigg( 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_1)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Big) \Bigg)$$ The gradients of $\boldsymbol{F_a}, \boldsymbol{F_{ia}}$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{G_a(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})} =- 2 (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{-1} \sum_{b=1,b \neq a}^M (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Bigg[ 1+ \frac{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{1/2}}{\exp (\tilde{\alpha}_1)}\exp \Big( (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Big)
\Bigg]^{-1}\\
&\boldsymbol{G_{ia}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})} = \sum_{i=1}^N \Bigg( \bigg( .5 \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \big( B+B^T \big) \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} +\textbf{I} \bigg)
\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}+.5 \Lambda_0^{1/2} \big( B+B^T \big) \Lambda_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}
\Bigg)\\
&\Bigg[ 1+ \frac{\det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_1 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2}}{\exp (\tilde{\alpha}_2)} \exp \Big( - \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} - \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T B^T (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)
\Bigg]^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ Hessian matrices of $\boldsymbol{F_a}$ and $ \boldsymbol{F_{ia}}$ with respect to $ \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{H_{a}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) =
- 2 (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{-1} \sum_{b=1,b \neq a}^M (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Bigg[ 1+ \frac{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{1/2}}{\exp (\tilde{\alpha}_1)}\exp \Big( (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Big)
\Bigg]^{-1}\\
&\left [\textbf{I} -\frac{ 2 (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{-1}
}{ 1+ \frac{\exp(\tilde{\alpha}_1)}{\det (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{1/2}} \exp \Big( -(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b})^T (\textbf{I} + 4\tilde{\Lambda}_{1})^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}-\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b}) \Big) }
\right]\\
&\boldsymbol{H_{ia}}(\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) =
\sum_{a=1}^M \left[ 1+ \frac{\det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_1 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2}}{\exp (\tilde{\alpha}_2)}
\exp \Big( - \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} - \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T B^T (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)
\right]^{-1}\\
&\left [ \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} B \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} +\frac{ \left( \bigg( 0.5 \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} B \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} +\textbf{I} \bigg)
\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}+ .5 \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} B \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}\right) \left( \bigg( 0.5 \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} B \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} +\textbf{I} \bigg)
\boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}+0.5 \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} B \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}
\right)^T
}{ 1+ \frac{\exp (\tilde{\alpha}_2)}{ \det \Big(\textbf{I}- 2 \tilde{\Lambda}_1 ^{1/2} \tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2}
\Big)^{1/2} }
\exp \Big( \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i}^T \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} + \frac{1}{2}( \tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})^T B^T (\tilde{\Lambda}_1^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} +\tilde{\Lambda}_0^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a})
\Big)}
\right]\end{aligned}$$
With the Taylor-expansions of the log functions, we can obtain the closed form update rule of $\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}$ by setting the partial derivative of KL equal to $0$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} =
\Bigg[ \Bigg( \frac{1}{2 \lambda_1} + \sum_{b =1, b \neq a}^M (y_{ba} + y_{ab}) \Bigg) \boldsymbol{I} + \boldsymbol{H_a} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) + \frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{H_{ia}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) \Bigg]^{-1} \\
&\Bigg[ \sum_{b =1, b \neq a}^M (y_{ba} + y_{ab}) \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_b} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^N y_{ia} \boldsymbol{\tilde{u}_i} - \boldsymbol{G_a} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) + \Big( \boldsymbol{H_a} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) + \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{H_{ia}} (\boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) \Big) \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a} -\frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{G_{ia}} ( \boldsymbol{\tilde{v}_a}) \Bigg] \end{aligned}$$ To find the closed form updates of $\tilde{\Lambda}_0$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}_1$ we used the first-order Taylor-expansions of $\boldsymbol{F_i}, \boldsymbol{F_a} $ and $\boldsymbol{F_{ia}}$. The gradients of $\boldsymbol{F_i}$ and $\boldsymbol{F_{ia}}$ with respect to $\tilde{\Lambda}_0$ are:
(\_0) = &\_[i =1]{}\^N \_[j=1, j i]{}\^N \^[-1]{}\
& 4 (**I** + 4\_[0]{})\^[-1]{} ( (-)(-)\^T (**I** + 4\_[0]{})\^[-1]{} - **I**)\
(\_0) = & \_[i=1]{}\^N \_[a=1]{}\^M \^[-1]{}\
&
The gradients of $\boldsymbol{F_a}$ and $\boldsymbol{F_{ia}}$ with respect to $\tilde{\Lambda}_1$ are:
(\_1) = &\_[a =1]{}\^M \_[b=1, b a]{}\^M \^[-1]{}\
& 4 (**I** + 4\_[1]{})\^[-1]{} ( (-)(-)\^T (**I** + 4\_[1]{})\^[-1]{} - **I**)\
(\_1) = & \_[i=1]{}\^N \_[a=1]{}\^M \^[-1]{}\
&
With the Taylor-expansions of the log functions, we can obtain the closed form update rule of $\tilde{\Lambda}_0$ $\tilde{\Lambda}_1$ by setting the partial derivative of KL equal to $0$. Then, we have
&\_0 = \^[-1]{}&&\
&\_1 = \^[-1]{}
**M-step**: Estimate $\tilde{\alpha}_0$, $\tilde{\alpha}_1$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_2$ by minimizing the KL divergence. To find the closed form updates of $\tilde{\alpha}_0$, $\tilde{\alpha}_1$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_2$, we used second-order Taylor-expansions of the log functions and set the partial derivatives of KL with respects to $\tilde{\alpha}_0$, $\tilde{\alpha}_1$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_2$ as zeros. Then we have
\_0 =&&&\
\_1 =&\
\_2 =&
where
g\_i(\_0) = &\_[i =1]{}\^N \_[j=1, j i]{}\^N \^[-1]{}&&\
g\_a(\_1) =& \_[a=1]{}\^M \_[b=1, b a]{}\^M \^[-1]{}\
g\_[ia]{}(\_2) = &\_[i=1]{}\^N \_[a=1]{}\^M \^[-1]{}\
h\_i(\_0) = &\_[i =1]{}\^N \_[j=1, j i]{}\^N \^[-1]{}&&\
&\^[-1]{}\
h\_a(\_1) =& \_[a=1]{}\^M \_[b=1, b a]{}\^M \^[-1]{}\
&\^[-1]{}\
h\_[ia]{}(\_2) = &\_[i=1]{}\^N \_[a=1]{}\^M \^[-1]{}\
&\^[-1]{}
The VBEM approach for LSMH-I is similar to the VBEM approach for LSMH with the exception of $\tilde{\alpha}_a$, $a= 1,2,...M$ replacing $\tilde{\alpha}_2$. Therefore, the closed form update rule for $\tilde{\alpha}_a$ is
\_a\^[(t + 1)]{} = &&
where
g\_[ia]{}(\_a) = &\_[i=1]{}\^N \^[-1]{}\
h\_[ia]{}(\_a) = &\_[i=1]{}\^N \^[-1]{}\
&\^[-1]{}
The latent person spaces and joint latent spaces of other classrooms
--------------------------------------------------------------------
{width=".6\textwidth"}
{width=".6\textwidth"}
{width=".6\textwidth"}
{width=".6\textwidth"}
[^1]: *The research reported here was supported by Institute for Education Sciences, through Grant R305N160024 awarded to The Ohio State University (PI Justice) and by a grant from National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS 1830547 (PI Paul). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute for Education Sciences or National Center for Education Research. We would like to thank the research team, staff, and families without whom this research would not have been possible. The authors would like to thank Prof. Vishesh Karwa of Temple University and Prof. Srijan Sengupta of Virginia Tech University for discussions that helped in conceptualizing the statistical models.*
[^2]: E-mail: [*wang.10171@osu.edu, *paul.963@osu.edu, *logan.251@osu.edu***]{}, *deboeck.02@osu.edu*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'L. F. Sibbons'
- 'S. G. Ryan'
- 'M.-R. L. Cioni[^1]'
- 'M. Irwin'
- 'R. Napiwotzki'
bibliography:
- 'liz2.bib'
date: 'Received 31 Oct 2011/ Accepted 3 Feb 2012'
title: 'The AGB population of NGC 6822: distribution and the C/M ratio from JHK photometry'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Forming part of the Local Group, NGC 6822 is an irregular dwarf galaxy (dIrr) similar to the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC). At a distance of $\sim 490$ kpc,$(m-M)_{0}=
23.45 \pm 0.15$ mag, it is the closest ‘independent’ dIrr galaxy beyond the Magellanic Clouds. Its close proximity and apparent isolation have made NGC 6822 a popular candidate for studies of galactic evolution, without the strong gravitational influences of other systems . The morphology of the galaxy can be broadly divided into three structural components (Fig.\[cartoon\]); firstly, a central bar which contains much of the young stellar population is clearly visible at optical wavelengths and is orientated almost in a north-south direction . This bar is embedded in a large envelope of neutral hydrogen oriented in a roughly SE-NW direction. Although this kind of HI structure is not unique in the Local Group – IC 1613 and IC 10 have similar structures [@2003MNRAS.340...12W; @1972IAUS...44...12R] – NGC 6822 is unusual in that the HI envelope is so much more extended than the main optical component. A third, halo-like structure made up of old- and intermediate age stars has been detected by @2002AJ....123..832L and is approximately $\sim 1$ degree along the major axis. This elongated spheroidal structure is positioned orthogonally to and is dynamically decoupled from the HI envelope .
The detection of RR Lyrae stars in NGC 6822 [@2004ASPC..310...91B; @2003ApJ...588L..85C] indicates the presence of an old stellar population $\sim 11$ Gyr old whereas the many HII and OB associations confirm that star formation is still ongoing. NGC 6822 has been the focus of numerous investigations of its stellar content [e.g. @2006AJ....131..343D; @2003ApJ...590L..17K; @1996AJ....112.1928G] and several estimates have been made of its iron abundance. Using optical photometry, @1996AJ....112.1928G obtained \[Fe/H\] $= -1.50 \pm 0.3$ dex from the slope of the red giant branch (RGB). Further analysis of the RGB population by @2001MNRAS.327..918T yielded a value of \[Fe/H\] $=
-1.0 \pm 0.3$ dex from the strength of CaII absorption lines, in agreement with the result of @2003PASP..115..635D who derived the same \[Fe/H\] value from the slope of the RGB in the near-infrared (NIR). Studies of the AGB population by and using the ratio of C- to M-type stars, the C/M ratio, have detected a spread in the metallicity of the population of $\Delta$\[Fe/H\]$ = 1.56$ dex and $\Delta$\[Fe/H\]$ = 0.07 - 0.09$ dex (between $0.93 \pm 0.03$ and $1.02 \pm 0.03$ dex), respectively. The difference between the two values is attributed to differences in the size and location of the observed area. @2003ApJ...588L..85C obtained a value of \[Fe/H\] $= -1.92 \pm 0.35$ dex from the average period of old RR Lyrae variables. Looking at the younger stellar population, @2001ApJ...547..765V derived an average value of \[Fe/H\] $= -0.49 \pm 0.22$ dex from the optical spectroscopy of A-type supergiants. These results suggest, as expected, that the chemical enrichment of the interstellar medium in NGC 6822 has been a continual process due to multiple stellar generations, since star formation began.
Cool AGB stars trace the old- and intermediate-age population in galaxies, and as they are among the brightest objects they are detected well in the NIR, providing a sample that is relatively unobscured by dust along the line of sight. The purpose of this paper is to study the distribution of AGB stars and the metallicity (iron abundance) across the galaxy. During the AGB phase, mixing mechanisms dredge up triple-$\alpha$ processed material from the He-burning shell and can cause the dominant metal abundance in the stellar atmosphere to change from oxygen to carbon. Oxygen-rich stars have an excess of oxygen atoms in their atmosphere relative to carbon, which leads to the formation of O-rich molecular species (i.e. TiO, VO, H$_2$O). Carbon-rich stars have a higher abundance of carbon atoms relative to oxygen, leading to the formation of carbonaceous molecules (i.e. C$_2$, CN, SiC). These two types of stars are known as M- (C/O $<$ 1) and C-type (C/O $>$ 1). Stars in which the number of carbonaceous molecules equals the number of oxygen rich molecules (i.e. C/M $\sim 1$) are S-type stars. At lower metallicities the transformation from an initially O-rich atmosphere to a C-rich one is easier as fewer dredge-up events are required , therefore the ratio between stars of spectral type C and M should provide an indirect measure of the local metallicity at the time those stars formed.
The paper is organised as follows: Sect. \[obs\] presents the observations and the data reduction process, Sect. \[Analysis\] analyses the data and defines the sample of C- and M-type AGB stars, results are presented in Sect. \[results\], followed by a discussion and conclusions in Sect. \[diss\] and Sect. \[concl\], respectively.
Observations and data reduction {#obs}
===============================
Observations were obtained using the Wide Field Camera (WFCAM) on the $3.8$m United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) in Hawaii during two runs, in April $2005$ and November $2006$, as part of a large project to survey the AGB content of Local Group galaxies in the Northern Hemisphere (PI Irwin). WFCAM comprises four non-contiguous Rockwell-Hawaii-II infrared detector arrays (HgCdTe $2048 \times 2048$) that can be utilised to observe an area of $0.75$ deg$^2$ (a tile) on the sky with a scale of $0.4^{\prime\prime}$ per pixel. A mosaic of four tiles was obtained in three broad-band filters ($J$, $H$ and $K$) covering a contiguous area of $3$ deg$^2$ centred on the optical coordinates of NGC 6822 ($\alpha = 19^h 44^m 56^s, \delta = -14^{\circ} 48^{\prime}
06^{\prime\prime}$). We refer the reader to @2001ASPC..232..357C for a more detailed description of the WFCAM instrument. The exposure time of each tile in the $J$ band was $150$ sec, from the co-addition of $3$ exposures of $10$ sec each taken in a dithered pattern of $5$ positions. In the $H$ and $K$ bands the exposure time was $270$ sec from the co-addition of single $10$ sec exposures, in a $3 \times 3$ micro-stepping following a dithered pattern of $3$ positions. The total exposure time per pixel over the two runs was then $300$ sec in $J$ and $540$ sec in $H$ and $K$.
Reduction of the data, including all the standard steps for instrumental signature removal –flat fielding, crosstalk, sky-correction and systematic noise– was completed using the WFCAM pipeline at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge. Sources extracted using the pipeline were given a morphological classification from which assorted quality control measures are computed. Astrometric and photometric calibrations were performed based on the 2MASS point source catalogue [@2009MNRAS.394..675H; @2004SPIE.5493..411I]. The photometric measures are based on aperture photometry, with *zeropoints* calibrated against 2MASS although they are *not* transformed into the 2MASS system [@2009MNRAS.394..675H]. In other words the magnitudes and colours we quote are on the WFCAM instrumental system; transformation equations are given in @2009MNRAS.394..675H [eq. $4-8$].
Duplicated sources were removed using the photometric error and the morphological classification to select a ‘best’ unique entry per object, to produce a final catalogue containing $\sim 375,000$ sources. Most of which are, as we show in Sect. \[foreground\], Milky Way (MW) foreground sources. With the exception of one pointing in the NE that suffered from technical difficulties in the form of jittering causing oblong images in one set of the K-band observations, the typical seeing across the two observing runs was between $\sim
0.9-1.1^{\prime\prime}$. Figure \[comp2\] shows error vs magnitude for each source in all three bands. The effect of the technical fault on the $K$-band observations can be seen in the top panel, sources from that tile have a higher error for a given magnitude.\
Total reddening values across NGC 6822 have been found to vary widely from E(B-V) = 0.24 in the outer regions to E(B-V) = 0.45-0.54 in the centre . Here, no corrections were made for internal reddening. Corrections for the foreground component were made using the extinction map of @1998ApJ...500..525S. All magnitudes and colours are presented in their extinction-corrected (dereddened) form, denoted by the subscript ‘$0$’.
The maximum depth reached in each photometric band was $20.61, 20.00$ and $19.61$ mag in $J, H$ and $K$ respectively. The completeness limit for each band has been inferred from Fig. \[comp\] which shows the logarithmic distribution of the magnitudes in each band for our sample and the magnitude distribution of a synthetic MW foreground generated using the population synthesis code TRILEGAL . The shape of the sample distribution will be slightly different to that of the MW distribution due to the presence of NGC 6822 sources but the distributions do show some similar features. Both continue to increase along a similar line until they reach a peak and then start to decline. Whilst in the synthetically generated population this is due to some change in the population, in the sample distribution we believe the rollover, which occurs at brighter magnitudes, is the effect of decreasing completeness in the sample after the peak. Therefore, the data are assumed to be complete up to the peak of the distribution and we estimate the completeness at fainter magnitudes by normalising to the observed star counts at the peak of each band. In the $J$-band we are $100\%$ complete to a depth of $17.9$ mag, falling to a completeness of $50\%$ between $19.3-19.5$ mag. In the $H$-band we are $100\%$ complete to a depth of $17.9$ mag, falling to the $50\%$ level between $18.7-18.9$ mag and in the $K$-band (including the poorer quality data) we are $100\%$ complete to a depth of $17.5$ mag, declining to $50\%$ complete between $18.5-18.7$ mag. For comparison, the completeness levels for the $K$-band in the NE only are $100\%$ down to $17.3$ mag falling to the $50\%$ level between $\sim 18.5-18.7$ mag. AGB sources at the distance of NGC 6822 are expected to have an apparent magnitude brighter than $K_0 = 17.5$ mag, therefore we are confident that our sample is sufficiently complete for the purposes of this study.
Sources in the photometric catalogue are flagged as stellar, probably stellar, compact but non-stellar, noise like, saturated, a poor-match with the astrometric data or non-stellar, in each band. This source classification is based on the flux curve-of-growth for a series of apertures; a similar method has been used in the IPHAS survey and is discussed in @2008MNRAS.388...89G. Considering only those sources with the same flag in all three bands, no compact non-stellar or poorly-matched sources remained; $469$ saturated objects ($K<12.75$), $1703$ noise-like sources, $21400$ non-stellar, $449$ probably-stellar and $139900$ stellar sources were left. To ensure a reliable data set for the subsequent analysis only sources consistently detected in all three photometric bands and classified as stellar or probably-stellar in each band were used. A colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) of these sources across the full observed area is shown in the left-hand panel of Fig. \[flags1\]. Some of the sources listed as non-stellar are probably in fact stellar; comparing the first two panels of Fig. \[flags1\], many of the non-stellar sources with $(J-K)_0 < 1.20$ mag occupy the same region of the CMD diagram as the stellar sources. However, due to the problems of crowding or their being close to the detection limit of the data, it was not possible to resolve them adequately into individual stars and so they were classified as non-stellar and removed from the sample.
Analysis {#Analysis}
========
The foreground {#foreground}
--------------
As NGC 6822 ($l = 25^{\circ}.34$, $b = -18^{\circ}.39$) is close to the Galactic plane of the Milky Way observations suffer from heavy foreground contamination. The extent of this contamination is clearly seen in the left-hand panel of Fig. \[flags1\]. Three vertical fingers at colours $(J-K)_0 \sim 0.35$, $0.60$ and $0.80$ mag, have been associated with the following features following @2000ApJ...542..804N: the bluest finger is due to blue supergiants of NGC 6822 and Galactic F-K dwarfs; the second is due to Galactic foreground stars including K-type dwarfs and giants as well as young supergiants of NGC 6822; the third results from Galactic M-type dwarfs and K-, M-type giants, as well as K- and M-type giants of NGC 6822. This feature merges with a less distinct vertical sequence, relating to the M-type AGB population of NGC 6822, up to about $(J-K)_0 \sim1.20$ mag. At $(J-K)_0 > 1.20$ mag and brighter than $K_0 = 17$ mag, the C-type AGB stars of NGC 6822 occupy a diagonal sequence on the right of the CMD - these features are more clearly seen in the right-hand panel of Fig. \[flags1\]. At magnitudes fainter than $K_0 \sim 17$ mag where the distinction between the vertical sequences becomes blurred, the sources are a mixture of Galactic G-, K- and M-type dwarfs as well as RGB and early-AGB stars belonging to NGC 6822.
The foreground contamination was substantially removed using colour-selection criterion based on the work of @1988PASP..100.1134B. The appropriate colour selection criterion was determined as follows; the full observed area was subdivided into a grid of $100$ regions, each with dimensions of $\sim 10'\times 10'$ (Fig. \[grid\]). Sources from the grid region with the highest number density of sources - i.e. containing the majority of NGC 6822 - were plotted on a colour-colour diagram ($(H-K)_0$, $(J-H)_0$). Sources from a region at the periphery of the observed area (bottom left corner) that was assumed to be dominated by MW foreground stars were then plotted on the same colour-colour diagram in a different colour (Fig. \[fore\]). This process was repeated for each of the peripheral regions to ensure that a suitable average colour-selection criterion was adopted.\
In Fig. \[fore\] a distinct separation in the colour distribution of the sources from the centre and those from the outer region can be seen at $(J-H)_0
= 0.72$ mag. This is typical of all the peripheral regions. Assuming that foreground stars are evenly distributed across field, the stars with $(J-H)_0 > 0.72$ mag are likely members of NGC 6822. This technique relies on the separation of dwarfs and giants in $J-H$ to separate the foreground dwarfs from NGC 6822 giants [@1988PASP..100.1134B Fig. A3]. The position of this colour separation was confirmed using a colour histogram of sources from the central and outer region (Fig. \[fore2\]); the sharp decline in the number of sources from the outer region at $(J-H)_0 > 0.72$ mag, confirms the colour selection criterion.This method will also have removed some genuine NGC 6822 sources bluer than $(J-H)_0 = 0.72$ (mostly RGB stars) from our sample. However, as we are primarily interested in the detection and identification of AGB, rather than RGB, stars this colour selection technique is very effective (left-hand panel of Fig. \[postforecmd\]) and quite suitable for our purposes. Foreground giants are extremely bright and are expected to have been removed as saturated sources ($K_0 <12.75$ mag) during the data selection. @2008MNRAS.388.1185G also used this technique to remove foreground contamination and to select C- and M-type stars above the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB).
Some MW contamination of our sample is likely to remain. The presence of a few sources in the outer quadrant with $(J-H)_0 > 0.72$ mag suggests either a small leakage of foreground stars into the NGC 6822 sample or a small NGC 6822 component out to large radii. If they are contaminating sources many of them are later removed from the AGB sample by the application of a $K$-band magnitude criterion (see Sect. \[TRGB\]). At most $1.4\%$ of the AGB stars retained in the central field will belong to the foreground, though this fraction will increase in the outer fields. Both alternatives are discussed further in Sect. \[StellDen\]. The right-hand panel of Fig. \[postforecmd\] presents a CMD of all the sources that remain after the application of the $J-H$ criterion and which are therefore are believed to be predominantly genuine members of NGC 6822. Although we are unable to absolutely identify individual sources in the CMD as MW contaminants, we note that the brightest sources extending up to $K_0 \sim 12.8$ mag - significantly above the C-type star branch - may be residual foreground contamination. We base this on the colour and magnitude distribution of a simulated foreground in the direction of NGC 6822 generated using TRILEGAL . Using the maximum magnitude of the C-type star branch as a guide $61$ sources with a magnitude of $K_0 <14.75$ mag have been isolated and their $J-H$ colour distribution examined. Approximately half lie near the $(J-H)_0 = 0.72$ mag boundary and seem likely to be foreground contamination, whilst the remainder lie significantly above this. After the application of the $K$-band magnitude criterion discussed below, these potential contaminants make up less than $0.8\%$ of our sample. As we do not have conclusive evidence on which to reject these sources and due to their small number, it was decided not to use a bright magnitude limit or a more severe $J-H$ selection to remove them from our sample. However, the effect on our final results of using both of these methods to eliminate potential contaminants is discussed in Sect. \[diss\].
The tip of the RGB {#TRGB}
------------------
The TRGB is one of the most prominent features in the magnitude distribution of old- and intermediate-age populations as it causes a large discontinuity between the RGB and AGB populations and is commonly used to identify AGB stars in galaxies outside the MW . In principle the removal of some genuine RGB sources as discussed in Sect. \[foreground\] may have affected our determination of the TRGB, however the general position of the TRGB at $K_0 \sim 17-17.5$ mag still detectable in the left-hand panel of Fig. \[postforecmd\] and is more obvious in the right-hand panel of the same figure.\
The exact position of the TRGB discontinuity was identified from the magnitude distribution of sources within a central region of $17' \times 17'$ using the Sobel edge detection algorithm [@1993ApJ...417..553L]. This area was chosen as it contains a large portion of the galaxy and therefore minimises the effects of any residual MW contamination and is unaffected by the poorer quality data collected in the outer NE field. The Sobel algorithm is a first derivative operator that computes the rate of change (gradient) across an edge, producing a peak where there is a significant change of slope. Due to the large discontinuity (change in slope) in the magnitude distribution at the TRGB, the largest peak corresponds to the position of the TRGB. As initially used by @1993ApJ...417..553L, the Sobel filter had the disadvantage that the position of the resulting peak is affected by both the bin sizing and the position of the bins in the magnitude distribution. However, the improved analysis of @1996ApJ...461..713S applies the edge detection filter to a smoothed magnitude distribution which is constructed by replacing each discretely distributed stellar magnitude with a Gaussian curve of unit integrated area and standard deviation $\sigma$ equaling the magnitude error. This avoids the problems of binning the data and is the technique applied here.
After the Sobel filter was applied, a Gaussian was fitted to the strongest peak. The mean and dispersion of the fitted Gaussian were taken as the TRGB magnitude and associated error (Fig. \[sobel\]). The following points should be noted: firstly, found the Sobel filter to be systematically biased towards fainter magnitudes, due to the effects of smoothing the data. Magnitude corrections were supplied by the same authors and have been applied here. Secondly, in order to ensure a credible detection with the Sobel filter, there must be at least $100$ sources in the range extending one magnitude fainter than the TRGB, according to @1995AJ....109.1645M and @2002AJ....124.3222B. As the TRGB is estimated by eye to lie between $K_0 \sim 17-17.5$ mag and the magnitude distribution contains in excess of $1300$ sources in the range $17.5 < K_0 < 18.5$ mag, the criteria regarding the reliable use of the Sobel filter have been met.
A TRGB magnitude of $K_0 = 17.41 \pm 0.11$ mag was found (Fig. \[sobel\]) and has been used for the purposes of isolating AGB stars in our photometric sample. A discussion of the variation of the TRGB magnitude across the surface of NGC 6822 follows in Sect. \[TRGBvar\].
C- and M-type AGB stars {#jk}
-----------------------
### J-K colour selection {#col}
AGB stars of spectral type C or M are easily identified on a CMD (Fig. \[postforecmd\], right panel). M-type stars follow a vertical sequence above the TRGB with a large range of magnitudes at nearly constant colour, whilst C-type stars display a smaller range of magnitudes but a wider range of systematically redder colours, resulting in a ‘red tail’ extending diagonally upwards and away from the M-type stars. The redder colours of C-type stars are due to the increasing molecular opacity in the stellar atmosphere as more carbon is brought to the surface, leading to a marked cooling and a larger temperature gradient across the population as stars develop from M-type to C-type . An estimate from the CMD places this separation at $(J-K)_0 \sim 1.10-1.20$ mag. However, as there is some overlap in the CMD between C- and M-type AGB stars, especially at fainter magnitudes, it is difficult to identify a precise colour separation between the two spectral types.\
The adopted position of the separation has been judged by eye from the discontinuity in the $J-K$ colour histogram (Fig. \[sobel\]) of the AGB sources in the same $17'
\times 17'$ region used to determine the position of the TRGB. The highest peak in Fig. \[finhist\] relates to M-type stars, followed at redder colours by a significant drop and then a tail containing the C-type stars . The colour separation was found to lie at $(J-K)_0 = 1.20 \pm 0.05$ mag. For $(J-H)_0 \sim 1.0$ mag and $(J-K)_0 \sim 1.0$ mag, $(J-K_s)_{2MASS} \sim (J-K)_0 + 0.08$ [@2009MNRAS.394..675H eq. 6 & 8], so the colour separation $(J-K)_0 = 1.20$ corresponds to $(J-K_s)_{2MASS} \sim 1.28$.
This value has been used for the purposes of identifying C- and M-type stars in the AGB sample. The application of such a sharp colour selection criterion suggests a strict transition between these two types of AGB stars; in reality this is unlikely and the colour separation depends strongly on the metallicity of the observed population . The identification and quantification of bias in our colour selection criterion will be the subject of a future paper using spectroscopic observations, but our selected value is strongly supported by the recent work of .
### A blue limit {#blue}
The selected AGB sample spans a colour range of $0.48 < (J-K)_0 < 4.08$ mag. In accordance with the findings of @1988PASP..100.1134B and , it was decided to apply a ‘blue limit’ to the selection of M-type stars in order to exclude late K-type stars. An empirical blue limit of $(J-K)_0 = 0.74 \pm 0.05$ mag was used based on the colour histograms. In Fig. \[finhist\], $(J-K)_0 \sim 0.80-0.90$ mag marks the beginning of significant numbers of M-type AGB stars. To allow for some fluctuation in the position of this onset and the effects of binning the data, a slightly bluer limit has been selected to preserve genuine sources. The use of a more severe (redder) limit may underestimate the number of M-type stars; this is discussed further in Sect. \[blue2\].
The final criteria applied for the selection of M-type AGB stars was $0.74 < (J-K)_0 < 1.20$ and $K_0 < 17.41$ mag. The upper colour limit is bluer than the limit applied in a study of the AGB population of NGC 6822 by ($(J-K)_0 = 1.40$ mag) but it is in good agreement with the findings of ($(J-K_s)_{2MASS} = 1.24$ mag). This limit also agrees well with the analysis of , who in reviewing the colour limits applied in various studies of the AGB population in several Local Group galaxies, concluded that the C- and M-type star boundary is ill defined but suggest that $(J-K)_0 = 1.20$ mag is an appropriate limit for NGC 6822. An upper colour limit was not applied to the selection of C-type stars. We would expect the intrinsic colours of C-rich AGB stars to reach $(J-K)_0 \sim 2.5$ mag; sources redder than this may still be AGB stars that are heavily dust enshrouded, which are more likely to be C-type than M-type [@2006MNRAS.370.1961Z].
Results
=======
The structure of NGC 6822
-------------------------
### Spatial distributions {#spadis}
After the removal of much of the MW foreground and isolation of the C- and M-type AGB stars, source density plots were constructed to examine the distribution of these stars, the C/M ratio and the stellar population below the TRGB (RGB sources) across the surface of NGC 6822 (Fig. \[maps\]). The distribution of the removed MW foreground is also shown in this section (Fig. \[mapsfore\]). The low resolution density maps have been constructed by counting the number of sources of various types in a 40 $\times$ 40 grid, where a single bin corresponds to $2'.55 \times
2'.55$, and then applying a box-car smoothing function of size $2$. These maps were used to examine the large scale structure of the galaxy. The same procedure was then repeated to produce a high resolution map of the central $35' \times 35'$ of the galaxy in order to examine any finer structure that was present.
The distribution of C-type stars in both the low and high resolution maps are shown in the top panels of Fig. \[maps\]. The highest concentration of C-type stars is in the area of the bar, although the concentration is circular rather than following the elongated bar structure. The C-type stars do not appear to trace the HI envelope in any significant way.
The M-type AGB population (Fig. \[maps\]) is distributed similarly, though the bar-like elongation is clearer and the density of M-type stars is higher than for C-type stars. There is a clear under-density of M-type stars in the SE that is most obvious in the low resolution map and also in Table. \[tabA\] which shows the number counts of RGB, C-and M-type stars in the North-West, South-West, South-East and North-East of the observed area. There is a clear decline in the number of M-type AGB stars in the SE. This under-density may be due to a structure similar to the super giant shell, a large hole in the HI disk, described by @2000ASPC..218..357D, which does not contain any AGB stars. The high number of sources in the NW is attributed to the slightly better completeness levels in this region. Remaining MW foreground contamination would also affect M-type star and RGB counts in this region, the C-type star counts would not be affected as C-type stars are not seen in the MW foreground. This is discussed further at the in the context of foreground removal at the end of this section. There is also a clear overdensity in the SW of the galaxy which we will return to in Sect. \[strut\].
Type $NW$ $SW$ $SE$ $NE$
------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
Carbon (C) $215$ $275$ $189$ $175$
Oxygen (M) $652$ $1127$ $499$ $623$
RGB $2688$ $2378$ $2415$ $2280$
: RGB, C-and M-type star number counts.[]{data-label="tabA"}
Figure \[maps\] also shows the surface distribution of the C/M ratio across NGC 6822, where dark regions indicate a higher ratio. Variations in the C/M ratio are frequently assumed to reflect variations in the metallicity of the region, however, improvements in our understanding of stellar evolution and the effects of population age on the C/M ratio means that this traditional interpretation is no longer so straightforward. The C/M is not simply a function of metallicity, it is also dependent on the age of the population [@2010MNRAS.tmpL.129F; @2003MNRAS.338..572M]. @2010MNRAS.tmp..431H suggest that the ratio may be much more sensitive to the age variations in the population then previously thought. During their study of LeoI dSph, @2010MNRAS.tmp..431H concluded that the number of C-type stars is much more dependent on age than the number of M-type stars. A conclusion which is supported by the earlier work of @2008MNRAS.388.1185G on Leo II and by the work of . @2008MNRAS.388.1185G and @2010MNRAS.tmp..431H both show plots of the production of C- and M-type stars as a function of age, with the C-type star count peaking in the first $\sim 2$ Gyrs and falling off to almost nothing at $\sim 7-8$ Gyrs, both of which would affect the interpretation of the C/M ratio as a metallicity indicator in the conventional sense. A similar plot is shown by for the LMC with the useful addition of another plot showing how this effects the C/M ratio. It is clear from this plot that the C/M ratio is dependent on the age of the underlying population. This age dependence is consistent with our current understanding of how carbon-rich AGB stars evolve. C-type stars are only expected to form over a certain mass, and therefore age, range due to their dependence on the efficiency and effects of the third dredge-up (TDU), Hot Bottom Burning (HBB), mass loss on the AGB and molecular opacity . @2003PhDT..01..286K suggests that only AGB stars more massive than $1-1.5$M$_{\odot}$ undergo TDU and hence could become C-type stars. At present we do not have sufficient data to investigate the mass and age distribution of our candidate AGB stars. This work is been based on the classical interpretation of the C/M ratio as the calibration of , like previous calibrations, derives the iron abundance solely from the C/M ratio without detailed consideration of other population variables such as age (or AGB star mass). However, we draw the readers attention to the age dependence of the C/M ratio as an aid to any future interpretation of our results when such data has been obtained.
Returning to Fig. \[maps\], regions with the highest C/M ratio are located in and around the centre of the galaxy, although there is no clear enhancement defining the position of the bar. In fact the highest contour levels are slightly offset from the centre. The high resolution map, especially, demonstrates the clumpy and slightly elliptical distribution of the C/M ratio in the centre, set in two larger, more evenly distributed regions with lower C/M ratio’s. Under traditional assumptions this clumpy distribution would suggest areas of lower metallicity in the galactic centre surrounded by regions with a higher metal content. Whilst the patchy distribution of the C/M ratio may be a real feature, the metallicity distribution, associated with the traditional interpretation of the C/M ratio, would be unusual as the central regions of a galaxy are typically expected to show a concentration of more metal-rich stars. It seems more probable that the irregular clumps in the C/M ratio are not the result of metallicity effects alone and other population parameters may also be important.\
The lower panels of Fig. \[maps\] show the source density plots for all those sources belonging to NGC 6822 that are below the TRGB ($K_0 > 17.41$ mag) and therefore were not identified as AGB stars. These sources will mostly be RGB stars. They are distributed more smoothly across the face of the galaxy and at a higher density than the AGB population. This makes the under-densities due to the poor sensitivity in the NE more obvious, however the under-density in the SE seen in the M-type AGB density plots is less apparent in the low resolution RGB plot. In the low resolution RGB density plot there is also for the first time a noticeable contour in the NW-SE direction that may be tracing the HI envelope. This contour extends slightly to the SW as well, but a stellar overdensity in this region is not obvious.
The source density plots in Fig. \[mapsfore\] show the distribution of the sources removed from our data set as MW foreground stars (Sect. \[foreground\]). Foreground stars are expected to be distributed homogeneously across the observed area. However, there are overdensities in the centre and in the NW. This indicates that the foreground removal in the centre at least has been slightly too severe and some genuine NGC 6822 stars have also been removed, however, a CMD (Fig. \[foreCMD\]) of the sources in the central overdensity indicates that few genuine M- and C-type stars have been removed. Although $\sim 640$ sources fall within the region occupied by the M-type AGB stars and $\sim 15$ sources fall in the region occupied by the C-type stars, these objects do not conform to the same CMD as the NGC 6822 AGB sources in Fig. \[postforecmd\] (right panel) - there is no M-sequence at $(J-K)_0 = 0.9-1.0$ and no diagonal C-branch. These sources are probably genuine MW stars correctly subtracted. The greater number of sources in Fig. \[foreCMD\] are below the TRGB. Therefore of the genuine NGC 6822 sources that have been wrongly removed the majority will be (K-type) RGB, rather than AGB, stars. These genuine RGB sources will fall primarily in the left-hand branch (i.e. bluer than $(H-K)_0 \sim 0.15$) of the inverted $U$, shown in the colour-colour plot (Fig. \[foreCCD\]) of the same region - among genuine foreground sources. It is these RGB sources that we believe are responsible for the overdensity seen in the centre of the plots in Fig. \[mapsfore\]. As RGB sources are not our primary interest and as discussed in the Sect. \[TRGB\] we do not believe their loss will impact on our determination of important variables, like the TRGB, it was decided to continue with the current foreground removal technique. The overdensity seen in the NW of Fig. \[mapsfore\] corresponds roughly to a WFCAM tile and suggests better observing conditions in this direction resulted in more faint stars and hence more foreground objects being catalogued there. A version of the low resolution plot using only those sources with a magnitude of $K_0 < 17.3$ shows a much smoother distribution of sources with no obvious overdensity in the NW. Figures \[comp2\] and \[comp\] were also produced separately for the NW and compared with the average for the total observed area. Observations in the NW have lower photometric errors and retain a $100\%$ completeness level to a greater depth ($K_0 \sim 17.7$ mag). These figures have not been included here due to space restrictions, but seem to confirm the NW overdensity in Fig. \[mapsfore\] to be primarily an observational effect.\
We acknowledge that the sharp $J-H$ colour separation applied between the MW foreground and the M-type AGB stars of NGC 6822 (Fig. \[fore\]) may result in some genuine AGB sources being lost. The number of M-type sources counted and therefore the C/M ratio is affected by the imperfect nature of the colour selection criteria. This will be discussed further in Sect. \[forecol\].
### Stellar density profiles {#StellDen}
In order to further investigate the effectiveness of the foreground subtraction and the distribution of the NGC 6822 population, stellar density profiles of the AGB and the RGB (referring to all those sources below the TRGB) populations of NGC 6822 have been constructed. Using the position angle (PA) of the bar PA $= 10^{\circ}
\pm 3^{\circ}$ [@1977ApJS...33...69H] and its inclination $i =
0^{\circ}$ , the distance in kpc from the galactic centre and an angle $\phi$ in the plane of the galaxy, measured anticlockwise from the major axis of the bar were calculated for the central coordinates of each region in a multi-resolution grid (Fig. \[grid2\]). The PA does not affect the calculated distances in this case (as $i = 0^{\circ}$), it does give the zero-point of the angle $\phi$. The PA and $i$ of the bar were used as it was the most prominent feature in the surface density plot of the AGB population.
Fig. \[stellden1\] shows the number density of C- and M-type AGB stars and RGB stars per unit area in each region of Fig. \[grid2\], plotted against distance from the galactic centre. The density of C-type stars show a fairly steep decline from the centre of the galaxy out to about $4.5$ kpc before leveling out. A similar pattern is repeated in the density profile of the M-type stars, leveling out closer to $3.5$ kpc. The density profile of the RGB stars shows similar behaviour - a steep decline is seen out to $\sim
4.5$ kpc after which the source density is almost constant out to $\sim
10$ kpc. We note the slight downturn at $8-10$ kpc and attribute this to the poorer quality data we received from the NE quadrant, this is discussed further below.
We consider two possible interpretations for the observed decline and leveling out of the source density profiles at $\sim 4$ kpc. The first is that the leveling out at a more constant stellar density is the result of remaining MW foreground sources becoming dominant in the sample at this distance, as foreshadowed in Sect. \[foreground\]. The second alternative is that the stars beyond $4$ kpc constitute an extended halo around NGC 6822 populated predominantly by RGB and some M-type AGB stars, with few C-type stars. Under the former scenario the decline in the C- and M-type star density profiles at similar radial distances would then represent the decreasing stellar density of NGC 6822, whereas under the second scenario it would represent the transition radius from the central region to the halo.
Figure \[stellCMD\] also illustrates the declining number of AGB stars, especially of C-type stars, with radial distance from the centre. It shows a CMD of all the sources (in black) remaining after the removal of the foreground with those sources which are outside the small grid - Fig. \[grid2\], i.e. $>2-3$ kpc from the galactic centre - shown in red. The sources in black show the peak belonging to the M-type AGBs and the diagonal branch belonging to the C-type AGBs clearly. In comparison, sources more than $2-3$ kpc from the centre (red) do not generate the strong diagonal sequence. There are outer (red) sources at $(J-K)_0 > 1.20$ mag but most seem to have merged upwards from below the TRGB and do not look as though they belong to the C-star branch. Sources from the outer parts of the galaxy between $0.74 < (J-K)_0 < 1.20$ mag, also do not follow the strong peak belonging to the M-type AGB stars quite as well. If the outermost stars are part of the MW foreground, then the clearest indication of where the stellar component of NGC 6822 ends is given by the stellar density profile of the C-type stars as they are not present in the MW foreground. This interpretation is also consistent with the much lower density and more even distribution of sources outside the centre of the galaxy in Fig. \[maps\].
We have discounted the second scenario, an extended halo, as although extended stellar halo’s of this type have been detected in other galaxies, NGC 300 [@2005ApJ...629..239B] and M31 [@2005ApJ...628L.105I] for example, in both cases the halo was discernible over several scale lengths. In the case of NGC 6822, if the slope in the stellar density profile of RGB population is measured between $4-10$ kpc a scale length of $8.5$ kpc is calculated. If the source density measurements from the NE quadrant, which are responsible for the apparent further decline in density at $8-10$ kpc, are removed the scale length of the proposed extended halo increases to $20$ kpc. Thus although the idea of an extended halo cannot be absolutely ruled out, we believe it is a dangerous inference to make based on a measurement over $\sim 1$ scale length or less. Therefore we adopt the first interpretation, that beyond $4$ kpc our sample is dominated by the MW foreground and that although genuine NGC 6822 AGB or RGB sources may still be present at low densities beyond this limit, we are unable to reliably disentangle them from the foreground with this data.
AGB catalogue {#cat}
-------------
As a result of the analysis in Sect. \[StellDen\], three catalogues are presented. The first, hereafter Catalogue 1, presents *candidate* C- and M-type AGB sources identified within $4$ kpc of the centre of NGC 6822. In order that our results may be verified we also present a second catalogue, Catalogue 2, containing all sources that met our reliability criterion (i.e. they have been classified as stellar or probably-stellar in all three photometric bands) across the full observed area - no other selection criteria have been applied to these sources. A third catalogue, Catalogue 3, is presented based on our findings during a comparative study of our work with the literature in Sect. \[cross\] (we refer the reader to that section for further details) and contains sources identified as stellar or probably-stellar in only two photometric bands. Catalogue 3 also covers the full observed area. Table. \[tab1\] shows the first five lines of Catalogue 1, columns $1$ & $2$ list the Right Ascension and Declination in degrees for the equinox J2000, columns $3$ & $4$ list the dereddened $J$ magnitude and associated photometric error, columns $5$ & $6$ and $7$ & $8$ contain the same information for the $H$ and $K$ bands respectively and column $9$ classifies the star as either C- or M-type based on its colour. Tables \[tab3\] & \[tab4\] which contain similar data for Catalogues 2 and 3 but without the spectral type classifications and with the addition of three columns giving the flag reference for each photometric band. The flags are as follows; -1: stellar, -2: probably-stellar, -3: compact non-stellar, -8: poor astrometry match, -9: saturated, 0: noise-like and 1: non-stellar.
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------- ------------------ --------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -----------------
$\mathrm{RA}$ $\mathrm{Dec}$ $J$ $J \mathrm{-error}$ $H$ $H \mathrm{-error}$ $K$ $K \mathrm{-error}$ $\mathrm{Type}$
$\mathrm{(deg)}$ $\mathrm{(deg)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$
296.284058 -14.350628 18.69 0.09 17.94 0.06 17.12 0.04 $\mathrm{C}$
296.081787 -14.363892 17.95 0.05 17.15 0.03 17.07 0.04 $\mathrm{M}$
296.149323 -14.364606 18.50 0.07 17.74 0.05 17.39 0.05 $\mathrm{M}$
296.248138 -14.369500 18.09 0.05 17.34 0.04 17.18 0.04 $\mathrm{M}$
296.397949 -14.374426 18.23 0.07 17.50 0.05 17.28 0.05 $\mathrm{M}$
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------- ------------------ --------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -----------------
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- --
$\mathrm{RA}$ $\mathrm{Dec}$ $J$ $J \mathrm{-error}$ $J \mathrm{-flag}$ $H$ $H \mathrm{-error}$ $H \mathrm{-flag}$ $K$ $K \mathrm{-error}$ $K \mathrm{-flag}$
$\mathrm{(deg)}$ $\mathrm{(deg)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$
296.377350 -13.832600 15.56 0.009 -1 15.19 0.008 -1 15.14 0.010 -1
296.366150 -13.832656 14.84 0.006 -1 14.50 0.005 -1 14.45 0.006 -1
296.564667 -13.832878 16.23 0.010 -1 15.86 0.010 -1 15.75 0.040 -2
296.771759 -13.832906 17.28 0.030 -1 16.61 0.030 -1 16.39 0.070 -1
296.739380 -13.832977 14.42 0.004 -1 14.10 0.004 -1 14.08 0.010 -1
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- --
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- --
$\mathrm{RA}$ $\mathrm{Dec}$ $J$ $J \mathrm{-error}$ $J \mathrm{-flag}$ $H$ $H \mathrm{-error}$ $H \mathrm{-flag}$ $K$ $K \mathrm{-error}$ $K \mathrm{-flag}$
$\mathrm{(deg)}$ $\mathrm{(deg)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$ $\mathrm{(mag)}$
296.335815 -13.832008 0 0 0 16.34 0.02 -1 16.23 0.02 -1
296.630035 -13.832100 0 0 0 16.46 0.02 -1 16.43 0.07 -1
296.654297 -13.832395 18.28 0.07 -1 17.81 0.08 -1 17.45 0.17 1
296.562927 -13.832434 19.05 0.14 -1 18.28 0.11 -1 0 0 0
296.705200 -13.832597 18.56 0.09 -1 18.02 0.09 -1 0 0 0
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- --
Catalogue 1 contains $2368$ AGB stars, of which $769$ are C-type stars and $1599$ are M-type stars. Applying our selection criteria to Catalogue 2 we find $3755$ candidate AGB sources of which $854$ are C-type stars and $2901$ are M-type stars. However, it should be noted based on our findings in Sect. \[StellDen\], that we would expect both samples to contain foreground contamination.
The C/M ratio {#c/m}
-------------
### Catalogue 1 {#cat1}
Conventionally the C/M ratio is used as an indirect indicator of the metallicity of the environment in which AGB stars formed [@2003MNRAS.338..572M]. A higher ratio is assumed to imply a lower metallicity, because in low metallicity environments fewer dredge up events are required to create a carbon-rich atmosphere. The C/M ratio is also affected by the shift in the AGB evolutionary track to higher temperatures at lower metallicities, which reduces the number of M-type AGB stars and increases the number of K-type stars .
The metallicity calibration of , as refined by gives;
$$\mathrm{[Fe/H] = -1.39 \pm 0.06 - (0.47 \pm 0.10)log(\mathrm{C/M})}
\label{iron}$$
Within $4$ kpc of the centre of NGC 6822 a C/M ratio of $0.48 \pm
0.02$ is derived. Using Eq. \[iron\] this yields an overall iron abundance of \[Fe/H\] $= -1.24 \pm 0.07$ dex. For the full observed area the C/M ratio is $0.29 \pm 0.01$, which yields an iron abundance of \[Fe/H\] $= -1.14 \pm 0.08$ dex but the foreground contamination of the M-type star population is not negligible (Fig. \[stellCMD\]). To obtain more reliable values for C/M and \[Fe/H\] further foreground removal is undertaken in Sect. \[addit\].
The error in the count of C- and M-type stars in each region has been calculated using Poisson statistics ($\pm \sqrt{N}$). This is appropriate as the determination of the number of C- and M-type stars is a counting exercise. Although we expect some variation in the number of stars of each type we would expect the number per unit area to be around some definite average rate ($\overline{N}$). The error associated with the C/M ratio and \[Fe/H\] has been calculated using the general formula of error propagation where the error associated with the count of C- and M-type stars have been treated as random and independent.
### Statistical foreground removal {#addit}
Whilst the removal of foreground contamination by $J-H$ colour is a very useful technique, it is imperfect. *Individual* sources with $(J-H)_0 < 0.72$ mag were removed as MW foreground (Sect. \[foreground\]) but based on our findings in Sect. \[StellDen\] it was decided that further *statistical* foreground removal was required. Using only those sources beyond the central $4$ kpc, i.e. those dominated by MW foreground, the average number density of C- and M-type stars that remained after the initial foreground removal was calculated. It was found that there were $\sim 46$ M-type stars and $\sim 3$ C-type stars remaining per $0.08$ deg$^2$ (or $\sim 8$ M-type stars and $\sim 0.5$ C-type stars per kpc$^2$). The count of AGB stars of each type inside a radius of $4$ kpc was then reduced accordingly. The effect of this statistical adjustment on the C/M ratio inside $4$ kpc is that it increases to $0.62 \pm 0.03$, giving an \[Fe/H\] of $-1.29 \pm 0.07$ dex. A comparison with previous estimates of the C/M ratio in NGC 6822 and the sensitivity of the ratio to the initial foreground selection criterion will follow in Sect. \[diss\].
Gradients {#spavar}
---------
Variations in the TRGB magnitude, C/M ratio and \[Fe/H\] across NGC 6822 are examined in this section as a function of distance from the galactic centre and azimuthal angle. The region inside $4$ kpc has been divided into annuli extending between $0-2$ kpc and $2-4$ kpc. These annuli have then been further divided every $60^{\circ}$ (Fig. \[circ\]) leaving $12$ regions that can be used to study any variation in the TRGB magnitude, C/M ratio and \[Fe/H\] with *angle*. In order to study these parameters as a function of *distance* from the galactic centre the area inside $4$ kpc has been separately divided into $4$ annuli at a spacing of $1$ kpc between $0-4$ kpc and the TRGB magnitude, C/M ratio and \[Fe/H\] measured/calculated for each annulus. Each region has been checked to ensure the criteria for the reliable application of the Sobel filter has been met.
### The metallicity gradient {#metgrad}
Prior to the calculation of the C/M ratio and \[Fe/H\] value the relevant statistically adjustments have been made to the counts of C- and M-type stars, as outlined in Sect. \[addit\]. The top panel of Fig. \[optBfig4\] shows the distribution of the C/M ratio as a function of angle for both the inner annuli ($0-2$ kpc) and the outer annuli ($2-4$ kpc) of Fig. \[circ\]. In the bottom panel of the same figure the C/M ratio is plotted as a function of distance from the galaxy centre. Similar plots for the \[Fe/H\] abundance have also been made and are presented in Fig. \[optBfig1\].
A spread of $0.59$ has been detected in the C/M ratio out to a radius of 4 kpc, this translates into a spread of 0.18 dex in the iron abundance between $−1.21$ dex and $−1.39$ dex. For the inner annuli there does not appear to be any obvious dependence on angle in the distribution of the C/M ratio (Fig. \[optBfig4\]. For the outer annuli there is a significant scatter in the ratio and a possible decline in the ratio with increasing angle, however the size of the associated error bars, due to the small number of sources, suggest that we can not draw any firm conclusions about the behaviour of the C/M ratio with angle in the outer annuli. In the bottom panel of Fig. \[optBfig4\], the C/M ratio has been plotted as a function of distance for the $4$ annuli described above. A small negative gradient appears to be present in the C/M ratio (C/M $= 0.63(\pm 0.06)
- 0.02(\pm 0.04)\times$dist/kpc), calculated using a weighted least-squares fit but the size of the associated error suggests this is not significant, again due to the declining stellar density and hence small number statistics.
In the top panel of Fig.\[optBfig1\] \[Fe/H\] is plotted as a function of angle. Data points for both the inner and the outer annuli are presented but there is no obvious variation of \[Fe/H\] with angle in either case. In the bottom panel \[Fe/H\] is plotted as a function of distance from the galactic centre. As with the C/M ratio a weighted fit of the data gives a slightly negative slope of \[Fe/H\] $= -1.29(\pm
0.04) -0.008(\pm 0.023)\times$dist/kpc, which again implies no significant gradient.
As we have selected the C- and M-type stars in each region of the galaxy on the basis of colour, reddening variations within NGC 6822 may also affect the distribution of the C/M ratio.\
The sensitivity of the C/M vs. \[Fe/H\] relation to changes in the selection criteria for C- and M-type stars, and the robustness of the C/M ratio as an indicator of metallicity, will be discussed further in Sect. \[C/Mvar\].
### TRGB variations {#TRGBvar}
Within a radius of $4$ kpc (Fig. \[circ\]) a variation of $\Delta K = 0.19$ mag was found in the magnitude of the TRGB, with an average and standard deviation of $K_0 = 17.46 \pm 0.05$ mag. When measurements made outside the $4$ kpc limit are included the spread of values in the position of the TRGB increases dramatically to $\Delta
K = 0.99$ mag. The much greater spread in TRGB values detected outside the central $4$ kpc is attributed to the decline in the number of genuine NGC 6822 sources, hence we are not detecting a genuine TRGB here but simply a variation in the magnitude distribution of the MW foreground. Figure \[TRGBdist\] shows the $K$-band magnitude distributions of stars within (left) and beyond (right) $4$ kpc. The AGB population is obvious in the inner sample at $15 < K_0 < 17.5$, but is inconspicuous in the outer subsample, consistent with the galaxy being lost in the MW foreground contamination beyond $4$ kpc (Sect. \[StellDen\]). Hence TRGB measurements beyond $4$ kpc are either poorly constrained or entirely spurious. The measurements arise only because the Sobel filter reports the position of the greatest change of slope in the magnitude distribution but if those stars are dominated by the MW foreground and not the RGB population in NGC 6822, then there may not be an RGB termination.
$K$-band measurements of the TRGB magnitude are sensitive to both the age and metallicity of the population [@2005MNRAS.357..669S]. In a population of a single metallicity, the TRGB in the $K$-band is fainter in the intermediate-age stars than in the older population. Whilst in a population of a single age the TRGB magnitude is brighter with increasing metallicity. Fig. \[iso2\] clearly demonstrates the individual effects of these two variables. For a population of mixed age and metallicity the anti-correlation between these two affects makes it difficult to decipher the cause of any observed magnitude spread [@2005MNRAS.357..669S; @2008MNRAS.388.1185G].
In order to try and understand the metallicity and age distribution of the underlying AGB population and also the structure of the galaxy, the distribution of the TRGB magnitude has been investigated as a function of distance from the galactic centre and azimuthal angle. Negative values on the vertical axis represent a TRGB brighter than $K_0 = 17.41$ mag. The top panel of Fig. \[optBfig2\] shows the variation in the TRGB magnitude with angle for both the inner and outer annuli (Fig. \[circ\]). The data shows no obvious trend with angle for either annuli.
In the bottom panel of Fig. \[optBfig2\], a weighted fit to all the data shows a negative slope ($\Delta$TRGB $= 0.17(\pm 0.03) - 0.06(\pm 0.01)\times$dist/kpc) in the TRGB magnitude with radial distance. This is an interesting result but may be the result of increased distortion in the magnitude distribution as remaining foreground contamination becomes more severe in the outer annuli. Therefore a weighted fit was also made to the inner three data points only and a negative slope was again found ($\Delta$TRGB $= 0.16(\pm 0.04) - 0.05(\pm 0.02)\times$dist/kpc), although the slope is reduced from $6\sigma$ to a $2.5\sigma$ detection. Such a slope could be consistent with the presence of a halo of older stars around NGC 6822. Assuming an environment with relatively little variation in metallicity (Fig. \[optBfig1\]) and given that there seems to have been little recent star formation in the outer galaxy . A shift in the TRGB to brighter magnitudes could be indicative of the increasing age of the population [@2005MNRAS.357..669S]. Therefore, although we advise caution due to the size of the associated errors in Fig. \[optBfig2\], the shift to a brighter TRGB magnitude in the outer galaxy may be a genuine feature.
An alternative possibility that the variation in the TRGB is due to the inclination of the galaxy to our line of sight, has been rejected as it would require NGC 6822 to have a depth of $\sim 45$ kpc. The effects of reddening have been shown to vary across NGC 6822, this may also account in part for the variation that has been detected. The @1998ApJ...500..525S maps show an extinction range of E($B-V$) $= 0.15$ to $0.39$ in the direction of NGC 6822 and a spread of $0.3$ is found in the literature (Sect. \[obs\]). However, even the larger range of values is insufficient on its own to account for the TRGB magnitude spread.
As all the TRGB values measured within $4$ kpc of the galactic centre are within $2\sigma$ of the mean value ($K_0 = 17.46 \pm 0.05$ mag) the spread we observe may also simply be the result of random statistical variations. The position of the TRGB is not a single value but a range due to the width of the RGB in a composite population [@2010MNRAS.tmp..431H]. The effect of the detected spread in metallicity ($0.18$ dex) on the TRGB magnitude for populations of a single age has been considered but it is insufficient to account for the TRGB magnitude variation when considered alone. A sufficiently large spread in the age of the population could account for the variation we detect, however, at this time we are unable to constrain the age of the AGB population.
The most likely scenario is that the TRGB magnitude spread is the cumulative result of a number of factors including reddening, age, metallicity, some distortion by remaining foreground contamination and expected variations in the TRGB. The spread detected in the $J$- ($\Delta J = 0.20$) and $H$-bands ($\Delta H = 0.21$), in conjunction with $I$- and $V$-band data that we have yet to analyse, could be used to constrain the metallicity, age and extinction variations in NGC 6822 due to the different sensitivities of each waveband to these variables.
Discussion {#diss}
==========
The structure of NGC 6822 {#strut}
-------------------------
The large area covered by the data gives a good overview of the structure of the galaxy. The primary result of Sect. \[results\] was the placement of the $4$ kpc limit on the stellar component of the galaxy. This radial limit is supported by the source density plots (Fig. \[maps\]), the density profiles (Fig. \[stellden1\]) and the magnitude distribution plots (Fig. \[TRGBdist\]).
The source density plots in Sect. \[spadis\] show that the majority of the AGB population is concentrated in and around the region of the central bar but extends beyond this, with decreasing density out to about $4$ kpc. This is supported by Fig. \[rings\] which shows a CMD of the sources contained within each of the $4$ annuli used to examine the behaviour of various parameters with distance (Sect. \[spavar\]). The vertical sequence belonging to the M-type stars and the diagonal branch generated by the C-type stars are clearly visible in the top two panels especially but deteriorate with increasing distance from the galactic centre due to the declining number of sources. There does appear to be some structure beyond the $4$ kpc limit in the SW, this is particularly apparent in the low resolution source density plot of the M-type AGB population (Fig. \[maps\]). The cause of this overdensity in the SW will be discussed below. Aside from the SW overdensity, we detect no significant structure beyond the central $4$ kpc.
A radial limit of $4$ kpc corresponds to an angular distance of $\sim 28'$ from the centre at a distance of $490$ kpc (a diameter of $\sim 56'$) and is comparable to previous estimates of the extent of the stellar component of the galaxy by @2002AJ....123..832L, and . Using R, I, CN and TiO filters, @2002AJ....123..832L surveyed C-type stars in an area of $42' \times 28'$ in NGC 6822 and were the first to propose the existence of a “halo” of old - and intermediate age stars around NGC 6822. @2002AJ....123..832L suggested that the spheroid had a major-axis length of $\sim 23'$ (i.e. a radius of $1.65$ kpc) at a distance of $(m-M)_o = 23.49 \pm
0.08$ mag. This is smaller than what we see in Fig. \[stellden1\]; given the smaller observing area of @2002AJ....123..832L, though by having data significantly further out (to a distance of $11$ kpc) we are able to see the extent of the structure more clearly and trace the AGB halo out to a radius of $4$ kpc. In a survey of area $2^{\circ} \times 2^{\circ}$ using $g', r'$ and $i'$ filters, traced the density enhancement of RGB sources, selected from their CMDs, from the centre of NGC 6822 out to a semi-major axis distance of $36'$ ($\sim 4.9$ kpc, assuming a distance of $470$ kpc). also provide a surface density profile of the C-type stars identified from the SDSS colours to supplement the findings of @2002AJ....123..832L, although they admit that C-type stars cannot be unambiguously selected without appropriate corrections due to contamination from background galaxies in the data. They conclude that a non-negligible number of C-type stars are detected up to $\sim 40'$ ($\sim 5.5$ kpc). The extent of the RGB population detected by is comparable with what is seen in Fig. \[stellden1\], however, we do not claim to reliably detect C-type stars out to such large distances as . In a follow up to the work of , observed two regions of $34'.8 \times 34'.8$ in the J and K$_s$ bands along the major-axis of the spheroidal halo to further assess the extent of the C-type population. They present a surface density profile that is consistent with the work of clearly showing the C-type population extends at least out to an angular distance of $\sim 30'$ ($4.3$ kpc at $490$ kpc), and possibly beyond. also provides evidence for a radial limit of $\sim 4-5$ kpc on the stellar component of NGC 6822, they found that all their candidate M- and C-type AGB stars outside the elliptical spheroid of for which they were able to collect low-resolution spectra were in fact MW dwarf stars.
We have detected the AGB population out to a distance of $\sim 4$ kpc. However, @2005nfcd.conf..181L presented preliminary results reporting the discovery of a star cluster belonging to NGC 6822 at a distance of $12$ kpc from the galactic centre. @2011ApJ...738...58H expand on these findings with new star clusters associated with NGC 6822 spanning an area of $120' \times 80'$, this is much larger than the area examined here or by . This suggests that the structure of NGC 6822 is complex and cannot be traced by a single stellar population. Such complex structure has also been detected in other dwarf irregular galaxies like Leo A [@2004ApJ...611L..93V], the LMC and IC 10 .\
The reliable detection of the AGB population of NGC 6822, the M-type star population in particular and of the extent of the stellar halo has been hampered by heavy foreground contamination. Our selection of the $J-H$ criterion for the initial removal of the contaminating foreground will be discussed further in Sections \[over\] and \[forecol\]. However, we are confident that we have isolated well the C- and M-type AGB population of NGC 6822 within $4$ kpc of the galactic centre and for the first time provided NIR observations across the whole of the AGB stellar component.
The SW overdensity {#over}
------------------
The overdensity seen in the SW of the low resolution M-type AGB source density plot in Fig. \[maps\] is not seen C-type or RGB populations at any significant level. This would seem to suggest that the overdensity is either populated almost exclusively by M-type stars or that it is the result of an excess MW foreground with M-star-like NIR colours leaking into our sample. The fact that the overdensity is not observed in the C-type star density plots is consistent with either proposition, as C-type stars do not appear in the MW foreground in any significant quantity. Figure \[redcheck\] shows the $J-H$ distribution of sources in a $\sim 30' \times 30'$ field at the edge of the observed area in the NE, NW, SE and SW (red). In the SW the distribution is clearly shifted to the red, and $8\%$ of the total number of sources in that region are redder than $(J-H)_0 = 0.72$ mag, compared to an average of $4.5\%$ in the NW, NE and SE quadrants. This indicates that the leakage of MW stars into the SW quadrant will be almost twice as high as in the other quadrants.
The reason for the difference in colour is harder to discern but we suggest differential reddening. Our sample has been corrected for foreground reddening using the @1998ApJ...500..525S dust maps (Fig. \[colmap\]), however, the higher resolution of our data means that this correction is imperfect and some reddening variation will still be present in the sample. This may account for the redder distribution of sources in the SW and the consequent leakage of more foreground sources into our sample in that region. However, find only a negligible variation in the NIR extinction across the observed area and conclude that the overdensity in the SW (based on the same photometric catalogue) may be a genuine extension of NGC 6822 but that spectroscopic confirmation is required.\
An examination of the CMD in the SW overdensity does not show any strong features to suggest that this structure is made up of genuine NGC 6822 AGB stars. Although there is a vertical feature extending to brighter $K$-band magnitudes than in the SE, it does not represent a strong M-star peak and is probably the result of the higher density of sources in the SW. Furthermore, the magnitude distribution of the sources in the SW does not show a strong TRGB but a rather broad distribution similar to the one seen in the right-hand panel of Fig. \[TRGBdist\]. Although, due to foreground contamination of the sample outside the densest region of the galaxy and the difficulty of identifying NGC 6822 stars with certainty from photometric data, we can not rule out the possibility that the SW overdensity does contain some outlying AGB stars.
In the context of reddening variations across the galaxy, it is also interesting to note the underdensity in the SE that was seen in the source density plot of the M-type AGB stars (Fig. \[maps\]), but which is much less apparent in the other source density plots. Previously (Sect. \[spadis\]) we suggested that this underdensity may coincide with the Super Giant Hole in the HI disk [@2000ApJ...537L..95D]. This region also coincides roughly with an area of significant reddening variation (Fig. \[colmap\]) and from the colour distribution in Fig. \[redcheck\] it is clear that the decline in sources in the SE occurs at bluer colours ($(J-H)_0 \sim 0.65$ mag) relative to the SW and NW. We conclude that the underdensity in the SE is more likely to be the result of an over subtraction of sources due to imperfect reddening-correction in that region rather than a real feature.
The removal of foreground contamination via $J-H$ colour alone is a useful but imperfect method as the selection of the colour criterion used is subjective. Any under- or over-subtraction of the foreground will primarily affect the M-type AGB sources rather than the redder C-type stars - see Fig. \[fore\] - and can affect bias the derived C/M ratio; this will be discussed further in Sect. \[forecol\].
C/M ratio and \[Fe/H\] {#C/Mvar}
----------------------
Globally we find a \[Fe/H\] value of $-1.29 \pm 0.07$ dex (C/M $=0.62 \pm 0.03$) for AGB stars within a $4$ kpc radius of the centre. This value is in good agreement with the findings of other authors who have derived the iron abundance of NGC 6822 using the C/M ratio.
Using broad- ($R$ and $I$) and narrow-band ($CN$ and $TiO$) filters to identify the C-type population in the central $42' \times 28'$ of NGC 6822, @2002AJ....123..832L derived the C/M ratio to be $1.0 \pm
0.2$. The size of the M-type population in the work of @2002AJ....123..832L was estimated by subtracting the estimated stellar density of the foreground, measured in two strips at the edge of the observed area that were assumed to contain a negligible number of genuine NGC 6822 sources, from the total observed sample. No iron abundance was given by @2002AJ....123..832L but using the relation of , this corresponds to a value of \[Fe/H\] $= -1.39$ dex.\
Using similar techniques to those employed here ($J$ and $K_{s}$-band photometry) estimated the C/M ratio in the central $20' \times 20'$ of NGC 6822 to be $0.32$, with an absolute variation of $6$. This corresponds to \[Fe/H\] $=-1.11$ dex and a variation in the iron abundance of $\Delta$\[Fe/H\] $=-1.56$ dex using the C/M vs. \[Fe/H\] relation given in the same paper. Again using $JHK$ photometric filters, surveyed the central $3'.6 \times 6'.4$ of NGC 6822 and reported an overall C/M ratio of $0.27 \pm 0.03$, with variations between $0.22 \pm 0.03$ and $0.31 \pm 0.04$ in the north and south respectively. This translates into \[Fe/H\] $\approx -0.99$ dex globally, using the relations of and [@2006pnbm.conf..108G], with a variation of $0.07 \sim 0.09$ dex across the observed area. Using the more recent relation of we derive an average \[Fe/H\] of $-1.12$ dex with a spread of $0.07$ dex using the values of .
More recently have presented a C/M ratio of $\sim 1.05$ with a variation between $0.2$ and $1.8$, based on their analysis of the original UKIRT catalogue used here but selection criteria determined from the analysis of a spectroscopic sample. This ratio yields a mean \[Fe/H\] between $-0.90$ and $-1.50$ dex using the relations of @2006pnbm.conf..108G, and with average values of $\sim -1.20$, $\sim -1.30$ and $\sim -1.30$ dex respectively. These values are in good agreement with our own but the following points should be noted; firstly, some of the selection criteria used here, in particular the blue limit, are quite different from those used by . Secondly, themselves note that their spectroscopic sample is biased towards C-type stars, which may have affected their determination of the AGB selection criteria and therefore their determination of the C/M ratio. Both of these points are discussed in more detail below (Sect. \[blue2\]). For our analysis we have adopted the most recent calibration of but for comparison we note that using our C/M ratio ($0.62$) and the relations of , @2006pnbm.conf..108G and we obtain \[Fe/H\] values of $-0.82$ dex, $-1.14$ dex and $-1.19$ dex, respectively, in the central $4$ kpc of the galaxy. Therefore any comparison of metallicities derived from the C/M ratio must take into account the relations that have been used to derive them.
Other estimates of the mean metallicity of the old- and intermediate-age stars of NGC 6822 that do not rely on the C/M ratio range between $-1.0$ dex [@2001MNRAS.327..918T; @2003PASP..115..635D] and $-1.5$ dex [@1996AJ....112.1928G], with significant scatter. @2001MNRAS.327..918T used measurements of the equivalent width of Ca II triplet lines of individual RGB stars in NGC 6822 to determine a mean metallicity of $-1.0 \pm 0.5$ dex with a range between $-0.5$ and $-2$ dex. @2001MNRAS.327..918T comment that they do not see any evidence for spatial variations but they only observed a small area ($5' \times 5'$) near the centre of the galaxy. @2003PASP..115..635D used $JHK$ photometry to investigate the slope of the RGB in three fields ($34' \times 34'$) across NGC 6822 and determined a mean value of \[Fe/H\] $= -1.0 \pm 0.3$ dex. Therefore the global value of \[Fe/H\] we present is consistent with previous findings for AGB and RGB stars from a number of sources and sits about the mid-point of the range of metallicities proposed for the galaxy. The consistency between these populations suggests little chemical evolution during their genesis but the wider metallicity range seen if genuinely old RR Lyrae and genuinely young A-type stars are considered (Sect. \[intro\]) shows that the chemical enrichment of the ISM of NGC 6822 has been a continual process across multiple stellar generations.
### Sensitivity to the foreground J-H cutoff {#forecol}
The colour ($(J-H)_0 = 0.72$ mag) used to remove foreground contamination was selected as described in Sect. \[foreground\]. used a similar colour ($(J-H)_0 = 0.73$ mag) for the removal of the foreground based on their spectroscopic analysis of a small subset of the photometric catalogue. However, considering the effects of residual MW contamination in the photometric sample on our analysis of the C/M ratio and the underlying structure of the galaxy after the application of our $J-H$ colour criterion, we feel it warrants further discussion.
Figure \[fore\] shows the colour-colour diagram of sources from the galactic centre and the MW foreground and shows the position of the $J-H$ cut off. We see that there is some leakage from the foreground above this limit. Based on their spectroscopic sample, examine what percentage of their confirmed MW dwarfs fall in the same region as the AGB stars using different $J-H$ cuts. As we would expect from Fig. \[fore\] this percentage is reduced with increasing values of $J-H$. Based on Fig. \[fore\], a colour selection of $(J-H)_0 = 0.80$ mag would reduce foreground leakage into our sample significantly, but it would also eliminate many genuine M-type AGB stars. Consequently, the C/M ratio is sensitive to any variation in the $J-H$ criterion used for the removal of the foreground. A change in the colour criterion from $0.72$ to $0.80$ mag, leaving all other selection criteria unchanged and with no statistical foreground removal, would reduce the total number of remaining NGC 6822 stars from $13582$ to $7201$, of which $1880$ are AGB stars compared to $3755$ previously. This is very significant for the determination of the C/M ratio as it is primarily the number of M-type stars that is reduced, i.e. their number decreases from $2901$ to $1081$ whereas the number of C-type stars is only reduced by $55$ from $854$ to $799$. The effect on the C/M ratio over the whole observed area is to increase it from $0.29 \pm 0.01$ (\[Fe/H\] $= -1.14 \pm 0.08$ dex) to $0.74 \pm 0.03$ (\[Fe/H\] $= -1.33 \pm 0.06$ dex). Within the central $4$ kpc the C/M ratio increases from $ 0.48 \pm 0.02$ to $0.87 \pm 0.04$ (\[Fe/H\]$= -1.36 \pm 0.06$ dex). Some statistical foreground removal is still required, although this is reduced to $\sim 1.5$ M-type stars and $\sim 0.4$ C-type stars per kpc$^2$. With the inclusion of the statistical foreground subtraction, the C/M ratio within $4$ kpc of the galactic centre increases to $0.93 \pm 0.05$ (\[Fe/H\]$-1.37 = \pm 0.06$ dex).
Thus given the dramatic reduction in the M-type star population and the effect on the resultant C/M ratio, and the spectroscopic agreement of with our foreground selection criterion we are confident that a $(J-H)_0 > 0.72$ mag colour selection, with the additional statistical subtraction detailed in Sect. \[addit\], maximises the foreground removal whilst minimizing the effects of over subtraction on the C/M ratio and the derived metallicity.
Fig. \[sens\] also shows the effectiveness of a more severe $J-H$ cutoff in eliminating a number of the very bright sources with $K_0 < 14.75$ mag (Sect. \[foreground\]) which may be MW foreground sources that survived the $(J-H)_0 >
0.72$ mag colour selection. Interestingly, such a cut does not eliminate all the bright sources and as $\sim 20$ of them sit above $(J-H)_0 = 0.80$ mag they may well be genuine NGC 6822 sources. This possibility is supported by the sharp decline in the number of bright sources seen in the outer CMDs of Fig. \[rings\]; if these sources belonged to the MW foreground we would expect them to be homogeneously distributed across the observed area and therefore to see *more* of them in the outer CMDs that cover larger areas on the sky. This is not the case; in fact they are more prevalent in the central regions where NGC 6822 stars are concentrated, which suggests that at least some of these bright sources do belong to NGC 6822 - possibly red supergiants younger than the AGB population.
### Sensitivity to the J-K blue limit {#blue2}
The blue limit is also important in the determination of the C/M ratio. Here a limit of $(J-K)_0 = 0.74$ mag is used to exclude late K-type stars from the sample whilst preserving as many genuine M-type AGB’s as possible. As with the foreground $J-H$ criterion, the $J-K$ blue limit can impact the number of M-type stars significantly. use a blue limit of $(J-K)_0 = 0.90$ mag, derived from their spectroscopic subset to further eliminate foreground contamination from MW dwarfs from their sample. This greatly affects the derived C/M ratio. This limit is based on the colours of their spectroscopically confirmed sample. However, whilst find no stars in their spectroscopic sample that simultaneously have colours of $(J-H)_0 > 0.73$ mag and $(J-K)_0 < 0.90$ mag, their original spectroscopic sample was biased towards C-type stars and $3\%$ of the photometric catalogue does fall in this region (in Catalogue 1 $10\%$ of our the candidate AGB sources lie in this region). As were unable to classify this $3\%$ they have excluded them when deriving the C/M ratio. We prefer to use a lower blue limit for the selection of M-type stars as discussed in Sect. \[blue\], even though a bluer $J-K$ limit may remove slightly more ‘potential’ MW contaminants from the sample (Fig. \[sens\]).\
In order to examine the sensitivity of the C/M ratio to the blue limit used for the selection of M-type stars we have applied a cutoff of $(J-K)_0 = 0.90$ mag to our AGB sample, leaving all other selection criteria unchanged and without statistical foreground subtraction. The resulting C/M ratio for the full observed area increases to $0.41 \pm 0.02$ (\[Fe/H\]$= -1.21 \pm 0.07$ dex) and inside the central $4$ kpc the ratio becomes C/M $= 0.58 \pm 0.03$ (\[Fe/H\]$ = -1.28 \pm 0.07$ dex). With the inclusion of statistical foreground subtraction (reduced to $\sim 4.8$ M-type stars per kpc$^2$), the C/M ratio increases to $0.69 \pm 0.03$ (\[Fe/H\]$ = -1.31
\pm 0.06$ dex) within $4$ kpc of the centre.\
@1988PASP..100.1134B suggest an even redder limit of $(J-K)_0 =
1.01$ mag to completely exclude those stars with a spectral type earlier than M$0$. Such a severe $J-K$ colour selection would also expel more of the possible MW remainders (Fig. \[sens\]) but the sharp reduction in the number of M-type stars would increase the global C/M ratio to $1.03 \pm 0.05$ (\[Fe/H\]$=-1.40 \pm 0.06$ dex) within a radius of $4$ kpc (with statistical foreground removal). The results of our sensitivity analysis are summarised in Table. \[tab2\], where all values include statistical foreground removal and \[Fe/H\] values have been calculated using the relation of .
----------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
$(J-H)_0$ 0.74 0.90 1.01
0.72 $\mathrm{0.62 \pm 0.03}$ $\mathrm{0.69 \pm 0.03}$ $\mathrm{1.03 \pm 0.05}$
$\mathrm{-1.29 \pm 0.07}$ $\mathrm{-1.31 \pm 0.06}$ $\mathrm{-1.40 \pm 0.06}$
0.80 $\mathrm{0.93 \pm 0.05}$ - -
$\mathrm{-1.37 \pm 0.06}$ - -
----------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
: C/M (top) and \[Fe/H\] (bottom) values within $4$ kpc of the galactic centre.[]{data-label="tab2"}
### K-band and J-band criteria {#jcut}
Among other NIR studies of NGC 6822, there is quite a spread in the $K$-band TRGB magnitude, the brightest of which is $16.97$ mag [@2011AJ....141..194G]. As the C-star branch departs from the vertical column of M-type stars in the CMD above the TRGB. A brighter TRGB can reduce the number of M-type stars without any significant impact on the C-type star count. @2011AJ....141..194G used a slightly modified Sobel filter with $K$-band photometry, details of which are given by @2006ApJ...647.1056G, to determine a TRGB magnitude for NGC 6822, which is much brighter than the TRGB used here. In order to examine the sensitivity of the C/M ratio to the TRGB magnitude we have applied the TRGB of @2011AJ....141..194G to our sample, leaving all other selection criteria unchanged and with no statistical foreground removal. This gives a C/M ratio of $0.70 \pm 0.03$ (\[Fe/H\]$=
-1.32 \pm 0.06$ dex) in the central $4$ kpc. With the inclusion of statistical foreground removal, this value increases to C/M $= 0.83 \pm 0.04$ (\[Fe/H\] $ = -1.35 \pm 0.06$ dex).
We also examine the sensitivity of the C/M ratio to the application of an upper bound on the $K$-band magnitude. As discussed in Sect. \[foreground\], $61$ sources which survived the $J-H$ foreground removal exhibited magnitudes significantly brighter than the C-type star branch and were considered as potential foreground interlopers. These sources are shown in the colour-colour diagram in Fig. \[sens\]. It was decided not to eliminate these sources from our sample using another magnitude cut during our main analysis, although due to the relatively small number of sources the effect on our final results would not have been significant if we had. Excluding all those sources with $K_0 < 14.75$ mag and leaving all other selection criteria unchanged, increases the C/M ratio to $0.64 \pm 0.03$ (\[Fe/H\] $= -1.30 \pm 0.06$ dex) within the central $4$ kpc (with statistical foreground removal).
Finally we examine the impact of applying $J$-band selection criterion to eliminate those sources in Fig. \[stellCMD\] (Sect. \[StellDen\]) that we now believe belong primarily to the foreground but have merged into the C-star selection zone from below the TRGB. Based on Fig. \[stellCMD\] a $J$-band criteria of $J < 18.0, (J-K)_0 > 1.20$ mag was considered. Such a cut reduces the C/M ratio to $0.49 \pm 0.02$ (\[Fe/H\]$= -1.24 \pm 0.07$ dex) within $4$ kpc of the centre. However, the spectroscopic sample of suggests this would exclude a number of genuine C-type stars and heavily bias the ratio. Based on that work, a $J$-band magnitude selection of $J<18.61$ mag in the region $(J-K)_0 > 1.20$ mag would seem more appropriate. When applied, this criteria has little effect on the C/M ratio - inside the $4$ kpc radial limit the ratio is reduced from $0.62 \pm 0.03$ to $0.58 \pm
0.03$ (\[Fe/H\]$=-1.28 \pm 0.07$ dex). All values are presented after statistically foreground removal. Neither of these cuts were implemented during our analysis as the work of was not available during the determination of our selection criteria and there was no clear justification based on our photometric data for the positioning of such a cut. The effect of the $J$-band criteria on the C/M ratio does not appear to be significant.
We have carefully analysed the impact of various criteria on our selection process and the determination of the C/M ratio. The most important factors in selecting C- and M-type AGB candidates are the $J-H$ and $J-K$ boundaries and the TRGB magnitude. Using the extremes of these three criteria ($(J-H)_0 > 0.80, (J-K)_0 > 1.01$, TRGB $K_0 > 17.41$ mag) as well as the $J-$band ($ J < 18.61$ mag) and $K$-band ($K_0 > 14.75$ mag) criteria discussed above we would estimate the systematic error in our derived values to be $^{+0.95}_{-0.04}{(Sys)}\pm 0.03{(Rand)}$ which translates into a systematic error on the iron abundance of $^{+0.01}_{-0.26}{(Sys)} \pm 0.07{(Rand)}$ dex. However, we feel that both the $J-K$ value [@1988PASP..100.1134B] and the TRGB value [@2011AJ....141..194G] are too extreme and seriously bias calculated C/M ratio. Therefore, we prefer to calculate the systematic error based on the use of the most extreme selection criteria that we feel are appropriate ($(J-H)_0 > 0.80, (J-K)_0 >
0.90$, TRGB $= 17.30, K_0 > 14.75$ and $J < 18.61$ mag) and derive a C/M ratio and iron abundance errors of $^{+0.45}_{-0.04}{(Sys)} \pm
0.03{(Rand)}$ and $^{+0.14}_{-0.01}{(Sys)} \pm 0.07{(Rand)}$ dex, respectively.
Comparison with other catalogues {#cross}
--------------------------------
Catalogues of the AGB population of NGC 6822 were also presented by @2002AJ....123..832L, and during their studies of the galaxy. Here we compare their findings with our Catalogue 1. The area observed in each study is presented in comparison with the area of our observations in Fig. \[areas\].
### @2002AJ....123..832L {#letarte}
@2002AJ....123..832L identified $904$ carbon stars mainly tracing a ‘halo-like’ structure, extending beyond the optical size of the galaxy, using $(R-I)$ and $(CN-TiO)$ criteria. In the same area (Fig. \[areas\]) we find $2053$ AGB sources, of which we have been classified $726$ as C-type stars. The discrepancy of $\sim 178$ sources has several causes, which we explore below.
It may partially be the result of our misclassification of some C-type stars as M-type, due to the inexact $J-K$ colour boundary between the two spectral types. A comparison with the catalogue of @2002AJ....123..832L provides a means by which to estimate the error in the criteria applied here and ultimately in the C/M ratio that we derived. After cross-matching our AGB catalogue with that of @2002AJ....123..832L, we have identified $635$ sources in common. Of these $635$ sources, we have classified $80$ as M-type stars and $555$ as C-type stars. This may suggest that our C-type count should be $ \sim 1.14$ times larger, and our M-type count slightly lower. This would increase the final C/M ratio from $0.62 \pm 0.03$ to $\sim 0.77 \pm 0.03$ (\[Fe/H\]$=-1.34 \pm 0.06$ dex) in the central $4$ kpc.
Of the remaining $269$ sources from the catalogue of @2002AJ....123..832L that were not in our AGB catalogue, $235$ were identified among the sources that we discarded due to the poorer quality of the photometric data (i.e. sources that were classified as being something other than stellar or probably-stellar in at least one band). Of these $235$ sources, $217$ have J and K band magnitudes available that allow us to classify $54$ as M-type, $162$ as C-type stars and one source that falls below the blue limit. From their position on the CMD (Fig. \[LetRemCMD\]), these sources are likely to be real C- or M-type stars, which were discarded from our sample to maintain photometric reliability. If these stars are genuine C-type stars as @2002AJ....123..832L conclude, then our C-star count should be $\sim 1.34$ larger than we claim. Taken together with the multiplier $1.14$ above, the $J-K$ criterion we have adopted may misclassify about $\sim 20\%$ of C-stars as M-type stars. Making a correction of this magnitude would increase the C/M ratio from $0.62 \pm 0.03$ to $\sim 0.85 \pm 0.04$ (\[Fe/H\]$= -1.36 \pm 0.06$ dex) in the central $4$ kpc. This is based on the crucial assumption that @2002AJ....123..832L have correctly classified all of the sources in their catalogue. In order to verify this assumption spectroscopic data which is not currently available would be needed. On the other hand, the classification by @2002AJ....123..832L is dependent solely on colour and it is possible that there have been a number of misclassifications of objects which are not actually C-type stars.
The final $34$ C-type stars found by @2002AJ....123..832L, we are unable to account for. As @2002AJ....123..832L studied the central regions where the stellar density is highest, the outstanding $34$ stars may have been excluded from our photometric catalogue due to crowding issues.
### {#kang}
used $giJHK$ photometry to identify $663$ AGB stars along the bar of NGC 6822. Of these $663$ sources, they classified $522$ as M-type stars and $141$ as C-type stars. They used different criteria for the selection and identification of their AGB population, using the $(g, g-K)$ CMD to separate the AGB stars from the MW foreground. Examining our AGB catalogue in the same area we have identified $411$ AGB stars: $160$ C-type and $251$ M-type, i.e. a much lower C/M ratio. The difference of $\sim 250$ sources detected by ourselves and is likely due to the stringent conditions we placed on the photometry and selection of our sample.
Cross-matching our AGB catalogue with the catalogue of we were able to identify $294$ stars in common, of which we identified $123$ as C-type stars and $171$ as M-type, whilst had identified $81$ C-type and $213$ M-type stars. Of the remaining $369$ sources in the catalogue that were not identified in our AGB catalogue, $63$ were identified among the sources that we discarded as MW foreground, all of which were M-type AGB’s according to . This is not surprising given our findings in Sect. \[StellDen\] that the majority of the remaining MW interlopers masquerade as M-type stars not C-type. We suspect therefore that the M-type AGB stars include many MW interlopers. A further $266$ of the sources in the catalogue were identified among the sources that were discarded from our data set as they were not classified as stellar or probably stellar in all bands. Of these $266$ sources there were $80$ C-type and $163$ M-type stars using our selection criteria ($J$ or $K$ magnitudes were not available for $23$ of the sources) and $53$ C-type and $213$ M-type stars using the selection criteria of . The discrepancies in the number of stars of each type found are the result of different colour selection criteria. The CMD of the sources identified in our discarded sample (Fig. \[KangRemCMD\]) shows that the majority have colours consistent with them being genuine AGB stars or MW interlopers. Forty sources from were not identified in our data set; of these identified $7$ C-type and $33$ M-type stars.
In light of the high number of sources that we have matched with the catalogues of and @2002AJ....123..832L but that were discarded from our sample due to our strict reliability criteria we have presented Catalogue 3 (Sect. \[cat\]). Catalogue 3 contains the sources that were identified as stellar or probably-stellar in only two photometric bands, many of these sources are likely to be good AGB candidates as shown in Figures \[LetRemCMD\] & \[KangRemCMD\], but were excluded during our initial analysis as we insisted on a stellar or probably-stellar classification in all three photometric bands.
### {#cioni}
The catalogue of contains $16,354$ stars detected in the $J$- and $K_{s}$-bands in the central $20' \times 20'$ of NGC 6822. Without the $H$-band, could not apply the $J-H$ mag foreground rejection method used here. They did attempt to reduce the foreground contamination by selecting only those sources with $(J-K)_0 > 0.80$ mag; see Fig. \[fore\] which shows that boundary in the face of our sample, revealing substantial leakage of MW stars into a sample selected in that way. identified $1511$ C-type and $4684$ M-type stars. From our AGB catalogue we find $1623$ AGB stars in the same area: $600$ C-type and $1023$ M-type stars. However, we are unable to make a direct comparison with our AGB catalogue as the poor quality of their astrometry and the high source density in this region prevents a reliable cross-identification between our sources and theirs.
The future of NIR selection {#nir}
---------------------------
We have relied on high quality $JHK$ photometry to determine the C/M ratio of NGC 6822. As AGB stars are amongst the coolest and brightest sources in the intermediate age population, the infrared is the most obvious waveband for the selection of these sources. However, this method is at a disadvantage compared to spectroscopic classification methods due to the difficulty of distinguishing between C- and M-type stars less than $1$ mag brighter than the TRGB in $J-K$. comments and we likewise recognise that we are still far from any consistent criteria for the selection of sources. In particular C/M ratios determined from NIR colours will be underestimates due mainly to the contamination of the M-star count from hotter C-type stars and also K-stars if no blue limit is applied. The range in colour limits is often attributed to the metallicity of the different parent galaxies. As discussed above, whilst NIR observations are not greatly affected by reddening they do suffer from uncertainties due to metallicity and age in the population [@2005MNRAS.357..669S].
Both @2006pnbm.conf..108G and consider selective narrow- and broad-band optical photometry [@1986ApJ...305..634C] to be the best way of selecting C- and M-type stars in large scale surveys in resolved galaxies. In a colour-colour diagram of $CN-TiO$ vs. $V-I$ (or $R-I$), carbon- and oxygen-rich stars are clearly separated. However, this technique is also flawed as there is no easy way to eliminate foreground M-dwarfs [@2002AJ....123..832L] and it does not identify bluer AGB stars well as they merge with the rest of the stellar population . @2006pnbm.conf..108G also notes that a lower limit in $V-I$ (or $R-I$) is usually selected to isolate oxygen-rich stars of type M0 or later but that when this same limit is applied to the C-type population it neglects the hotter C-type stars and thereby biases the C/M ratio.
The use of optical bands is also limited by increasing extinction in a way that the infrared is not. However, narrow-band survey data is already available for a number of Local Group galaxies [@2006pnbm.conf..108G]. Therefore the most logical course of action would seem to be to use the method of @1986ApJ...305..634C alongside NIR data in the Local Group to tighten the selection criteria and to gain a better understanding of the effects of age and metallicity on $JHK$ colours. We refer the reader to and references therein for a brief overview of recent surveys of C- and M-type AGB’s in the Local Group and a comparison of selection techniques.
Conclusions {#concl}
===========
High quality $JHK$ photometry of an area of $\sim 3$ deg$^{2}$ centred on NGC 6822 has been used to isolate the AGB population and to study the spatial distribution of stars and the C/M ratio as a tracer of metallicity. We have investigated the spread in the TRGB magnitude, the spatial distribution of \[Fe/H\] as a function of azimuthal angle and radial distance and also the sensitivities of the C/M ratio and abundance to the applied selection criteria.
Our main conclusions are as follows:
1. The $J-H$ colour used for the star-by-star removal of the foreground MW contamination is very valuable but with such heavy foreground contamination as we have in the direction of NGC 6822 further statistical foreground subtraction is required. We have demonstrated the difficulties involved in isolating the M-type AGB population from the MW foreground using only $JHK$ photometric colours and have established the sensitivity of the C/M ratio to the $J-H$ cutoff and a number of other selection criteria.
2. The TRGB magnitude was found at $K_0 = 17.41 \pm 0.11$ mag. Random statistical scatter in the measurements of the TRGB are to be expected and the range of $0.19$ mag that we detect is within $\pm 2\sigma$ of the mean value. Our measurements suggest that the TRGB magnitude may decline (brighten) as a function of increasing radial distance from the galactic centre, possibly due to the outer population being older.
3. We trace the AGB population out to a radius of $4$ kpc from the centre of NGC 6822. Beyond this, genuine NGC 6822 sources cannot be cleanly separated from the heavy MW foreground contamination.
4. The colour boundary between C- and M-type stars has a mean value and standard deviation of $(J-K)_0 = 1.20 \pm 0.03$ mag ($(J-K)_{2MASS} = 1.28$ mag), with a spread of $0.1$ mag detected within the AGB population. This is consistent with previous studies of NGC 6822 but we note, in agreement with that this boundary is ill defined and that some misclassification of C- and M-type stars occurs. Due to the sensitivity of the C/M ratio to this criterion, more analysis of spectroscopic data of different metallicity environments is needed to constrain this boundary and gain a better understanding of its dependence on metallicity.
5. The blue limit ($(J-K)_0 = 0.74$ mag) used to isolate M-type AGB stars is also important and can severely affect the determination of the C/M ratio. A clearer, standardised limit for the exclusion of $K$-type contaminants is needed in order to compare C/M ratio determinations from different authors so they can be used to better calibrate the C/M vs. \[Fe/H\] relation.
6. Within a $4$ kpc radius a global \[Fe/H\] $= -1.29 \pm 0.07$ dex was derived from a C/M ratio of $0.62 \pm 0.03$, using the relation of . A spread of $0.18$ dex is found but there is no metallicity gradient present either as a function of radial distance or as a function of angle. The clumpy distribution of the C/M ratio in Fig. \[maps\] is consistent with the findings of other authors and is probably real. Although whether this relates directly to the metallicity of the region is not entirely clear given recent findings concerning the impact of population age of the C/M ratio. A variation in the global \[Fe/H\] abundance of $0.11$ dex is seen when individual selection parameters are varied, or potential much larger if several are altered at one time (Sect. \[jcut\]) and for comparison we note a variation of $0.47$ dex in the global iron abundance when older C/M vs. \[Fe/H\] relations are used (Sect. \[C/Mvar\]).
7. There is a possible error of $\sim 20\%$ in the classification of C-type stars, based on a comparison with the work of @2002AJ....123..832L, in the sense that photometrically we misclassify $\sim 25\%$ of C-type stars as M-type. Correcting for this would increase our C/M ratio to $0.85 \pm 0.04$ (\[Fe/H\] $= -1.36 \pm 0.06$ dex). A spectroscopic comparison of the C- and M-type sources identified using optical and NIR photometry, is needed in order to properly constrain the level of error introduced by both methods.
8. The C/M ratio is a useful tool for gaining a broad overview of the metallicity in a distant but resolved galaxy but the correlation between C/M and \[Fe/H\] is not tight, especially at lower metallicities, as demonstrated by Fig. B.1 of , Fig. 3 of and Fig. 4 of @2006pnbm.conf..108G. An improved calibration of the C/M vs. \[Fe/H\] relation is required, as is a better understanding of the other factors that affect the C/M ratio such as the age of the population and the effects of foreground contamination and differential reddening. For instance @2010MNRAS.tmpL.129F conclude that a decline in the C/M ratio at greater radial distances is more likely to be the result of the increasing age of the population, and the resulting decline in the number of C-type stars, rather than an increase in the population metallicity. As mentioned in Sect. \[metgrad\], @2010MNRAS.tmp..431H also note the importance of the population age in the interpretation of the C/M ratio. We expect that the age (mass) dependence of C-type star formation will become increasingly important in future endeavors to better constrain the C/M vs. \[Fe/H\] relation and must therefore be taken into account during the interpretation of any results.\
With a better calibration and more uniform treatment of the C/M ratio (in the optical and IR) over a range of metallicities and the use of spectroscopic indicators, the C/M ratio has the potential to be a more powerful tool for the study of metallicity gradients in galaxies that can be resolved into stars.
We would like to thank M. Rejkuba of ESO and many colleagues at the University of Hertfordshire for useful discussions. We would also like to extend our thanks to the referee for providing a helpful and insightful report which has improved this work.
[^1]: Research Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Through tidal dissipation in a slowly spinning host star the orbits of many hot Jupiters may decay down to the Roche limit. We expect that in most cases the ensuing mass transfer will be stable. Using detailed numerical calculations we find that this evolution is quite rapid, potentially leading to complete removal of the gaseous envelope in a few Gyr, and leaving behind an exposed rocky core (“hot super-Earth”). Final orbital periods are quite sensitive to the details of the planet’s mass–radius relation, and to the effects of irradiation and photo-evaporation, but could be as short as a few hours, or as long as several days. Our scenario predicts the existence of planets with intermediate masses (“hot Neptunes”) that should be found precisely at their Roche limit and in the process of losing mass through Roche lobe overflow. The observed excess of small single-planet candidate systems observed by [*Kepler*]{} may also be the result of this process. If so, the properties of their host stars should track those of the hot Jupiters. Moreover, the number of systems that produced hot Jupiters could be 2–3 times larger than one would infer from contemporary observations.'
author:
- 'Francesca Valsecchi, Frederic A. Rasio, & Jason H. Steffen'
title: 'From Hot Jupiters to Super-Earths via Roche Lobe Overflow'
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
Our current understanding of tidal dissipation in solar-like stars suggests that the orbits of the shortest-period hot Jupiters are rapidly decaying, driven by the Darwin instability (e.g., Rasio et al. 1996). How these giant planets reached their current orbits is still a matter of debate. In [@ValsecchiR+14] (hereafter VR14) we demonstrated that, including the effects of inertial wave dissipation [@Lai12], stellar tides can account for the observed distribution of misalignments between the stellar spin and the planetary orbital angular momentum (e.g., @WinnFAJ10 [@Albrecht+12]). Moreover, orbital decay naturally explains the presence of hot Jupiters with orbital separations $a$ less than [*twice*]{} the Roche limit separation 2$a_{\rm R}$ (@Valsecchi+14edge, hereafter VR14b). These results support a high-eccentricity migration scenario for the formation of hot Jupiters [@RasioFord96; @WuMurray03; @FordRasio06; @FabryckyTremaine07; @Nagasawa08; @Jackson+08; @MatsumuraPR2010; @WuLithwick11; @Naoz+11; @PlavchanBilinski13].
Several previous studies have considered the fate of giant planets that reach $a_{\rm R}$. [@TrillingBGLHB1998] investigated stable mass transfer (hereafter MT) from a giant planet to its stellar host when the latter is still young and rapidly spinning, as one way of halting disk migration and producing a hot Jupiter. [@ChangGuBodenheimer10] studied the orbital expansion resulting from Roche-lobe overflow (hereafter RLO) of young hot Jupiters inside the magnetospheric cavity of a protoplanetary disk, to explain the absence of low-mass giant planets within $\sim\,$0.03 AU. Many investigations have simply assumed that, whenever a planet reaches $a_{\rm R}$, it is quickly destroyed and its material accreted by the star [@Jackson+09; @Metzger+12; @SchlaufmanWinn13; @TeitlerKonigl14; @ZhangPenev14]. This could yield a detectable transient signal (e.g., @Metzger+12) and, if the star is spun up significantly through accretion [@Jackson+09; @TeitlerKonigl14; @ZhangPenev14], it could perhaps explain the claimed paucity of short-period planets around rapidly rotating stars [@McQuillanMA13; @WalkowiczB13]. Certainly current observations (e.g., Table 1 in VR14b and references therein) suggest that the host stars of hot Jupiters close to $a_{\rm R}$ are all slow rotators.
As a natural continuation of our previous work (VR14, VR14b), we have used a standard binary MT model to investigate the evolution of a hot Jupiter undergoing RLO. In particular we focus here on the evolution of the planetary mass and orbital separation during stable MT. Indeed, for typical systems where a hot Jupiter orbits a solar-like star, we expect the MT to be dynamically stable. Based on [@SepinskyWKR10] the initial mass stream leaving the planet near the inner Lagrange point L1 will not impact the surface of the star, so MT will proceed through an accretion disk. This is the standard case for close binary stars with a very small donor-to-accretor mass ratio, and it is indeed expected to be dynamically stable [@Metzger+12]. This is also in agreement with @LaiHvdH2010’s ([-@LaiHvdH2010]) detailed study for WASP-12.
As in our previous work we use full stellar evolution models and a detailed treatment of tidal dissipation. In what follows $M_{\rm pl}$, $R_{\rm pl}$, and $M_{\rm c}$ are the planetary mass, radius, and core mass, respectively. The stellar mass, radius, spin (orbital) frequency, and main-sequence lifetime are $M_{\rm *}$, $R_{*}$, $\Omega_{*}$ ($\Omega_{o}$), and $t_{\rm MS}$, respectively, while the orbital period is $P_{\rm orb}$, and the mass ratio is $q=M_{*}/M_{\rm pl}$.
Observational Motivation {#Observations}
========================
This study is partly motivated by the excess of [*Kepler*]{} single-candidate systems with sizes less than a few Earth radii ($R_{\oplus}$) and $P_{\rm orb}$ less than a few days that was seen in @Steffen:2013c. They noted a significant excess of isolated hot super-Earth- or sub-Neptune-size planets, stating that they might be a small-planet analog of the hot Jupiters.
Figure \[fig:singlevsmultis\] shows a histogram comparing the orbital period distribution of [*Kepler*]{} objects of interest (KOIs) with sizes $<$5[$R_{\oplus}$]{}and $P_{\rm orb}<$10 days for single- and multi-planet systems using data from the Quarter 8 (Q8) catalog [@Burke:2014]. Both a Kolmogorv-Smirnov test and an Anderson-Darling test yield $p$-values $\sim10^{-7}$ indicating a significant difference between the period distributions of single- and multi-planet systems in this regime. False positive signals are unlikely to have any impact on the statistical significance of this excess (see @Steffen:2013c for a discussion).
Also shown in Figure \[fig:singlevsmultis\] is the distribution of $P_{\rm orb}$ and $R_{\rm pl}$ for [*Kepler*]{} single-planet candidate systems (generated through standard Gaussian smoothing using Silverman’s rule—default options in Mathematica). One can identify the island of hot Jupiters centered near 3 days and 10 [$R_{\oplus}$]{} as well as the peak near 1 day and 1 [$R_{\oplus}$]{}. This excess population of low-mass single planets is the one we are trying to explain here, as these objects could be the remnants of hot Jupiters that have lost their envelopes through RLO.
\[!h\]
Orbital Evolution Model {#Orbital Evolution Model}
=======================
Our assumptions are based on the properties of observed hot Jupiters close to $a_{\rm R}$ (VR14b). We consider circular orbits and assume that the star is slowly rotating ($\Omega_{*}\ll \Omega_{o}$) and the stellar spin aligned with the orbital angular momentum—consistent with the majority of systems with solar-type stars. We assume the planet to be tidally locked. Our models (VR14, VR14b) can account for stellar wind mass loss and magnetic braking, but these mechanisms do not impact our results significantly and we omit them for simplicity. Another mechanism that might affect the evolution of the tightest hot Jupiters is photo-evaporation (e.g., the bright HD 209458b might be shedding mass through this mechanism, @VidalMadjar2004). [@Murray-Clay+09] quoted a maximum mass-loss rate of $3.3\times\,10^{10}\,{\rm g}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$ and noted that a hot Jupiter cannot lose a significant fraction of its mass via photo-evaporation at any stage during its lifetime. We included this upper limit in our models before the envelope is completely lost and found that indeed most of the orbital evolution is not significantly affected. Therefore, we do not consider photo-evaporation further here (but see Section \[Conclusions\]).
We account for the host star evolution using MESA (version 4798, @PBDHLT2011 [@Paxton+13]) as in VR14. Our variables are $a$, $\Omega_{*}$, $M_{\rm pl}$ (donor) and $M_{*}$ (accretor), and their evolution is described by $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{a} = \dot{a}_{\rm tid}+\dot{a}_{\rm MT} \label{eq:aDotTot};\\
&\dot{\Omega}_{\rm *} = \dot{\Omega}_{\rm *, tid}+\dot{\Omega}_{*, \rm evol};\label{eq:OmegaDotTot}\\
&\dot{M}_{\rm pl} = \dot{M}_{\rm pl, MT};\label{eq:M2DotTot}\\
&\dot{M}_{\rm *} = \dot{M}_{\rm *, MT}\label{eq:M1DotTot};.\end{aligned}$$
The subscripts “tid”, “MT”, and “evol” refer to tides, MT, and stellar evolution, respectively. The terms entering Equation (\[eq:aDotTot\]) can be derived from the system’s total angular momentum, $$\begin{aligned}
L = G^{1/2}(M_{\rm *}+M_{\rm pl})^{-1/2}M_{\rm *}M_{\rm pl}a^{1/2},
\label{eq:L}\end{aligned}$$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, as follows. Let $\beta$ represent the fraction of mass lost by the planet and accreted onto the star via MT, then $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{M}_{\rm *, MT} = -\beta\dot{M}_{\rm pl, MT}.
\label{eq:M1DotMT}\end{aligned}$$
The total change in $L$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\dot{L}}{L} =\left[\frac{\beta-1}{2(M_{\rm *}+M_{\rm pl})}+\left(\frac{1}{M_{\rm pl}}-\frac{\beta}{M_{\rm *}}\right)\right]\dot{M}_{\rm pl,MT}+
\frac{(\dot{a}_{\rm MT}+\dot{a}_{\rm tid})}{2a},
\label{eq:JorbTotalDeriv1}\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\dot{L}}{L} =\frac{1}{L}(\dot{L}_{\rm MT}+\dot{L}_{\rm tid}),
\label{eq:JorbTotalDerivWhereItIsLostFrom}\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot{L}_{\rm MT}$ and $\dot{L}_{\rm tid}$ represent the change in $L$ with respect to the system center of mass. Following the standard binary star treatment (e.g., @Rappaport+82), we assume that the angular momentum carried onto the accretion disk is returned to the orbit via tidal torques (e.g., @PriedhorskyV88). Thus, $\dot{a}_{\rm MT}$ can be derived introducing the angular momentum parameter $\alpha$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{L}_{\rm MT}= \alpha\dot{M}_{\rm pl,MT}(1-\beta)L\frac{(M_{\rm *}+M_{\rm pl})}{M_{*}M_{\rm pl}} \label{eq:LorbMT}.\end{aligned}$$ From Equations (\[eq:JorbTotalDeriv1\]) and (\[eq:JorbTotalDerivWhereItIsLostFrom\]) it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\dot{a}_{\rm MT}}{a}&=-2\frac{\dot{M}_{\rm pl, MT}}{M_{\rm pl}}\left(1-\frac{1}{q}\right)\label{eq:aDotMT}, \end{aligned}$$ where we have set $\beta\,=\,1$ (conservative MT, where $\alpha$ is irrelevant) for simplicity. In the limit of large $q$ the final $a-M_{\rm pl}$ relation is independent on $\alpha$ and $\beta$ (i.e., the details of the MT process), as they only affect the [*duration*]{} of the RLO phase. For $\dot{a}_{\rm tid}$, we treat stellar tides in the weak-friction approximation [@Zahn1977; @Zahn1989], as in VR14 and VR14b. Specifically, we assume that the tidal perturbation is dissipated via eddy viscosity operating in the stellar convection zone (Equations (1), (4), (6), and (7) in VR14). For the reduction in the efficiency of tides at high tidal forcing frequencies, we use the linear theory of [@Zahn1966], which is consistent with recent numerical results [@PenevSRD2007]. As we consider only sub-synchronous configurations ($\Omega_{*}/\Omega_{\rm o}<1$), tidal dissipation leads to orbital decay. The planetary mass evolution due to RLO is derived as in [@Rappaport+82], where this phase begins when the planet fills its Roche lobe (of radius $R_{\rm L}$), and continues as long as $\dot{R}_{\rm pl}\,=\,\dot{R}_{\rm L}$. For large $q$ [@Paczynski71] $$R_{\rm L} = a\left(\frac{2}{3^{4/3}}\right)(1+q)^{-1/3}.
\label{eq:RLO}$$ To determine $\dot{M}_{\rm pl,MT}$, a mass–radius relation is needed. Detailed models suggest that the thermal timescale of typical hot Jupiters is $<\,$1Myr (e.g., Fig. 2 in @SpiegelBurrows12), while the RLO timescales $M_{\rm pl}/\dot{M}_{\rm pl,MT}$ computed here are almost always $\gg 1\,$Myr. Therefore, we assume that throughout RLO the planet remains in thermal equilibrium (but see Section \[Conclusions\]). We have used two different approximations for the planet: a simple $n\,=\,1$ polytrope, corresponding to a constant radius independent of mass, and more realistic models with rocky cores, fitted to the results of @BatyginStevenson13 and [@FortneyMB07]. Specifically, we consider models with core masses $M_{\rm c}\,=\,1M_{\oplus}, 3M_{\oplus}$, and $10M_{\oplus}$.
For the low envelope masses reached near the end of the RLO phase we also consider qualitatively the effects of strong irradiation, as modeled in detail by @BatyginStevenson13. Note that the simple $n=1$ polytrope is actually a reasonably good approximation for large envelope masses, as detailed models show a nearly constant radius as a function of mass (e.g., Fig. 3 in @BatyginStevenson13 or Fig. 8 in @FortneyMB07 for the high-mass end). Below we denote the 1$\,M_{\oplus}$, 3$\,M_{\oplus}$, and 10$\,M_{\oplus}$ core-mass models as “J1e,” “J3e,” and “J10e,” respectively. We denote the irradiated 3$\,M_{\oplus}$ core-mass model as “J3ei.” These are shown in Fig. \[fig:massAndRadius\_Batygin\] and are described by the following equations in Earth units.
\[!h\]
For J1e and J3e,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Batygin}
R_{\rm pl}&=A{\rm e}^{-\frac{B}{M_{\rm pl}^{C}}} + M_{\rm pl}^{\frac{1}{3}}(1 - M_{\rm pl}^{0.01}{\rm e}^{-\frac{D}{M_{\rm pl}^{C}}})+\frac{M_{\rm pl}^{2}}{100+M_{\rm pl}^{2}},\end{aligned}$$
where for J1e (J3e) A = 5.2 (5.5), B = 5 (70), C = 2.7 (3), and D = $3\times\,10^{7}$ ($1\times\,10^{8}$). For J3ei,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BatyginIrr}
R_{\rm pl}&=11.6\,{\rm e}^{-\frac{1\times 10^{5}}{ M_{\rm pl}^{9}}} + M_{\rm pl}^{\frac{1}{3}}(1 - M_{\rm pl}^{0.07} {\rm e}^{-\frac{5\times 10^{5}}{M_{\rm pl}^{6}}} )+ \frac{10M_{\rm pl}^{2.5}}{5\times 10^{5}+M_{\rm pl}^{2.6}}, \end{aligned}$$
while for J10e we take
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Fortney}
R_{\rm pl}&=7.5\,{\rm e}^{-\frac{5\times 10^{4}}{M_{\rm pl}^{4}}}+ M_{\rm pl}^{\frac{1}{3}}(1 - {\rm e}^{-\frac{3\times 10^{2}}{M_{\rm pl}^{0.9}}})\end{aligned}$$
Here we have assumed a constant density profile ($R_{\rm pl}\propto\,M_{\rm pl}^{1/3}$) below the core mass. The above expression all have a maximum at $M_{\rm pl, max}\simeq\,1M_{\rm J}$. We use the fits in Equations (\[eq:Batygin\])–(\[eq:Fortney\]) for $M_{\rm pl}<M_{\rm pl, max}$ and consider a constant radius profile for $M_{\rm pl}\geq\,M_{\rm pl, max}$.
Setting $\dot{R}_{\rm pl}\,=\,\dot{R}_{\rm L}$ yields $$\frac{\dot{M}_{\rm pl,MT}}{M_{\rm pl}} = \frac{\frac{\dot{a}_{\rm tid}}{2a}}{\frac{5}{6}-\frac{1}{q}+\frac{\xi}{2}}
\label{eq:dotM2MT}$$ for a polytrope of index $n$, where $\xi\,=\frac{d{\rm ln}R_{\rm PL}}{d{\rm ln}M_{\rm PL}}=\,\frac{n-1}{n-3}$. A more complicated expression exists for our detailed models and it can be generalized to any mass–radius relation. Hereafter, when mentioning the polytrope, we assume $n=1$ ($\xi\,=\,0$). [@Rappaport+82] note that a necessary condition for stable MT is that the denominator in Equation (\[eq:dotM2MT\]) be positive. For non-conservative MT the condition for stability reduces to $\alpha(1-\beta)<\frac{5}{6}+\frac{\xi}{2}$ when $q >>1$. If mass is lost from the system with the specific angular momentum of the donor ($\alpha\,=\,1$), the RLO phase is stable if $\beta\,\gtrsim\,0.17$ for the polytrope. The parameter space for stability widens for more realistic planetary models with core, provided that $\xi>0$ (neglecting irradiation). The case $\alpha=1$ and $\beta<1$ might occur because of tidally enhanced mass loss through photo-evaporation [@Jackson+10; @LeitzingerOKLW11] or magnetically controlled outflows from the planet [@Adams2011; @CohenGlocer12].
In addition, we check for stellar RLO [@Eggleton1983] and stop our calculation whenever it occurs, as it will lead to rapid engulfment of the planet’s remnant by the star.
A trivial relation for $a$ as a function of $M_{\rm pl}$ is obtained in the limit $q>>1$. Combining Equations (\[eq:aDotTot\]), (\[eq:aDotMT\]), and (\[eq:dotM2MT\]), and considering a polytrope, we find $$\frac{a}{a_{0}} = \left(\frac{M_{\rm pl}}{M_{\rm pl, 0}}\right)^{-1/3}.
\label{eq:aAnalyticMass}$$ where the subscript “0” denotes the values at the onset of RLO. An analogous expression can be derived for our detailed models.
Examples {#Example}
========
We now illustrate how hot Jupiters can naturally evolve into lower-mass planets. We take a 2$M_{\rm J}$ hot Jupiter (so that $M_{\rm pl}$ is in the plateau of Fig. \[fig:massAndRadius\_Batygin\]). For all models we compute $R_{\rm pl}$ from the maxima of Equations (\[eq:Batygin\])–(\[eq:Fortney\]), giving $\simeq$1.2$R_{\rm J}$. The host star has a mass of 1$\,M_{\odot}$ and solar metallicity. Our initial conditions are $a\,=\,1.5\,a_{\rm R}\,\simeq\,0.016\,$AU ($P_{\rm orb}\,\simeq\,$0.65days) and $\Omega_{*}\,=\,0.1\,\Omega_{\rm o}$ (our results change little varying $\Omega_{*}/\Omega_{\rm o}$ between 0–0.15, consistent with observations). We start the orbital evolution (arbitrarily) when the stellar age is 0.3$t_{\rm MS}$ ($\sim\,$3Gyr) and consider both conservative and non-conservative MT, with $\alpha=1$ for the latter. For the non-conservative MT case, we illustrate extreme examples with $\beta\,=\,$0.2 for the polytrope, J1e, J3e, and J10e, and $\beta\,=\,$0.4 for J3ei. These values are at the limit for MT stability (Equation (\[eq:dotM2MT\])).
\[!h\]
As shown in Fig. \[fig:evolutionExample\], prior to MT the orbit decays fast as tides remove orbital angular momentum to spin up the star. After only $\sim$4Myr RLO begins and the orbit now expands. For the polytrope and J3ei models, the flat mass–radius relation (Fig. \[fig:massAndRadius\_Batygin\]) leads to significant orbital expansion. For J3ei the orbit expands as long as MT dominates over tides. Eventually, as the star approaches the end of the main sequence, the increase in $R_{*}$ and the dependence of $\dot{a}_{\rm tid}$ on $(R_{*}/a)^{8}$ (Equations (1) and (4) in VR14) cause tides to take over the MT and the system to evolve more rapidly. The evolution stops when stellar RLO begins (denoted with “$\bigstar$”). The evolution differs for J1e, J3e, and J10e. In fact, while MT always causes some orbital expansion at the onset of RLO, tides take over sooner when the mass–radius relation steepens. The orbit begins shrinking, consuming the planet faster. If the MT is conservative, the evolution stops because of stellar RLO. The same is true for non-conservative MT but the cores of J3e and J10e are exposed prior to stellar RLO (marked by “$\square$”). For J10e in particular, once the core is exposed $a$ remains constant, as expected for a constant density model ($R_{\rm pl}\propto\,M_{\rm pl}^{1/3}$). Even without magnetic braking, at the end of the calculation the star is spinning at less than 10% break-up in all cases.
Comparison With Observations {#Comparison With Observations}
============================
\[!h\]
Fig. \[fig:Radius\_Porb\_KOI\_confirmed\] shows the mass and orbital period of the known single planets with observationally inferred $M_{\rm pl}$, $R_{\rm pl}$, and $P_{\rm orb}$ (NASA Exoplanet Archive, 25 April 2014), and the evolutionary tracks of Fig. \[fig:evolutionExample\]. While most of the mass is lost within a few Gyr, the orbital evolution slows down as the orbit expands (see also Fig. \[fig:evolutionExample\], right), and it eventually accelerates when tides dominate over MT.
Varying the initial $M_{\rm pl}$ while using the same initial conditions and planetary models, the orbital evolution begins and ends at different $P_{\rm orb}$, but it continues along the same tracks displayed in Fig. \[fig:Radius\_Porb\_KOI\_confirmed\] (e.g., starting with a higher $M_{\rm pl}$, once $M_{\rm pl}$ drops to 2$M_{\rm J}$, the evolutionary tracks overlap). Furthermore, varying $M_{*}$ between 0.5$M_{\odot}$-2$M_{\odot}$ (typical for [*Kepler*]{}targets) changes the duration of the various phases displayed in Fig. \[fig:Radius\_Porb\_KOI\_confirmed\], but it does not affect the shape of the evolutionary tracks significantly. In our examples the evolution prior to RLO lasts only $\sim\,$ 4Myr, which may seem at odds with the observed hot Jupiters close to $a_{\rm R}$. However, the evolutionary timescales can easily vary over several orders of magnitude depending both on the star under consideration as well as the assumed tidal efficiency. For instance, the pre-RLO phase for a host star of 0.5$M_{\odot}$ lasts several tens of Myrs because of the smaller $R_{*}$. Furthermore, debate still exists on whether the reduction in the effectiveness of tides at high tidal forcing frequencies should be described by a linear (adopted here) or quadratic prescription [@GoldreichNicholson1977]. The latter yields longer orbital evolution timescales, with a duration of the pre-RLO phase of $\sim$100Myr ($\sim$10Gyr) for a 1$M_{\odot}$ (0.5 $M_{\odot}$) host star.
Interestingly, some of the few known Earth-size planets with observationally inferred masses (e.g., the intriguing Kepler-78, with $P_{\rm orb}\simeq\,0.35\,$days, or Kepler-98 at $P_{\rm orb}\simeq\,1.5\,$days and $M_{\rm pl}\simeq\,3.5M_{\oplus}$) lie along or very close to our evolutionary tracks. Clearly, more mass measurements in this short orbital period and small mass regime would provide an important test of these ideas.
Discussion {#Conclusions}
==========
Our simple models naturally leads to planets similar in orbital period and mass to [*known*]{} systems hosting very hot sub-Neptunes and super-Earths. Additionally, the wide range of masses and orbital periods covered by our evolutionary tracks suggest that, considering a variety of planetary interior models, the excess short-period, Earth-sized planets seen in the [*Kepler*]{} data [@Steffen:2013c] could be explained as being the remnant planet cores from hot Jupiters that went through RLO and lost their gaseous envelopes. One implication is that the number of systems that have ever had a hot Jupiter is likely to be about 3 times larger than what one would infer directly from observations, since the number of single hot Earths and super-Earths in the [*Kepler*]{} data is nearly twice the number of hot Jupiters. If correct, these results suggest that many Jovian planets have rocky cores and give a means to study the properties of those cores directly.
Core-less Jupiters (modeled here as simple $n=1$ polytropes) would appear as very low-density planets at orbital periods of a few days and with sizes near their Roche lobe. An absence of such planets would imply that most or all gas giants that form in systems capable of producing hot Jupiters have rocky cores. Observationally, if the excess hot Earths comes from hot Jupiters, then the host stars of these populations should have similar properties. Specifically, their metallicities and masses should be somewhat higher than solar.
Depending on the details of the planetary interior, the orbital evolution timescales could be long enough that it might be possible to observe planets currently undergoing RLO. As shown by [@LaiHvdH2010] the resulting accretion disk could produce line absorption of stellar radiation, time-dependent obscuration of the starlight, and an earlier ingress for planetary transits.
Here we adopted simplified models for the planets, assuming thermal equilibrium throughout and using simple fits to published mass-radius relations. We also neglected photo-evaporation, even though it could play an important role in the evolution of highly irradiated super-Earths and sub-Neptunes (e.g., @BatyginStevenson13; @LopezFortney13 and references therein). For example, it could naturally explain the density contrast observed in Kepler-36 [@LopezFortney13]. If, near the end of the evolution, mass loss from the planet were significantly enhanced through photo-evaporation, this could lead to orbital expansion, potentially slowing down MT, or even completely halting RLO. Magnetic fields and stellar winds, also ignored here, may well play a role in both enhancing photo-evaporation and in channeling or entraining the MT flow [@CohenGlocer12], questioning whether the MT really proceeds through an accretion disk, with all the angular momentum being returned to the orbit. Finally, even though we assumed that the planet’s spin remains tidally locked throughout the evolution, the synchronous rotation cannot strictly be maintained as the orbit changes significantly. This could lead to significant tidal heating, potentially advancing the onset of RLO [@Hansen2012] and enhancing mass loss. These various effects will have to be studied carefully in future work, which could combine the simple treatment of orbital evolution and tides introduced here with more detailed models of the planet (e.g., using MESA, as in @BatyginStevenson13). This approach, to use detailed models for the donor in MT calculations which are computed self-consistently as RLO proceeds, has been applied successfully for many years in calculations of interacting binary stars (e.g., @Madhusudhan+08).
FV and FAR are supported by NASA Grant NNX12AI86G. JHS is supported by NASA Grant NNH12ZDA001N-KPS. We thank Nick Cowan, Vicky Kalogera, Saul Rappaport, Brian Metzger, and Brad Hansen for useful discussions. This research made use of the NASA Exoplanet Archive.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, F. C. 2011, , 730, 27
, S., [Winn]{}, J. N., [Johnson]{}, J. A., [et al.]{} 2012, , 757, 18
, K., & [Stevenson]{}, D. J. 2013, , 769, L9
, C. J., [Bryson]{}, S. T., [Mullally]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2014, , 210, 19
, S.-H., [Gu]{}, P.-G., & [Bodenheimer]{}, P. H. 2010, , 708, 1692
, O., & [Glocer]{}, A. 2012, , 753, L4
, P. P. 1983, , 268, 368
, D., & [Tremaine]{}, S. 2007, , 669, 1298
, E. B., & [Rasio]{}, F. A. 2006, , 638, L45
, J. J., [Marley]{}, M. S., & [Barnes]{}, J. W. 2007, , 659, 1661
, P., & [Nicholson]{}, P. D. 1977, Icarus, 30, 301
, B. M. S. 2012, , 757, 6
, B., [Barnes]{}, R., & [Greenberg]{}, R. 2009, , 698, 1357
, B., [Greenberg]{}, R., & [Barnes]{}, R. 2008, , 678, 1396
, B., [Miller]{}, N., [Barnes]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2010, , 407, 910
, D. 2012, , 423, 486
, D., [Helling]{}, C., & [van den Heuvel]{}, E. P. J. 2010, , 721, 923
, M., [Odert]{}, P., [Kulikov]{}, Y. N., [et al.]{} 2011, , 59, 1472
, E. D., & [Fortney]{}, J. J. 2013, , 776, 2
, N., [Rappaport]{}, S., [Podsiadlowski]{}, P., & [Nelson]{}, L. 2008, , 688, 1235
, S., [Peale]{}, S. J., & [Rasio]{}, F. A. 2010, , 725, 1995
, A., [Mazeh]{}, T., & [Aigrain]{}, S. 2013, , 775, L11
, B. D., [Giannios]{}, D., & [Spiegel]{}, D. S. 2012, , 425, 2778
, R. A., [Chiang]{}, E. I., & [Murray]{}, N. 2009, , 693, 23
, M., [Ida]{}, S., & [Bessho]{}, T. 2008, , 678, 498
, S., [Farr]{}, W. M., [Lithwick]{}, Y., [Rasio]{}, F. A., & [Teyssandier]{}, J. 2011, , 473, 187
, B. 1971, , 9, 183
, B., [Bildsten]{}, L., [Dotter]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2011, , 192, 3
, B., [Cantiello]{}, M., [Arras]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2013, , 208, 4
, K., [Sasselov]{}, D., [Robinson]{}, F., & [Demarque]{}, P. 2007, , 655, 1166
, P., & [Bilinski]{}, C. 2013, , 769, 86
, W. C., & [Verbunt]{}, F. 1988, , 333, 895
, S., [Joss]{}, P. C., & [Webbink]{}, R. F. 1982, , 254, 616
, F. A., & [Ford]{}, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954
, K. C., & [Winn]{}, J. N. 2013, , 772, 143
, J. F., [Willems]{}, B., [Kalogera]{}, V., & [Rasio]{}, F. A. 2010, , 724, 546
, D. S., & [Burrows]{}, A. 2012, , 745, 174
, J. H., & [Farr]{}, W. M. 2013, , 774, L12
, S., & [K[ö]{}nigl]{}, A. 2014, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1403.5860
, D. E., [Benz]{}, W., [Guillot]{}, T., [et al.]{} 1998, , 500, 428
, F., & [Rasio]{}, F. A. 2014, , 786, 102
—. 2014, , 787, L9
, A., [D[é]{}sert]{}, J.-M., [Lecavelier des Etangs]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2004, , 604, L69
, L. M., & [Basri]{}, G. S. 2013, , 436, 1883
, J. N., [Fabrycky]{}, D., [Albrecht]{}, S., & [Johnson]{}, J. A. 2010, , 718, L145
, Y., & [Lithwick]{}, Y. 2011, , 735, 109
, Y., & [Murray]{}, N. 2003, , 589, 605
, J. P. 1966, Annales d’Astrophysique, 29, 489
, J.-P. 1977, , 57, 383
—. 1989, , 220, 112
, M., & [Penev]{}, K. 2014, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1404.4365
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Entanglement and its consequences - in particular the violation of Bell inequalities, which defies our concepts of realism and locality - have been proven to play key roles in Nature by many experiments for various quantum systems. Entanglement can also be found in systems not consisting of ordinary matter and light, i.e. in massive meson–antimeson systems. Bell inequalities have been discussed for these systems, but up to date no direct experimental test to conclusively exclude local realism was found. This mainly stems from the fact that one only has access to a restricted class of observables and that these systems are also decaying. In this Letter we put forward a Bell inequality for unstable systems which can be tested at accelerator facilities with current technology. Herewith, the long awaited proof that such systems at different energy scales can reveal the sophisticated “*dynamical*” nonlocal feature of Nature in a direct experiment gets feasible. Moreover, the role of entanglement and $\mathcal{CP}$ violation, an asymmetry between matter and antimatter, is explored, a special feature offered only by these meson-antimeson systems.'
author:
- 'Beatrix C. Hiesmayr'
- Antonio Di Domenico
- Catalina Curceanu
- Andreas Gabriel
- Marcus Huber
- 'Jan-ke Larsson'
- Pawel Moskal
title: |
[UWThPh-2011-16]{}
Revealing Bell’s Nonlocality for Unstable Systems in High Energy Physics
---
**Introduction:** The foundations of quantum mechanics have been extensively studied ever since the seminal work of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in 1935, and the discovery of Bell inequalities [@Bell] in 1964. Violations of the Bell inequalities, which reveal nonlocality of Nature, have been found in various distinct quantum systems [@Aspect; @Weihs; @ion; @Johsephsonqubits; @Hasegawa]. Currently, more and more experiments in the realm of Particle Physics are exploring these issues [@Hiesmayr3; @Hiesmayr1; @Hiesmayr13; @GRW; @Hiesmayr2; @Bramon3; @Bramon4; @LIQiao; @Genovese] which presently enter precision levels where, for various reasons, new physics is expected. In Refs. [@Hiesmayr7; @Hiesmayr8] and acknowledged in Refs. [@HiesmayrKLOE; @Aharonov] it was outlined that, in particular, the neutral K-meson system is suitable to show quantum marking and quantum erasure procedures in a way not available for ordinary matter and light. Therefore, this system is an exceptional laboratory for testing the very concepts of Nature. For mesonic systems one has two different measurement procedures, an *active* one, exerting the free will of the experimenter, and a *passive* one, with no control over the measurement basis nor on the time point. For studies whether the strong correlations of the apparently paradoxical gedanken experiment by EPR can be explained by hidden parameters one has to demand that the two experimenters, commonly called Alice and Bob, independently and *actively* choose among different alternatives. This rules out all meson systems except the neutral kaons whose sufficiently long lifetimes permit insertion of material at various places along their trajectories.
![[**Sketch of a possible setup for testing the Bell inequality.**]{} The two beams collide in the origin and produce two neutral kaons propagating in opposite directions. Regions I,II,III cover measurements for different time choices ($\equiv$ distances). For any real experimental situation (e.g. pairs are not equally distributed in $4 \pi$) the geometry can be accordingly adapted.[]{data-label="setup"}](setup4.eps){width="6cm"}
There have been several proposals of Bell inequalities for the entangled kaonic system (e.g.Refs. [@Hiesmayr3; @Hiesmayr1; @Hiesmayr13; @GRW; @Hiesmayr2; @Bramon3; @Bramon4; @LIQiao]), but they lack a direct experimental verification, because both the observable space as well as the initial entangled state that can be produced at accelerator facilities is limited. These massive systems (about $1/2$ of a proton mass) are entangled in the quantum number strangeness, i.e. in being a particle and antiparticle, and present a unique laboratory to test for discrete symmetry violations as well as the foundations of quantum mechanics. Moreover, different to massive spin systems they transform trivially under the Lorentz group (see e.g. Refs. [@rel1; @rel2]), i.e. the entanglement is not observer dependent.
This letter starts by deriving a Bell inequality suited for decaying systems. Then we present a proposal how to test for violations of the Bell inequality with the KLOE-2 detector at the DA$\Phi$NE $e^+e^-$ collider of the Frascati Laboratory of INFN (see e.g. Ref. [@HiesmayrKLOE] and references therein) and discuss the experimental implementations followed by the analyses of limitations and loopholes.
**Bell Inequalities For Decaying Systems:** In the EPR scenario a source produces two particles, which are separated and independently measured by Alice and Bob. Both parties can choose among two different measurements alternatives $i=n,n'$ for Alice and $j=m,m'$ for Bob. These settings yield either the outcomes $k,l=+1$ (later denoted as a yes event $Y$) or $k,l=-1$ (later denoted as a no event $N$). Any classical or quantum correlation function can be defined in the usual way by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{AB}(i,j)=\sum_{k,l} (k\cdot l)\; P_{AB}^{kl}(i,j)\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{AB}^{kl}(i,j)$ is the joint probability for Alice obtaining the outcome $k$ and Bob obtaining the outcome $l$, when they chose measurements $i$ and $j$, respectively. For local realistic theories Bell’s locality assumption imposes a factorization of the joint probabilities. Bell inequalities are tests for correlations that can be simulated using only local resources and shared randomness (a modern terminology for local hidden variables) and have, therefore, at hitherto nothing to do with quantum theory. Inserting the probabilities derived by quantum mechanics, however, in some cases leads to a violation of the inequality, i.e. to a contradiction between predictions of local hidden variable theories and quantum theory. For bipartite entangled qubits a tight Bell inequality is the famous Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) Bell inequality [@CHSH], i.e.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{chsh}
-2\leq S(n,m,n',m'):=E_{AB}(n,m)-E_{AB}(n,m')+E_{AB}(n',m)+E_{AB}(n',m')\leq 2\;.\end{aligned}$$
In quantum mechanics the above inequality can also be rewritten in the so called witness form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chshdecay}
\min_{\textrm{all}\;\rho_{sep}} S(n,m,n',m')[\rho_{sep}]\leq S(n,m,n',m')[\rho]\leq \max_{\textrm{all}\;\rho_{sep}}S(n,m,n',m')[\rho_{sep}]\end{aligned}$$ where the extremum is taken over all separable states. The quantum mechanical correlations are derived by $E^{QM}_{AB}(n,m')(\rho)=Tr(O_n\otimes O_{m'}\rho)$ (where $O_i$ are appropriate operators) and hence the $S$-function can be rewritten by $$\begin{aligned}
S(n,m,n',m')[\rho]=Tr(\biggl[O_n\otimes (O_m-O_{m'})+O_{n'}\otimes (O_m+O_{m'})\biggr]\;\rho)\;.\end{aligned}$$
For stable systems the extremum over all separable states is always $2$, however, in case of unstable systems these bounds may become different from $2$ due to the decay property. From the above derivation it is obvious that the generalized Bell inequality holds for stable systems. In this case it is equivalent to the famous CHSH-Bell inequality and all pure entangled states violate this inequality, whereas not all mixed entangled states directly lead to a violation. The extremal Bell correlations for separable stable states always reach $2$, whereas for decaying systems we need to take into account the intrinsic decay property which as well affects the separable states. How and why this still constitutes a proper Bell inequality for decaying system will be elaborated in the discussion section.
In the following we present an experimental proposal to reveal the nonlocality given by the above generalized Bell inequality for entangled neutral K-mesons which are copiously produced at the DA$\Phi$NE accelerator facility. In these experiments the initially maximally entangled state is an antisymmetric singlet state. So far no Bell inequality was found for
- *active* measurements –a necessary requirement for a conclusive test [@Hiesmayr13]– which leaves strangeness measurements as the only available basis choice without limitations and
- the initial antisymmetric state, the only entangled state that is currently produced with sufficiently high luminosity.
In particular it was shown [@Hiesmayr3; @GRW; @Hiesmayr2] that the CHSH-Bell inequality (\[chsh\]) does not exceed the bounds $\pm2$ due to the fast decay compared to the oscillation in these kaonic systems. Thus, the reason for the non-violation is due to the given values of the two decay constants and the strangeness oscillation. In case the ratio of oscillation to decay would be twice as large [@Hiesmayr13] then the quantum mechanical predictions would exceed the bounds $|2|$. In Ref. [@Hiesmayr1] it was shown that other initial states, in particular non–maximally entangled states, exceed the bounds $\pm2$, but up to date there is no experimental setup known that would produce such initial states.
**The Neutral Kaon System:** In Ref. [@Hiesmayr13] it was argued that any conclusive test against the existence of a local realistic description for entangled meson–antimeson pairs requires that Alice and Bob can choose among alternative measurements “*actively*”. Particle detectors at accelerator facilities usually detect or reconstruct different decay products at various distances from the point of generation, usually by a *passive* measurement procedure, i.e. observing a certain decay channel at a certain position in the detector without having control over the decay channel nor the time (determined by the distance from point of generation). More rarely an *active* measurement procedure is performed, e.g. by placing a piece of matter in the beam and forcing the incoming neutral meson to interact with the material (see e.g. the 1998 CPLEAR experiment [@CPLEAR]). For practical reasons (too big decay constants) this procedure is only possible for neutral K-mesons and not for the neutral $B$ and $D$ mesons. In such a way the strangeness content of a neutral kaon, i.e. being a kaon $K^0$ or an antikaon $\bar K^0$, at a certain time (determined by the distance of the piece of matter from the source) can be measured *actively*, i.e. the experimenter decides what physical property (in this case strangeness) is measured **and** when she or he wants to measure. Neutral kaons have rather long lifetimes enabling them to travel several centimeters or even meters (depending on their velocities), therefore kaonic qubits present a quantum system that is entangled over macroscopic distances. Certainly, for any conclusive test of a Bell inequality it is necessary that Alice and Bob can freely choose among different options. This requirement, which has been stated by the authors of Ref. [@Hiesmayr13], is not a loophole, and therefore rules out all the other meson systems.
In principle, one can generally ask the following dichotomic questions to the unstable quantum systems
- Are you in the quasispin state $|k_n\rangle$, i.e. a certain superposition of the two strangeness eigenstates $|K^0\rangle$ and $|\bar K^0\rangle$, at a certain time $t_n$ or not? (Answers: $Yes (Y)/No (N)$)
- Are you in the quasispin state $|k_n\rangle$ or its orthogonal state $|k_n^\perp\rangle$ ($\langle k_n^\perp|k_n\rangle=0$) at a certain time $t_n$?
The second question $(ii)$ does not include all available information of the unstable quantum systems under discussion as it ignores cases where the neutral kaons decayed before the question was asked at time $t_n$. Again, it is crucial for any conclusive test of a Bell inequality not to ignore available information, thus we have to stick to the first question.
In a recent publication [@Heisikaon] an effective formalism was developed for expressing the quantum mechanical expectation value by effective time dependent operators in the reduced Hilbert–Schmidt space of the surviving component. This has the advantage that the Bell inequality can be formulated as a witness operator and, for a given initial state, the value of the Bell inequality can be simply derived. Mathematically, finding out whether a Bell inequality is violated is a highly constrained optimization problem even for qudit systems. In detail, any quantum expectation value for any choice of measurements is given by an effective $2\times2$ operator in the Heisenberg picture for a given initial state $\rho$ (not necessarily pure):
$$\begin{aligned}
&&E^{QM}(k_n,t_n; k_m,t_m){\;=\;}Tr (O_n\otimes O_m\;\rho)\nonumber\\
&&\;=\;P(\textrm{Y}: k_n,t_n;\textrm{Y}: k_m,t_m)+P(\textrm{N}: k_n,t_n;\textrm{N}: k_m,t_m)- P(\textrm{Y}: k_n,t_n;\textrm{N}: k_m,t_m)
-P(\textrm{N}: k_n,t_n;\textrm{Y}: k_m,t_m)\;,
$$
where $P(\textrm{Y/N},\textrm{Y/N})$ denote the joint probabilities and $O_n\;:=\;\lambda_n\;|\chi_n\rangle\langle\chi_n|-|\chi_n^\perp\rangle\langle\chi_n^\perp|$ is an effective $2\times 2$ operator with $\langle \chi_n|\chi_n^\perp\rangle{\;=\;}0$, $N(t_n){\;=\;}e^{-\Gamma_S t_n}\; |\langle K_S|k_n\rangle|^2+e^{-\Gamma_L t_n}\; |\langle K_L|k_n\rangle|^2$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{op}
|\chi_n\rangle&=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N(t_n)}}
\biggl\lbrace \langle K_S|k_n\rangle\cdot e^{(i m_S-\frac{\Gamma_S}{2}) t_n}\;|K_1\rangle+\langle K_L|k_n\rangle\cdot e^{(i m_L-\frac{\Gamma_L}{2}) t_n}\;|K_2\rangle\biggr\rbrace\nonumber\\
\lambda_n&=&-1+ (e^{-\Gamma_S t_n}-e^{-\Gamma_L t_n}) (1-\delta^2) \cos\theta_n+ (e^{-\Gamma_S t_n}+e^{-\Gamma_L t_n})(1+\delta^2+2\delta \cos\phi_n \sin\theta_n)\;.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Here we parameterized the quasispin $k_n$ as a superposition of the $\mathcal{CP}$ eigenstates $|K_{1/2}\rangle$, i.e. $|k_n\rangle{\;=\;}\cos\frac{\theta_n}{2}|K_1\rangle+\sin\frac{\theta_n}{2}\cdot e^{i \phi_n}\;|K_2\rangle$. The eigenstates $|K_{S/L}\rangle$, i.e. the short lived state $|K_S\rangle$ and the long lived state $|K_L\rangle$, are the mass eigenstates which are the solutions of the effective Schrödinger equation. $\Gamma_{S,L}$ are their decay constants and $\Delta m=m_L-m_S$ is the mass difference. The parameter $\delta$ is defined as $\delta=\frac{2 \Re \epsilon}{1+|\epsilon|^2}$, where $\epsilon$ is the small $\mathcal{CP}$ violating parameter $O(10^{-3})$, i.e. quantifying the asymmetry between a world of matter and antimatter. Note that due to the decaying property of the system the first eigenvalue $\lambda_n$ changes in time depending on the measurement choice and approaches the value $-1$ for $t_n\longrightarrow\infty$, independently of the choice of the observer.
For spin–$\frac{1}{2}$ systems, the most general spin observable is given by $O_n\equiv\vec{n}\vec{\sigma}$ with the Pauli operators $\sigma_i$. Here any normalized quantization direction ($|\vec{n}|=1$) can be parameterized by the azimuth angle $\theta_n$ and the polar angle $\phi_n$. In case of unstable systems the effective observable is given by the set of operators $O_n\equiv\frac{\lambda_n-1}{2}\mathbbm{1}+\frac{\lambda_n+1}{2}\vec{n}(\theta_n,\phi_n,t_n)\vec{\sigma}$ for which the “*quantization direction*” is no longer normalized and its loss results in an additional contribution in form of “white noise”, i.e. the expectation value gets a contribution independent of the initial state for $t_n>0$.
**Experimentally Testable Bell Inequality and Experimental Feasibility:** Consider the usual EPR scenario of a source emitting entangled pairs of particles, in case of the DA$\Phi$NE collider the decay of a $\Phi$-meson into two neutral kaons in the antisymmetric maximally entangled Bell state at time $t=0$, $|\psi^-\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lbrace |K^0 \bar K^0\rangle-|\bar K^0 K^0\rangle\rbrace$. Alice and Bob agree to measure the strangeness content actively (we choose e.g. ‘*Are you a $\bar K^0$ or not*’), i.e. by inserting a piece of material in the beam of neutral kaons. Both choose fully randomly and independently at what time they measure the neutral kaons (distances from the source). A possible setup is sketched in Fig. \[setup\].
One example for a choice of the four involved times is e.g. $t_n=0, t_m=t_{n'}=1.34\tau_S, t_{m'}=2.80\tau_S$ ($\tau_S$…lifetime of the short lived state) which leads to $S(|\psi^-\rangle)=-0.69$ and $\min S(\rho_{sep})=-0.58$, thus a violation of $0\leq\Delta:=S(|\psi^-\rangle)-\min S(\rho_{sep})=-0.11$. Certainly, a measurement at $t_n=0$ is not possible, but it can be increased up to $t_n=1.34 \tau_S$ as visualized in Fig. \[figviolation\] (a).
Choices of times with higher values also yield violations, as visualized in Fig. \[figviolation\] (b), however, these are due to the small $CP$ violation parameter and the big difference of the decay rates. Here the question raised to the system, i.e. “*Are you an antikaon or not?*” or “*Are you a kaon or not?*” matters both for antisymmetric state as well as for the lower bound derived for all possible separable states. Consequently, this means that the interference caused by $\mathcal{CP}$ violation can as well reveal the nonlocality of this system.
This peculiar relationship between a symmetry violation in Particle Physics and manifestation of entanglement can also be derived when one chooses a Bell inequality varied in the quasispins. In particular, there exists a set of Bell inequalities [@Hiesmayr3] for the antisymmetric Bell state that require the $CP$ violation parameter $\delta=0$, i.e. local hidden variable theories are in contradiction to the measured asymmetry of matter and antimatter. This puzzling relation between symmetry violations in Particle Physics and manifestations of entanglement can not be put to a direct experimental verification due to technological limitations, different to the Bell inequality proposed in this letter.
(a)![[**The generalized CHSH-Bell inequality for decaying systems.**]{} These graphs show the functions $S(|\psi^-\rangle)$ and $\min S(\rho_{sep})$ for the time choices (a) $t_m=t_{n'}=1.34\tau_S, t_{m'}=2.80\tau_S$ varied over $t_n=t$ and (b) $t_n=4.48\tau_S,t_m=t_{n'}=4.81\tau_S$ varied over $t_{m'}=t$ in the units of $\tau_S$. The violation in (b) vanishes for $t_n\geq 80 \tau_S$.[]{data-label="figviolation"}](svioshorttimes_2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} (b)![[**The generalized CHSH-Bell inequality for decaying systems.**]{} These graphs show the functions $S(|\psi^-\rangle)$ and $\min S(\rho_{sep})$ for the time choices (a) $t_m=t_{n'}=1.34\tau_S, t_{m'}=2.80\tau_S$ varied over $t_n=t$ and (b) $t_n=4.48\tau_S,t_m=t_{n'}=4.81\tau_S$ varied over $t_{m'}=t$ in the units of $\tau_S$. The violation in (b) vanishes for $t_n\geq 80 \tau_S$.[]{data-label="figviolation"}](testbi_opt_3_2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
**Discussion:** In any experiment testing a Bell inequality one faces loopholes, i.e. has to make supplementary assumptions. There are two prominent loopholes. The first one is called the ‘detection loophole’, stating that if not all pairs are measured or if some are misidentified due to imperfections of the detectors, Nature could still be local since some information is missing. This loophole affects especially photon experiments as even the best available detectors only detect a fraction of the pairs [@Aspect; @Weihs], thus these experiments rely on the ‘fair sampling’ hypothesis. The second loophole, the ‘locality loophole’, states that measurements of Alice and Bob have to be space-like separated, thus avoiding any possible exchange of subluminal signals about the measurement choices of Alice and Bob. The ‘detection loophole’ was closed with experiments on beryllium ions [@ion] and Johsephson phase qubits [@Johsephsonqubits] while the ‘locality loophole’ was closed for photons [@Weihs], but up to date no experiments exist closing both loopholes simultaneously, but there are several proposals, e.g. Ref. [@Rosenfeld].
It was claimed in the beginning that these massive entangled systems which are copiously produced and separated into opposite directions with relativistic velocities could offer a possibility of simultaneously closing both mentioned loopholes, however, as e.g. intensively discussed in Ref. [@BramonEscribanoGabarino] the real situation is far more involved. Moving materials very close to the beam inside a particle detector would cause serious problems as it would have many experimental side effects hard to control and would influence other measurements. Also having “static” material very close to the beam is a challenge since it could change the beam performance, however, it is conceivable and feasible to design such an experimental facility, e.g. by exploiting the thin cylindrical pipe where the beams circulate (in the KLOE-2 detector the pipe radius is $3.7$cm corresponding to about $6 \tau_S$). Note that the efficiency of the required strangeness measurements is less than naively expected from the strong nature of these interactions (see e.g. Ref. [@DiDomenico]). The difficulty does not stem from detecting the reaction products but rather from the low probability in initiating the strong reaction in a thin slab of material.
This has to be taken into account when counting the $Yes$ and $No$-events, i.e. in correctly evaluating the detection efficiency. This difficult task can be addressed with the help of the Monte Carlo simulation of the KLOE-2 detector, which carefully takes into account the well studied performance of the collider and detector. Additional checks on independent samples of experimental data (e.g. comparing the detected numbers of $K^0$ and $\bar K^0$ with pure $K_{S/L}$ beams) give another good experimental test in order to control the errors.
Further advantages of these decaying systems is that one knows essentially with $100\%$ probability that in case a neutral kaon is reconstructed it can only come from an entangled pair. In addition, on average only one entangled pair is generated per event. All that provides a very clean environment and gives high precision in measuring the joint and single probabilities, respectively. Therefore, the expectation values can be also evaluated by measuring only joint and single probabilities, differently from experiments with photons, which usually rely on coincidence counts. Consequently, one can as well test the Clauser-Horne (CH) version [@ClauserHorn] of the CHSH-Bell inequality which requires single and joint probabilities. The fundamental difference between the CHSH-Bell inequality and the CH-Bell inequality stems from the fact that in the first case correlations based on only joint probability measurements are tested whereas the other one involves only probabilities (single and joint ones).
For stable systems the extremal Bell correlations are always achieved for pure states due to convexity of the expectation value of the Bell operator. Due to the unavoidable decay the extremal Bell correlations can be significantly lower as in any measurement basis the probability to obtain a Yes-event becomes distorted. In contrast to the detection loophole in our setup we have full control over all joint and single probabilities and the full account of all decay events. This is significantly different to previous proposals, e.g. Ref. [@GisinGo], where each Bell correlation was normalized to surviving pairs, i.e. the question to the system corresponds to “*Are you an antikaon or a kaon at time $t$?*” (question type (ii)). This means that all pairs that did not survive until the measurement times are discarded, clearly not testing the whole ensemble. Consequently, our generalized Bell inequality is a conclusive test of Bell’s nonlocality under the assumption that the time evolution (exponential decay) of *single* kaons is correctly described by quantum mechanics. Obviously, a local realistic theory has not to obey any quantum laws, but it is natural to demand that any local realistic theory also predicts all measurable single probabilities correctly. This is what is taken into account via our extremal bounds.
In Ref. [@Selleri] the authors proposed quite general local realistic models for the antisymmetric Bell state and measurements of antikaons at different times (however, not incorporating $\mathcal{CP}$ violation). The models assume that the time evolution of the single kaon predictions are correct, i.e. those of quantum mechanics. We adapted their model to compare it with our generalized Bell inequality. We find that the lower and upper bounds of their models are less or equally stringent than our bounds, i.e. our generalized Bell inequality provides a more stringent test of nonlocality.
Finally, let us mention that the obtained violation strongly depends on the difference of the decay constants of the short and long lived states which is a special feature of the neutral kaon system (for all other meson-antimeson systems it is essentially zero).
**Conclusion:** In conclusion, the proposed generalized Bell inequality for decaying systems for restricted observable space and dichotomic questions submits to test our conception of locality and reality in a *dynamical* way including $\mathcal{CP}$ violation, whose origin is still a big puzzle in Physics. It presents the first conclusive test, i.e. does not fail due to unavoidable requirements, but involves loopholes. Moreover, a direct experimental test for the antisymmetric maximally entangled Bell state produced at accelerators become possible. In particular, a test with the KLOE-2 detector at the DA$\Phi$NE collider is feasible. Even if our proposal at a first step is realized with a static measurement setup and in the presence of other loopholes, it is a step towards proving the peculiar consequences of entanglement for massive systems at different realms of energy. Herewith, it also contributes to the open question which role entanglement and $\mathcal{CP}$ violation plays in our universe.
**Acknowledgements** The authors B.C.H., A.G. and M.H. want to thank the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) project P21947N16. B.C.H and C.C. thank also the COST action MP 1006.
Bell, J. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. *Physics* [**1**]{}, 195-200 (1964).
Aspect, A. et al. Experimetnal tests of relalistic local theories via Bell’s theorem. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**47**]{}, 460-463 (1981).
Weihs, G., Jennewein, T., Simon, C. Weinfurter, H. & Zeilinger, A. Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**81**]{}, 5039-5043 (1998).
Rowe, M. A. et al. Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detectors. *Nature* [**409**]{}, 791-794 (2001).
Ansmann, M. et al. Violation of Bell’s inequality in Josephson phase qubits. *Nature* [**461**]{}, 504-506 (2009).
Hasegawa, Y., Loidl, R., Badurek, G., Baron, M. & Rauch, H. Violation of a Bell-like inequality in single-neutron interferometry. *Nature* [**425**]{}, 45-47 (2003).
Bertlmann, R. A. & Hiesmayr, B. C. Bell inequalities for entangled kaons and their unitary time evolution. *Phys. Rev.* A [**63**]{}, 062112 (2001).
Hiesmayr, B. C. Nonlocality and entanglement in a strange system. *European Physical Journal* C [**50**]{}, 73 (2007).
Bertlmann, R. A., Bramon, A., Garbarino, G. & Hiesmayr, B. C. A Bell inequality in high energy physics really experimentally violated? *Phys. Lett.* A [**332**]{}, 355 (2004).
Ghiradi, G.C. Rimini, A.& Weber, T. The puzzling entanglement of Schrödingers wavefunction. *Found. Phys.* [**18**]{}, 1 (1988).
Hiesmayr, B. C. A generalized Bell inequality and decoherence for the K0 anti-K0 system. *Found. of Phys. Lett.* 14, 231 (2001).
Bramon, A., Escribano, R. & Garbarino, G. Bell’s inequality tests with meson-antimeson pairs *Found. Phys.* [**26**]{}, 563 (2006).
Bramon, A., Escribano, R. & Garbarino, G. Bell’s inequality tests: from photons to B-mesons *J. Mod. Opt.* [**52**]{} 1681 (2005).
Li, J. and Qiao, C.F. New Possibilities for Testing Local Realism in High Energy Physics *Phys. Lett.* A [**373**]{} 4311 (2009).
Genovese, M., Novero C. and Predazzi, E. On the Conlusive Tests of Local Realism and Pseudoscalar Mesons *Foundations of Physics* [**32**]{} 589 (2002).
Bramon, A. Garbarino, G. & Hiesmayr, B. C. Active and passive quantum eraser for neutral kaons. *Phys. Rev.* A [**69**]{} 062111 (2004).
Bramon, A. Garbarino, G. & Hiesmayr, B. C. Quantum marking and quantum erasure for neutral kaons. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**92**]{} 020405 (2004).
Amelino-Camelia G et al. Physics with the KLOE-2 experiment at the upgraded DAPHNE *European Physical Journal* C [**68**]{}, Number 3-4, 619 (2010).
Aharonov, Y. & Zubairy, M.S. Time and the Quantum: Erasing the Past and Impacting the Future. *Science* [**307**]{}, 875-879 (2005).
Czachor, M. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Experiment with Relativistic Massive Particles *Phys. Rev.* A [**55**]{} 72 (1997).
Friis N., Bertlmann R.A., Huber M. & Hiesmayr, B. C. Relativistic Entanglement of Two Massive Particles. *Phys. Rev.* A [**81**]{} 042114 (2010).
Clauser, J. F. Horne, M. A., Shimony, A. & Holt, R. A. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**23**]{}, 880-884 (1969).
Bertlmann R. A., Grimus W. & Hiesmayr B. C. An open–quantum–system formulation of particle decay. *Phys. Rev.* A [**73**]{}, 054101 (2006).
Apostolakis A et al. An EPR experiment testing the non-separability of the $K^0 \bar K^0$ wave function, *Phys. Lett.* B [**422**]{}, 339-348 (1998).
Di Domenico, A., Gabriel, A., Hiesmayr. B. C., Hipp, F., Huber, M., Krizek, G., Muehlbacher, K., Radic, S., Spengler, C. & Theussl, L. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Relation and Bell Inequalities in High Energy Physics *Preprint* arXiv:1101.4517 (accepted by *Foundations of Physics*).
Rosenfeld W., Weber M., Volz J., Henkel F., Krug M., Cabello A., Zukowski M. & Weinfurter H. Towards a loophole-free test of Bell’s inequality with entangled pairs of neutral atoms. *Adv. Sci. Lett.* [**2**]{}, 469 (2009).
Bramon A., Escribano R. & Gabarino G. A review of Bell inequality tests with neutral kaons, in Handbook on Neutral Kaon Interferometry at a $\Phi$ factory, eds. A. Di Domenico, Frascati Physics Series, Vol. XLIII, 217-254 (2007).
Di Domenico, A. & KLOE coll. CPT symmetry and quantum mechanics tests in the neutral kaon system at KLOE *Found. Phys.* [**40**]{}, 852 (2010).
Clauser J.F. & Horne M. A. Experimental consequences of objective local theories, *Phys. Rev.* D [**10**]{} 526–535 (1974).
Gisin N. & Go A. EPR test with photons and kaons: Analogies, *Am. J. Phys.* [**69**]{}, 264-270 (2001).
Foadi R. & Selleri F. Quantum Mechanics versus local realism for kaons, *Phys. Rev. A* [**61**]{}, 012106 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Arshad Kamal and Eric E Keaveny
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: 'Enhanced locomotion, effective diffusion, and trapping of undulatory micro-swimmers in heterogeneous environments'
---
Introduction
============
Whether they be polymer molecules and elastic filaments, rigid and deformable particles, or even other cellular life, swimming cells and microorganisms must interact with objects immersed in the surrounding fluid and negotiate the heterogeneity that they introduce. This situation arises in reproductive systems, such as mammalian sperm swimming through the mucin filament networks that comprise cervical mucus [@Rutllant2005; @Ceric2005; @Chretien2003], or male gametes from the malaria parasite [*Plasmodium*]{} moving through dense suspensions of red blood cells in the mosquito’s digestive tract [@Paul2002; @Kuehn2010]. This situation is also encountered in the context of disease and infection with examples including [*H. pylori*]{} bacteria penetrating mucus lining the stomach walls [@Celli2009], or spirochetes moving through the extracellular matrix [@Harman2012]. In each of these examples, the composition and density of the immersed microstructure plays a crucial role in either preventing, or allowing the cells to swim. In the case of cervical mucus, the mucin network varies in density with the female cycle [@Suarez2006] and allows for the passage of the most viable sperm while trapping those with abnormal flagellar waveforms or head shapes [@Suarez2006; @Holt2009; @Holt2015]. The filaments may even aid in guiding the sperm, helping them to navigate the reproductive tract [@Chretien2003]. The trapping of small particles, cells, and viruses by mucus plays a crucial role in disease prevention, but also presents a physical barrier in drug delivery [@Lai2009].
The immersed filaments or particles affect the rheological properties of the surrounding fluid, and/or create a porous environment through which the fluid must flow. As a result, many modelling studies employ non-Newtonian constitutive laws to capture effects such as viscoelasticity [@Lauga2007; @Fu2007; @Teran2010; @Gaffney2011; @Spagnolie2013; @Thomases2014], shear-thinning [@Datt2015; @Nganguia2017], or yield stress [@Hewitt2017] and assess how rheology of the fluid affects swimmer motion. The resulting changes can often be non-trivial and can depend strongly on the swimmer’s stroke, as well as its ability to deform in response to stress. For undulatory swimmers propelled by small amplitude waves, viscoelasticity hinders motion [@Lauga2007], while for larger amplitudes and certain waveforms, the swimming speed can increase by a factor of about 20% [@Teran2010]. Enhanced speeds occur when the undulation period matches the relaxation time of the elastic stress [@Teran2010; @Shen2011; @Thomases2014] and further, only when the swimmer is sufficiently flexible and can be deformed by the elastic stress built up within the fluid [@Thomases2014]. The effects of elasticity are be even more pronounced in gels [@Fu2010] where the polymer elements are not mobile as in polymer solutions, and as a result, their elastic deformation is akin to that of an elastic solid. In this environment, the highest speeds, more than three times greater than the free swimming value [@Fu2010], are obtained in the stiff limit where the governing equations reduce to those of a porous medium [@Leshansky2009; @Leiderman2016], for which similarly large gains in speed are observed.
While studies using continuum models have provided key insights into how swimming speeds change with fluid rheology, they implicitly assume that the lengthscales associated with the immersed filaments, polymers or particles that produce the change in rheology are much smaller than those associated with the swimming cells. Swimming sperm, for example, are of the same scale as the immersed filaments comprising the cervical mucus through which they swim. The direct interactions between swimming cells and the fluid microstructure can affect swimming in different, and even more dramatic ways than those seen using continuum models. For undulatory swimmers in networks of viscoelastic springs [@Wrobel2016], hydrodynamic interactions with the network yield modest gains in speed, similar to those found with continuum models. In fluidic environments consisting of posts arranged in a square arrays, or in wet granular media, both experiments [@Park2008; @Juarez2010; @Majmudar2012] and simulations [@Majmudar2012; @Munch2016] demonstrate enhanced locomotion with speeds of up to ten times the free swimming value when an undulatory swimmer is able to push and pull against the posts or grains through steric interactions. Similar results are found in simulations of helically propelled swimmers interacting with polymer elements either solely through hydrodynamic [@Zhang2018], or through both hydrodynamic and steric [@Zoettl2017] interactions. Along with changing the average swimming speed, direct interactions with immersed objects also introduce fluctuations, resulting in random changes in swimming speed and direction [@Jabbarzadeh2014; @Majmudar2012; @Wrobel2016]. At long times, these fluctuations could lead to effective diffusion of the swimmers similar to that explored in the contexts of bacteria [@Lauga2011], or active Brownian particles [@Volpe2013; @Volpe2014].
In this paper, we explore how swimmer-microstructure interactions affect locomotion by performing numerical simulations of an undulatory micro-swimmer through a planar, random arrangement of obstacles. Compliance is introduced by tethering each obstacle to a point in the plane via a linear spring. This environment is intended to be a simple, planar representation of a filament network gel, with the tethers capturing network elasticity. Our model, described in Section \[sec:model\], allows for hydrodynamic and steric interactions between the obstacles and swimming body. It also accounts for swimmer deformability, thereby allowing the swimmer to change shape in response to interactions with the obstacles. We examine in detail how obstacle density and tether strength affect swimmer motion. Along with quantifying changes in average swimmer velocity, we also examine velocity and angular velocity fluctuations. These results are presented in Section \[sec:motion\]. We then examine how these fluctuations lead to diffusive behaviour at long times. To do this, we employ a data-driven stochastic model presented in Section \[sec:diffusion\] to obtain expressions for the effective diffusion coefficient and correlation times and show how they change with obstacle density and tether stiffness. Finally, in Section \[sec:trapping\], we examine in detail swimmer trapping, quantifying the average trapping time and how it varies with environmental parameters. Overall, our results suggest how microstructural variations, such as those found to occur in cervical mucus during the female cycle, can allow swimming bodies to move more rapidly and diffuse through their surroundings, or stop their motion entirely.
Mathematical model for the swimmer and environment {#sec:model}
==================================================
Our simulations are based on the mathematical model introduced in [@Majmudar2012] for studying undulatory locomotion through a two dimensional rigid pillar array. The swimmer is treated as an inextensible, flexible filament of length $L$ and bending modulus $K_B$ that moves through planar undulations driven internally by a preferred curvature. It interacts with obstacles in the plane of locomotion through hydrodynamic and steric forces. We introduce both randomness and compliance to the environment by tethering the obstacles with linear springs to points uniformly distributed within the computational domain. We provide a description of the model here and also refer the reader to [@Majmudar2012], as well as [@Schoeller2018] where it was adapted to simulate sperm suspensions.
The swimmer is parametrized by arclength $s$ such that the position of a point along the swimmer is $\bm{Y}(s)$ and the unit tangent at that point is $\bm{\hat{t}} = d\bm{Y}/ds$. Bending waves propagated along the length of the swimmer are driven by the moments per unit length, $\bm{\tau}^D = K_B \kappa_0(s,t)\bm{\hat z}$, that arise due to the preferred curvature, $$\kappa_0(s,t) = K_{0} \sin\left(\frac{3\pi}{2L}s - \omega t\right) \cdot \begin{cases}
1, \hspace{20mm} s \leq L/2 \\
2(L-s) / L, \hspace{6mm} s > L/2,
\end{cases} \label{eq:PreferredCurvatureModel}$$ where $\omega$ is the undulation frequency and $K_0$ is the amplitude. The linear decay in the amplitude for $s > L/2$ is chosen to reproduce the waveform of the small nematode [*C. elegans*]{} [@Majmudar2012] that is often used to study locomotion in complex fluids [@Shen2011] and structured environments [@Park2008; @Juarez2010; @Majmudar2012]. The swimmer is also subject to externally applied forces, $\bm{f}$, and torques, $\bm{\tau}$, per unit length that arise due to viscous stresses and steric interactions with the obstacles. The resulting force and moment balances along the swimmer are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_beam1}
\frac{d \bm{\Lambda}}{d s} + \bm{f} &= 0\\
\frac{d \bm{M}}{d s} + \bm{\tau}^D + \bm{\hat{t}}\times \bm{\Lambda}+\bm{\tau} &= 0. \label{eqn_beam2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{\Lambda}$ is the internal stress that enforces inextensibility and $\bm{M} = K_B \bm{\hat{t}}\times d\bm{\hat{t}}/ds$ is the bending moment.
To obtain a numerical solution to these equations, the swimmer is discretised into $N$ segments of length $\Delta L = L/N$ with the position of segment $n$ given by $\bm{Y}_{n}$, while the tangent at that point is denoted as $\bm{\hat {t}}_{n}$. Taking $\bm{\Lambda}$ and $\bm{M}$ at the midpoints between adjacent segments, and replacing the differential operator in Eqs. (\[eqn\_beam1\]) and (\[eqn\_beam2\]) by central finite differences, we obtain the following discretised system $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\bm{\Lambda}_{n+1/2} - \bm{\Lambda}_{n-1/2}}{\Delta L} + \bm{f}_n &= 0 \label{eq:disfbal} \\
\frac{\bm{M}_{n+1/2} - \bm{M}_{n-1/2}}{\Delta L} +
\frac{1}{2}\bm{\hat{t}}_n\times (\bm{\Lambda}_{n+1/2} + \bm{\Lambda}_{n-1/2})+\bm{\tau}^D_n + \bm{\tau}_n &= 0 \label{eqn:dismbal},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{M}_{n+1/2} = (K_B/\Delta L) \bm{\hat{t}}_n \times \bm{\hat{t}}_{n+1}$. For this discrete system, $\bm{\Lambda}_{n+1/2}$ is the Lagrange multiplier that enforces the discrete version of the inextensibility constraints, $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{Y}_{n+1} - \bm{Y}_{n} - \frac{\Delta L}{2} (\bm{\hat{t}}_{n+1} + \bm{\hat{t}}_{n}) = \bm{0}. \label{eq:cons}\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying Eqs. (\[eq:disfbal\]) and (\[eqn:dismbal\]) through by $\Delta L$, we obtain the force and moment balances for each of the segments. For segment $n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{F}^{C}_n + \bm{F}^{H}_n + \bm{F}^{S}_{n} &= 0, \label{eqn_force_balance}\\
\bm{T}^{B}_n + \bm{T}^{C}_n + \bm{T}^{D}_n + \bm{T}^{H}_n &= 0.\label{eqn_torque_balance}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{F}^{C}_n = \bm{\Lambda}_{n+1/2} - \bm{\Lambda}_{n-1/2}$, $\bm{T}^{B}_n = \bm{M}_{n+1/2} - \bm{M}_{n-1/2}$, and $\bm{T}^{C}_n = (\Delta L/2)\bm{\hat{t}}_n\times (\bm{\Lambda}_{n+1/2} + \bm{\Lambda}_{n-1/2})$. The hydrodynamic forces, $\bm{F}^{H}_n$, and those due to steric interactions with the obstacles, $\bm{F}_{n}^{S}$, are the total external force on the segment $n$ such that $\bm{F}^{H}_n+\bm{F}_{n}^{S} = \bm{f}_n\Delta L$, and the hydrodynamic torques $ \bm{T}^{H}_n = \bm{\tau}_n\Delta L$ are the only external torques on the segments. Finally, $\bm{T}^{D}_n = \bm{\tau}^D_n \Delta L$ are the torques due to the preferred curvature $\kappa_0$, Eq. (\[eq:PreferredCurvatureModel\]), and are given by $\bm{T}^D_n= K_{B}(\kappa(s_n,t) - \kappa(s_{n+1},t)) \hat{\bm{z}}$, where $s_n = (n - 1/2)\Delta L$.
Each obstacle, $n$, is a sphere of radius $A$ tethered to a point $\bm{X}_n$ by a linear spring, such that the tether force is $${\bm F}^{T}_n = - k\left({\bm Y}_n - {\bm X}_{n}\right), \label{eq:SpringForce}$$ where ${\bm Y}_n$ is the position of the obstacle and $k$ is the spring constant. In addition to this tether force, each obstacle will experience hydrodynamic forces, ${\bm F}_{n}^{H}$, due to the surrounding fluid, as well as steric forces, ${\bm F}_{n}^{S}$, with the swimmer and/or other obstacles. The resulting force balance for obstacle $n$ is then $${\bm F}_{n}^{H} + {\bm F}_{n}^{T} + {\bm F}_{n}^{S} = {\bm 0}. \label{eq:ObstaclesForceBalance}$$ The obstacles are taken to be torque-free.
The obstacles and swimmer segments interact with each other through the steric and hydrodynamics forces that appear in their respective force and torque balances. The steric forces between obstacles and swimmer segments, as well as those between obstacles, are captured through a short-ranged, pair-wise repulsive barrier force [@Dance2004]. The force on obstacle or segment $n$ due to obstacle or segment $m$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{F}^S_{nm} &=F_{nm} \left(\frac{(\chi R_{nm})^2 - \left|\bm{Y}_n -\bm{Y}_{m}\right|^2}{(\chi R_{nm})^2 - R_{nm}^2}\right)^4 \frac{\left(\bm{Y}_n - \bm{Y}_{m}\right)}{2R_{nm}},\end{aligned}$$ if $\left|\bm{Y}_n -\bm{Y}_{m}\right| < \chi R_{nm}$, and zero otherwise. The parameter $F_{nm}$ sets the strength of the force at contact and $\chi$ controls the range over which force acts. $R_{nm}$ in the distance between $n$ and $m$ at contact. For obstacle-obstacle interactions, $R_{nm} = 2A$ and $F_{nm} = 152 K_B/L^2$, while for segment-obstacle interactions, $R_{nm} = a + A$ and $F_{nm} = 57 K_B/L^2$ with the segment radius being $a = \Delta L/2.2$. For all interactions, we take $\chi = 1.1$.
Hydrodynamic interactions are incorporated by considering the coupled low Reynolds number mobility problem established by the force and moment balances for the segments, Eqs. (\[eqn\_force\_balance\]) and (\[eqn\_torque\_balance\]), together with that for the obstacles, Eq. (\[eq:ObstaclesForceBalance\]). We employ the force-coupling method (FCM) [@Maxey2001; @Lomholt2003; @Liu2009] to solve the mobility problem and obtain the translational and angular motion of the segments and obstacles. In FCM, the forces and torques the segments and obstacles exert on the fluid are treated though a low-order finite-force multipole expansion in the Stokes equations and the resulting fluid flow due to this forcing is volume averaged to obtain the velocity, ${\bm U}_{n}$, and angular velocity, ${\bm \Omega}_{n}$, for each particle $n$.
After obtaining the motion of the obstacles and segments, we update their positions and orientations. As swimmer deformation is restricted to a plane, we know $\bm{\Omega}_n = \Omega_n \bm{\hat z}$ and may introduce an angle $\theta_n$ for each segment $n$, such that $\bm{\hat t}_n = (\cos \theta_n, \sin \theta_n)$. Therefore, to update particle positions and orientations, we integrate in time $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\bm{Y}_n}{dt} = \bm{U}_n \\
\frac{d \theta_n}{d t} = \Omega_n, \end{aligned}$$ while simultaneously obtaining the Lagrange multipliers to ensure the inextensibility constraints, Eq. (\[eq:cons\]), are satisfied. To do this, we employ the second-order implicit backward differentiation scheme [@Ascher1998] to integrate the differential equations, and Broyden’s method [@Broyden1965] to solve the resulting system of equations for the updated values of $\bm{Y}_n$, $\theta_n$, and the Lagrange multipliers.
In our simulations, as in [@Majmudar2012], the swimmer is discretised into $N = 15$ segments and the preferred curvature amplitude is $K_{0} = 8.25/L$. The frequency, $\omega$, of the preferred curvature wave sets the dimensionless sperm number to be, $Sp = (4\pi \omega \eta / K_{B})^{1/4} L \approx 5.87$, where $\eta$ is the viscosity of the fluid. The sperm number [@Lowe2003; @Lauga2009] provides a measure of the ratio of the viscous and elastic forces acting on the swimmer. The corresponding waveform for the swimmer over a single undulation period, $T = 2\pi / \omega$, is shown in Fig. \[fig:WaveCharacteristicsImageFigure\]. The swimming speed in the absence of obstacles is found to be $U_{0} = 0.01225 \omega L$.
The simulations presented in the subsequent sections are performed in periodic domains of size $L_D \times L_D \times L_z$, where we have $L_D = 2.53 L$ for short-time simulations described in Sections \[sec:motion\], and $L_D = 7.06 L$ for our longer-time simulations shown in Section \[sec:diffusion\]. In both cases, the out of plane thickness of the domain is $L_z = 0.29L$. The obstacle radius is set to $A = 0.061L$. To vary the stiffness of the environment, we adjust the non-dimensional parameter $$\begin{aligned}
k_{sp} = kL^3/K_{B}\end{aligned}$$ which describes the strength of the tether spring constant relative to swimmer stiffness. The obstacle density is controlled by the in-plane area fraction, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi = N_{obs}\pi A^2/L_D^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{obs}$ is the number of obstacles.
Locomotion speed and induced velocity fluctuations vary with the obstacle density and stiffness {#sec:motion}
===============================================================================================
![Swimmer motion for $10$ undulation periods in environments with obstacle densities $\varphi = 0.15, 0.25$ $\&$ $0.35$ and tether stiffnesses $k_{sp} = 0.2$ (a - c) and $k_{sp} = 2$ (d - f). The figures show the obstacles at their tether points.[]{data-label="fig:ShortTimeTrajectoriesPlotFigure"}](ShortTimeTrajectoriesPlot)
We begin by presenting results from short-time simulations performed for a range of obstacle densities and tether stiffnesses. Each simulation is run for ten undulation periods, over which time swimmer motion is recorded and analysed. Fig. \[fig:ShortTimeTrajectoriesPlotFigure\] shows the obstacle rest configuration and the swimmer after each period from representative simulations with $k_{sp} = 0.2$ and $2$, and for $\varphi = 0.15, 0.25$, and $0.35$. Videos of the swimmer moving through different environments are included in the electronic Supplementary Materials. We observe that when the medium is relatively compliant $(k_{sp} = 0.2)$ and the obstacle density is low $(\varphi = 0.15)$, the swimmer moves in a straight line and its shape is nearly identical after each period. When the obstacle density is increased to $\varphi = 0.25$, the swimmer moves, on average, in a line, but now covers more distance per period, and there are noticeable fluctuations in the swimmer position from period to period. These changes become more pronounced when the density is increased to $\varphi = 0.35$. In the less compliant environment ($k_{sp} = 2$), we see that even for low obstacle densities, the swimming direction is affected by the presence of the obstacles. We also observe now that the swimmer shape varies from period-to-period due to interactions with the obstacles, and at higher obstacle densities, the swimmer moves significantly greater distances than in the more compliant environment, approaching one swimmer length in one undulation period.
To quantify effects of obstacle density and tether stiffness on swimmer motion, we examine the means and covariances of the swimmer’s period-averaged velocity and angular velocity obtained from $40$ independent, short-time simulations for different $k_{sp}$ and $\varphi$. By examining period-averaged quantities, we eliminate artificial contributions to the covariances due to periodic variations in the swimmer’s velocity and angular velocity as a result of its periodic change in shape. Specifically, at each time $t$, we determine the swimmer’s instantaneous centre-of-mass velocity $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm V} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} {\bm U}_{n}.\end{aligned}$$ and instantaneous orientation, ${\hat {\bm q}} = {\bm q}/q$, where $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm q} = -\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} {\hat {\bm t}}_{n}. \label{eq:qVectorDefinition}\end{aligned}$$ and $q = \lvert {\bm q}\rvert$. Defining the swimmer’s instantaneous angular velocity through $d\bm{\hat q}/dt = \Omega \bm{\hat z} \times \bm{\hat q}$, we obtain the following relation between $\Omega$ and the angular velocity of each segment, $$\Omega = -\frac{1}{Nq} \left( \sum_{n=1}^{N_{w}} \Omega_{n} ( {\hat {\bm q}} \cdot {\hat {\bm t}}_{n}) \right). \label{eq:CofMAngVelDefinition}$$
From these instantaneous values, we determine their period-averaged counterparts, which for period $i$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm V}_{i} = \frac{1}{T} \int_{(i-1)T}^{iT} {\bm V}(t) dt, \label{eq:PeriodAveragedVelocity} \\
\Omega_{i} = \frac{1}{T} \int_{(i-1)T}^{iT} \Omega(t) dt,\label{eq:PeriodAveragedAngVelocity} \\
{\bm q}_{i} = \frac{1}{T} \int_{(i-1)T}^{iT} {\hat {\bm q}}(t) dt, \label{eq:PeriodAveragedOrientation1} \end{aligned}$$ with the period-averaged swimmer orientation being ${\hat {\bm p}}_{i} = {\bm q}_{i} /\lvert {\bm q}_{i} \rvert$. From these quantities, we obtain the swimmer velocity in the body frame $V_{p,i} = \bm{V}_i \cdot \bm{\hat p}_i$ and $V_{n,i} = \bm{V}_i \cdot \bm{\hat n}_i$, where $\bm{\hat n}_i = \bm{\hat z} \times \bm{\hat p}_i$. We then compute their averages, $ \langle V_{p} \rangle$ and $ \langle V_{n} \rangle$, respectively, as well as the average angular velocity, $\langle \Omega \rangle$ and the $3\times 3$ covariance matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:covarmat}
\bm{C} = \langle \bm{W}\bm{W}^T \rangle - \langle\bm{W}\rangle\langle\bm{W}^T \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{W} = (V_p, V_n, \Omega)^T$. In these expressions, the angular brackets, $\langle \cdot \rangle$, denotes the expectation, which in our case is computed by averaging the quantity over the final $8$ undulation periods of the $40$ independent simulations for each value of $k_{sp}$ and $\varphi$.
Locomotion speed
----------------
![Average swimming speed, (a) $\langle V_p\rangle$, normal velocity, (b) $\langle V_n\rangle$, and angular velocity, (c) $\langle \Omega \rangle$, versus $\varphi$ for tether stiffness $k_{sp} = 0.01, 0.2, 2$ $\&$ $8$. Panel (d) shows $\langle V_p\rangle$ as a function of the tether relaxation time, $\tau_R$, for different $\varphi$.[]{data-label="fig:Averages"}](ShortTimeAverages){width="5in"}
Fig. \[fig:Averages\] shows $\langle V_p\rangle$, $\langle V_n\rangle$, and $\langle \Omega \rangle$ for tether stiffnesses $k_{sp} = 0.01, 0.2, 2,$ and $8$ and for obstacle densities ranging from $\varphi = 0.025$ to $\varphi = 0.5$. We see that for all $\varphi$ and $k_{sp}$, the swimmer moves, on average, in the direction $\bm{\hat p}$ and there is no average swimmer rotation. When the tether stiffness is very low, $k_{sp} = 0.01$, we find that the motion is slightly hindered by the presence of the obstacles, with the speed decreasing monotonically with obstacle density to a value of $\langle V_{p} \rangle = 0.965 U_{0}$ at $\varphi = 0.5$. Increasing the stiffness to $k_{sp} = 0.2$, we now observe that swimming is enhanced by the obstacles. The speed increases linearly with obstacle density and reaches a value of nearly double its free-swimming speed at $\varphi = 0.5$.
For tether stiffnesses $k_{sp} = 2$ and $k_{sp} = 8$, the swimming speed can reach even larger values, as well as exhibit a more complex, non-monotonic dependence on $\varphi$. The maximum swimming speeds we observe are $\langle V_{p} \rangle = 3.72 U_{0}$ for $k_{sp} = 2$, and $\langle V_{p} \rangle = 3.2 U_{0}$ for $k_{sp} = 8$ and occur at $\varphi = 0.25$ and $\varphi = 0.175$, respectively. These values are much larger than the modest increases of 20% observed for undulatory swimming in continuous viscoelastic fluids [@Teran2010; @Shen2011] and viscoelastic networks [@Wrobel2016], though very close to the enhanced speeds found using continuum descriptions of gel networks [@Fu2010] and in Brinkman fluids [@Leshansky2009; @Leiderman2016]. Our results are also consistent with the trends found with these continuum models for which stiffer environments lead to faster speeds, especially when the swimmer shape changes in response to the environment [@Thomases2014]. As in structured environments [@Park2008; @Majmudar2012], the mechanism behind the increase in speed is that the swimming body is able to push and pull against the obstacles to overcome the force-free constraint imposed by low Reynolds number swimming.
At high obstacle densities, we observe a reduction in speed for these stiffer systems. We note that this is not due to a uniform reduction across all independent simulations, but rather the result of the swimmer becoming completely trapped by the environment in a subset of the simulations. In the most extreme case where $k_{sp} = 8$ and $\varphi = 0.5$, nearly all swimmers are trapped instantaneously and the average speed is very close to zero. We have also performed averaging with the trapped cases excluded (see Supplementary Material), and though we do still observe a decrease in the swimming speed at large $\varphi$, only for $k_{sp} = 8$ and $\varphi = 0.5$ do we find that the speed is less than the free swimming value with $\langle V_{p} \rangle = 0.51U_{0}$. We note, however, that this value arises from a single simulation, and even in that case, the swimmer became trapped after two periods of measurement.
In addition to measuring tether stiffness relative to that of the swimming body through $k_{sp}$, we may instead examine how the swimming speed varies with the obstacle relaxation time, $\tau_R = 6\pi A\eta/k$, given by the ratio of the obstacle drag coefficient to the tether spring constant. Fig. \[fig:Averages\]d shows the swimming speed as a function of $\tau_R$ for obstacle densities ranging from $\varphi = 0.05$ to $0.45$. For low obstacle densities, we see only modest increases in swimming speeds as the environment becomes stiffer ($\tau_R \rightarrow 0$). As $\varphi$ increases, the enhancement in the swimming speed becomes more dramatic, which for $\varphi = 0.25$, closely resembles the dependence on $\tau_R$ obtained for swimming sheets in continuum models of gels [@Fu2010]. At the highest obstacle density, $\varphi = 0.45$, we observe enhanced speeds when the relaxation time is large, with the highest value $\langle V_{p} \rangle = 2.5U_{0}$ occurring $\tau_R/T = 0.054$. Decreasing $\tau_R$ below this value, the speed drops substantially due swimmer trapping.
Velocity fluctuations
---------------------
![Entries of the velocity covariance matrix, $\bm{C}$, versus $\varphi$ for $k_{sp} = 0.01, 0.2, 2$ $\&$ $8$. Panels (a - c) show the translational velocity entries (a) $C_{pp}$, (b) $C_{nn}$, and (c) $C_{pn}$, while panels (d – f) show the angular velocity covariance (d) $C_{\Omega\Omega}$ and the translational-rotational velocity covariances (e) $C_{p\Omega}$ and (f) $C_{n\Omega}$.[]{data-label="fig:Fluctuations"}](ShortTimeFluctuations){width="7in"}
Along with changes in the swimmer’s average motion, the discrete interactions with the obstacles lead to fluctuations in the translational and angular velocities. Fig. \[fig:Fluctuations\] shows the entries of the covariance matrix, $\bm{C}$ as a function of $\varphi$ for $k_{sp} = 0.01, 0.2, 2,$ and $8$. We find that in the body frame, the translational-translational velocity covariance is diagonal as the entry $C_{np}$ is nearly zero for each value of $k_{sp}$ across the entire range of $\varphi$. We see, however, that the velocity fluctuations are anisotropic as the maximum values of $C_{pp}$ are more than an order of magnitude greater than those of $C_{nn}$. As with the swimming speed, when $k_{sp} = 0.01$, the presence of the obstacles has little effect on swimmer motion and the entries of $\bm{C}$ remain very close to zero. For $k_{sp} = 0.2$, the entries $C_{pp}$ and $C_{nn}$ grow with $\varphi$, though for $C_{nn}$, this growth stops at approximately $\varphi = 0.3$ and $C_{nn}$ remains constant at higher $\varphi$. When the tether stiffness is high ($k_{sp} = 2$ and $k_{sp}=8$), $C_{pp}$ and $C_{nn}$ exhibit a non-monotonic dependence on $\varphi$ due to swimmer trapping.
In addition to translational motion, we find significant angular velocity fluctuations due to interactions with the obstacles. The values of $C_{\Omega\Omega}$ are comparable in magnitude to the translational velocity fluctuations and exhibit a similar dependence with $\varphi$ as $C_{pp}$ and $C_{nn}$. Interestingly, we also find that the off-diagonal entry, $C_{n\Omega}$ and, to a lesser extent $C_{p\Omega}$, which provide the covariance of the swimmer’s translational and rotational motion is, in general, non-zero. This indicates that when the swimmer pushed by the obstacles in the $\bm{\hat{n}}$-direction, it also tends to be rotated anticlockwise.
Diffusive behaviour at long times is characterised by rotational diffusion and forward locomotion {#sec:diffusion}
=================================================================================================
![Swimmer trajectories for $200$ undulation periods for (a) $k_{sp} = 0.01$, (b) $0.2$, (c) $2$ and (d) $8$ with obstacle density $\varphi = 0.15$. Six independent paths are displayed for each case. Asterisks in panel (d) show the location where the swimmer was trapped by the obstacles.[]{data-label="fig:TrajectoriesKsp"}](TrajectoriesAf){width="5in"}
![Swimmer trajectories for $200$ undulation periods for (a) $\varphi = 0.15$, (b) $0.25$, (c) $0.35$, and (d) $0.45$ with obstacle density $k_{sp} = 0.2$. Six independent paths are displayed for each case. []{data-label="fig:TrajectoriesAf"}](TrajectoriesKsp){width="5in"}
The translational and angular velocity fluctuations due to collisions with the obstacles presented in the previous section can, over longer times, result in the swimmer exhibiting a random walk that can be characterized by an effective diffusion coefficient. This is a distinct difference from motion through continuous environments, even non-Newtonian ones, for which, in the absence of boundaries, a swimming body undergoing symmetric, periodic shape changes moves in a straight path. Trajectories from simulations run for $200$ undulation periods with $\varphi = 0.15$ and $k_{sp} = 0.01, 0.2, 2$, and $8$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:TrajectoriesKsp\]. In each plot and for each trajectory, the swimmer’s centre-of-mass is initially located at the origin and swimming to the left. To avoid the swimmer exhibiting periodic, though complicated, trajectories, when performing these simulations we intermittently reseed obstacles far away from the swimmer using the procedure described in the Supplementary Materials. From Fig. \[fig:TrajectoriesKsp\], we see that increasing the stiffness of the tethers results in more frequent and sharper turns, as well as an increase in trajectory length due to higher swimming speeds. For $k_{sp} = 0.01$ and $k_{sp} = 0.2$, we observe gradual changes in the swimming direction, while for $k_{sp} = 2$ the trajectories contain many loops and sudden turns. For $k_{sp}=8$, the swimmer also changes direction quite often, however, it often becomes trapped by the obstacles long before it reaches 200 periods of undulation, resulting in short, terminated trajectories.
We observe similar, but less dramatic changes in the trajectories when $k_{sp}$ is fixed and $\varphi$ is increased. Fig. \[fig:TrajectoriesAf\] shows trajectories for $k_{sp} = 0.2$ and $\varphi = 0.15$, $0.25$, $0.35$ and $0.45$. As $\varphi$ increases, we see that the lengths of the 200$T$ trajectories increase, as does the tendency for the swimmer to change direction. We, however, do not see the very tortuous trajectories observed at the highest values of $k_{sp}$, nor do we observe the swimmer becoming trapped, even at high densities.
Stochastic model
----------------
From the long time simulations presented above, we saw how tether stiffness and obstacle density affected the trajectories exhibited by the swimmer due to changes in swimming speed and induced velocity fluctuations. In order to better quantify long-time swimmer behaviour and how it varies with environmental parameters, we employ a stochastic model that uses as input data from short-time simulations. In this model, the swimmer centre-of-mass position, $\bm{X} = (X, Y)$, and orientation, $\hat{\bm{p}} = (\cos \theta, \sin \theta)$, are described by the stochastic differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
d \begin{bmatrix}
X \\ Y \\ \theta
\end{bmatrix} = \langle V_{p} \rangle \begin{bmatrix}
\cos \theta \\ \sin \theta \\ 0
\end{bmatrix} dt + \sqrt{2 \tau} \bm{R}(\theta) \bm{C}^{1/2} d \bm{B}, \label{eq:StochEquationSolve}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{R}(\theta) =
\begin{bmatrix}
\cos \theta & -\sin \theta & 0 \\
\sin \theta & \cos \theta & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ is the rotation matrix from the body to lab frames, $\bm{C}^{1/2}$ is the the Cholesky factorization of the covariance matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{C} =
\begin{bmatrix}
C_{pp} & 0 & C_{p\Omega} \\
0 & C_{nn} & C_{n\Omega} \\
C_{p\Omega} & C_{n\Omega} & C_{\Omega\Omega}
\end{bmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ and $d\bm{B}$ is the increment of a vector of independent Wiener processes. The parameter $\tau$ describes the short correlation time of the velocity fluctuations due to collisions with the obstacles. The effects of the obstacles on swimmer motion are incorporated into the model by using the values of $\langle V_{p} \rangle$ and $\bm{C}$ computed from the full simulations. We note that the stochastic model resembles that used to describe active Brownian particles (ABPs) [@Volpe2013; @Volpe2014] and bacteria subject to rotational diffusion [@Lauga2011], however, here, the covariance matrix is both anisotropic ($C_{pp} \neq C_{nn}$) and the random velocities and angular velocities are correlated through the non-zero entries $C_{n\Omega}$ and $C_{p\Omega}$. Additionally, unlike ABPs and bacteria where the noise term can be attributed to thermal fluctuations, or inherently random fluctuations in the bacteria’s flagellar movements, in our case, the fluctuations are due to collisions with the obstacles and, as a result, are accompanied by changes in the swimming speed.
Autocorrelation functions and means-squared displacement
--------------------------------------------------------
![Autocorrelation functions and time-dependent diffusion coefficient from long-time simulations (solid lines) and the stochastic model (dashed) for $\varphi = 0.15$ and $k_{sp} = 0.01, 0.2, 2$ $\&$ $8$. The panels show the (a) Orientation autocorrelation function, $\langle {\hat {\bm p}} (0) \cdot {\hat {\bm p}} (t) \rangle $, (b) Velocity autocorrelation function, $C_{V}(t)$, and (c) the time-dependent diffusion coefficient, $D(t)$. Panels (d) – (f) show these same quantities from long-time simulations and the stochastic model for $k_{sp} = 0.2$ and $\varphi = 0.15, 0.25, 0.35$ $\&$ $0.45$.[]{data-label="fig:ACFs"}](ACFs){width="7in"}
From the stochastic model, we can obtain expressions for the swimmer orientation and velocity autocorrelation functions, as well as the mean squared displacement. We can then relate these quantities back to the environmental parameters $k_{sp}$ and $\varphi$ to assess how they affect swimmer motion at longer times. The orientation autocorrelation function (OACF) can be found by integrating the equation for $\theta$ to give $$\langle {\hat {\bm p}} (0) \cdot {\hat {\bm p}} (t) \rangle = e^{-C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau t}, \label{eq:OrientationACF}.$$ The details of this calculation are presented in the Supplementary Material. We see that the OACF decays exponentially with a correlation time given by $\tau_c = (C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau)^{-1}$. We also observe that even though the matrix $\bm{C}$ contains off-diagonal entries, only the diagonal entry $C_{\Omega\Omega}$ affects the OACF.
In Fig. \[fig:ACFs\]a we compare the OACF given by the stochastic model with that computed from full simulations with $\varphi = 0.15$ and $k_{sp} = 0.01, 0.2, 2.0$ and $8$. In each case, the simulation data is well described by the exponential OACF given by Eq. (\[eq:OrientationACF\]) with the correlation times decreasing with $k_{sp}$, going from $\tau_{c} = 356.0T$ for $k_{sp} = 0.01$ down to $\tau_{c} = 22.3T$ for $k_{sp} = 8$. This is consistent with our observations of the trajectories where the swimming direction changes more often and more drastically at higher tether stiffnesses. Using the values of $\tau_c$ and $C_{\Omega\Omega}$, we can obtain $\tau$, the collision correlation time. For these four cases, we have $\tau = 0.93 T$ ($k_{sp} = 0.01$), $\tau = 0.49 T$ ($k_{sp} = 0.2$), $\tau = 0.57 T$ ($k_{sp} = 2$), and $\tau = 0.53 T$ ($k_{sp} = 8$), indicating that the correlation time associated with swimmer-obstacle collisions is on the order of a single period of undulation. These values of $\tau$ are used for subsequent comparisons presented below.
Along with the OACF, from the stochastic model we can also compute the velocity autocorrelation function (VACF) $$\begin{aligned}
C_{V}(t) = \langle \bm{V}(t) \cdot \bm{V}(0) \rangle =& \left(\langle V_{p} \rangle^{2} + 2 \langle V_{p} \rangle\tau C_{n\Omega} \right) e^{-C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau t} + 2\tau (C_{pp} + C_{nn}) \delta(t) \nonumber\\
&+ \tau^{2} (C_{p\Omega}^{2} + C_{n\Omega}^{2}) \mathds{1}_{ \{ t = 0 \}},
\label{eq:VACF} \end{aligned}$$ where, formally, $\bm{V} = d\bm{X}/dt$, $\delta(t)$ is the Dirac delta function, and $\mathds{1}_{ \{ t = 0 \} }$ is the function that is $1$ at $t=0$ and $0$ for $t >0 $. The details of this calculation may also be found in the Supplementary Materials. The VACF from the stochastic model and long-time simulations are shown in Fig. \[fig:ACFs\]b for $\varphi = 0.15$. As with the OACF, the stochastic model predicts that the VACF decays exponentially with correlation time $\tau_c = (C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau)^{-1}$ and reproduces the VACF determined from the long-time simulations for each value of $k_{sp}$. Along with the exponential decay, we observe a sharp initial drop in the VACF corresponding to the additional short-time correlations appearing in Eq. (\[eq:VACF\]).
Finally, from the stochastic model, we compute the swimmer’s time-dependent diffusion coefficient, $D(t) = \langle ({\bf X}(t) - {\bf X}(0))^{2} \rangle/4t$, $$\begin{split}
D(t) = \frac{\langle V_{p} \rangle^{2}}{2C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{C_{\Omega\Omega} \tau t}(1 - e^{-C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau t}) \right) + \frac{\tau}{2}(C_{pp} + C_{nn}) \\ + \frac{\langle V_{p} \rangle C_{n\Omega}}{C_{\Omega\Omega}} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau t}(1 - e^{-C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau t}) \right).
\end{split} \label{eq:MSDExpression}$$ Again, the details of the calculation can be found in the Supplementary Material. Fig. \[fig:ACFs\]c shows $D(t)$ for $\varphi = 0.15$ given by both the long-time simulations and Eq. (\[eq:MSDExpression\]), and we again see close agreement between the simulations and stochastic model. As the swimming speed increases with $k_{sp}$, we observe a more rapid initial growth of $D(t)$ in stiffer environments. For higher values of $k_{sp}$, we see the onset of diffusive behaviour as $D(t)$ approaches a constant value at $t \approx 300T$. For lower $k_{sp}$, $D(t)$ grows linearly and, due to the very long correlation times found for these environments, even after 500 undulation periods it has yet to even begin leveling off.
Figs. \[fig:ACFs\]d-f, show the OACF, VACF, and $D(t)$, from the stochastic model and full simulations for $k_{sp} = 0.2$ and $\varphi = 0.15$, $0.25$, $0.35$, and $0.45$. Generally speaking, we find agreement between the stochastic model and the full simulations for these environmental parameters, though for higher obstacle densities, we do see some discrepancy at large times, where the correlations are found to decay rapidly and faster than the exponential predicted by the model. From the OACF, we observe that as $\varphi$ increases, the correlation time decreases from $\tau_c = 159.6T$ at $\varphi = 0.15$ to $\tau_c = 68.9T$ when $\varphi = 0.45$. As a result, VACF decays more rapidly as $\varphi$ increases and $D(t)$ reaches constant values sooner. We note that these changes are not as dramatic as those seen when increasing $k_{sp}$, and the notable initial drop in the VACF due to the $\delta$-function is essentially absent in these cases.
Effective diffusion coefficient and correlation times
-----------------------------------------------------
![(a) Effective diffusion coefficient, $D$, and (b) correlation time, $\tau_{c}$, given by the stochastic model for $k_{sp} = 0.01, 0.2, 2$ $\&$ $8$. The error bars indicate the 95% confidence intervals computed using a local sensitivity analysis [@ku1966notes] based on the expressions for $D$ and $\tau_c$ and the confidence intervals for the values of $\langle V_{p}\rangle$ and entries of $\bm{C}$.[]{data-label="fig:DandTauc"}](DandTauc){width="5in"}
From the stochastic model, we can obtain the effective swimmer diffusion coefficient $$\begin{aligned}
D = \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} D(t) = \frac{\langle V_{p} \rangle^2}{2\tau C_{\Omega\Omega}} + \frac{\tau}{2} (C_{pp} + C_{nn}) + \frac{\langle V_{p} \rangle C_{n\Omega}}{C_{\Omega\Omega}}, \label{eq:effD}\end{aligned}$$ which characterises the diffusive motion of a single swimmer at long-times, but also provides a measure of how a dilute population of swimmers would spread with time. We see that the effective diffusion consists of three terms that depend on $\langle V_{p} \rangle$ and the entries of $\bm{C}$. The first term is the contribution that results from the coupling of rotational diffusion induced by collisions and forward locomotion [@Lauga2011; @Volpe2014; @Zeitz2017]. The second term arises due to the velocity fluctuations induced by collisions with the obstacles, while the third term is an additional contribution due to the covariance between translational and rotational motion as a consequence of $C_{n\Omega} \neq 0$.
Fig. \[fig:DandTauc\]a shows the effective diffusion coefficient as a function of $\varphi$ for $k_{sp} = 0.01, 0.02, 2$ and $8$. Here, the values for $\langle V_{p} \rangle$ and $\bm{C}$ are taken from the short-time simulations presented in Section \[sec:motion\] with the trapped periods removed from the averaging (see Supplementary Materials). We also have assumed that $\tau = 0.6T$ for all cases. For purposes of discussion, the correlation times, $\tau_c = (C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau)^{-1}$, corresponding to each case are shown in Fig. \[fig:DandTauc\]b. We examine the contribution of each of the three terms appearing in Eq. (\[eq:effD\]) and find that the overwhelming contribution to $D$ for each case is the term $\langle V_{p} \rangle^2/(2C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau)$. It’s lowest contribution is found for $k_{sp} = 8$ and $\varphi = 0.5$, where it still accounts for $93.7$% of $D$. Thus, the effective swimmer diffusion is due primarily to a coupling between swimming and rotational diffusion.
At low obstacle densities, or low tether stiffnesses, we find that $D$ can be quite large values due to the lack fluctuations and long correlation times found for these environments. For moderate densities where fluctuations are more significant, we find that, that the value of $D$ appears to be independent of the tether stiffness. Thus, the increases in swimming speed that occur when $k_{sp}$ increases are balanced the accompanying increases in rotational diffusion as to keep $\langle V_{p} \rangle^2/(2C_{\Omega\Omega}\tau)$ constant. We note, however, that the increase in rotational diffusion does lead to large differences in correlation times with $\tau_c \approx 100T$ for $k_{sp} = 0.2$ and $\tau_c \approx 20T$ for $k_{sp} = 2$ and $8$. Thus, even though the diffusion coefficient may be the same, it will take longer for the swimmer to exhibit diffusive behaviour in more compliant environments.
Swimmers are trapped by stiff, dense environments {#sec:trapping}
=================================================
![(a) Fraction of trapped swimmers $c(\varphi, k_{sp})$ and (b) average time trapped $S(\varphi, k_{sp}) / T$ from short-time simulations over the $\varphi-k_{sp}$ parameter space. At high $\varphi$ and $k_{sp}$, we see that the swimmer is both more likely to be trapped and be trapped for longer periods of time.[]{data-label="fig:Trapping"}](TrappingcandS){width="5in"}
While we can characterise the diffusion coefficient using our short time data and the stochastic model, it is important to recall that at high tether stiffness and obstacle density the swimmer becomes trapped by the environment, perhaps even before the onset of diffusive behaviour. In our simulations, when trapping occurs (see video provided as electronic Supplementary Material), we find that though the swimmer continues to undulate, it collides with the same set of obstacles without moving forward. Since our simulations are deterministic, once the swimmer is trapped, it remains trapped indefinitely. Trapping in our simulations is linked to obstacle interactions that modify the swimmer’s waveform and prevent it from making any forward motion. This is in contrast with previous studies where trapping is instead linked to the swimmer moving in closed, periodic trajectories around a particular set of obstacles [@Majmudar2012; @Munch2016; @Chamolly2017; @Takagi2014].
To quantify the likelihood of trapping, we compute for different values of $k_{sp}$ and $\varphi$ the trapping fraction, $c(\varphi, k_{sp}) = N_{trap}(\varphi, k_{sp})/ N_{sim}$, where $N_{trap}(\varphi, k_{sp})$ is the number of simulations in which the swimmer becomes trapped before $10T$ and $N_{sim}$ is the number of simulations that are run for each case. For most cases, $N_{sim} = 50$, however, for the cases where $k_{sp} = 2$ and $k_{sp} = 8$, we have $N_{sim} = 90$ as we also use our simulation results from Section \[sec:motion\] to compute $c(\varphi, k_{sp})$. Fig. \[fig:Trapping\]a shows the trapping fraction over the $\varphi$-$k_{sp}$ parameter space. We find that trapping only occurs when $k_{sp} \gtrsim 1$, or rather, when the tether stiffness is greater than the stiffness of the swimmer. At high obstacle densities where $\varphi = 0.45$, we see a very sharp transition at $k_{sp} \approx 1$ where the trapping fraction changes rapidly from $c =0$ to $c \approx 1$. For fixed $k_{sp}$, the trapping fraction increases with $\varphi$ provided $k_{sp} \gtrsim 1$. For the highest tether stiffnesses, we found that the swimmer can become trapped at obstacle densities as low as $\varphi = 0.1$. Additionally, trapping can occur at times greater than $10T$. In fact, from our long-time simulations with $\varphi = 0.15$ and $k_{sp} = 8$, we found that all swimmers would eventually become trapped by the environment.
Not only is the swimmer more likely to be trapped in stiffer, denser environments, but it is also more likely to be trapped sooner. Fig. \[fig:Trapping\]b shows the average time trapped, $S(\varphi, k_{sp}) = (1/N_{sim})\sum_{n=1}^{N_{sim}}T_{trap}^{n}(\varphi, k_{sp})$, where $T_{trap}^{n}(\varphi, k_{sp})$ is the time the swimmer in simulation $n$ is trapped during the last $8T$ of the simulation. We see that $S(\varphi, k_{sp})$ follows the same trends in both $\varphi$ and $k_{sp}$ as $c(\varphi, k_{sp})$, with the longest times trapped occurring at the largest values of $\varphi$ and $k_{sp}$.
![The maximum likelihood estimate of the mean trapping time, $\bar{t}_{trap}$, as a function of (a) $\varphi$ for $k_{sp} = 2$ and $k_{sp} = 8$, and (b) $k_{sp}$ for $\varphi = 0.25$ and $\varphi = 0.45$.[]{data-label="fig:TrappingTimes"}](TrappingTimes){width="5in"}
To further quantify trapping, we compute using the short-time data presented in Section \[sec:motion\] the maximum likelihood estimate [@Lawless2011], $$\bar{t}_{trap} = \frac{1}{N_{trap}} \sum_{n=1}^{N_{sim}} t^\star_{n} , \label{eq:MLE}$$ where $N_{sim}$ is again the total number of simulations, $N_{trap}$ in the number of simulations where trapping occurs before $8T$, and $t^\star_{n} = \min(t_{trap,n}, 8T)$ with $t_{trap,n}$ being the time the swimmer in simulation $n$ is trapped. In Eq. (\[eq:MLE\]), it is assumed that for each $k_{sp}$ and $\varphi$ the trapping times are distributed exponentially with trapping rate $\lambda = 1/\bar{t}_{trap}$. This assumption is checked for consistency by comparing the average mean squared distance travelled from full simulations with those obtained using the stochastic model and an exponential distribution of trapping times (see Supplementary Material). Fig. \[fig:TrappingTimes\]a shows $\bar{t}_{trap}$, as a function of $\varphi$ for fixed values of $k_{sp}$. With $k_{sp}$ fixed, we find that the average trapping time decays exponentially with obstacle density. Fitting the data with a function of the form $c_0\exp(-c_1 \varphi)$ yields $c_1 = 11.32$ for $k_{sp} = 2$ and $c_1 = 15.0$ for $k_{sp} =8$, indicating that the decay rate does not depend strongly on tether stiffness. For $k_{sp} = 8$, the average trapping times decrease from approximately 100 undulations periods at lowest area fractions to a just single period at $\varphi = 0.45$. In addition, we see that for these cases, the average trapping times are comparable to the correlation time $\tau_c$ from Fig. \[fig:DandTauc\]. As a result, it is likely that swimmers moving through these environments would be trapped before their spreading is described by diffusion alone. From Fig. \[fig:TrappingTimes\]b, we see also that the trapping time decreases with tether stiffness when the obstacle density is fixed. For $\varphi = 0.25$, there is a gradual exponential decay in the trapping time, while for $\varphi = 0.45$, the decay is more rapid going from $100T$ at $k_{sp} \approx 1$ to just a single period at $k_{sp} \approx 4$, indicating that in dense environments, swimmers will often be trapped instantaneously.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
In this paper, we presented results from a series of simulations of an undulatory swimmer moving through an environment consisting of fluid and a 2D arrangement of rigid spherical obstacles that are connected by linear springs to random points in space. Our results demonstrate how the discrete interactions between a swimming body and other microscopic structures, such as polymers or filaments, immersed in the surrounding fluid affect swimmer motion. In particular, we show not only how the presence of the obstacles can often enhance the swimming speed, but also how the discrete interactions lead to fluctuations in the swimmer’s translational and angular velocities. These fluctuations, coupled with the swimming velocity, lead to diffusive behaviour at long times, which we can quantify using a stochastic model. We also show how obstacles can hinder motion, leading to swimmer trapping, particularly in dense environments with stiffnesses greater than that of the swimmer. Increasing obstacle density provides a simple mechanism for increasing trapping of swimmers and is consistent with the observation of density variations of cervical mucus over the female cycle [@Suarez2006]. Additionally, our results indicate that a minimum stiffness of the environment is also required, and only then can variations with density occur.
While we have studied here how phenomena such as trapping, enhanced locomotion, and effective diffusion vary with environmental properties, it is also of interest to investigate further how these phenomena change with swimmer’s gait, or propulsion strategy. It has been proposed [@Suarez2006; @Holt2009; @Holt2015] that sperm selection based on gait by cervical mucus may play a role in allowing only the most genetically viable sperm to reach the egg. Additionally, in continuum descriptions of viscoelastic fluids, it is known that rear versus front actuation by undulatory swimmers leads to greater enhancement of swimming speed [@Thomases2014]. In our simulations, the swimmer’s front-actuated gait is fixed and based on that of [*C. elegans*]{}. Understanding if and how our results carry over to swimmers with different waveforms, including helical ones [@Zhang2018; @Zoettl2017], could give some indication of how the fluid microstructure can segregate populations of different swimmers based on how they move. In fully 3D arrangements of filaments, filament alignment and anisotropy may play a role, potentially even to guide the swimming cells in a particular direction [@Chretien2003], while in filament networks, connectivity and cross-linking could lead to increased trapping.
Additionally, interactions between swimmers are modified as a result of the immersed microstructure. It has been observed [@Tung2017] that the inclusion of viscoelasticity leads to the formation of coherent groups of moving sperm cells. In heterogeneous environments, the complexity of the interactions with the immersed microstructure can introduce further effects, such as the local rearrangement of obstacles, hydrodynamic screening of induced flows by the microstructure, or perhaps long distance propagation of elastic deformations through obstacle collisions. These effects, as well as their coupling with biologically relevant phenomena, such as chemotaxis, can provide further changes in swimmer behaviour as a result of their direct interactions with immersed structures.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors would like to thank Professor Michael Shelley and Professor Pierre Degond for many useful discussions. We also thank Noah Brenowitz, Anton Glazkov, and Samuel Colvin for preliminary work during undergraduate projects. EEK gratefully acknowledges support from EPSRC grant EP/P013651/1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}
[Perfect Lattice Actions for Staggered Fermions]{} [^1]
W. Bietenholz$^{\rm a}$, R. Brower$^{\rm b}$, S. Chandrasekharan$^{\rm c}$ and U.-J. Wiese$^{\rm c}$
$^{\rm a}$ HLRZ c/o KFA Jülich\
52425 Jülich, Germany\
\
$^{\rm b}$ Department of Physics\
Boston University\
Boston MA 02215, USA\
\
$^{\rm c}$ Center for Theoretical Physics\
Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Department of Physics\
Massachusetts Institute of Technology\
Cambridge MA 02139, USA\
\
Preprint MIT-CTP 2584, HLRZ 74/96
We construct a perfect lattice action for staggered fermions by blocking from the continuum. The locality, spectrum and pressure of such perfect staggered fermions are discussed. We also derive a consistent fixed point action for free gauge fields and discuss its locality as well as the resulting static quark-antiquark potential. This provides a basis for the construction of (classically) perfect lattice actions for QCD using staggered fermions.
Introduction
============
Recently there has been a surge of interest in lattice actions which are closer to the continuum limit than standard lattice actions, in the sense that artifacts due to the finite lattice spacing are suppressed. The hope is that such improved actions will allow Monte Carlo simulations to reach the scaling region even on rather coarse lattices.
Based on renormalization group concepts, it has been known for a long time that perfect actions, i.e. lattice actions without any cutoff artifacts, do exist [@WilKog]. However, it is very difficult to construct – or even approximate – such perfect actions. Recent progress is based on the observation that for asymptotically free theories the determination of the fixed point action (FPA) is a classical field theory problem [@HasNie]. At infinite correlation length, a FPA is perfect. Away from the critical surface, this is in general not the case any more; at finite correlation length, FPAs are referred to as “classically perfect actions”. However, they are considered as promising improved actions even at moderate correlation length. In particular, the deviations from the (quantum) perfect renormalized trajectory are likely to set in only at the two loop level [@Hung; @Mafia]. Indeed, a drastically improved scaling behavior of the fixed point action has been observed in some asymptotically free models [@HasNie; @GN; @Hung], and is especially hoped for in QCD.
A classically perfect action can be constructed as a fixed point of a block variable renormalization group transformation (RGT). Usually one fixes a finite blocking factor $n$ and builds block variables on a coarse lattice of spacing $n$, determined by a fine lattice with unit spacing. Then one expresses all quantities in the new lattice units, i.e. one rescales the coarse lattice back to unit spacing. At infinite correlation length and for suitable RGT parameters, an infinite number of iterations of this RGT step leads to a finite FPA. For most interacting theories, this scheme is the only way to construct FPA’s non-perturbatively. There one has to perform the blocking transformation numerically (and hope for swift convergence).
For free or perturbatively interacting theories this construction can also be achieved in only one step, by a technique that we call “blocking from the continuum”. This method proceeds analytically in momentum space. It has been applied to construct perturbatively perfect lattice actions for the Schwinger model and for QCD, using fixed point fermions of the Wilson type [@Schwing; @QuaGlu]. In this paper we present a number of ingredients for the construction of a classically perfect QCD lattice action with staggered fermions, using the same technique. This provides a construction scheme alternative to Ref. [@QuaGlu]. A motivation is that staggered fermions are particularly useful for the study of chiral symmetry breaking.
In section 2 we derive the perfect action for free staggered fermions by blocking from the continuum. In section 3 we discuss the dispersion relation and the pressure of such fixed point fermions with and without truncation. In section 4 we show how to block the gauge field consistently and we arrive at the corresponding FPA for free gauge fields. This implies a “classically perfect” static quark-antiquark potential, which is compared to the (perfect) Coulomb potential in section 5. Section 6 contains our conclusions and an outlook on possible applications. A synopsis of the results presented here is included in Ref. [@StL], where we also illustrate the perturbative blocking from the continuum and where we outline how perturbatively perfect actions can serve as starting points for the non-perturbative search for FPA’s.
Perfect free staggered fermions
===============================
The fixed point action for free, massless staggered fermions in two dimensions has been derived before [@Dallas; @GN]. That derivation used a block factor 3 RGT, which does not mix the pseudoflavors [@Kalk], and which could be iterated analytically an infinite number of times. We are going to show how one can reproduce this result in one step by blocking from the continuum. [^2] We also generalize the result to higher dimensions and to arbitrary masses, so we obtain an entire renormalized trajectory for free fermions.
First we introduce our notation for staggered fermions. We divide the lattice into disjoint hypercubes with centers $x$. Our lattice has spacing 1/2, such that these centers have spacing 1. Each hypercube carries a set of $2^{d}$ fermionic and antifermionic pseudoflavors on its corners, where the dimension $d$ is assumed to be even. We denote those Grassmann variables as $\chi_{x}^{\rho}, \ \bar \chi_{x}^{\rho}$, where $\rho$ is the vector pointing from the cell center $x$ to the corner, where the variable lives. Hence the standard action for free staggered fermions reads $$S_{st}[\bar \chi ,\chi ] = \sum_{x\in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}, \rho \rho '}
\bar \chi_{x}^{\rho} \Big[ \sum_{\mu =1}^{d} \Big(
\Gamma_{\mu}^{\rho \rho'} \hat \partial_{\mu} +
\frac{1}{2} \Gamma_{5\mu}^{\rho \rho'}
\hat \partial^{2}_{\mu} \Big)
+ 2 m \delta^{\rho \rho'} \Big]
\chi^{\rho'}_{x} ,$$ where we have defined the following quantities $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Gamma^{\rho \rho'}_{\mu} &=& [\delta^{\rho - \hat \mu /2, \rho '}
+ \delta^{\rho+\hat \mu /2, \rho'} ] \sigma_{\mu}(\hat \rho ) , \\
\Gamma^{\rho \rho'}_{5\mu} &=& [\delta^{\rho - \hat \mu /2, \rho '}
- \delta^{\rho+\hat \mu /2, \rho'} ] \sigma_{\mu}(\hat \rho ) ,
\nonumber \\ \nonumber
\sigma_{\mu}(x) &=& \Big\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
\ 1 && \sum_{\nu < \mu} x_{\nu} ~~{\rm even} \\
-1 && {\rm otherwise} \end{array} \\ \nonumber
\hat \partial_{\mu} \chi_{x}^{\rho} &=& \frac{1}{2}
( \chi^{\rho}_{x+\hat \mu} - \chi^{\rho}_{x-\hat \mu}), \\
\hat \partial^{2}_{\mu} \chi_{x}^{\rho} &=&
\chi^{\rho}_{x+\hat \mu} + \chi^{\rho}_{x-\hat \mu}
-2\chi^{\rho}_{x} .\end{aligned}$$
Now we are going to construct a perfect action for free staggered fermions. Instead of iterating an RGT with a finite blocking factor, we send the blocking factor to infinity and perform only one RGT. This amounts to the “blocking from the continuum”: one starts from continuum fields and defines lattice variables by integrating over the unit hypercube around the corresponding lattice site. In particular, for staggered fermions we also have to take care of the flavor structure. We have to transform the continuum flavors into staggered pseudoflavors and integrate over regions, which depend on the pseudoflavor. Those regions are overlapping unit hypercubes.
It is well-known how to transform fermionic pseudoflavors in the continuum limit into flavors by a unitary transformation. We assume that the inverse of this transformation has been carried out and we start in the continuum with space filling fermionic fields $\psi , \ \bar \psi$, composed of pseudoflavors. Then we build staggered lattice fermions as $$\chi_{x}^{\rho} = \int_{c_{x+ \rho}} d^{d}y \
\psi^{\rho} (y) \ , \quad
\bar \chi_{x}^{\rho} = \int_{c_{x + \rho}} d^{d}y \
\bar \psi^{\rho} (y) \ ,$$ where $c_{z}$ is a unit hypercube with center $z$. We define $$\Pi (p) = \int_{c_{0}} d^{d}y \exp (ipy) = \prod_{\mu =1}^{d}
\frac{\hat p_{\mu}}{p_{\mu}} \ ; \quad
\hat p_{\mu} = 2 \sin (p_{\mu}/2) ,$$ and obtain in momentum space $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fermitrafo}
\chi^{\rho} (p) &=& \sum_{l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}}
\psi^{\rho}(p+2\pi l) \Pi (p+2\pi l) e^{i(p+2\pi l) \rho}
\nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}} \psi^{\rho} (p+2\pi l) \Pi^{\rho}
(p+2\pi l) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Pi^{\rho}(p) = e^{ip \rho } \Pi (p)$$ and $p$ is in the Brillouin zone $B = ]-\pi ,\pi ]^{d}$. In analogy to Refs. [@Dallas; @GN] we choose the following RGT, $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-S[\bar \chi ,\chi ]} &=& \int {{\cal D}}\bar \psi {{\cal D}}\psi
{{\cal D}}\bar \eta {{\cal D}}\eta \exp \Big\{ - s[\bar \psi ,\psi ] \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d}} \int_{B} d^{d}p \Big(
[ \bar \chi^{\rho}(-p) - \sum_{l\in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}} \bar \psi^{\rho}(-p-2\pi l)
\Pi^{\rho}(-p-2\pi l)] \eta^{\rho}(p) \nonumber \\
&& + \bar \eta^{\rho}(-p) [ \chi^{\rho}(p) - \sum_{l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}}
\Pi^{\rho}(p+2\pi l) \psi^{\rho} (p+2\pi l) ] \nonumber \\
&& + \bar \eta^{\rho}(-p) A^{\rho \rho'} \eta^{\rho'}(p)
\Big) \Big\}, \label{RGT}\end{aligned}$$ where the summation over $\rho, \rho'$ is understood. Here $s[\bar \psi ,\psi ]$ is the continuum action and $\bar \eta^{\rho} , \ \eta^{\rho}$ are auxiliary staggered Grassmann fields living on the same lattice sites as $\bar \chi^{\rho}$ and $ \chi^{\rho}$. We do not enforce the blocking relation (\[fermitrafo\]) by a $\delta $-function, but only by a smoothly peaked function; the $\delta $-function is smeared to a Gaussian by the matrix $A$. For the latter we make the ansatz, $$A^{\rho \rho'} = a \delta^{\rho \rho'}
-i c \hat p_{\mu} \Gamma_{\mu}^{\rho \rho'} e^{ip(\rho - \rho ')},$$ where $a$ and $c$ are referred to as mass-like and kinetic smearing parameter. They can be tuned to optimize the locality of the perfect action. In particular for $a=0$ the RGT preserves the remnant chiral symmetry $U(1) \otimes
U(1)$ (at $m=0$), which is therefore explicitly present in the perfect action.
Integrating the RGT (\[RGT\]) we obtain the perfect lattice action $$\label{perfa}
S [\bar \chi , \chi ] = \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d}} \int_{B}
d^{d}p \ \bar \chi^{\rho}(-p) [\Delta^{f}(p)^{-1}]^{\rho \rho'}
\chi^{\rho '}(p),$$ with the free propagator $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{f}(p)^{\rho \rho '} &=& \sum_{l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}} \Pi^{\rho}(p+2\pi l)
\frac{1}{i (p_{\mu}+2\pi l_{\mu})\gamma_{\mu}+m}
\Pi^{\rho '}(p+2\pi l) + A^{\rho \rho'} \nonumber \\
&=& -i \alpha_{\mu}(p) \Gamma_{\mu}^{\rho \rho'}
e^{ip(\rho -\rho ')} + \beta(p) \delta^{\rho \rho'} , \label{perfp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{\mu}(p)$ and $\beta (p)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\alpha_{\mu}(p) &=& \sum_{l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}} \frac{(-1)^{l_{\mu}} (p_{\mu}+
2\pi l_{\mu})}{(p+2\pi l)^{2}+m^{2}} \Pi (p+2\pi l)^{2}
+ c \hat p_{\mu} , \\
\beta (p) &=& \sum_{l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}} \frac{m}{(p+2\pi l)^{2}+m^{2}}
\Pi (p+2\pi l)^{2} + a .\end{aligned}$$ For $p= (p_{1}, 0 ,\dots ,0)$, i.e. in the effectively one dimensional case, the sum over $l$ collapses to a sum over $l_{1}\in {Z \!\!\! Z}$, which can be computed analytically. In this case, it turns out that for $$\label{spara}
a = \frac{\sinh (m) - m}{m^{2}} \ ; \quad
c = \frac{\cosh (m/2) -1}{m^{2}},$$ the action turns into the standard action, which is [*ultralocal*]{}; the range of couplings does not exceed nearest neighbors. In higher dimensions the sum over $l$ has to be done numerically and we can only obtain locality in the sense of an exponential decay. It turns out that the same choice of smearing parameters $a$ and $c$ still yields an extremely local action, i.e. the exponential decay is extremely fast, in analogy to our observations for Wilson fermions [@QuaGlu; @Dallas]. Hence we are going to use the smearing parameters given in eq. (\[spara\]) in any dimension.
In the chiral limit $m = 0$ this result coincides with the FPA obtained in Refs. [@Dallas; @GN]. The optimally tuned value of $a$ vanishes in this limit, [^3] hence we obtain in the massless case an extremely local perfect action, which still has the remnant chiral symmetry.
The inverse propagator can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
[\Delta^{f}(p)^{-1}]^{\rho \rho'} &=&
\rho_{\mu}(p) \Gamma^{\rho \rho '}_{\mu} e^{ip(\rho - \rho ')}
+ \lambda (p) \delta^{\rho \rho '} \nonumber \\
\rho_{\mu}(p) &=& \frac{i \alpha_{\mu}(p)}
{\alpha_{\mu}^{2}(p) + \beta^{2}(p)} \ ; \quad
\lambda (p) = \frac{\beta (p)}{\alpha_{\mu}^{2}(p) + \beta^{2}(p)} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The function $\rho_{\mu}(p)$ is antisymmetric and $2\pi$ antiperiodic in $p_{\mu}$. In all other momentum components it is symmetric and $2\pi $ periodic, and the same holds for $\lambda (p)$ in all components of $p$. Hence we can expand these functions in Fourier series, $$\rho_{\mu}(p) = \sum_{z} \rho_{\mu ,z}
e^{ip z} \ ,
\quad \lambda (p) = \sum_{n \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}} \lambda_{n} e^{ipn} \ ,$$ where $z_{\mu} \in \{ \pm 1/2 , \pm 3/2 , \dots \} $ and $z_{\nu} \in {Z \!\!\! Z}, \ \nu \neq \mu$. There is a symmetry under permutation and sign flip of $\lambda_{n}$ in all components of $n$, and of $\rho_{\mu ,z}$ in all $z_{\nu}, \ \nu \neq \mu$. Furthermore $\rho_{\mu ,z}$ is antisymmetric in $z_{\mu}$.
Expressed in these quantities, the staggered fermion action takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
S [\bar \chi ,\chi ] &=& \sum_{x\in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}} \bar \chi^{\rho}_{x}
\Big\{ \sum_{\mu ,z} \rho_{\mu ,z} \sigma_{\mu} (x)
[ \delta^{\rho - \hat \mu /2,
\rho '} \chi^{\rho '}_{x+z+\hat \mu} +\delta^{\rho + \hat \mu /2,
\rho '} \chi^{\rho '}_{x+z} ] \nonumber \\
&& + \sum_{n} \lambda_{n} \chi^{\rho'}_{x+n} \Big\} .\end{aligned}$$ The couplings for standard staggered fermions are $$\label{standa}
\rho_{\mu ,z} = ( \delta_{2z_{\mu},1} - \delta_{2z_{\mu},-1} )
\prod_{\nu \neq \mu} \delta_{z_{\nu},0} \ ; \quad
\lambda_{n} = 2 m\; \delta_{n,0}\; .$$ For the perfect action, defined in eqs. (\[perfa\])–(\[spara\]), the largest couplings are given in Table 1 and 2 for masses $m=0, \ 1, \ 2$ and 4, and their decay is plotted in Fig. 1 and 2. We observe an extreme degree of locality, which is very important for practical purposes. For numerical application the perfect action has to be truncated to a short range. This truncation ought to alter the action as little as possible, in order to preserve the perfect properties to a good approximation.
$(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3},z_{4})$ $m=0$ $m=1$ $m=2$ $m=4$
----------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
([1/2]{},0,0,0) 0.6617391 0.5649324 0.3586038 0.0730572
([1/2]{},0,0,1) 0.0441181 0.0335946 0.0154803 0.0011324
([1/2]{},0,1,1) 0.0046569 0.0032407 0.0012088 0.0000711
([1/2]{},1,1,1) 0.0004839 0.0003251 0.0001282 0.0000114
([1/2]{},0,0,2) 0.0018423 0.0012135 0.0003688 0.0000063
([1/2]{},0,1,2) 0.0001419 0.0000741 0.0000096 -0.0000001
([1/2]{},1,1,2) -0.0000264 -0.0000197 -0.0000065 -0.0000001
([1/2]{},0,2,2) -0.0000145 -0.0000117 -0.0000046 -0.0000001
([1/2]{},1,2,2) -0.0000126 -0.0000080 -0.0000022 0.0000000
([1/2]{},0,0,3) 0.0000780 0.0000445 0.0000090 0.0000000
(3/2,0,0,0) 0.0234887 0.0172839 0.0071677 0.0003303
(3/2,0,0,1) -0.0004933 -0.0005804 -0.0004502 -0.0000389
(3/2,0,1,1) -0.0009913 -0.0007019 -0.0002537 -0.0000067
(3/2,1,1,1) -0.0004819 -0.0003056 -0.0000832 -0.0000009
(3/2,0,0,2) -0.0001210 -0.0000924 -0.0000366 -0.0000008
(3/2,0,1,2) -0.0001011 -0.0000623 -0.0000155 -0.0000001
(3/2,1,1,2) -0.0000462 -0.0000255 -0.0000048 0.0000000
(3/2,0,2,2) -0.0000129 -0.0000073 -0.0000015 0.0000000
(5/2,0,0,0) 0.0009439 0.0006010 0.0001648 0.0000018
(5/2,0,0,1) -0.0000600 -0.0000483 -0.0000197 -0.0000003
(5/2,0,1,1) -0.0000577 -0.0000339 -0.0000070 0.0000000
(5/2,1,1,1) -0.0000187 -0.0000087 -0.0000007 0.0000000
(7/2,0,0,0) 0.0000390 0.0000215 0.0000039 0.0000000
: The largest kinetic couplings $\rho_{1}(z)$ for the optimally local, perfect staggered fermion of mass 0, 1, 2 and 4. The table contains all the couplings $\geq 10^{-5}$.
$(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3},z_{4})$ $m=0$ $m=1$ $m=2$ $m=4$
----------------------------- ------- ------------ ------------ ------------
(0,0,0,0) 0 0.7091500 0.9799873 0.5705389
(0,0,0,1) 0 0.0296055 0.0246899 0.0034779
(0,0,1,1) 0 -0.0010357 -0.0015531 -0.0003674
(0,1,1,1) 0 -0.0012092 -0.0009711 -0.0000904
(1,1,1,1) 0 -0.0005181 -0.0003371 -0.0000208
(0,0,0,2) 0 0.0009257 0.0005581 0.0000181
(0,0,1,2) 0 -0.0000828 -0.0000703 -0.0000035
(0,1,1,2) 0 -0.0000567 -0.0000265 -0.0000003
(1,1,1,2) 0 -0.0000136 -0.0000026 0.0000001
(0,0,0,3) 0 0.0000332 0.0000133 0.0000001
: The largest static couplings $\lambda (z)$ for the optimally local, perfect staggered fermion of mass 1, 2 and 4. The table contains all the couplings $\geq 10^{-5}$.
Spectral and thermodynamic properties of perfect staggered fermions
===================================================================
Now we want to address the question, in which sense the action derived in section 2 is perfect, i.e. which observables are free of artifacts due to the finite lattice spacing.
First we look at the spectrum. For momentum $p=(\vec p ,p_{4})$ we see that the propagator has a pole at $p_{4} = i \sqrt{\vec p^{\, 2} +m^{2}}$, which corresponds to the [*exact*]{} continuum spectrum. We note that the $\Pi$ function and the smearing term do not affect the singularity structure of the propagator. However, there are more poles — one for each $\vec l$ — namely [^4] $$p_{4, \vec l} = i \sqrt{(\vec p + 2\pi \vec l )^{2}
+ m^{2}} \ .$$ These poles correspond to higher branches. [^5] Additional branches are necessary for perfection, since the lattice imposes $2\pi $ periodicity.\
As a test case for truncated perfect fermions, it is interesting to observe how much harm we do to the spectrum – in particular to its lowest branch – if we restrict the couplings to a short range.
In Fig. 3 we show the spectrum for a truncated perfect fermion, where we omit all couplings beyond $\pm 1/2, \pm 3/2$ in the $\mu $ direction for $\rho_{\mu}$, and all couplings beyond $0,\pm 1$ in the non-$\mu$ directions of $\rho_{\mu}$ and in all directions of $\lambda$. The lower branch is real and approximates the exact dispersion relation better than the standard staggered fermion action, and the upper branch is the real part of two complex conjugate poles of the propagator.
An on-shell improved staggered fermion was proposed by S. Naik [@Naik]. By changing the kinetic term of the standard action (\[standa\]) to $$\label{snai}
\rho_{\mu ,z} = \Big( \frac{9}{8} [ \delta_{2z_{\mu},1}
- \delta_{2z_{\mu},-1}] - \frac{1}{24}
[ \delta_{2z_{\mu},3} - \delta_{2z_{\mu},-3}] \Big)
\prod_{\nu \neq \mu} \delta_{z_{\nu},0} \ ,$$ he removed the $O(a^{2})$ artifacts for the free fermion. These couplings have no similarity to our perfect fermion. For comparison, the resulting dispersion relation is also shown in Fig. 3. By construction, this dispersion relation is good at $\vert p \vert << 1$, but at $\vert p_{\mu} \vert \sim 1$ the lower branch is hit by an upper branch, and then they turn into two complex conjugate poles, the real part of which is shown in the figure.
With respect to certain other quantities, even our untruncated action is not exactly perfect. When we performed the Gaussian integrals in the RGT (\[RGT\]), we did not keep track of “constant factors”, which do not depend on the lattice fields. However, such factors may depend on other quantities such as the temperature. If those quantities are important – which was not the case in the spectrum – we can not expect perfect observables. Then one notices that the lattice fields are not completely renormalized. The possibility to keep track of such factors in a block spin RGT was explored for the Ising model in Ref. [@NauNie].
As an example we consider the pressure of free, massless fermions in infinite volume. In the continuum the relation $$\frac{P}{T^{4}} = \frac{7 \pi^{2}}{180}
\simeq 0.3838$$ is known, where $P$ is the pressure and $T$ the temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann law). In Fig. 4 we plot the ratio $P/T^{4}$ for the staggered FPA and for the Naik and standard and staggered action at $N_{t}=2,4,6 \dots 40$ lattice points in the 4-direction ($N_{t}$ must be even to accommodate a complete set of pseudoflavors). The standard staggered action scales better than Wilson fermions, in agreement with the fact that their artifacts are of the second order in the lattice spacing, whereas the Wilson action is plagued by linear artifacts [^6]. We also see that even for the FPA this scaling quantity differs from the exact continuum result. This deviation is due to a missing temperature dependent renormalization factor. However, the figure shows that this factor is typically very close to 1. It differs significantly only on immensely coarse lattices. Hence the scaling is considerably improved with respect to the standard lattice actions. This is still true after truncation (the same we used when discussing the spectrum), although the behavior gets somewhat worse. Truncation causes an overshoot, which indicates that the fermion moves closer to the standard formulation. For the Naik fermion we confirm some improvement as well. Its thermodynamic behavior has also been discussed in Ref. [@Karsch]. The dip in the beginning is very similar to the behavior of the D234 action [@D234] (the corresponding thermodynamic plot is given in [@StL]). Note that also the construction of those two on-shell improved fermions – Naik for the staggered and D234 for the Wilson type fermions – is very similar: in both cases additional couplings are added on the axes (which is not too promising for the restoration of rotational invariance). Finally, the spectrum is very similar too, the lowest branches are hit by a doubler and turn complex around $\vert p_{\mu} \vert \sim 1$.
A free fixed point gauge action consistent with staggered fermions
==================================================================
Perfect staggered fermions can only be used in QCD if we are able to couple them to fixed point gauge fields in a perfect way. This requires a blocking scheme for the gauge field, which is consistent with the blocking for staggered fermions. The consistency condition is based on gauge covariance.
Let’s go back to a finite blocking factor $n$. When we block from a fine to a coarse lattice, it is convenient to fix a gauge for the fine lattice fields. However, this gauge fixing should be restricted to one block, in order to avoid long distance gauge dependence.
Following Ref. [@Kalk] we block such that all contributions to a coarse lattice variable have the same pseudoflavor, as it is illustrated in Fig. 5. If a coarse pseudoflavor lives on a site $x'$, then we consider the hypercube $n^{d}$ with center $x'$, and all the $n^{d}$ fine variables of the same pseudoflavor contribute to that block variable. Thus each fine variable contributes to one coarse variable of the same pseudoflavor. (In the previous section we considered the limit $n\to \infty$ of this RGT.)
A coarse gauge field $A'_{\mu ,x'}$ in terms of fine fields $A_{\mu ,x}$, which is consistent with gauge covariance, is $$\label{congau}
A_{\mu ,x' + n\hat \mu /2}' = \frac{b_{n}}{n^{d}}
\sum_{x \in x'} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} A_{\mu ,x
+(2j+1)\hat \mu /2} ,$$ where $b_{n}$ is a constant renormalization factor. Its value is chosen such that we obtain a finite FPA for the free gauge field. Essentially, $b_{n}$ neutralizes the constant factor from rescaling $A_{\mu}'$, hence dimensional reasons suggest $b_{n}=n^{d/2-1}$.
Here our fine lattice has spacing 1/2 and the coarse one $n/2$, ($n$ odd). The sum $x \in x'$ runs over all $n^{d}$ fine lattice points that contribute to the coarse pseudoflavor living at the site $x'$, and the lattice gauge fields live on the link centers. We sum over the straight connections of corresponding fine lattice pseudoflavors contributing to adjacent coarse lattice variables. This construction is illustrated for $n=3$ in Fig. 5.
In momentum space this condition reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{congaumo}
A'_{\mu}(p) &=& \frac{b_{n}}{n^{d}} \sum_{l'} A_{\mu}
(p+4\pi l'/n) \Pi^{M}_{n \mu} (p+4 \pi l'/n)(-1)^{l{'}_{\mu}} ,
\nonumber \\
\Pi^{M}_{n \mu} &=& \frac{\Pi^{M}_{\mu}(np)}{\Pi^{M}_{\mu}(p)} \ ,
\quad \Pi^{M}_{\mu}(p) = \frac{4 \sin (p_{\mu}/4)}{p_{\mu}}
\Pi (p) ,\end{aligned}$$ where the summation extends over $l' \in \{ 0 ,1 ,2, \dots
,n-1\}^{d} $. Note that the momenta of the fine fields are in the zone $B_{4\pi} = ]-2\pi ,2\pi ]^{d}$, and those of the coarse fields in $B_{4\pi /n} = ]-2\pi /n,2\pi /n]^{d}$. Since we defined the gauge variables on the link centers, $A_{\mu}(p)$ is $4 \pi $ antiperiodic in $p_{\mu}$.\
Also here we want to send the blocking factor to infinity and block from the continuum. We start from a space-filling set of pseudoflavors, together with a continuum gauge field $a_{\mu}$. In the limit $n \to \infty $ the above condition (\[congau\]) turns into a Riemann integral of the form $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\mu ,x} &=& \int d^{d}y M_{\mu}(y)a_{\mu}(x-y) \nonumber \\
M_{\mu}(y) &=& \Big\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
M(y_{\mu}) && \vert y_{\nu} \vert \leq 1/2, \ \nu \neq \mu \\
0 && {\rm otherwise} \end{array} \nonumber \\
M(y_{\mu}) &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
1 && \vert y_{\mu} \vert \leq 1/4 \\
3/2 - 2 \vert y_{\mu} \vert && 1/4 \leq \vert y_{\mu} \vert \leq 3/4 \\
0 && {\rm otherwise} \end{array} \right. \ .\end{aligned}$$ This convolution is illustrated in Fig. 6. It is manifestly gauge covariant. Due to its architecturally interesting shape we call the function $M_{\mu}$ the [*mansard*]{} function.
Note that $$\int d^{d}y M_{\mu}(y) \exp (ipy) = \Pi^{M}_{\mu}(p) ,$$ and therefore condition (\[congaumo\]) turns into $$\label{congaucont}
A_{\mu}(p) = \sum_{l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}} a_{\mu}(p+4\pi l)
\Pi_{\mu}^{M}(p+4\pi l)(-1)^{l_{\mu}} .$$ The following property can be understood from the above derivation, which started from a discrete RGT: if we perform a gauge transformation on an Abelian gauge field, $a_{\mu}(y) \to a_{\mu}(y)+ \partial_{\mu}
\varphi(y)$, then the lattice gauge field transforms as $A_{\mu ,x} \to A_{\mu ,x} + \Phi_{x-\hat \mu /2}
- \Phi_{x+\hat \mu /2}$, where $\Phi_{x} = \int_{c_{x}}
d^{d}x \varphi (x)$ ($c_{x}$ being a unit hypercube with center $x$). This shows gauge covariance and consistency with the fermionic blocking. The same properties were achieved in Refs.[@Schwing; @QuaGlu] for fermions of the Wilson type, where the blocking was done by stepwise integration over disjoint cells and the gauge field was convoluted with a roof shaped function instead of the mansard function.
Now we construct the FPA, $S[A_{\mu}]$, for free gauge fields , which is adequate for staggered fermions. We impose the Landau gauge on the continuum gauge fields and choose the RGT $$\begin{aligned}
\exp \{ -S[A_{\mu}] \} &=& \int {{\cal D}}a {{\cal D}}D
\exp \Big\{ -\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d}}
\int d^{d}p \frac{1}{2} a_{\mu}(-p) p^{2} a_{\mu}(p) \Big\}
\nonumber \\ & \times & \!\!
\exp \Big\{ -\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d}} \int_{B_{4\pi}}
d^{d}p \frac{1}{2} D_{\mu}(-p) [ \alpha (p) + \gamma (p)
\widehat {(p_{\mu}/2)} ^{2} ] D_{\mu}(p) \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-10mm} + i D_{\mu}(-p) [A_{\mu}(p)- \sum_{l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}}
a_{\mu}(p+4\pi l) \Pi^{M}_{\mu}(p+4\pi l) (-1)^{l_{\mu}} ]
\Big\} , \label{gauRGT}\end{aligned}$$ where the measure ${{\cal D}}a$ contains the gauge fixing factor $\delta (\sum_{\mu}p_{\mu}a_{\mu}(p))$ Again we impose the blocking condition (\[congaucont\]) only by a Gaussian involving a mass-like and a kinetic smearing term. $D_{\mu}$ is an auxiliary lattice field, defined on the same links as $A_{\mu}$, in analogy to the fermionic auxiliary fields $\bar \eta , \eta$ in eq. (\[RGT\]). Performing the RGT (\[gauRGT\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
S[A_{\mu}] &=& \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d}} \int_{B_{4\pi}} d^{d}p
\frac{1}{2} A_{\mu}(-p) \Delta_{\mu}^{g}(p)^{-1}A_{\mu}(p)
\nonumber \\
\Delta_{\mu}^{g}(p) &=& \sum_{l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}}
\frac{1}{(p+4\pi l)^{2}} \Pi^{M}_{\mu}(p+4\pi l)^{2}
+ \alpha (p) + \gamma (p) \widehat {(p_{\mu}/2)} ^{2} .\end{aligned}$$ This is the FPA in a special gauge that we call “fixed point lattice Landau gauge”, where $A_{\mu}$ obeys $$\sum_{\mu} \sin \frac{p_{\mu}}{4} \Delta_{\mu}^{g}(p)^{-1}
A_{\mu}(p) = 0 .$$ We follow the standard procedure to rewrite the FPA in a gauge invariant form and arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
S[A] &=& \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d}} \int_{B_{4\pi}} d^{d}p
\frac{1}{2} A_{\mu}(-p) \Delta_{\mu \nu}^{g}(p)^{-1}A_{\nu}(p)
, \nonumber \\ \label{FPAg}
\Delta_{\mu \nu}^{g}(p)^{-1} &=&
\Delta_{\mu}^{g}(p)^{-1} \delta_{\mu \nu}
- \frac{\sin(p_{\mu}/4) \Delta^{g}_{\mu}(p)^{-1} \Delta^{g}
_{\nu}(p)^{-1} \sin (p_{\nu}/4)}
{\sum_{\lambda} \sin^{2} (p_{\lambda}/4)
\Delta^{g}_{\lambda}(p)^{-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ This result is similar to the one obtained for the roof-like blocking in [@Schwing; @QuaGlu]. There it was possible to choose the smearing parameters such that the FPA in $d=2$ turned into the ultralocal plaquette action. This can also be achieved for the “staggered FPA” given in eq. (\[FPAg\]).
In $d=2$, the standard lattice Landau gauge implies $$A_{\mu}(p) = i \epsilon_{\mu \nu} \frac{\sin (p_{\nu}/4)F(p)}
{\sum _{\lambda} 4 \sin^{2}(p_{\lambda}/4)} \ ,$$ where $F$ is the plaquette variable defined on the plaquette centers. Inserting this into eq. (\[FPAg\]) for $d=2$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
S[F] &=& \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{2}} \int_{B_{4\pi}} d^{2}p \frac{1}{2}
F(-p) \rho (p) F(p) , \nonumber \\
\rho(p)^{-1} &=& 16 [ \sin^{2} \frac{p_{1}}{4} \Delta^{g}_{2}(p) +
\sin^{2} \frac{p_{2}}{4} \Delta^{g}_{1}(p)] \nonumber \\
&=& \cos^{2}\frac{p_{1}}{4} \cos^{2}\frac{p_{2}}{4}
\Big( 1 - \frac{1}{6} \widehat {(p_{1}/2)} ^{2}) \Big)
\Big( 1 - \frac{1}{6} \widehat {(p_{2}/2)} ^{2}) \Big) \nonumber \\
&& + 4 \alpha (p) [ \widehat {(p_{1}/2)} ^{2} +
\widehat {(p_{2}/2)} ^{2} ] + 8 \gamma (p)
\widehat {(p_{1}/2)} ^{2} \widehat {(p_{2}/2)} ^{2} .\end{aligned}$$ If we choose $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha (p) &=& \frac{1}{16} +\frac{1}{24}
\cos^{2}\frac{p_{1}}{4} \cos^{2}\frac{p_{2}}{4} \nonumber \\
\gamma (p) &=& - \frac{1}{128} - \frac{1}{288}
\cos^{2}\frac{p_{1}}{4} \cos^{2}\frac{p_{2}}{4} \label{gRGTpar} ,\end{aligned}$$ then we obtain $\rho^{-1}(p) = 1$, as desired. Taking this as a guide for higher dimensions suggests that the optimal choice for the RGT parameters is $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha (p) &=& \frac{1}{16} +\frac{1}{24}
\prod_{\nu =1}^{d} \cos^{2}\frac{p_{\nu}}{4} \nonumber \\
\gamma (p) &=& - \frac{1}{128} - \frac{1}{288}
\prod_{\nu =1}^{d} \cos^{2}\frac{p_{\nu}}{4} . \label{rgtparga}\end{aligned}$$ It is important that $\alpha (p) + \gamma (p)
\widehat {(p_{\mu}/2)}^{2}$ is always positive. This ensures that the functional integrals in the RGT (\[gauRGT\]) are well defined.
Indeed it turns out that this RGT yields a very local FPA in $d=4$. The largest couplings are given in table 3 and the exponential decay is plotted in Fig. 7.
$(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3},z_{4})$ $\rho_{11}(z)$ $(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3},z_{4})$ $\rho_{12}(z)$
----------------------------- ---------------- -- ----------------------------- ----------------
(0,0,0,0) 3.8112883 (1/2,1/2,0,0) 0.6609129
(0,0,0,1) -0.3402240 (1/2,1/2,0,1) 0.0742258
(1,0,0,0) -0.1541891 (1/2,3/2,0,0) -0.0271129
(0,0,1,1) -0.1150765 (1/2,1/2,1,1) 0.0148817
(1,0,0,1) 0.0508985 (1/2,3/2,0,1) 0.0047334
(0,1,1,1) -0.0476001 (3/2,3/2,0,0) 0.0088456
(1,0,1,1) -0.0058551 (1/2,3/2,1,1) 0.0015899
(1,1,1,1) -0.0077244 (3/2,3/2,0,1) -0.0003598
(0,0,0,2) 0.0054232 (3/2,3/2,1,1) -0.0010820
(2,0,0,0) 0.0084881 (1/2,1/2,0,2) -0.0041648
(0,0,1,2) -0.0012443 (1/2,5/2,0,0) 0.0015083
(1,0,0,2) -0.0065388 (1/2,1/2,1,2) -0.0001960
(2,0,0,1) -0.0039935 (1/2,3/2,0,2) 0.0004785
(0,1,1,2) -0.0006582 (1/2,5/2,0,1) -0.0005171
(2,0,1,1) 0.0011516 (3/2,5/2,0,0) -0.0007231
(1,1,1,2) 0.0004326 (3/2,3/2,0,2) -0.0002568
(2,0,0,2) 0.0011159 (3/2,5/2,0,1) 0.0001332
(1,0,2,2) 0.0005143 (3/2,3/2,1,2) -0.0002152
(1,1,2,2) 0.0003562 (1/2,1/2,2,2) 0.0001109
(1,2,1,1) 0.0002912 (5/2,5/2,0,0) 0.0001907
(0,0,0,3) -0.0005163 (1/2,1/2,0,3) 0.0002217
(3,0,0,0) -0.0005617 (1/2,7/2,0,0) 0.0001005
(3,0,0,1) 0.0003064 (1/2,3/2,0,3) -0.0001036
: The largest couplings for the fixed point action of the free gluon with respect to the “mansard RGT”. The table includes all couplings in $\rho_{11}$ with values $\geq 2.5 \cdot 10^{-4}$ and all couplings in $\rho_{12}$ with values $\geq 10^{-4}$.
The dispersion relation of the transverse mansard gluon is again perfect, as it is the case for the perfect free fermion. If we truncate the couplings to distances $\leq 3/2$, we obtain the dispersion shown in Fig. 8. Due to our optimization of locality, the spectrum of the truncated fixed point gluon approximates the continuum spectrum still very well for small and moderate momenta. In practice, since these gauge fields are designed to couple to staggered fermions, the relevant momentum region is $|p_{\mu}| < \pi$, where the dispersion is quite good. We will find further evidence for this from the calculation of the quark-antiquark potential.
Polyakov loop and the static quark-antiquark potential
======================================================
It is also possible to construct perfect operators for a given RGT. One adds a source term to the continuum action (or the fine lattice action) and includes this term perturbatively in the blocking process. In Ref. [@GN] the perfect $\bar \chi \chi$ operator was constructed in this way. In principle this method allows us to build any perfect composite operators, but in practice this tends to be difficult.
It is easier to construct “classically perfect” fields and operators. Classically perfect fields are obtained by minimizing the continuum action together with the blocking transformation term. If one inserts $\hbar$ in the RGT expression (\[gauRGT\]), then one obtains them in the limit $\hbar \to 0$. For the free gauge field — and the RGT considered above — the classically perfect field reads $$\label{claga}
a^{c}_{\mu}(p) = \frac{1}{p^{2}} \Pi^{M}_{\mu}(p)
\Delta^{g}_{\mu}(p)^{-1} A_{\mu}(p) ,$$ where $a_{\mu}^{c}$ is in the Landau gauge and $A_{\mu}$ in the fixed point lattice Landau gauge. Note that classically perfect fields are defined in the continuum.
We obtain “classically perfect operators” from continuum operators if we replace the continuum fields by classically perfect fields, which are then expressed in terms of lattice fields. For instance, we can build a classically perfect Polyakov loop as $$\phi^{c}(\vec x ) = \int dx_{d} \ a_{d}^{c}(\vec x , x_{d}).$$ Inserting the gauge field given in eq. (\[claga\]), we obtain in momentum space $$\phi^{c}(\vec p ) = \frac{1}{\vec p^{\, 2}} \Pi^{M}_{d}(\vec p ,0)
\Delta_{d}^{g}(\vec p ,0)^{-1} A_{d}(\vec p ,0) .$$ Also this operator is defined in the continuum, in contrast to the standard lattice Polyakov loop $\Phi (\vec p )=A_{d}(\vec p ,0)$. Of course we can restrict the classically perfect Polyakov loop to lattice points by imposing $2\pi$ periodicity, $$\Phi^{c}(\vec p ) = \sum_{\vec l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d-1}}
\frac{1}{(\vec p + 2\pi \vec l)^{2}} \Pi^{M}_{d}
(\vec p + 2\pi \vec l,0) \Delta^{g}_{d}(\vec p,0)^{-1}
A_{d}(\vec p,0).$$
In $d=2$ we found $\Delta_{2}^{g}(p_{1},0)^{-1}=\hat p^{2}_{1}$, which leads to $$\Phi^{c}_{x} = \frac{1}{4} ( \Phi_{x+1}+2\Phi_{x}+\Phi_{x-1} ),$$ i.e. the classically perfect Polyakov loop is ultralocal on the 2d lattice. This confirms that the RGT parameters introduced in Sec. 4 optimize locality.
The correlation function of two classically perfect Polyakov loops, $$\langle \phi^{c}(-\vec p ) \phi^{c}(\vec p ) \rangle =
\frac{1}{(\vec p^{\, 2})^{2}} \Pi^{M}_{d}(\vec p ,0)^{2}
\Delta_{d}^{g}(\vec p,0)^{-1}$$ yields the static quark-antiquark potential $$\label{statpot}
V(\vec r ) = - \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d-1}} \int d^{d-1}p
\frac{1}{( \vec p ^{\, 2})^{2}} \Pi^{M}_{d}(\vec p ,0)^{2}
\Delta_{d}^{g}(\vec p ,0)^{-1} \exp (i\vec p \, \vec r) .$$ In $d=2$ this integral diverges as it stands. We subtract an infinite constant such that we obtain the correct behavior at large $r$. Then integration by contour techniques leads to $$V(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
r/2 & r \geq 1.5 \\
\!\!\!\! (-32r^{5}+240r^{4}-720r^{3}
+1080r^{2}-330r+243)/960 & 1 \leq r \leq 1.5 \\
(32r^{5}-80r^{4}-80r^{3}+440r^{2}-10r+179)/960 & 0.5 \leq r \leq 1 \\
(64r^{5}-160r^{4}+400r^{2}+178)/960 & 0 \leq r \leq 0.5 \end{array}
\right.$$ This potential is shown in Fig. 9. It is very smooth (four times continuously differentiable) and coincides with the exact potential at $r\geq 1.5$.
In $d=4$ the Fourier transform (\[statpot\]) has to be calculated numerically. The result is shown in Fig. 10 and compared to the static potential based on the standard lattice Polyakov loop, which is only defined if $\vec r$ is a lattice vector. For the classically perfect potential, we observe a faster convergence of the scaling quantity $\vert \vec r \vert V(\vec r)$ to the exact value $-1/4\pi $. Also rotational invariance is approximated much better, even down to $ \vert \vec r \vert <1$. The reason for the remaining artifacts in the classically perfect potential is related to the reason for imperfectness of the pressure discussed in Sec. 3. Here we also ignore “constant factors” in the Gaussian integrals of the RGT by taking just the minimum of the exponent. The remaining artifacts are exponentially suppressed.
Conclusions and outlook
=======================
We have constructed perfect free staggered fermions and perfect free gauge fields, which can be coupled consistently. This forms a basis for systematic perfect lattice perturbation theory, leading to a perturbatively perfect lattice action for QCD with staggered fermions. The next step is the evaluation of the perfect quark-gluon and the three gluon vertex functions as it was done for Wilson-like fermions [@QuaGlu; @StL; @prep]. In momentum space these vertex functions have almost the same form as written down in [@QuaGlu], with some modifications for staggered fermions and mansard gluons, which are obvious from the present paper. The lattice action thus obtained would be perfect for weak couplings. It may already be useful in lattice simulations even at moderate correlation length, since the classically perfect action is also expected to be one-loop perfect. The next step is to test the actions in simple situations. For example, one could study heavy quark physics, even though staggered fermions are not designed for such applications. In such a study, the worst artifacts of the standard lattice formulations originate from the large mass of the quarks. However, they are considerably suppressed for actions which are perfect at weak couplings. For Wilson fermions, we observed that even the use of the free perfect fermion action, together with standard lattice gauge fields, improves the mesonic dispersion dramatically [@StL] — although a large additive mass renormalization occurs. For staggered fermions, only a multiplicative mass renormalization will occur due to chiral symmetry.
An important aspect of staggered fermions is that they break the flavor symmetry when interacting with gauge fields. In lattice QCD with staggered fermions there is only one true “Goldstone pion”. The other pions remain massive in the chiral limit, which manifests the flavor symmetry breaking [@pion]. This is a major obstacle in studying chiral symmetry breaking at finite temperatures, since the number of flavors plays an important role in such studies. In an experiment with a “fat link” — consisting of a link plus staples with varying staple weight — it was possible to reduce the mass of the remaining pions by about a factor two [@Blum], which shows that there is a large potential for improvement by using non standard actions. However, the use of the Naik fermion does not seem to help here [@Bernard]. When we couple perfect staggered fermions and gauge fields consistently, we expect the flavor symmetry breaking to be strongly reduced. The “fat link” would naturally be incorporated. This could help to make the studies of chiral phase transitions at finite temperature more realistic. As a simpler experiment one could combine the truncated perfect staggered fermion with a standard lattice gauge field. Perhaps this already helps to decrease the flavor symmetry breaking. In principle, if the dynamics of the problem involve large gauge fields, as is obviously true for the physics of the light pions, it is unclear if the improvements obtained perturbatively are sufficient at the typical couplings where simulations can be performed. The couplings obtained perturbatively could undergo further renormalizations and new couplings may arise.[^7] In such a situation one has to resort to non-perturbative techniques in order to obtain the classically perfect action. In this case one rescales the QCD action with the gauge coupling $g$ and looks for a fixed point – i.e. a classically perfect action – of the rescaled theory. This can be done numerically by real space RGT steps, using the parameters for RGTs with finite blocking factors given in the appendix. The perturbatively perfect action may serve as a promising point of departure for this iteration. Thanks to the asymptotic freedom at $g=0$, such RGT steps only consist of minimization of the action on the fine lattice together with the transformation term. No (numerical) functional integration needs to be performed, which simplifies the task enormously. In practice one starts from an updated configuration on the coarse lattice and determines the minimizing fields on the fine lattice. In this way, the effects of strongly fluctuating field configurations can be incorporated.
0.5in [*Acknowledgment*]{}\
One of us, W.B., thanks F. Karsch for useful comments.
[**Appendix**]{}
Parameters for RGTs with finite blocking factors and the same fixed point
=========================================================================
In the limit $g=0$ (where we determine the FPA), the quarks decouple from the gauge fields, hence we can start by constructing a pure gauge FPA. Here we provide the analytic ingredients for this purpose.
In Sec.4 we derived a FPA for free gauge field, which is consistent with the gauge requirements of staggered fermions. There we blocked from the continuum, but of course the same FPA can also be obtained using finite blocking factor RGTs. The optimal RGT parameters, which provide ultralocality in $d=2$ and extreme locality in higher dimensions, depend on this blocking factor $n$ ($n$ odd). So far we only gave those parameters at $n \to \infty$. In this appendix we are going to identify them for general $n$. This is needed for the nonperturbative search of fixed points of non-Abelian gauge fields. There one does RGTs numerically, and is therefore restricted to finite blocking factors. In practice one would choose the smallest value $n=3$.
Assume we are at the fixed point of Sec.4 in the fixed point lattice Landau gauge, and we perform a block factor $n$ RGT, $$\begin{aligned}
\exp \{ -S' [A_{\mu}'] \} &=& \int {{\cal D}}A {{\cal D}}D
\exp \{ -S[A_{\mu}] \} \nonumber \\
& \times & \exp \Big\{ - \Big( \frac{n}{2\pi } \Big)^{d}
\int_{B_{4\pi /n}} \!\!\!\! d^{d}p \
\frac{1}{2} D_{\mu}(-p) \Omega_{\mu ,n}(p)
D_{\mu}(-p) \nonumber \\ && \hspace{-36mm}
+ i D_{\mu}(-p) \Big[ A_{\mu}'(p) - \frac{b_{n}}{n^{d}}
\sum_{l'} A_{\mu}(p+4\pi l'/n) \Pi^{M}_{n\mu}(p+4\pi l' /n)
(-1)^{l_{\mu}'} \Big] \Big\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $l' \in \{ 0,1,2, \dots , n-1 \}^{d}$ as in condition (\[congaumo\]), which is (smoothly) implemented here. For the smearing term $\Omega_{\mu ,n}$ we need an ansatz, which involves more parameters than it was the case for the blocking from the continuum, $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\mu ,n}(p) &=& \alpha_{n} + 4 \sin^{2}(np_{\mu}/4) \gamma_{n}
+ \sin^{2}(np_{\mu}/2) \omega_{n} \nonumber \\
&& + [ \delta_{n}+4 \sin^{2}(np_{\mu}/4) \sigma_{n} ] \prod_{\nu =1}^{d}
\cos^{2} (np_{\nu}/4) .\end{aligned}$$ The RGT parameters $b_{n}, \ \alpha_{n}, \ \gamma_{n}, \ \omega_{n},
\ \delta_{n}$ and $\sigma_{n}$ can now be determined from the condition that the action be invariant under this RGT. Doing this integral and rescaling the coarse lattice momenta into the full zone $B_{4\pi}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
S'[A_{\mu}'] &=& \exp \Big\{ - \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{d}} \int_{B_{4\pi}}
d^{d}p \frac{1}{2} A_{\mu}'(-p) \Delta_{\mu}^{g}{'}(p)^{-1} A_{\mu}'(p)
\Big\} , \nonumber \\
\Delta_{\mu}^{g}{'}(p) &=& \frac{b_{n}^{2}}{n^{d}}
\sum_{l'} \Delta^{g}_{\mu} ((p+4\pi l')/n) \Pi^{M}_{n \mu}
((p+4\pi l')/n)^{2} + \Omega_{\mu ,n}(p) .\end{aligned}$$ We combine the sum over $4\pi l'/n$ with the sum over $4\pi l , \
l \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}$, which is intrinsic in $\Delta_{\mu}^{g}$, to a sum over $4\pi \ell /n , \ \ell \in {Z \!\!\! Z}^{d}$. After doing some lengthy algebra and evaluating a number of trigonometric sums, we find that the fixed point condition $\Delta_{\mu}^{g}{'}(p) =
\Delta_{\mu}^{g}(p)$ is fulfilled if $$\begin{aligned}
b_{n}^{2} &=& n^{d-2} \ , \nonumber \\
2 \alpha_{n} &=& 3 \delta_{n} = 8n^{2} \omega_{n} = \frac{n^{2}-1}
{8 n^{2}} \ , \nonumber \\
4 \gamma_{n} &=& 9 \sigma_{n} = - \frac{(n^{2}-1)^{2}}{32 n^{4}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ We see that $\Omega_{\mu ,n}(p)$ is always positive, such that $\int {{\cal D}}D$ is well-defined. In particular, we confirm the result for $b_{n}$, which we anticipated in Sec.4 by dimensional reasons, and in the limit $n \to \infty $ we reproduce the parameters for the blocking from the continuum obtained in eq. (\[gRGTpar\]). As a further check we notice that $n=1$ yields a trivial identity transformation, as it should.
[30]{}
K. Wilson and J. Kogut, Phys. Rep. C12 (1974) 75.
P. Hasenfratz and F. Niedermayer, Nucl. Phys. B414 (1994) 785.
W. Bietenholz, E. Focht and U.-J. Wiese, Nucl. Phys. B 436 (1995) 385.
T. DeGrand, A. Hasenfratz, P. Hasenfratz and F. Niedermayer, Nucl. Phys. B454 (1995) 587; 615.
F. Farchioni, P. Hasenfratz, F. Niedermayer and A. Papa, Nucl. Phys. B454 (1995) 638.
W. Bietenholz and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Lett. B 378 (1996) 222.
W. Bietenholz and U.-J. Wiese, Nucl. Phys. B464 (1996) 319.
W. Bietenholz, R. Brower, S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese, to appear in Proc. of LAT96 (hep-lat/9608068).
W. Bietenholz and U.-J. Wiese, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 34 (1994) 516.
T. Kalkreuter, G. Mack and M. Speh, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C3 (1992) 121.
H. Dilger, hep-lat/9610029.
G. Mai, Ein Bloskspin für $2^{d/2}$ Fermionen, diploma thesis, Hamburg (1989).\
G. Mack, T. Kalkreuter, G. Palma and M. Speh, in “Lecture Notes in Physics” 409 (Springer, Berlin 1992), eds. H. Gausterer and C. Lang, p. 205.
U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Lett. B315 (1993) 417.
S. Naik, Nucl. Phys. B316 (1989) 238.
M. Nauenberg and B. Nienhuis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 944.
A. Patel and S. Sharpe, Nucl. Phys. B395 (1993) 701; B417 (1994) 307.\
Y. Luo, hep-lat/9604025.
F. Karsch et al., to appear in Proc. of LAT96 (hep-lat/9608047).
M. Alford, T. Klassen and G. P. Lepage, hep-lat/9611010.
W. Bietenholz, R. Brower, S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese, in preparation.
C. Bernard and M. Golterman, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 853.\
S. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 3146.\
For reviews see e.g.\
R. Gupta, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 42 (1995) 85.\
D. Sinclair, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 47 (1996) 112.\
and references therein. For a very recent work, see\
S. Kim and S. Ohta, to appear in Proc. of LAT96 (hep-lat/9609023).
T. Blum et al., hep-lat/9609036.
C. Bernard et al., to appear in Proc. of LAT96 (hep-lat/9608102).
[^1]: This work is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818.
[^2]: This has also been achieved by H. Dilger, in a way which emphasizes the relationship to Dirac-Kähler fermions [@Dilg]. A similar suggestion occurred earlier in Ref. [@Hambu]. As a further approach one could first construct perfect naiv fermions, including all the doublers, and then build perfect staggered fermions from them. We thank M.-P. Lombardo for this remark.
[^3]: This is in contrast to Wilson-like fermions, where a chiral symmetry breaking smearing parameter is required for a local FPA [@UJW].
[^4]: Note that $\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} dp_{4}$ and the sum over $l_{4}$ combine to $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dp_{4}$.
[^5]: Sometimes higher branches are referred to as “ghosts”, which should not be confused, however, with Faddeev-Popov ghosts.
[^6]: For Wilson fermions the ratio $P/T^{4}$ has a peak $\sim 1.9$ at $N_{t}\sim2,3$ [@StL]. For a discussion of the artifacts in standard staggered fermions and an improvement program for its matrix elements, see [@Luo].
[^7]: However, we would like to emphasize that the perturbatively perfect action will approach the scaling region must faster than standard actions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The analysis on stability and bifurcations in the macroscopic dynamics exhibited by the system of two coupled large populations comprised of $N$ stochastic excitable units each is performed by studying an approximate system, obtained by replacing each population with the corresponding mean-field model. In the exact system, one has the units within an ensemble communicating via the time-delayed linear couplings, whereas the inter-ensemble terms involve the nonlinear time-delayed interaction mediated by the appropriate global variables. The aim is to demonstrate that the bifurcations affecting the stability of the stationary state of the original system, governed by a set of $4N$ stochastic delay-differential equations for the microscopic dynamics, can accurately be reproduced by a flow containing just four deterministic delay-differential equations which describe the evolution of the mean-field based variables. In particular, the considered issues include determining the parameter domains where the stationary state is stable, the scenarios for the onset and the time-delay induced suppression of the collective mode, as well as the parameter domains admitting bistability between the equilibrium and the oscillatory state. We show how analytically tractable bifurcations occurring in the approximate model can be used to identify the characteristic mechanisms by which the stationary state is destabilized under different system configurations, like those with symmetrical or asymmetrical inter-population couplings.'
author:
- 'Igor Franovi'' c'
- 'Kristina Todorovi'' c'
- 'Nebojša Vasovi'' c'
- 'Nikola Buri'' c'
title: Mean field approximation of two coupled populations of excitable units
---
The onset and mutual adjustment of collective rhythms are regarded as the dynamical paradigm for the macroscopic phenomena in a wide range of biological and inorganic systems. Such a framework has already proven indispensable for understanding the normal and pathological patterns of brain activity [@neural; @T07], coordination of cellular clocks governing the circadian rhythms [@YIMOYK03], the mechanisms regulating heartbeat [@GM88] or lying behind certain forms of social behavior [@social], entrainment of electrochemical oscillators [@KZH02], as well as the dynamics of Josephson junction circuits [@WCS96] and the arrays of coupled lasers [@KRACS05]. The emergence of macroscopic rhythms in ensembles of oscillating units is mediated by the synchronization based self-organization [@synchro]. The latter is often influenced or facilitated by noise on one hand [@noise; @ampdeath], while on the other hand, the interaction over the appropriate communication channels is typically susceptible to transmission delays or there may be a time lag due to the system components’ latency in response to input variations [@delay]. A pervasive idea in nonlinear dynamics is to treat an assembly exhibiting a collective mode as a macroscopic oscillator [@BRZKP09], which could in turn be subjected to an external drive or be exposed to a single or multiple collective rhythms from other populations. In this context, an important issue is to consider the relationship between the ensembles’s global variable and the external forcing or that between the corresponding global variables.
In terms of the dynamical complexity of the observed behavior and the methods available for the analytical study, one has to make a distinction between the cases where the populations are built of self-sustained (autonomous) oscillators or the excitable units. In the former instance, it is possible to obtain a more compact description of the interacting ensembles’ dynamics by applying the phase reduction techniques [@OA08; @Kawamura; @KNAKK09]. Given that the phase cannot be attributed to the system residing at the equilibrium, excitable populations are not amenable to such methods. Nonetheless, on the level of elementary behavior associated with the macroscopic variables, populations containing the excitable or self-oscillating units undergo qualitatively similar forms of dynamics. In particular, the ensuing collective modes may synchronize [@BHOS08; @MKB04], become phase-locked or get suppressed by the action of the coupling delay (delay-induced amplitude death) [@RP04]. Beyond such simple cases, there are more complex forms of collective behavior tied exclusively to populations of interacting oscillators. A few prominent examples include the self-organized quasiperiodicity [@BRZKP09] and the partially synchronous chimaera states [@AMSW08; @OPT10], which have been found to emerge in systems of identical phase oscillators under the action of external forcing or by coupling to another population, respectively. The former regime is characterized by the frequency of the collective mode being distinct from that of the single elements, while the other involves a broken symmetry between the dynamics of two interacting populations.
In this study, the focus lies with the two delay-coupled populations of identical excitable units modeled by the Fitzhugh-Nagumo elements. The behavior of the latter is representative for the type II excitability [@I07], which in contrast to type I, lacks a sharp threshold in a sense that the amplitude of the response depends continuously on the size of the applied stimulus. Though the considered framework is quite general, the basic motivation admittedly draws from the observations on neuronal assemblies, with the adopted model of local activity typically invoked in such a context. The analysis of the underlying system dynamics may be approached from two different angles. For one, a numerical study can be carried out to look for the states of the increasing dynamical complexity. Instead, we take on a strategy that consists in examining how well is the behavior of the exact system matched by that of the coupled mean-field (MF) systems, having derived the MF model as an approximation for the activity of a single ensemble. The concept aims to fully exploit the analogy between the assemblies and the macroscopic oscillators, such that the original set of equations for the microscopic dynamics is reduced to a flow which describes the evolution of the global variables, incorporating the cross-population interaction in a natural way. An important ingredient for the setup is that both the intra- and the cross-population coupling terms include the transmission delays. Note that the layout with two populations may constitute a paradigm, or rather serve as a nucleus for the “network of networks” [@BHOS08; @OPT10; @SR12], which can be realized as a hierarchy of multiple networks, or it could be thought of as an idealization for a single network with a strong modular structure and a large number of elements in each community (subnetwork). Both configurations are common in biological systems [@BHOS08], ranging from the cellular level to the distributed anatomical areas of the brain, and also encompassing the populations of cells responsible for the rhythmic activity in heart, kidney, pancreas, to name but a few. As for the comparison with the MF model, the attempts at providing a reduced description instead of using the complete set of equations for each and every population constituent, have a particularly long history within the neuroscience [@LGNS04; @SJ08; @H08]. Apart for the gains on the modeling side, they have initially been instigated by the finding that the EEG and MEG recordings may be linked to an average behavior, viz. the massively summed action potentials emitted within the strongly coupled, but remote cortical areas [@DF03; @SJ08]. Though the given approach inevitably includes simplifying assumptions that eventually constrain the repertoire of possible system behaviors just to periodic motion, some of the realism may readily be sacrificed for a more parsimonious representation if the emergence of the collective mode and the related dynamics are reproduced with sufficient fidelity.
The mean field approximation has been applied on systems of excitable units with noise but with no time-delay for example in [@Takvel],[@Tanabe],[@Chaos],[@ZNFSG03]. Otherwise a type of MF approximarion was devised in [@Hasagawa1] and [@Hasagawa2] and applied on large clusters of noisy neurons with time-delayed interaction in [@Hasagawa3]. However, the approximations made in these papers resulted in a system of equations that is still to large to be analyzed analytically, so that the approximate system must be studied numerically. We shall utilize an approximate system of only two DDDE, introduced in [@BRTV10], for the dynamics of the mean fields for each of the two populations. Such a simple system allows analytical treatment of bifurcations and the parameter domains of stability of the stationary states which turn out to be in a quite good agrement with the exact complex system.
The key set of issues addressed in this study amounts to identifying the conditions for the stability of the stationary state, the onset of the collective mode, bistability between the equilibrium and the oscillation state, as well as the time-delay induced suppression of the collective mode. One notes that the applied term “collective mode” here implies the existence of a limit cycle for the total system of interacting populations. Though the intention is not, or rather cannot be to account for any experimental observation of such phenomena, some elementary comparison can still be drawn. For instance, the notion that the emergence and the synchronization properties of collective rhythms arising in the macroscopic neural populations are critically influenced by the coupling strength and the interaction delay [@DF03] has its clear analogue in the results we arrive at. Consistent with the stated objectives, the study of the approximate system is concerned with the local bifurcation analysis, carried out analytically and corroborated by the numerical means, to determine $i)$ the parameter domains of stability of the steady states, $ii)$ the scenarios for the emergence or the suppression of the collective mode, and $iii)$ the parameter domains admitting the bistability between the equilibrium and the oscillatory state.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Model\], the details of the exact model of interacting populations are laid out in parallel with the derivation of its MF counterpart. Section \[Results:analytical\] is focused on the local bifurcation analysis of the approximate model, providing for the analytical results. In Section \[Results:comparison\], we demonstrate that the approximation based on two coupled MF systems is able to accurately predict the behavior of the exact system in terms of the stability of the equilibrium, as well as the onset and the suppression of the collective mode. It is also pointed out how different system configurations affect the scenarios for the emergence of the oscillatory state and influence the parameter domains supporting its coexistence with the equilibrium. The results are briefly summarized and discussed in the concluding section.
Background on the exact model and derivation of its MF counterpart {#Model}
==================================================================
Details of the exact model {#sub:exact}
--------------------------
Each population comprises a collection of $N$ identical Fitzhugh-Nagumo elements [@I07; @diffusive], whose dynamics is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon dx_{i,1}&=(x_{i,1}-x_{i,1}^3/3-y_{i,1}+I_1)dt+\frac{g_{in,1}}{N}\times\nonumber \\
&\sum_{j=1}^{N}[x_{j,1}(t-\tau_{in,1})-x_{i,1}(t)]dt+g_{c,1}\times\nonumber \\
&\arctan[X_2(t-\tau_{c,1})+b_2]dt, \nonumber\\
dy_{i,1}&=(x_{i,1}+b_1)dt + \sqrt{2D_1}dW_{i,1}\nonumber\\
\epsilon dx_{i,2}&=(x_{i,2}-x_{i,2}^3/3-y_{i,2}+I_2)dt+\frac{g_{in,2}}{N}\times\nonumber \\
&\sum_{j=1}^{N}[x_{j,2}(t-\tau_{in,2})-x_{i,2}(t)]dt+g_{c,2}\times\nonumber \\
&\arctan[X_1(t-\tau_{c,2})+b_1]dt, \nonumber\\
dy_{i,2}&=(x_{i,2}+b_2)dt + \sqrt{2D_2}dW_{i,2}, \label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ where the subscripts $k=1,2$ specify the population, indices $i=1,..N$ denote a particular unit within the population, and $X_k=(1/N)\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}x_{i,k}$ stand for the macroscopic variables that typify the global population behavior. The small parameter $\epsilon=0.01$ imposes a wide separation between the characteristic time scales for the evolution of $x_{i,k}$ and $y_{i,k}$. In the context of neuronal activity the set of fast variables embodies the membrane potentials, whereas the slow-variable set is supposed to account for the gross kinetics of the potassium ion-gating channels. In the absence of an external stimulation $I_1=I_2=0$ applies. The impact of a noisy background activity is reflected by the $\sqrt{2D}dW_{i}$ terms, which represent the stochastic increments of the independent Wiener processes specified by the noise amplitude $D$, expectation values $\langle dW_i \rangle=0$ and the correlations that satisfy $\langle dW_idW_j\rangle=\delta_{ij}dt$ for each population.
Owing to the system configuration, the local dynamics involves two types of interactions, each characterized by the coupling strength and the delay. The respective parameters associated with the intra-ensemble terms are $g_{in,k}$ and $\tau_{in,k}$, while the cross-population terms are awarded $g_{c,k}$ and $\tau_{c,k}$. Within the populations, the elements communicate via the simple linear (diffusive) couplings, such that $\tau_{in}$ may account for the transmission delays due to finite rate of signal propagation or the latency in unit responses. Given the objectives stated in the Introduction, it is not unjustified to make use of some simplifying assumptions, like the all-to-all pattern of interconnections and the uniformity of coupling strengths inside the ensembles, which are the abstractions often invoked in the relevant literature [@alltoall]. As for the cross-population interactions, at the current stage no particular model is considered to be preferred over the others. However, we make use of an analogy to neural systems by noting how a variety of models display a common feature. Stated in the language of neuroscience, the evoked postsynaptic potentials can be expressed in a symbolical form $h=s\otimes m$, where $m$ refers to an average density of presynaptic input arriving from the transmitter population, and $s$ presents the threshold-like response of the neurons of the receiving population [@DF03]. Adhering to this concept, the output of the transmitter population is integrated by the macroscopic variables $X_k=(1/N)\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}x_{i,k}$, which reflect the global behavior in a sense that the better the synchronization among the constituent elements, the larger the amplitudes of $X_k$. In terms of the nonlinear threshold function, there is a degree of arbitrariness, so the $\arctan$ form applied here is as good a choice as any. Unlike the interactions within the populations, which are characterized by the specific strengths per link, the inter-population terms involve the cumulative strengths, consistent with the idea of viewing each population as a single macroscopic oscillator. The meaning of the parameter $b$ is explained in more detail further below. The bidirectional couplings between the ensembles, being either symmetrical or asymmetrical, may be important from the aspect of neuroscience, given that the brain connectivity patterns are known to exhibit a large portion of reciprocal interactions [@SJ08]. On the level of local dynamics, the parameter $b$ plays a key role as it modulates the unit’s excitability. For an isolated unit in the noiseless case, the condition $|b|=1$ determines the Hopf bifurcation threshold, above which the system possesses a unique equilibrium, whereas below it one finds a limit cycle. Selecting $b$ slightly above $1$, like the value $b=1.05$ held throughout the paper, the population elements are poised quite close to the Hopf threshold, which gives rise to an excitable behavior. In such a regime, an adequate stimulation, be it by the noise or the interaction terms, may evoke large transients within the fast variable subspace before the ensuing trajectories converge back to rest. Note that in the scenario where noise acts in the slow subsystem, the elicited limit cycles are just the precursors of the deterministic ones [@FHNdyn]. Turning back to the role of $b$ in the cross-population coupling, it is seen to ensure that the largest contribution to the interaction term comes from the global states lying farthest away from the equilibrium.
Background and the formulation of the MF approximation {#sub:MF}
------------------------------------------------------
Deriving the MF approximation, we aspire for a highly reduced set of nonlinear DDE instead of the original system comprised of a large set of nonlinear SDDE. Though a simplified representation, the MF model should still be able to reproduce with sufficient accuracy the latter’s behavior regarding the stability of the steady states, the scenarios for the onset of the collective mode and its suppression under the action of the cross-population coupling delay. The MF treatment draws on the all-to-all type of connectivity among neurons within each population, incorporating the thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ in a natural way [@LGNS04]. In order to build a MF model, two different approaches are available to proceed with: one may either consider the time-dependence of a hierarchy of probability densities according to the Fokker-Planck formalism, or may focus on the evolution of cumulants, whereby the full density of states is factorized into a series of marginal densities. The latter alternative is preferred, as it allows for a number of convenient approximations to be introduced in a controlled fashion [@LGNS04]. Note how one is bound to make some approximations for the nonlinearity of the original system, given that the cumulants of the particular order are usually linked to those of the higher order, which apparently renders the underlying series unclosed. The way to resolve this issue consists in truncating the series by a form of a closure hypothesis. Such hypothesis typically integrates the cumulant approach with the Gaussian approximation [@Gaussian1; @Gaussian2], recalling that the Gaussian distribution has vanishing cumulants above the second order.
Confined to a single population, the Gaussian approximation involves two elementary prepositions: first, that the instantaneous distributions of local variables $P(x_i)$ and $P(y_i)$ are Gaussian, and second, that the ensemble averages at any given moment coincide with the expectation values of the appropriate distributions in a sense $(1/N)\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}x_i\approx E[P(x_i)], (1/N)\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}y_i\approx E[P(y_i)]$ [@Gaussian1; @Gaussian2]. If the two stated conditions are met, all the cumulants above the second order are supposed to vanish. Let us briefly comment on the constraints which these conditions impose on the system parameters. As for the first point, the Gaussian distribution of local variables is maintained if the noise amplitude obeys $D<<1$. Nonetheless, the strong law of large numbers [@A98] implies that the second condition concerning the ensemble averages is fulfilled exactly in the thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ if the involved stochastic processes are independent $(g_{in}<<1)$. However, the numerical results presented further on indicate that the MF approximation remains valid if the two latter conditions are relaxed, viz. when there is non-negligible interaction in the finite-size systems, provided that the requirement for not too large a noise amplitude is satisfied.
In the following, we outline the key steps in the derivation of the MF model for the activity of an interacting assembly. The derivation presents a slight generalization of the one presented in [@BRTV10]. To begin with, note that the cross-population coupling terms involve only the average dynamics of the respective transmitter populations. This means that the focus should really lie with the internal ensembles’ dynamics, treating them temporarily as if they were independent, while subsequently including the inter-population interaction. Therefore, we confine further presentation to a single population, whose dynamics is extracted from by setting $g_{c,1}$ or $g_{c,2}$ to zero $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon dx_i&=(x_i-x_i^3/3-y_i)dt+\frac{g_{in}}{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}[x_j(t-\tau_{in})-x_i(t)]dt, \nonumber\\
dy_i&=(x_i+b)dt + \sqrt{2D}dW_i, \label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ Given that the distributions of the stochastic local variables are assumed to take on the Gaussian form, one can fully characterize them by the set of the first and second order moments, which includes the mean values, the variances and the covariance. The mean values applied here $$\begin{aligned}
m_x(t)&=\langle x_i(t)\rangle=\lim\limits_{N\rightarrow\infty}(1/N)\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}x_i(t) \nonumber \\ m_y(t)&=\langle y_i(t)\rangle=\lim\limits_{N\rightarrow\infty}(1/N)\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}y_i(t) \label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ should strictly speaking be distinguished from the global variables $X$ and $Y$ considered earlier for the large, but still finite-size populations. The angled brackets are generally used to denote averaging over the units making up the ensemble, whereas $m_x$ and $m_y$ are reserved solely for the averages of the local variables. Before introducing the second order moments, it is convenient to define the deviations from the mean $n_{x_i}(t)=\langle x_i(t)\rangle-x_i(t)$ and $n_{y_i}(t)=\langle y_i(t)\rangle-y_i(t)$, which obey the Gaussian distributions and are independent between the single elements. Then the appropriate variances read $$\begin{aligned}
s_x(t)&=\langle n_{x_i}^2(t)\rangle=\langle(\langle x_i(t)\rangle-x_i(t))^2\rangle \nonumber \\
s_y(t)&=\langle n_{y_i}^2(t)\rangle=\langle(\langle y_i(t)\rangle-y_i(t))^2\rangle, \label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$ whereas the covariance is given by $$u(t)=\langle n_{x_i}(t)n_{y_i}(t)\rangle=\langle(\langle x_i(t)\rangle-x_i(t))(\langle y_i(t)\rangle-y_i(t))\rangle. \label{eq5}$$
The evolution of the distributions’ means $m_x$ and $m_y$ is obtained by performing the ensemble averages over the system (\[eq2\]), while the expressions for the dynamics of $s_x,s_y$ and $u$ follow from explicitly taking the time derivatives of the definitions (\[eq4\]) and (\[eq5\]). Note that the latter calculation also involves the derivatives of the compound functions of the stochastic variables such as $d\langle x_i^2\rangle/dt$ and $d\langle y_i^2\rangle/dt$, where one is required to apply the Ito’s chain rule. As for the higher order averages, like $\langle x_i^2\rangle$ and $\langle x_i^3\rangle$, it is necessary to tie them to the first and second order moments. In the simplest cases, this is accomplished by using the definitions (\[eq4\]) and (\[eq5\]), while in most instances one arrives at the required relations by setting the higher order cumulants [@G85] to zero, e.g. $\langle x_i^3\rangle_c=\langle x_i^3\rangle-3\langle x_i^2\rangle\langle x_i\rangle+2\langle x_i\rangle^3=0$, $\langle x_i^2y_i\rangle_c=\langle x_i^2y_i\rangle-\langle x_i^2\rangle\langle y_i\rangle-2\langle x_i\rangle\langle x_iy_i\rangle+2\langle x_i\rangle^2\langle y_i\rangle=0$, and similar for $\langle x_i^3y_i\rangle_c=0$ and $\langle x_i^4\rangle_c=0$. The ensuing auxiliary formulas for the higher order averages then read $$\begin{aligned}
\langle x_i^2\rangle&=s_x+m_x^2 \nonumber \\
\langle x_i^3\rangle&=m_x^3+3m_xs_x \nonumber \\
\langle x_i^4\rangle&=m_x^4+6m_x^2s_x+3s_x^2 \nonumber \\
\langle x_iy_i\rangle&=u+m_xm_y \nonumber \\
\langle x_i^2y_i\rangle&=m_ys_x+m_ym_x^2+2m_xu \nonumber \\
\langle x_i^3y_i\rangle&=3s_xu+3m_x^2u+m_ym_x^3+3m_xm_ys_x. \nonumber \\ \label{eq6}\end{aligned}$$ After a series of steps which are too lengthy to convey in full detail, the closed system of equations for the first and second order moments finally becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon \frac{dm_x(t)}{dt}&=m_x(t)-m_x(t)^3/3-s_x(t)m_x(t)-m_y(t)+\nonumber \\
&g_{in}(m_x(t-\tau_{in})-m_x(t)) \nonumber \\
\frac{dm_y(t)}{dt}&=m_x(t)+b \nonumber \\
\frac{\epsilon}{2}\frac{ds_x(t)}{dt}&=s_x(t)(1-m_x^2(t)-s_x(t)-g_{in})-u(t) \nonumber \\
\frac{1}{2}\frac{ds_y(t)}{dt}&=u(t)+D \nonumber \\
\frac{du(t)}{dt}=&\frac{u(t)}{\epsilon}(1-m_x^2(t)-s_x(t)-g_{in})-\frac{1}{\epsilon}s_y(t)+s_x(t). \label{eq7}\end{aligned}$$ Note that (\[eq7\]) comprises a set of deterministic delay equations, where the impact of noise is absorbed into its amplitude $D$. Recalling the Introduction, one of the objectives has been to carry out the bifurcation analysis on the MF model analytically. However, the system (\[eq7\]) is still sufficiently complex to defy such a treatment. To ensure that the bifurcation analysis is analytically tractable, we consider an additional approximation which concerns the relatively fast relaxation of the second order moments. Given that the characteristic time scales, at least for $s_x$ and $u$, are dominated by the small parameter $\epsilon$, one may substitute their full dynamics by the stationary values reached when $\dot{s_x}=0,\dot{s_y}=0$ and $\dot{u}=0$ are satisfied. Though a crude approximation, it is not an uncommon one [@LGNS04; @Gaussian2]. In the language of neuroscience, the net result it yields is comparable to translating the initial MF model into an effective neural-mass model [@DF03], the former (latter) associated with the system of five (two) equations. Nevertheless, whether this is justified or not strongly depends on the main objectives of the study, which here concern the stability of the stationary state, the onset of the collective mode and its suppression in an amplitude death-like phenomenon [@ampdeath]. As it stands, the described modification to the MF model should not substantially affect the latter set of issues, since the information supplied by the second order variables, like that on small fluctuations around the collective synchronous state, appears redundant in such a context. This is corroborated later on by the results indicating an agreement between the behaviors of the exact and the MF approximation.
To complete the MF approximation for the dynamics of the two interacting populations, one should take into account the inter-ensemble interactions initially left aside, arriving at the following set of four equations $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon \frac{dm_{x,1}(t)}{dt}&=m_{x,1}(t)-\frac{m_{x,1}(t)^3}{3}-\frac{m_{x,1}(t)}{2}(1-g_{in,1}- \nonumber \\
&m_{x,1}(t)^2+\sqrt{(g_{in,1}-1+m_{x,1}(t)^2)^2+4D_1})- \nonumber \\
&m_{y,1}(t)+g_{in,1}(m_{x,1}(t-\tau_{in,1})-m_{x,1}(t))+ \nonumber \\
&g_{c,1}\arctan(m_{x,2}(t-\tau_{c,1})+b_2) \nonumber \\
\frac{dm_{y,1}(t)}{dt}&=m_{x,1}(t)+b_1 \nonumber \\
\epsilon \frac{dm_{x,2}(t)}{dt}&=m_{x,2}(t)-\frac{m_{x,2}(t)^3}{3}-\frac{m_{x,1}(t)}{2}(1-g_{in,2}- \nonumber \\
&m_{x,2}(t)^2+\sqrt{(g_{in,2}-1+m_{x,2}(t)^2)^2+4D_2})- \nonumber \\
&m_{y,2}(t)+g_{in,2}(m_{x,2}(t-\tau_{in,2})-m_{x,2}(t))+ \nonumber \\
&g_{c,2}\arctan(m_{x,1}(t-\tau_{c,2})+b_1) \nonumber \\
\frac{dm_{y,2}(t)}{dt}&=m_{x,2}(t)+b_2 \nonumber \\ \label{eq8}\end{aligned}$$ Note that for $D_1=D_2=0$, the obtained system strongly resembles the case of two interacting Fitzhugh-Nagumo elements subjected to the delayed feedback. Another point is that the isolated populations ($g_{c,1}=g_{c,2}=0$) can be shown to exhibit the excitable-like dynamics under the variation of $D$ and $\tau$. By this is meant that apart from the small amplitude oscillations about the equilibrium, there may also be large excursions of the global potential, this reflecting the crucial feature of the exact system. In our previous paper, it has already been demonstrated that the MF model of a single assembly is able to accurately predict the qualitative behavior of the exact system [@BRTV10]. This refers to a sequence of local bifurcations under variation of $D$, $\tau_{in}$ and $g_{in}$, which can be used to highlight the parameter domains giving rise to oscillatory states or those that lead to the amplitude death [@BTV10]. In addition, the MF model of an isolated ensemble has also been found to reflect the global bifurcation imminent to the onset of clustering in the exact system [@FTVB12].
Before proceeding to the main results, several brief remarks on the applied numerical integration schemes are in order. The time series for both the exact and the approximate models are obtained by implementing the Euler method with the fixed time step $\Delta t=0.005$ in the former, and $\Delta t=0.01$ in the latter case, having verified that no changes occur for the smaller $\Delta t$. Also, on either occasion, we have adopted the standard and physically plausible initial functions, based on the assumption of the units evolving independently within the time interval $t\in[-\tau_{min},0]$, where $\tau_{min}=min\{\tau_{in,1},\tau_{in,2},\tau_{c,1},\tau_{c,2}\}$. This effectively amounts to integrating the systems (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq8\]) by disregarding any interaction for $t\in[-\tau_{min},0]$, with the initial conditions in each instance taken in the vicinity of the fixed point. The results for the exact model refer to populations made up of $N=200$ elements, but have been verified to persist if the larger assemblies are considered.
Analytical results of the local bifurcation analysis of the approximate system {#Results:analytical}
==============================================================================
In the two following sections, we first provide the details of the local bifurcation analysis performed on the approximate system and then examine whether and how well do these results match the behavior of the exact system, whereby the latter dynamics is represented by the typical sample paths obtained from numerical integration of (\[eq1\]) for the sufficiently large $N$ with $D_1,D_2\neq0$. On the first part, the analysis covers the stability of the attractor states for the total system of coupled populations, such that both of them are either found lying in the equilibrium or exhibiting oscillations. The main focus is on the stability of the fixed point and its destabilization under variation of the cross-population coupling strengths and delays. Apart for the onset of the oscillatory state, it is also considered how the coherent rhythms may become suppressed, this primarily attributed to the action of the inter-ensemble time lags. As a final matter, we demonstrate the existence of the parameter domains admitting the bistable regime, where the stationary and the oscillatory state coexist. Altogether, an inference confirmed later on is that the MF approximation can capture the behavior of the exact system much better if the collective dynamics is such that the deterministic component, controlled by the coupling strength and time delay, prevails over the stochastic component. The points enumerated above exhaust the corpus of problems that may approximately be treated by the local bifurcation theory, in a sense of explaining the qualitative changes arising in the system’s asymptotic dynamics due to parameter variation. Outside the scope remain the more complex phenomena occurring for larger $D$-s and $\tau$-s, which could cause the behavior of single units within the populations to become substantially stratified. Such issues would fall under the notion of stochastic bifurcations [@A98], meaning that one should consider how the parameter modification influences the changes of the respective stationary distributions of the local variables.
Since we discuss the scenarios with symmetrical and asymmetrical cross-population couplings, as well as the setups where the inherent ensemble dynamics is the same or distinct, the analytical results of the local bifurcation analysis on the system of interacting MF models are presented in most general terms with respect to the system parameters. First, it is established that the system possesses a unique equilibrium given by $$\begin{aligned}
m_{x,k}=-b_k; m_{y,k}&=\frac{b_k}{2}[1+\frac{b_k^2}{3}+g_{in,k}- \nonumber \\
&\sqrt{(g_{in,k}-1+b_k^2)^2+4D_k}] \label{eq9}\end{aligned}$$ with $k=1,2$. The local stability of depends on the roots of the characteristic equation of the system . To obtain the latter, one linearizes around the equilibrium, assuming that the deviations are of the form $\delta m_{x,k}(t)=A_ke^{\lambda t}, \delta m_{y,k}(t)=B_ke^{\lambda t}$ and $\delta m_{x,k}(t-\tau_{in,k})=A_ke^{\lambda (t-\tau_{in,k})}$. This results in a set of algebraic equations for the coefficients $A_k$ and $B_k$, which has a nontrivial solution only if $$\Delta_1(\lambda)\Delta_2(\lambda)-\lambda^2g_{c,1}g_{c,2}e^{-\lambda(\tau_{c,1}+\tau_{c,2})}=0 \label{eq10}$$ is fulfilled, where $\Delta_k(\lambda)=-\lambda F_k+\epsilon\lambda^2-g_{in,k}\lambda e^{-\lambda\tau_{in,k}}+1$ with $F_k=F_k(g_{in,k},b_k,D_k)$. The condition poses the desired characteristic equation, whose being transcendental reflects the presence of (multiple) time delays in . Though has an infinite number of roots, it is well known how there may be only a finite number of exceptional roots equal to zero or with a zero real part [@HL93; @Campbell]. One recalls that tangent to the subspace spanned by the associated eigenvectors lies the center manifold [@W00; @K04], where the qualitative features of the system’s dynamics, such as the local stability, are contingent on the nonlinear terms.
Bifurcations of the stationary state take place for the parameter values where the roots of cross the imaginary axes. Given that Eq. does not admit the possibility $\lambda=0$, we look for the pure imaginary roots of the form $\lambda=\imath\omega$, adopting $\omega$ to be real and positive. Substituting for $\lambda$ in , one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
&[-\imath\omega(F_1-\imath\epsilon\omega+g_{in,1}(\cos\omega\tau_{in,1}-\imath\sin\omega\tau_{in,1}))+1]\times\nonumber\\
&[-\imath\omega(F_2-\imath\epsilon\omega+g_{in,2}(\cos\omega\tau_{in,2}-\imath\sin\omega\tau_{in,2}))+1]+\nonumber\\
&\omega^2g_{c,1}g_{c,2}(\cos(\omega(\tau_{c,1}+\tau_{c,2}))-\imath\sin(\omega(\tau_{c,1}+\tau_{c,2})))=0 \label{eq11}\end{aligned}$$ which, after equating both the real and the imaginary parts with zero, provides for the implicit relations of $\omega$ and the system parameters $$\begin{aligned}
-\omega^2P_1P_2+Q_1Q_2&=-\omega^2g_{c,1}g_{c,2}\cos(\omega(\tau_{c,1}+\tau_{c,2})) \nonumber \\
\omega P_1Q_2+\omega P_2Q_1&=\omega^2g_{c,1}g_{c,2}\sin(\omega(\tau_{c,1}+\tau_{c,2})), \label{eq12}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
P_k&=F_k+g_{in,k}\cos(\omega\tau_{in,k}) \nonumber \\
Q_k&=\epsilon\omega^2+g_{in,k}\omega\sin(\omega\tau_{in,k})-1 \label{eq13}\end{aligned}$$ applies for $k=1,2$. Squaring and adding the relations , one arrives at $$(\omega^2P_1P_2-Q_1Q_2)^2+\omega^2(P_1Q_2+P_2Q_1)^2=\omega^4g_{c,1}^2g_{c,2}^2, \label{eq14}$$ which can be used to express the cross-population coupling strengths in terms of $\omega$, while keeping the values for the subset of the intrinsic parameters $g_{in,k},\tau_{in,k},b_k$ and $D_k$ fixed. Obtained in a similar fashion, the analogous result for the critical cross-population coupling delays may be written in the compact form $$\tau_{c,1}+\tau_{c,2}=\frac{1}{\omega}\arctan(\frac{\omega P_1Q_2+\omega P_2Q_1}{\omega^2P_1P_2-Q_1Q_2}). \label{eq15}$$ The last two equations combined define the curves in the appropriate delay-strength parameter plane. Bear in mind that Eq. actually defines multiple branches of the Hopf bifurcation curves, these given by $\tau_{c,1}+\tau_{c,2}+j\pi$, where $j=0,1,2...$. Naturally, the above relations further simplify once the inter-ensemble couplings are taken to be symmetrical and/or the populations’ intrinsic parameters are assumed to be identical. Note that the expressions such as these could not be obtained if we were to retain the initial MF model containing the full dynamics of the second order cumulants. As for the type of bifurcations whose location is indicated by , the very form of the solution adopted for the characteristic equation is consistent with the Hopf bifurcations, though a rigorous proof would require one to verify whether the conditions on non-hyperbolicity, transversality and genericity are satisfied [@K04; @I07; @Campbell]. Without entering into unnecessary details, it suffices to say that the system admits both the supercritical and subcritical Hopf bifurcations, whereby the former (latter) result in the creation of a stable (unstable) limit cycle. In addition, recall that either of these types can be direct or inverse [@W00], depending on whether an unstable two-dimensional manifold for the fixed point appears or vanishes when crossing the bifurcation curve, respectively, having the fixed point unfold on the unstable or the stable side. The results derived analytically are corroborated numerically by means of the DDE-biftool [@biftool], an adaptable package of Matlab routines suitable for handling the sets of DDE with constant delays.
Qualitative comparison between the dynamics of the exact and the approximate system {#Results:comparison}
===================================================================================
For the systematic study, we first consider the layout with two populations made up of independent excitable elements ($g_{in,1}=g_{in,2}=0$) subjected to a common, comparably small noise ($D_1=D_2=0.0001$), whereby the cross-population coupling terms are taken to be symmetrical, so one may introduce $g_{c,1}=g_{c,2}=g_c$ and $\tau_{c,1}=\tau_{c,2}=\tau_c$. The parameters are such that for $g_c=0$, the populations exhibit the asymptotically (stochastically) stable equilibrium in the MF (exact) model. Though it appears marginal at first sight, the described setup is still important, since the MF model is here strongly indicated to match the behavior of the real system. In a sense, this scenario is reminiscent of a null-hypothesis, given that the stated parameters are fully compliant with the nominal conditions for the validity of the MF approximation. One would further expect to gain some insight into the phenomena occurring for the more complex system configurations, or may at least obtain a reference point to isolate the effects of certain parameters, such as $g_{in}$ or $\tau_{in}$. In the remainder, the bifurcation diagrams are accompanied by the close-up views focused on the most relevant parameter domains, having those referred to in the text indicated by the representative symbols. Also, to distinguish between the different bifurcation curves, each is awarded with two types of indices. The $+/-$ sign specifies whether the curves coincide with the direct or inverse bifurcations, respectively, while the numerical index points to the order in which the given branches are encountered as the inter-population coupling delay is increased.
Appreciating the bifurcation diagram in Fig. \[Fig1\](a), a major point concerns the prediction on the existence of the critical strength $g_0$ for the instantaneous couplings ($\tau_c=0$), where the stationary state loses stability. For $g_c<g_0$, viz. the open circle in Fig. \[Fig1\](b), the equilibrium is stable, whereas for $g_c>g_0$ (solid circle) there is only the oscillatory state. The bifurcation scenario coincides with the direct supercritical Hopf bifurcation, and the numerical simulations imply that the unstable manifold for the equilibrium $m_{x,1}=m_{x,2}$ and $m_{y,1}=m_{y,2}$ around $g_c=g_0$ supports the oscillations in-phase, this being an example of synchronization between the units due to a common input. By the term “oscillations in-phase”, it is meant that the MF approximation indicates a solution with the exact synchronization between the global variables, which is stochastically perturbed in the exact system. What is described applies not only for $\tau_c=0$, but also holds in any instance when the curve $\tau_{1,-}$ is crossed in the direction of increasing $g_c$ with $\tau_c$ kept fixed. However, we note that there is an additional subtlety to this transition derived from an interplay with the fold-cycle bifurcation, a global event which cannot be accounted for by the present type of analysis. One finds that the system undergoes a global bifurcation around $g_c\approx0.055$, by which an unstable and a large stable limit cycle are born. This witnesses of an interval $g_c<g_0$ where the stationary and the oscillatory state coexist, with their attraction basins separated by the unstable limit cycle. Above $g_0$, the incipient limit cycle emerges around the former position of the equilibrium, but cannot fully grow with supercriticality, given that it is enclosed by the unstable limit cycle created in the global bifurcation. At some point, the stable and the unstable limit cycle collide and disappear in an inverse fold-cycle bifurcation, which is indicative of a narrow $g_c$ interval around $\tau_{1,-}$ corresponding to a bistable regime with a small and a large amplitude limit cycle, viz. the solid diamond in Fig. \[Fig1\](b). However, such bistability may be difficult to observe in the exact system for the sensitivity of the incipient cycle to stochastic perturbation, as even the very small noise amplitudes can prove sufficient to force the ensuing orbits outside of its neighborhood. Away from $g_0$, the system’s trajectory is eventually drawn to a distant limit cycle attractor.
To proceed with, we consider the effects of increasing $\tau_c$ under fixed coupling strength $g_c>g_0$. Crossing the first bifurcation curve from below $\tau_c>\tau_{1,-}$, viz. the domain indicated by an open triangle in Fig. \[Fig1\](b), the equilibrium is seen to regain stability via the inverse supercritical Hopf bifurcation. Given the analogy of the underlying mechanisms, this could have been interpreted as a genuine example of the delay-induced amplitude death, if there were not for the large limit cycle which is unaffected by the local bifurcation. Instead, this stability domain is characterized by the coexistence between the stationary and the oscillatory state. Nonetheless, enhancing the delay above $\tau_{2,+}$ gives rise to a region of instability, represented by the solid triangle in Fig. \[Fig1\](b), where one encounters only the two populations oscillating in phase. Such an outcome is due to a supercritical Hopf bifurcation, which is reflected by the equilibrium gaining an unstable plane. Note that the analysis cannot extend to larger delays, since the underlying phenomena do not fall within the framework of the current study. It should be emphasized that the oscillation frequency of the MF model has been verified to match the one of the exact system almost perfectly. This point applies for two parameter domains highlighted by the solid circle and the solid triangle in Fig. \[Fig1\](b). Under $\tau_{1,-}$, the respective oscillation period of the approximate model is $T_{\bullet,MF}=3.664$ in arbitrary units, whereas the associated average period for the exact system is $T_{\bullet,EX}=3.668$. Likewise, in the domain instantiated by the solid triangle, $T_{\blacktriangle,MF}=3.874$ and $T_{\blacktriangle,EX}=3.869$. The cited data witness that the MF model is able to predict the average frequency of macroscopic oscillations of the exact system with remarkable accuracy. From the aspect of comparison between the real and the approximate systems, one should as well look back at the values of the critical strength $g_0$. The agreement here is weaker, whereby the MF model is found to overestimate the value. This is not unexpected, given that the local phenomena are mediated by the background global bifurcation. Still, the tendency and rate by which $g_0$ decreases with enhancing $D$ is reflected reasonably well by the MF model.
The main results in this Section concern the canonical setup involving two identical populations of interacting excitable neurons ($g_{in,1}=g_{in,2}=0.1$), whereby the cross-population couplings are taken to be symmetrical [@OPT10; @MKB04]. The intrinsic ensemble parameters $D=0.0001,\tau_{in}=0.3$ warrant that the equilibrium is the only asymptotically (stochastically) stable state for the approximate (exact) model. Inspecting the appropriate bifurcation diagram in Fig. \[Fig2\](a), one readily realizes how, at variance with the previously discussed case, there is not one, but two scenarios for the destabilization of equilibrium. Which of the scenarios actually applies is contingent on the inter-population coupling strength $g_c$: if $g_c<g_0'$, viz. Fig. \[Fig2\](b), the equilibrium goes unstable via the direct supercritical Hopf bifurcation, while for $g_c>g_0'$, the onset of the collective mode rests with the direct subcritical Hopf bifurcation. In the latter instance, where $g_c$ notably outweighs $g_{in}$, an unstable limit cycle collapses at the fixed point making it unstable. Away from criticality, in the domain marked by the solid circle in Fig.\[Fig2\](b), the system’s trajectory eventually gets drawn to a distant limit cycle attractor. Again, both the stable and the unstable limit cycle derive from the fold-cycle bifurcation, whereas the numerical simulations confirm that the unstable manifold of the equilibrium at $(g_c,\tau_c)=(g_0',0)$ supports the symmetrical oscillatory state. Below the curve $\tau_{1,-}$, which is barely distinguishable from the $g_c$-axes in Fig. \[Fig2\](b), one finds a narrow interval of coupling strengths $g_c\gtrsim g_0$ where the emanating branch of the unstable solutions apparently folds back. As a corollary, the system of coupled MF models is seen to exhibit a bistable regime, such that the equilibrium and the collective mode coexist. However, such bistability is difficult to observe in the dynamics of the full system for the sensitivity of the equilibrium to stochastic perturbation. Interestingly, the approximation for the critical coupling strength $g_0'$ is significantly improved when compared to the previous system configuration, this possibly owing to the influence of the inter-ensemble interactions that were excluded earlier on. Crossing into the domain $\tau_{1,-}<\tau_c<\tau_{2,+}$ represented by the open square in Fig. \[Fig2\](b), the MF system undergoes an inverse subcritical Hopf bifurcation, such that the fixed point loses an unstable plane. Looking in a more general picture, this region of parameter space is supposed to be bistable between the equilibrium and the large limit cycle born via the global bifurcation. In parallel, the unstable limit cycle from the Hopf bifurcation should act like a threshold for switching between the two solutions. However, the stochastic component in the underlying dynamics prevents us from observing the bistable regime in the exact system. Above $\tau_{2,+}$, the equilibrium loses stability, giving way to the limit cycle as the sole attractor of the system’s dynamics.
. (a) and (b) show that below the curve ($g_c=0.16,\tau_c=0.06$), the fixed point is stochastically stable for the exact, and asymptotically stable for the approximate system, respectively. The onset of oscillations above the curve ($g_c=0.16,\tau_c=0.14$) is illustrated for the exact system in (c), and the approximate system in (d). The intrinsic population parameters are set to $D=0.0001, g_{in}=0.1$ and $\tau_{in}=0.3$. \[Fig3\]](Figure3)
Next we turn to the sequence of bifurcations obtained for $g_c<g_0'$, which is a physically more plausible range since $g_c$ lies closer to $g_{in}$. Below $\tau_{3,+}$, the stationary state is stable for both the real and the approximate system, with the appropriate parameter domain highlighted by the open up-triangle in Fig. \[Fig2\](b). Crossing $\tau_{3,+}$ from below, the system undergoes the supercritical Hopf bifurcation, such that the equilibrium becomes unstable, and the emerging oscillations are symmetrical. An interesting point for the transition between the domains marked by the open and solid up-triangles in Fig. \[Fig2\](b) is that for the moderate coupling strength, under not too large a noise the time lag turns out to be a necessary ingredient should the equilibrium be destabilized. For the more comprehensive view, one again has to consider the effects of the interplay with the global fold-cycle bifurcation, whereby a general remark is that everything stated on the direct supercritical Hopf bifurcation regarding the diagram in Fig. \[Fig1\](b) can carry over to this case. In brief, apart for the equilibrium, the system’s phase space below $\tau_{3,+}$ also exhibits an unstable limit cycle enclosing the fixed point and a large stable limit cycle. Above the latter curve, the incipient limit cycle grows only until colliding with the unstable one, both being annihilated in an inverse fold-cycle bifurcation. Then, all the trajectories are eventually drawn to the large limit cycle, left as the sole attractor. As for the predictions of the approximate system, one stresses that there is an excellent agreement between the oscillating waveforms, in particular when comparing the anticipated frequency with the average one for the real system, viz. $T_{\blacktriangle,MF}=3.836$ vs. $T_{\blacktriangle,EX}=3.833$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig3\], showing side-by-side the sequences from the time series $m_{x,i}(t)$ and $X_i(t)$ for $i=1,2$ below (top row) and above (bottom row) the curve $\tau_{3,+}$.
Further enhancing $\tau_c$ to step into the domain highlighted by an open down-triangle in Fig. \[Fig2\](b), one encounters the bistable dynamics, such that the system, depending on the initial conditions, may display either the stationary or the oscillatory state. The area is bounded by $\tau_{4,-}$ from below and $\tau_{5,+}$ from above. The found bistability regime is the consequence of the inverse subcritical Hopf bifurcation, where the emanating unstable cycle effectively acts to stabilize the fixed point, allowing for it to coexist with the collective mode, the latter present due to the global bifurcation. The possibility of observing bistability in the exact system is likely facilitated by the unstable limit cycle, whose amplitude is sufficient to separate more clearly between the attraction basins of the oscillatory solution and the equilibrium in spite of the stochastic perturbations induced by the relatively small, but non-negligible noise. The bistable regime is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig4\], which demonstrates the coexistence of the stationary (top row) and oscillatory states (bottom row) for both the exact model and the MF approximation. Note that the change in oscillating frequency in the real system, associated with crossing $\tau_{4,-}$ from below, is well matched by the approximate system. Stepping into the domain $\tau_{5,+}<\tau_c<\tau_{6,-}$, marked by the solid down-triangle in Fig. \[Fig2\](b), the key change consists in the switch from the bistable to a monostable regime, the latter attributed the oscillatory state with the synchronization in-phase. The switch occurs as the system undergoes the direct supercritical Hopf bifurcation, which adds unstable directions, altering the stability of the fixed point. The change from the bistable to the monostable regime occurs in the same fashion for the MF and the exact system. Setting $\tau_c$ above $\tau_{6,-}$, see the domain represented by the open diamond in Fig. \[Fig2\](b), one finds the bistability regime reinstated. However, the transition is accompanied by the modulation of the oscillating frequency, the point well reflected by the approximate system, viz. $T_{\diamond,EX}=4.097$ against $T_{\diamond,MF}=4.119$. In general, the increase of coupling delay is biased toward reducing the oscillating frequency.
. The values for the intrinsic parameter subset are $D=0.0001, g_{in}=0.1$ and $\tau_{in}=0.3$.\[Fig4\]](Figure4)
Note that the qualitatively similar sequence of bifurcations is verified to persist in a range of $g_{in}$ values, if $D$ and $\tau_{in}$ are set so to admit the stable stationary state as the sole attractor for the isolated populations. Nonetheless, in order for this framework to reflect accurately the behavior of the exact system, one should not consider too large noise amplitudes. The perturbation from larger $D$ may be envisioned as if leading to an effective broadening of the bifurcation curves for the real system, which renders the entire sequence smeared, and the underlying qualitative changes difficult to discern.
[*Asymmetrical coupling*]{}
A question that naturally arises is whether and how is the physical picture so far modified by taking the asymmetrical, rather than the symmetrical cross-population coupling terms. We have examined two different scenarios: by one, the couplings in either direction retain a common time lag, but attain different strengths, whereas in the other, strengths are the same, but the transmission delays are disparate. In the former case, the coupling strength in one direction, say $g_{c,1}$ is kept fixed, while $g_{c,2}$ varies continuously. The bifurcation diagram in the $\tau_c$-$g_{c,2}$ plane is plotted in Fig. \[Fig5\](a), whereby the intrinsic population parameters are identical to those stated in the caption of Fig. \[Fig2\]. One may immediately raise the issue of why is the bifurcation sequence profile much simpler compared to that in Fig. \[Fig2\](a). The possible reason lies in that for the cross-population couplings asymmetrical by strength, the system’s behavior is predominantly influenced by the global bifurcation phenomena dependent on $g_{c,1}$ and $g_{c,2}$. Nonetheless, one cannot neglect some qualitative resemblance between the dynamics of the MF and the exact system. For instance, below $\tau_{1,+}$ in Fig. \[Fig5\](a), the equilibrium is stable for either system, but participates in the bistable regime. Along with the stationary state, one also finds an oscillatory state where the two populations are locked with a constant phase shift. This collective mode can only be attributed to the global bifurcation events. Crossing $\tau_{1,+}$ from below results in the creation of a limit cycle, leaving the equilibrium unstable. Both the real and the approximate model exhibit a single attractor supporting the phase-locked oscillations between the two populations, whereby the underlying frequencies are well matched, viz. $T_{\bullet,MF}=4.281$ against $T_{\bullet,EX}=4.302$. Notably, the oscillation waveforms above $\tau_{1,+}$ are more complex than those below, and bear the initial signatures of the quasiperiodic behavior. It has to be stressed that the qualitative resemblance between the dynamics of the exact and the approximate system heavily depends on how close is $g_{c,1}$ to $g_{in}$. In Fig. \[Fig5\](a), $g_{c,1}=0.05$ is comparably small to $g_{in}=0.1$. Should $g_{c,1}$ approach $g_{in}$ or exceed it, the effects of the global bifurcation phenomena become overwhelming, spoiling the predictions made by MF-based approximation.
We also briefly touch upon the setup where the cross-population couplings exhibit the disparate time lags, but attain the same coupling strength. Again, all the internal population parameters are equal to those linked to Fig. \[Fig2\], whereas the notation on the asymmetrical coupling parameters is analogous to that used in the previous layout. The appropriate bifurcation diagram in the $\tau_{c,2}$-$g_c$ plane is displayed in Fig. \[Fig5\](b). Compared to Fig. \[Fig2\](a), we learn how the main difference between this case of asymmetrical couplings and the case with symmetrical interaction lies in the domain of small delays. In particular, the destabilization of equilibrium occurs solely via the supercritical Hopf bifurcation, whereas the scenario involving the subcritical Hopf bifurcation is absent. This picture seems to be independent on the relation between the fixed time lag $\tau_{c,1}$ and $\tau_{in}$.
Though it is not within the scope of the current study, one should still mention that the methods discussed can also be implemented for the scenarios where the two populations exhibit different types of kinetics, e.g. if one is made up of excitable, and the other of self-oscillating units. In this scenario, one effectively examines the interaction between the noise-induced and the noise-perturbed oscillations. The corresponding bifurcation diagram is not too distinct from the one in Fig. \[Fig5\](b), except that the pattern of bifurcation curves is less dense. The critical coupling strength analogous to $g_0$ is naturally smaller than the one for the interacting excitable populations. Nevertheless, this setup is distinguished from those considered earlier in that the unstable manifold of the equilibrium supports the onset of the collective mode with the phase-locked rather than the in-phase oscillations, such that the firing of the ensemble with self-oscillating neurons precipitates the firing of the ensemble containing the excitable neurons.
Summary and discussion {#Summary}
======================
In the present paper, we have pursued the analysis of the MF based approximation intended to accurately reflect the macroscopic behavior of two delay-coupled populations of stochastic excitable units in terms of the stability of the stationary state, the scenarios for the onset and the suppression of the collective mode, as well as the possibility of admitting bistable regimes, where the equilibrium and the oscillatory state are found to coexist. The described layout deserves attention, since it can be interpreted as the minimal model for the “network of networks”, the configuration often brought into context of biological systems whose function relies on generation and adjustment between the multiple collective rhythms. The important ingredients of the exact system we consider include two types of delayed interactions, whereby those within the ensembles are assumed to be linear, and the inter-ensemble ones, mediated by the appropriate global variables, are taken to be nonlinear. The corresponding approximate system is built by coupling the two MF models, derived to describe the activity of single populations. Such a framework follows the general idea that any ensemble of oscillating units exhibiting the collective mode can be treated as the macroscopic oscillator. The MF model integrates the cumulant approach with the Gaussian approximation, whereby the latter holds exactly if three conditions are satisfied. These include the thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ regarding the ensemble size, the negligible noise amplitude $D<<1$, as well as the negligible interaction between the units $g_{in}<<1$. However, it turns out that the approximate system is still able to predict with sufficient accuracy the behavior of large, but finite populations with non-negligible internal interactions, provided that the natural requirement for not too large a noise amplitude is met.
By stating the results in broad terms, the intention has been to stress their applicability to the class of systems made up of type II excitable units. Nonetheless, one recognizes that valuable motivation for the study comes from the field of neuroscience, which goes beyond the adopted model of local dynamics or the fashion in which the interactions are introduced. The methods for providing the reduced descriptions of the behavior of large neural assemblies are typically cast in the categories of the neural-mass and the MF models, whereby the former neglect, and the latter take into account the distribution of individual neuron states over the ensemble. In these terms, the model considered here interpolates between the two classes. Recall that we have introduced an additional approximation on the second order moments to translate the original MF system into the form incorporated in , with the latter preferred as it allows for the analytical tractability of the subsequent local bifurcation analysis.
An inference from such an analysis is that the approximate system can undergo direct and inverse supercritical or subcritical Hopf bifurcations, such that the direct (inverse) ones lead to the destabilization (stabilization) of the stationary state. The complex bifurcation sequence under variation of cross-population coupling strengths and delays is found to depend on the details of the system configuration, like the symmetrical or asymmetrical character of the bidirectional interaction between the ensembles. The main set of results refers to the symmetrical case, where it is demonstrated that the equilibrium may lose stability according to two different scenarios. One involves a direct supercritical Hopf bifurcation and can be achieved for instantaneous couplings solely by increasing $g_c$, whereas the other scenario unfolds via the direct subcritical Hopf bifurcation. The latter involves an interesting point that for strengths $g_c\simeq g_{in}$ one finds a time-lag threshold necessary to destabilize the equilibrium. Increasing $\tau_c$, there are parameter domains bounded from below (above) by the curves indicating subcritical (supercritical) bifurcations, where the stability of stationary state is regained. In many of such instances, the system is actually bistable, exhibiting coexistence between the equilibrium and the oscillatory state. This is a corollary of an interplay with the global fold-cycle bifurcation, as the large stable limit cycle born in this way remains unaffected by the local phenomena. Note that the global events may influence the system dynamics in several other instances. In particular, an unstable limit cycle created in a fold-cycle bifurcation may destabilize the fixed point in a direct subcritical Hopf bifurcation or may limit the growth of an incipient limit cycle following the direct supercritical Hopf bifurcation. By numerical simulation, we have verified that the parameter domains of stability or instability of equilibrium for the exact system are reproduced by the approximate one with high accuracy. In addition, it has been shown that the average oscillation frequency for the global variable of the exact system is well matched by that of the corresponding MF variable. In the exact system, the ability to observe the bistable regimes, where the unstable limit cycle act as a threshold between the equilibrium and the large cycle, is contingent on the noise amplitude. In general, the predictions of the approximate system are better if the deterministic component, governed by the coupling strengths and delays, prevails over the stochastic component in the dynamics of the exact system. An interesting study complementary to the present one would be to examine whether the MF based model may reproduce the forms of synchronization between the generated collective rhythms the way they are exhibited by the exact system. These could include the in-phase and antiphase synchronization or the phase-locked states, as well as their coexistence. The preliminary results implementing the H-function approach suggest that the approximate system may account for the stability of the synchronization regimes and provide indications on the possible multistability.
This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia, under project Nos. $171017$ and $171015$.
[99]{}
P. A. Tass, Phase Resetting in Medicine and Biology: Stochastic Modelling and Data Analysis, (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007). S. Yamaguchi, H. Isejima, T. Matsuo, R. Okura, K. Yagita, M. Kobayashi, and H. Okamura, Science **302**, 1408 (2003). L. Glass and M. C. Mackey, *From Clocks to Chaos: The Rhythms of Life* (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1988). I. Kiss, Y. Zhai, and J. Hudson, Science **296**, 1676 (2002). K. Wiesenfeld, P. Colet, and S. H. Strogatz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 404 (1996). M. Y. Kim, R. Roy, J. L. Aron, T. W. Carr, and I. B. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 088101 (2005). . Y. Baibolatov, M. Rosenblum, Z. Z. Zhanabaev, M. Kyzgarina, and A. Pikovsky, Phys. Rev. E **80**, 046211 (2009). . Y. Kawamura, H. Nakao, K. Arai, H. Kori, and Y. Kuramoto, CHAOS **20**, 043109 (2010). E. Ott and T. M. Antonsen, CHAOS **18**, 037113 (2008). E. Barreto, B. Hunt, E. Ott, and P. So, Phys. Rev. E **77**, 036107 (2008). E. Montbrió, J. Kurths, and B. Blasius, Phys. Rev. E **70**, 056125 (2004). M. G. Rosenblum and A. S. Pikovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 114102 (2004). D. M. Abrams, R. Mirollo, S. H. Strogatz, and D. A. Wiley, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 084103 (2008). S. Olmi, A. Politi and A. Torcini, EPL **92**, 60007 (2010). E. M. Izhikevich, *Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience: The Geometry of Excitability and Bursting* (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007). P. S. Skardal and J. G. Restrepo, Phys. Rev. E **85**, 016208 (2012). H. Hasegawa, Physica D **237**, 137 (2008).
B. Lindner, J. Garcia-Ojalvo, A. Neiman, and L. Schimansky-Geier, Phys. Rep. **392**, 321 (2004). R. A. Stefanescu and V. K. Jirsa, PLoS Comput Biol. **4**, e1000219 (2008). O. David and K. Friston, Neuroimage **20**, 1743 (2003).
N. Burić, D. Ranković, K. Todorović, and N. Vasović, Physica A **389**, 3956 (2010). N. Burić, K. Todorović, and N. Vasović, Phys. Rev. E **82**, 037201 (2010). M. A. Zaks, X. Sailer, L. Schimansky-Galer, and A. B. Neiman, Chaos **15**, 026117 (2005). L. Arnold, *Random Dynamical Systems* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998). C. W. Gardiner, *Handbook of Stochastic Methods for Physics, Chemistry and the Natural Sciences*, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985). I. Franović, K. Todorović, N. Vasović and N. Burić, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 094101 (2012). J. Hale and S. V. Lunel, *Introduction to Functional Differential Equations* (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993).
.
S. Wiggins, *Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos*, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, Cambridge, 2000). Y. A. Kuznetsov, *Elements of the Applied Bifurcation Theory*, 3rd ed. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Wenliang Du
- David Eppstein
- 'Michael T. Goodrich'
- 'George S. Lueker'
- Wenliang Du
- David Eppstein
- 'Michael T. Goodrich'
- 'George S. Lueker'
bibliography:
- 'k\_anonymity.bib'
- 'du.bib'
- 'data\_mining.bib'
title: 'On the Approximability of Geometric and Geographic Generalization and the Min-Max Bin Covering Problem'
---
=1
Future Directions
=================
There are a number of interesting directions for future work. For example, real world data sets often have two or three quasi-identifying attributes (such as zip-codes and disease name labels). Our results show that $k$-anonymization problems in such cases are NP-hard, but there are a host of open problems relating to how well such multi-attribute problems can be solved approximately in polynomial time.
#### Acknowledgments.
We would like to thank Padhraic Smyth and Michael Nelson for several helpful discussions related to the topics of this paper. This research was supported in part by the NSF under grants 0830403, 0847968, and 0713046.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'As part of a wider investigation of evolved massive stars in Galactic open clusters, we have spectroscopically identified three candidate classical Cepheids in the little-studied clusters Berkeley 51, Berkeley 55 and NGC 6603. Using new multi-epoch photometry, we confirm that Be 51 \#162 and Be 55 \#107 are bona fide Cepheids, with pulsation periods of 9.83$\pm$0.01 d and 5.850$\pm$0.005 d respectively, while NGC 6603 star W2249 does not show significant photometric variability. Using the period-luminosity relationship for Cepheid variables, we determine a distance to Be 51 of 5.3$^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$ kpc and an age of 44$^{+9}_{-8}$ Myr, placing it in a sparsely-attested region of the Perseus arm. For Be 55, we find a distance of 2.2$\pm$0.3 kpc and age of 63$^{+12}_{-11}$ Myr, locating the cluster in the Local arm. Taken together with our recent discovery of a long-period Cepheid in the starburst cluster VdBH222, these represent an important increase in the number of young, massive Cepheids known in Galactic open clusters. We also consider new Gaia (data release 2) parallaxes and proper motions for members of Be 51 and Be 55; the uncertainties on the parallaxes do not allow us to refine our distance estimates to these clusters, but the well-constrained proper motion measurements furnish further confirmation of cluster membership. However, future final Gaia parallaxes for such objects should provide valuable independent distance measurements, improving the calibration of the period-luminosity relationship, with implications for the distance ladder out to cosmological scales.'
author:
- |
M. E. Lohr,$^{1}$[^1] I. Negueruela,$^{2}$ H. M. Tabernero,$^{2}$ J. S. Clark,$^{1}$ F. Lewis$^{3,4}$ and P. Roche$^{3}$\
$^{1}$School of Physical Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK\
$^{2}$Dpto. de Física, Ingeniería de Sistemas y Teoría de la Señal, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad de Alicante,\
Carretera San Vicente del Raspeig s/n, E-03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain\
$^{3}$Faulkes Telescope Project, School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, The Parade, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK\
$^{4}$Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, 146 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L3 5RF, UK
bibliography:
- 'cephrefsv3.bib'
date: 'Accepted 2018 May 14. Received 2018 May 11; in original form 2018 April 13'
title: |
New Cepheid variables in the young open clusters\
Berkeley 51 and Berkeley 55
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: variables: Cepheids – Galaxy: structure - open clusters and associations: individual: Berkeley 51 – open clusters and associations: individual: Berkeley 55 – open clusters and associations: individual: NGC 6603
Introduction
============
Evolved stars passing through the instability strip in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram can exhibit regular pulsations with distinctive light curve shapes and periods, allowing their characterisation as – amongst others – $\delta$ Scuti, RR Lyrae or classical/type I Cepheid variables, according to mass (e.g. @chiosi1992). The detection of Cepheids in Galactic open clusters is valuable in several ways: their presence indicates a relatively young, moderately massive cluster and hence recent star formation activity in the relevant region of the Galaxy; the brevity of the yellow supergiant stage makes such objects intrinsically valuable for constraining models of post-main sequence stellar evolution; the well-known period-luminosity relationship of Cepheids [@leavitt1912] allows their use as standard candles, providing us with a distance tracer for the host cluster and hence enhancing our model of the architecture of the Milky Way; the period-age relationship for Cepheids [@kippenhahn1969] can be independently checked through isochrone fitting to the whole cluster population; and finally, future Gaia parallaxes for nearby Cepheids can be used to produce an improved calibration of the period-luminosity relationship usable for extragalactic Cepheids, and thus an improved constraint on the Hubble constant [@riess2018].
Galactic cluster Cepheids are rare: @anderson2013 identified 23 convincing cases in an eight-dimensional all-sky census, and @chen2015 [@chen2017] added a further ten, but found that only 31 were usable for constraining the slope of their (near-infrared) period-luminosity relationship. Further valid associations between Cepheids and Galactic open clusters would be of great value.
As part of a search for young open clusters containing evolved stars in red and yellow super-/hypergiant stages, where extreme mass-loss rates affect the evolutionary pathways (e.g. @clark2009 [@negueruela2011; @dorda2018]), we have spectroscopically identified a number of candidate Cepheids, and subsequently undertaken multi-epoch photometry to ascertain their variability status. In @clark2015 we confirmed the yellow supergiant \#505 as a long-period (23.325 d) Cepheid variable in the starburst cluster VdBH222; here, we report our findings on stars \#162 and \#107, in the faint open clusters Berkeley 51 (Be 51) and Berkeley 55 (Be 55) respectively, in the constellation Cygnus (@negueruela2018, hereafter N18, and @negueruela2012, hereafter N12, respectively). We also report on star W2249 in open cluster NGC 6603, in the constellation Sagittarius. None of these stars were identified as Cepheids or variables of any other type in the second Gaia data release.
The three stars are highly probable members of their respective clusters. \#162 is in the core of Be 51, as shown in N18 figs. 1 and 2, or 34 from the cluster centre as given on Simbad, where N18 found the cluster to extend to over 3 from the centre. It lies on the same isochrone as the spectroscopically-confirmed B-type cluster members, and the three other F-type supergiants identified in the cluster core (figs. 10 and 11 in N18). \#107 also lies right in the heart of Be 55 (figs. 1 and 2 of N12), at 5 from the Simbad cluster centre; N12 identified the majority of cluster members as lying within 3 of the centre, including six of the seven red or yellow supergiants observed. Again, it lies on the same isochrone as B-type confirmed spectroscopic members (figs. 9 and 10 in N12). W2249 is 74 from the centre of NGC 6603; the seven targets – including W2249 – for which radial velocities supported cluster membership [@carrera2015] lie within 5of the centre.
Data acquisition and reduction
==============================
Spectroscopy
------------
Star \#162 in Be 51 was observed in the region of the infrared Ca[II]{} triplet on two occasions with the Intermediate dispersion Spectrograph and Imaging System (ISIS) on the 4.2 m William Herschel Telescope (WHT), in July 2007 and July 2012, as reported in N18. Star \#107 in Be 55 was observed on two occasions with ISIS in the same spectral region. The first spectrum, taken in July 2007, is reported in N12. The second spectrum was taken with exactly the same configuration (unbinned *RED*+ CCD, R600R grating and 15 slit) on 26 July 2011. Finally, a higher-resolution spectrum of \#107 in the H$\alpha$ region was taken with the Intermediate Dispersion Spectrograph (IDS) on the 2.5 m Isaac Newton Telescope (INT) on the night of 25 September 2017. The spectrograph was equipped with the *RED*+2 CCD, the R1200R grating and a 15 slit. This configuration provides a resolving power $R\sim$10000 over an unvignetted range of $\sim$700 Å, which was centred on $6\,700$ Å.
Parameters for Be 51 \#162 were derived in N18 using the StePar code [@tabernero2018]; the high-resolution spectrum of Be 55 \#107 was used to derive basic stellar parameters by employing the same methodology. As in that case, we fixed the microturbulence $\xi$ according to the 3D model-based calibration described in @dutra2016, while log $g$ was set to a value of 1.5, typical of similar objects.
For NGC 6603, archival spectra from @carrera2015 for radial velocity likely cluster members were downloaded and re-reduced to search for evidence of candidate Cepheids.
Photometry
----------
Time series photometry was obtained for the three clusters using the Las Cumbres Observatory (LCO), described in @brown2013[^2]. For Be 51, 41 usable observations were made between 23 May and 19 September 2015, with both Bessell $V$ and SDSS $i'$ filters (30 s exposures, pixel scale 0301 pixel^-1^). For Be 55, 14 initial observations were made in $R$ between 30 June and 29 July 2017 (10 s exposures, 0301 pixel^-1^); follow-up observations occurred between 7 October and 5 November: 18 epochs in $R$ and 15 in $V$ (30 s exposures, 0387 pixel^-1^). For NGC 6603, 20 usable observations were made in $R$ between 11 and 30 July 2017 (10 s exposures, 0304 pixel^-1^).
Basic reductions including bad pixel masking, bias and dark subtraction, and flat field correction, were performed using the LCOGT data pipeline. For each cluster, sets of images with a shared pixel scale were rotated if necessary, realigned and trimmed to a common coordinate system and area using the IRAF tasks $geomap$ and $imalign$. Point spread function (PSF) fitting photometry was then carried out using the IRAF/DAOPHOT package. In each group of images, one frame judged to be of excellent quality – small measured full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the PSF of isolated bright targets, good signal to noise ratio, absence of artefacts – was initially processed to determine the locations of genuine point sources; these coordinates were then used as the starting point for processing all other frames.
After tests with various numbers of PSF stars, functional forms of the analytic component of the PSF model, and orders of empirical variability, the best results were achieved using a three-parameter elliptical Moffat function with $\beta$ = 2.5, and an empirical constant PSF model; five PSF stars were selected for each cluster as close to the targets of interest as possible, and covering a comparable range of brightness. Since the observations for each cluster and filter had been made over many nights, under different conditions and often with different instruments, it was necessary to determine the characteristics of each frame individually (FWHM of the PSF of isolated bright stars, sky level, and standard deviation of the sky level) in order to achieve acceptable PSF modelling.
The mid-times of observation of each frame were then converted to BJD(TDB)[^3]. Using these, light curves could be constructed for all targets believed to be cluster members and bright enough to have magnitudes measured in every frame. Plotting all these together revealed both the typical night-to-night variations associated with changing observing conditions, and the presence of intrinsically variable stars. The light curves of a subset of non-variable objects believed to possess similar spectral types to the candidate Cepheid in each cluster were then combined to produce a reference star, relative to which a differential light curve could be constructed for each suspected variable object. This method resulted in smoother final light curves, with lower uncertainties, than using a single reference star.
Results and Discussion
======================
Be 51
-----
Spectral variations between the two epochs for suspected Cepheid \#162 are evident, despite the different resolution, as illustrated in Fig. \[Be51specs\]. Parameters for \#162 were derived in N18, where it was found to have a very slightly supersolar metallicity.
![ISIS spectra at two epochs for Be 51 \#162 showing changes in spectral type. The upper spectrum is from July 2007, corresponding to an early-G type; the lower spectrum, from July 2012 (note the higher resolution), is around F8Ib. The Paschen and O[I]{} 8446 Å lines weaken significantly as we move to G types. Conversely, the general metallic spectrum (some of the strongest Fe[I]{} lines are marked) becomes stronger. The apparent inversion of the ratio between the Fe[I]{} lines at 8675 and 8679 Å is due to the disappearance of N[I]{} 8680 Å, the strongest of a group of N[I]{} lines that characterise the spectra of A and F-type stars in this spectral region.[]{data-label="Be51specs"}](Be51specsredo.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Initial inspection of the time series photometry for Be 51 revealed clear variability in the light curve of \#162, relative to the light curves of other cluster members. No other cluster members studied showed obvious intrinsic variability. A differential light curve was constructed for \#162 relative to the combined light curve of four other cluster supergiants (\#105, \#134, \#146 and \#172), with mid-F or early K classifications in N18. A period of 9.83$\pm$0.01 d was determined for \#162 by a form of string length minimization (e.g. [@dworetsky1983]), a method well-suited to small quantities of data where the shape of the light curve may not be sinusoidal; however, checks using Lomb-Scargle periodograms [@lomb1976; @scargle1982; @horne1986] and phase dispersion minimization (e.g. [@lafler1965; @stellingwerf1978]) confirmed this as the best period in the range 0.5–100 d, and as exceeding the false alarm probability (FAP) 1% threshold. Fig. \[Be51\] shows \#162’s light curves in $V$ and $i'$ folded on this best period. These have the expected shape (according to the Hertzsprung progression, [@hertzsprung1926]) of a type I Cepheid of period $\sim$10 d, with bumps on both ascending and descending branches (compare also fig. 1 in [@soszynski2008]). Maxima were obtained at BJD 2457202.8815 in $V$ and 2457202.8823 in $i'$.
![Differential light curves for \#162 in $V$ (black, lower curve) and $i'$ (red, upper curve), folded on $P$ = 9.83 d, with phase zero set from the $V$-band maximum. An artificial offset of 0.2 mag between the two curves has been inserted for clarity.[]{data-label="Be51"}](Be51dlc.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The $V$-band photometry for \#162 was calibrated using the standardized photometric results from N18, allowing us to determine an average observed magnitude for the Cepheid of $\langle m_V \rangle$ = 15.295$\pm$0.008 (range was 14.902$\pm$0.006 to 15.688$\pm$0.008). An average absolute $V$-band magnitude was derived from the pulsation period using Eqn. 19 in @anderson2013: $\langle M_V \rangle$ = $-$3.88$\pm$0.24. An $E$($B-V$) = 1.79$\pm$0.09 for \#162 was estimated as the mean of the reddenings calculated in N18 for eleven spectroscopically-confirmed B-type cluster members (for comparison, $\langle E$($B-V$)$ \rangle$ = 1.76$\pm$0.12 was estimated for seven supergiants with photometry); with $R_V$ = 3.1 we then obtain $A_V$ = 5.55$\pm$0.28. Thus we may calculate a distance to the cluster of 5.3$^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$ kpc, where the uncertainties are dominated by the uncertainty in the extinction. Using an alternative calibration of the period-luminosity relationship based on Hubble parallaxes for Galactic Cepheids [@benedict2007], the distance is 5.7$^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ kpc. Employing the period-age relationship for fundamental-mode Cepheids in @bono2005, an age of 44$^{+9}_{-8}$ Myr is obtained.
These values are consistent with the preferred distance of $\sim$5.5 kpc found for Be 51 by N18 on the basis of cluster photometry and radial velocities, and with their preferred age for this distance of $\sim$60 Myr using isochrone fitting to a dereddened colour-magnitude diagram for probable cluster members. In contrast to earlier estimates based on photometry alone, which regarded Be 51 as a much older, closer cluster within the Local arm [@tadross2008; @subramaniam2010; @kharchenko2013], a distance of 5.3 kpc with $\ell$ = 72147 would seem to place it in the Perseus arm, in a region lacking in reliable distance tracers (see e.g. fig. 11 in [@zhang2013], fig. 14 in [@choi2014] and fig. 5 in [@reid2016]).
Be 55
-----
Again, for Cepheid candidate \#107, significant changes in spectral type are seen between the two epochs (see Fig. \[Be55specs\]). We also find, for the high-resolution spectrum, $T_{{\rm eff}}$ = 5505$\pm$199 K and \[M/H\] = 0.07$\pm$0.12, fully consistent with a solar metallicity.
![ISIS spectra at two epochs for Be 55 \#107 showing changes in spectral type. The upper spectrum, from July 2007, presents a spectral type F8Ib, while the lower spectrum, taken in July 2011, is early G. Changes are similar to those seen in Be 51 \#162 (Fig. \[Be51specs\]).[]{data-label="Be55specs"}](Be55specsredo.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The raw light curves for Be 55 supported significant variability in \#107, but also in \#198, classified in N12 as a Be shell star (see Fig. 8 in N12). Construction of a differential light curve for \#198 relative to various subsets of other bright cluster members did not, however, reveal any significant periodicity to this variation, so it may be produced by some aspect of the Be phenomenon [@rivinius2013] rather than, for example, an eclipsing binary.
![Differential light curves for \#107 in $V$ (black, upper curve) and $R$ (purple and red, lower curves), folded on $P$ = 5.85 d. The small vertical offset between the two $R$-band curves and their different uncertainty sizes are caused by the different exposure lengths and pixel scales of the two sets of observations.[]{data-label="Be55"}](Be55dlc.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The differential light curve for \#107 was constructed relative to the combined light curve of four K and G supergiants (\#110, \#145, \#163 and \#196 from N12), and its period was determined as 5.850$\pm$0.005 d by string length minimization again. This was also confirmed as the most significant periodicity over the range 0.5–100 d by Lomb-Scargle and phase dispersion minimization methods, and far surpassed the 1% FAP threshold. Fig. \[Be55\] shows the $V$ and $R$-band light curves folded on this period; again, it is apparent that they have the shape of a type I Cepheid with pulsation period $\sim$5 d, without bumps on either branch, and with a linear descending branch. Maxima were observed at BJD 2458053.6674 in $V$ and 2458053.6664 in $R$.
The $V$-band light curve was calibrated using the photometry of N12, giving $\langle m_V \rangle$ = 13.834$\pm$0.008 (range was 13.583$\pm$0.006 to 14.085$\pm$0.009). Using the same approach as for Be 51, $\langle M_V \rangle$ was determined as $-$3.23$\pm$0.21, and $E$($B-V$) as 1.74$\pm$0.07 (the mean of the reddenings calculated in N12 for seven spectroscopically-confirmed B-type cluster members excluding the Be shell star \#198); this gave $A_V$ = 5.39$\pm$0.22. Our calculated distance to the cluster is therefore 2.2$\pm$0.3 kpc, or using the relationship of @benedict2007, 2.4$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ kpc, with an age of 63$^{+12}_{-11}$ Myr.
This distance is somewhat less than the 4.0$\pm$0.6 kpc obtained by N12 by a visual fit to the zero-age main sequence on a dereddened $M_V$/$B-V_0$ diagram for probable cluster members. However, their age estimate of $\sim$50 Myr is compatible with ours. Moreover, given the evidence supporting \#107’s membership of Be 55 given in N12, including the central location of \#107 within the cluster, and the presence of five other late-type supergiants in close proximity, we feel it is more likely that this apparent mismatch is caused by underestimated uncertainties in N12’s distance modulus (determined by a single method, rather than the multiple independent approaches discussed in N18), than by an unrelated Cepheid coincidentally lying along our line of sight to the cluster. Earlier purely photometric studies [@maciejewski2007; @tadross2008] had found a even lower distance (1.2 kpc) and much greater age ($\sim$300 Myr), which N12 notes is incompatible with the observed population of B3–4 stars. Our distance of 2.2 kpc with $\ell$ = 93027 would seem to locate Be 55 on the outer edge of the Local arm ([@xu2013], especially fig. 10), rather than in the Perseus arm as N12 suggest.
NGC 6603
--------
The re-reduced spectrum of object W2249 showed an early-G spectral type, similar to the candidate Cepheids in Be 51 and Be 55, motivating further photometric observations. However, no significant variability was detected in its differential light curve, constructed relative to the combined light curves of six other candidate members of NGC 6603 with similar $V$ magnitudes (W1997, W2033, W2215, W2252, W2352 and W2438). The full amplitude of variability exhibited was $\sim$0.02 mag in $R$, comparable to the size of the photometric uncertainties.
We may note that age estimates for this cluster are highly inconsistent, ranging from $\sim$60 Myr [@kharchenko2005] to $\sim$500 Myr [@sagar1998]; ages above $\sim$200 Myr would place it outside a plausible mass range for Cepheids. (This uncertainty in age may be explained by an inappropriate assumption of solar metallicity for the cluster; @carrera2015 found NGC 6603 to be one of the most metal-rich open clusters known.)
Gaia data release 2 (DR2)
-------------------------
![Gaia DR2 proper motions for targets within 3of the centre of Be 51, showing concentration of selected candidate members in grey.[]{data-label="Be51sel"}](Be51sel2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![Gaia DR2 proper motions for targets within 35 of the centre of Be 55, showing concentration of selected candidate members in grey. This field has a much lower stellar density than that of Be 51, but the cluster members are about two magnitudes brighter, resulting in smaller uncertainties.[]{data-label="Be55sel"}](Be55sel.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![Gaia DR2 proper motions, with uncertainties, for cleaned sample of 117 stars identified as probable members of Be 51. The Cepheid \#162 is shown with a green square; the eight other cool supergiants (listed in the top panel of N18 table 3) are shown with yellow triangles; B-type stars observed spectroscopically are shown with blue diamonds. One B-type star, \#143, is not included here or in Fig. \[Be51px\] because its astrometric solution in DR2 appears faulty (it has a negative parallax with very large associated uncertainty: $-$0.36$\pm$0.21). The large red circle indicates the weighted average for the cleaned sample, with error bars corresponding to the median uncertainty for single stars: pmRA = $-$3.03$\pm$0.20 mas y^-1^, pmDec = $-$4.83$\pm$0.24 mas y^-1^.[]{data-label="Be51pm"}](Be51pm2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![Gaia DR2 proper motions, with uncertainties, for cleaned sample of 44 stars identified as probable members of Be 55. The Cepheid \#107 is shown with a green square; the five other cool supergiants (listed in N12 table 7, excluding possible foreground interloper S61) are shown with yellow triangles; B-type stars observed spectroscopically are shown with blue diamonds. One B-type star, \#129, is not found in DR2. The large red circle indicates the weighted average for the cleaned sample, with error bars corresponding to the median uncertainty for single stars: pmRA = $-$4.09$\pm$0.19 mas y^-1^, pmDec = $-$4.62$\pm$0.18 mas y^-1^.[]{data-label="Be55pm"}](Be55pm.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The second Gaia data release [@gaia2018] made available precise positions, parallaxes and proper motions for most of the stars previously identified as probable members of Be 51 and Be 55. Therefore, we used DR2 data to investigate these clusters afresh. As shown in Figs. \[Be51sel\] and \[Be55sel\], the two clusters appear as clear overdensities in the proper motion (pmRA/pmDec) plane, allowing an initial selection of possible cluster members. We then calculated the average proper motion for each cluster, weighting values with the inverse of their uncertainties. Each sample was cleaned iteratively, by discarding outliers and recalculating the average, until the standard deviation of the sample’s proper motion was comparable with the median error on an individual value. (Removal of outliers does not imply any judgement on their cluster membership, but simply allows us to define a clean sample of objects with moderately low errors. The procedure is very robust, as the weighted averages do not change significantly throughout.) Figs. \[Be51pm\] and \[Be55pm\] show the results for these cleaned samples, with the values for B-type and supergiant stars identified spectroscopically in N12 and N18 highlighted. These reveal that the proper motions fall within a very narrow range for each cluster, and further support cluster membership for almost all of the spectroscopic targets, including, notably, the two Cepheids Be 51 \#162 and Be 55 \#107.
However, when we investigate parallaxes for these cluster stars, a number of limitations and warnings regarding the DR2 astrometry must be borne in mind, as outlined in @lindegren2018 [@arenou2018; @luri2018]. A parallax zero point of $\sim$$-$0.03 mas is found from observations of over half a million quasars (and indeed, comparison with a sample of eclipsing binaries with accurate distances suggests a larger zero point of $-$0.08 mas [@stassun2018], although the use of a single-star model for all DR2 stars may increase the difference for binary systems). Moreover, there are spatial correlations in parallax and proper motion on scales $\sim$1, a number of negative and spurious parallaxes, and parallax uncertainties underestimated by up to 50% for sources in the $G$-band magnitude range 12-15. As a consequence, individual parallaxes for stars beyond 1 kpc are unsafe, and averaging parallaxes over the whole population of an open cluster will not reduce the uncertainty on the mean beyond the $\pm$0.1 mas level.
![Gaia DR2 parallaxes, with uncertainties, against $G$-band mean magnitude for spectroscopically-identified B-type and supergiant stars in Be 51 (colours and labels as in Fig. \[Be51pm\]). The red dashed line indicates the weighted average parallax for the whole cleaned sample: $\pi$ = 0.20 mas, with a standard deviation for the sample of 0.09 mas. The B-type star with the largest parallax is \#153, which is also on the edge of the proper motion distribution in Fig. \[Be51pm\]; this object could be a non-cluster member, though its astrometric solution may have suffered from the presence of a close companion.[]{data-label="Be51px"}](Be51px2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![Gaia DR2 parallaxes, with uncertainties, against $G$-band mean magnitude for spectroscopically-identified B-type and supergiant stars in Be 55 (colours and labels as in Fig. \[Be55pm\]). The red dashed line indicates the weighted average parallax for the whole cleaned sample: $\pi$ = 0.32 mas, with a standard deviation for the sample of 0.08 mas.[]{data-label="Be55px"}](Be55px.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
With these caveats in mind, we calculated the average parallax for each cleaned cluster sample, again weighting each measurement with the inverse of its uncertainty, and removed stars which were incompatible with these average values within their respective uncertainties. (As before, removal of a star does not imply that it is not a cluster member, although many of the removed objects may be expected to be either background or foreground objects unless their errors are very strongly underestimated. Again, the weighted averages are not significantly changed by the cleaning process.) Figs. \[Be51px\] and \[Be55px\] show the results, plotting only the previously-identified supergiants and B-type stars along with the (full) sample average parallaxes. It is notable that the parallaxes of these cluster members are much more widely scattered than their proper motions, and that the supergiants tend to have larger parallaxes than the blue stars, which are concentrated around the cluster averages. Since all objects should be compatible with the average, the uncertainties are clearly underestimated.
@luri2018 advise against inverting DR2 parallaxes, especially for individual objects, to obtain distances, and instead recommend the use of Bayesian inference for this purpose. However, given the substantial scatter in the parallaxes of Be 51 and Be 55 members, the acknowledged significant underestimation of parallax uncertainties for stars in their magnitude range, and the high and variable extinction in these clusters, we feel such an approach would be of limited value at this stage. So, taken at face value (i.e. using simple inversion of the cleaned cluster sample average parallax), the distance to Be 51 would be $\sim$5 kpc, with the uncertainties implying a range between 3.3 and 10 kpc. For Be 55, the nominal distance is 3.1 kpc, with an implied range of 2.4-4.5 kpc. Hence, although these distances are consistent with those found earlier in this work and in N12 and N18, we cannot at this stage use Gaia DR2 parallaxes to determine distances to Be 51 and Be 55 which are more reliable or precise than those found by other methods.
Conclusions
===========
From spectroscopic and photometric variability, we have confirmed that Be 51 \#162 and Be 55 \#107 are bona fide classical Cepheids. For \#162, we determine a pulsation period of 9.83$\pm$0.01 d, implying a distance to Be 51 of 5.3$^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$ kpc (5.7$^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ kpc using another period-luminosity calibration) and an age of 44$^{+9}_{-8}$ Myr, consistent with values found independently in N18, and placing the cluster in a sparsely-known region of the Perseus arm. For \#107, we find $P$ = 5.850$\pm$0.005 d, and hence for Be 55, $d$ = 2.2$\pm$0.3 kpc (2.4$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ kpc) and age = 63$^{+12}_{-11}$ Myr. This distance would place the cluster in the Local arm. The ages determined for both clusters are also in the interesting range $\sim$50–60 Myr; as noted in N12, it is rare to find red supergiants in older clusters, so the K supergiants identified in Be 51 and Be 55 may provide valuable data on the boundary between intermediate and massive stars.
Taken together with our Cepheid discovery in @clark2015, locating the starburst cluster VdBH222 unexpectedly in or near the inner 3 kpc Galactic arm, these new Cepheids in young/intermediate age clusters provide a richer understanding of the architecture of the Milky Way and its recent star formation history. They also represent an important increase in the number of young, massive Cepheids known in Galactic open clusters. While the recent Gaia DR2 parallaxes for members of these clusters do not yet allow a reliable check on the distances determined here, future Gaia results should provide an independent determination of the distances to such Cepheids and their host clusters, and thereby improve the calibration of the period-luminosity relationship, with implications for the distance ladder out to cosmological scales.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The Faulkes Telescope Project is an education partner of LCO. The Faulkes Telescopes are maintained and operated by LCO. The WHT and INT are operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias. This work has made use of the WEBDA database, operated at the Department of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics of the Masaryk University. This research is partially supported by the Spanish Government Ministerio de Economía y Competitivad (MINECO/FEDER) under grants FJCI-2014-23001 and AYA2015-68012-C2-2-P, and by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council under grant ST/P000584/1. We thank Dr Carlos González Fernández for obtaining and reducing the 2011 spectrum for Be 55 \#107.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: Marcus.Lohr@open.ac.uk
[^2]: Recent changes to LCO instruments and data products can be found at https://lco.global/observatory/
[^3]: http://astroutils/astronomy.ohio-state.edu/time/ (see also [@eastman2010])
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium of a dynamic game is a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in an extended game, where the players observe a public signal at every stage. We prove that a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium exists in two classes of multiplayer absorbing games, thereby extending earlier works by Solan and Solan (2019, 2018).'
author:
- 'Orin Munk, Eilon Solan[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'sunspot\_eq\_in\_2d\_games.bib'
title: 'Sunspot Equilibrium in Positive Recursive Two-Dimensions Quitting Absorbing Games[^2]'
---
**Keywords:** stochastic games, absorbing games, spotted games, L-shaped games, uniform equilibrium, sunspot equilibrium.
Introduction
============
Existence of uniform equilibrium in stochastic games has been a topic of great interest in the last decades. [@Shapley] introduced the model of stochastic games, in which players’ actions affect both the stage payoff and the state of the game. Shapley proved that every two-player zero-sum stochastic game admits a $\lambda$-discounted equilibrium in stationary strategies, for every $\lambda > 0$. This result was later extended for multiplayer stochastic games by [@fink] and [@takahashi_1964].
A strategy profile is a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium if it is a $\lambda$-discounted ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, for every discount factor $\lambda$ sufficiently close to $0$. [@mertens_neyman] proved that every two-player zero-sum stochastic game admits a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$. It is a strategy profile in which each player cannot gain more then ${\varepsilon}$ by deviating from it, for every small enough $\lambda$. [@vieille_two-player_2000_B] extended this result to every two-player non-zero-sum stochastic game. [@solan_three-player] proved the existence of a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in three-player absorbing games. [@solan_vieille_2001] presented the class of quitting games, and proved that if the payoffs satisfy a certain condition, then a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium exists. For additional results on the existence of uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in stochastic games, see [@simon_2007; @simon_2012; @simon_2016]. To this day it is not known if every $n$-player stochastic game admits a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
A uniform correlated ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium is a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in an extended game that includes a correlation device. Various versions of uniform correlated ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium have been studied, depending on the type of correlation that the device allows. [@solan_vieille_correlated_2002] studied extensive-form correlation devices. These are devices that send a private message to each player in every stage. They proved that every multiplayer stochastic game admits a uniform extensive-form correlated ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium. [@solan_vohra_correlated_quitting_2001; @solan_vohra_correlated_2002] studied a normal-form correlation device, which sends one private message to each player at the outset of the game. They proved that every absorbing gameadmits a uniform normal-form correlated ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium. Recently, [@quitting; @general_quitting] studied uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibria, which are uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibria in an extended game that includes a device, which sends a public message at every stage. They proved that every quitting game, as well as every general quitting game, admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
This paper is part of a project whose goal is to prove that every multiplayer stochastic game admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium. Here we will present two classes of absorbing games, spotted games and L-shaped games. Both of these classes are generalizations of quitting games. In quitting games there is a single non-absorbing entry. An absorbing game is *spotted* if every two non-absorbing entries differ by the actions of at least two players. An absorbing game is *L-shaped* if there are exactly three non-absorbing entries $a^1$, $a^2$, and $a^3$, and moreover, the action profiles $a^1$ and $a^3$ differ by the action of Player 1 only, while the action profiles $a^1$ and $a^2$ differ by the action of Player 2 only. We will show that every game in these classes admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
The paper is organized as follows. The model and the main results are described in Section \[section:model\]. The proof of the main result for the first class presented, spotted games, appears in Section \[section:spotted\]. The proof of the main result for the second class presented, L-shaped games, appears in Section \[section:L-shaped\]. Discussion appears in Section \[section:discussion\].
Model and Main Results {#section:model}
======================
Absorbing Games and General Quitting Games
------------------------------------------
In this paper we study stochastic games with a single non-absorbing state. These games, called absorbing games, were first studied by [@kohlberg_absorbing].
An *absorbing game* is a tuple $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$, where
- $I=\left\{1,2,...,\abs{I}\right\}$ is a non-empty finite set of players.
- For every player $i$, $A_i$ is a non-empty finite set of actions. Denote the set of all action profiles by $A = \times_{i \in I} A_i$.
- $u : A \to [0,1]^I$ is a *payoff function*.
- $P : A \to [0,1]^I$ is an *absorption probability function*.
The game proceeds as follows: At every stage $t \in {{\mathbb N}}$, until absorption occurs, each player $i \in I$ chooses an action $a_i^t \in A_i$, and receives the payoff $u_i(a^t)$, where $a^t \coloneqq \times_{i \in I} a_i^t$. With probability $P(a^t)$, the game is absorbed and the players’ payoff is $u(a^t)$ in each subsequent stage. Otherwise, the game continues to the next stage.\
An action profile $a \in A$ is *absorbing* if $P(a) > 0$, and *non-absorbing* if $P(a) = 0$. For a mixed action profile $x \in \Delta(A)$, we denote $P(x) \coloneqq \sum_{a \in A} x(a) \cdot P(a)$.
[@general_quitting] defined a class of absorbing games, called general quitting games. In this class of games, each player has two types of actions: continue actions and quitting actions, and the game is absorbed as soon as at least one player plays a quitting action.
An absorbing game $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ is a *general quitting game* if for every player $i \in I$, the action set $A_i$ can be divided into two non-empty finite disjoint sets $A_i = C_i {\mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup}}Q_i$ that satisfy the following condition: for every action profile $a \in A$, if $a_j \in Q_j$ for some $j \in I$, then $P(a) = 1$. Otherwise, $a \in \times_{i \in I} C_i$ and $P(a) = 0$.
We will denote a general quitting game by $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$.\
For every $i \in I$, the actions in $C_i$ are called *continue* actions, and the actions in $Q_i$ are called *quitting* actions.
An absorbing game is called *generic* if every two distinct action profiles $a \ne a' \in A$ yield a different payoff for every player; that is, $u_i(a) \ne u_i(a')$ for every $i \in I$.
An absorbing game $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ is *recursive* if every non-absorbing action profile yields payoff 0; that is, for every $a \in A$, if $P(a) = 0$ then $u(a) = \vec{0}$.
A recursive absorbing game $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ is *positive* if the payoff function is non-negative; that is, for every $a \in A$ we have $u_i(a) \ge 0$.
A special class of general quitting games is quitting games, previously studied by [@cyclic_1997] and [@solan_vieille_2001].
A general quitting game $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ is a *quitting game* if $\abs{C_i} = \abs{Q_i} = 1$ for every $i \in I$.
Strategies and Payoff
---------------------
Let $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be an absorbing game. A *strategy* of player $i$ in $\Gamma$ is a function $\sigma_i : \cup_{t \in {{\mathbb N}}} A^{t-1} \to \Delta(A_i)$. A *strategy profile* is a vector $\sigma = \left( \sigma_i \right)_{i \in I}$ of strategies, one for each player.
A strategy $\sigma_i$ of player $i$ is called *stationary* if it depends solely on the current stage, and not on past play. Since absorbing games have only one non-absorbing state, a stationary strategy of player $i$ is equivalent to a probability distribution in $\Delta(A_i)$. A strategy profile $\sigma$ is called *${\varepsilon}$-almost stationary* if it is a stationary strategy, supplemented with threats of punishment.
We will study the concept of uniform equilibrium. To this end, we present the $T$-stage payoff, the discounted payoff, and the undiscounted payoff.
Let $T \in {{\mathbb N}}$, and let $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be an absorbing game. The *$T$-stage payoff* of player $i$ in $\Gamma$ under strategy profile $\sigma$ is given by $$\gamma_i^T(\sigma) \coloneqq \frac{1}{T} \mathbb{E}_\sigma \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{T} u_i(a^t) \right] {\text{.}}$$
Let $\lambda \in (0,1]$, and let $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be an absorbing game. The *$\lambda$-discounted payoff* of player $i$ in $\Gamma$ under strategy profile $\sigma$ is given by $$\gamma_i^\lambda(\sigma) \coloneqq \mathbb{E}_\sigma \left[ \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \lambda (1 - \lambda)^{t-1} u_i(a^t) \right] {\text{.}}$$
\[definition:ep-eq\] Let ${\varepsilon}> 0$ and let $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be an absorbing game. A strategy profile $\sigma$ is an *${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium* if no player can increase her payoff by more then ${\varepsilon}$ by deviating from $\sigma$. That is, for every player $i \in I$ and every strategy $\sigma_i'$ of player $i$, $$\gamma_i^\lambda(\sigma'_i, \sigma_{-i}) \le \gamma_i^\lambda(\sigma) + {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}$$
If this payoff function is a $\lambda$-discounted payoff for some $\lambda \in [0,1]$, then this equilibrium is called *$\lambda$-discounted ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium*. If this payoff function is a $T$-stage payoff for some $T \in {{\mathbb N}}$, then this equilibrium is called *$T$-stage ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium*.\
[@fink] proved that for every $\lambda \in (0,1)$, every stochastic game, and in particular, every absorbing game, admits a $\lambda$-discounted $0$-equilibrium in stationary strategies.\
The concept of uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium was introduced by [@mertens_neyman].
\[definition:uniform\] Let ${\varepsilon}>0$. A strategy profile $\sigma$ is a *uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium* if it satisfies the following two conditions:
- There exists $\lambda_0 \in (0,1]$ such that $\sigma$ is a $\lambda$-discounted ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium for every $\lambda \in (0,\lambda_0)$.
- There exists integer $T_0 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $\sigma$ is a $T$-stage ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium for every $T \ge T_0$.
It follows from [@absorbing] that every two-player non-zero sum absorbing game admits a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$. [@solan_three-player] extended this result to every three-player absorbing game. To date it is not known whether every four-player absorbing game admits a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$.
Let $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be a positive recursive absorbing game. The *undiscounted payoff* of player $i$ in $\Gamma$ under action profile strategy $\sigma$, is defined by $$\gamma_i(\sigma) \coloneqq
\lim_{t \to \infty} \mathbb{E}_\sigma \left[ u_i(a^t) \right] \coloneqq
\sum_{a \in A} u_i(a) \cdot P(a^t = a \mid \sigma) {\text{.}}$$
The equilibrium described in Definition \[definition:ep-eq\] is called *undiscounted ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium* if the payoff function used in the definition is the undiscounted payoff. It follows from [@solan_vieille_2001] that there is an equivalence between uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium and undiscounted ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in positive recursive absorbing games.\
The following lemma allows us to focus on generic games. Though the lemma is stated for the concept of uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, it applies to all notions of equilibrium that are mentioned in the paper.
\[lemma:generic\] Let ${\varepsilon}> 0$, and let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ and $\Gamma' = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u')$ be two absorbing games with the same absorption probability function. If ${\left\lVertu - u'\right\rVert}_\infty \le {\varepsilon}$, then a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium of $\Gamma$ is a uniform $3{\varepsilon}$-equilibrium of $\Gamma'$.
Sunspot Equilibrium
-------------------
We extend the game $\Gamma$ by introducing a public correlation device: at the beginning of every stage $t \in {{\mathbb N}}$ the players observe a public signal $\zeta^t \in [0,1]$ that is drawn according to the uniform distribution, independently of past signals and play. The extended game is denoted by $\Gamma^{sun}$. A *strategy* of player $i$ in the extended game $\Gamma^{sun}$ is a measurable function $\xi_i : \cup_{t \in {{\mathbb N}}} ([0,1]^{t} \times A^{t-1}) \to \Delta(A_i)$.
Every uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium of the game $\Gamma^{sun}$ is called a *uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium* of $\Gamma$.
The main goal of this paper is to study uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in absorbing games.
Uniform Sunspot Equilibrium in General Quitting Games
-----------------------------------------------------
[@general_quitting] proved the existence of a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in general quitting games in which every player has a single quitting action. This result relies on linear complementarity problems, which we present now.
Given an $n\times n$ matrix $R$ and a vector $q \in {{\mathbb R}}^n$, the *linear complementarity problem $LCP(R, q)$* is the following problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\hbox{Find}&&w \in {{\mathbb R}}^n_+, z \in \Delta(\left\{0,1,\dots,n\right\}) \nonumber\\
\hbox{such that}
&&w = z_0 \cdot q + R \cdot (z_1\dots,z_n)^\intercal, \label{lpc1}\\
&&z_i = 0 \hbox{ or } w_i = R_{i,i} \ \ \ \forall i \in \left\{1,2,\dots,n\right\}.
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
An $n\times n$ matrix $R$ is called a *$Q$-matrix* if for every $q \in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ the linear complementarity problem ${{\rm LCP}}(R,q)$ has at least one solution.
If an $n\times n$ matrix $R$ is not a $Q$-matrix, then a vector $q \in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ such that the linear complementarity problem ${{\rm LCP}}(R,q)$ has no solution, is called a *witness* of $R$.
\[definition:original best response\] Let $\Gamma = (I,(C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be a general quitting game, such that each player has a single quitting action; that is, $\abs{Q_i} = 1$ for every $i \in I$. For every continue action profile $c \in C$, denote by $R(\Gamma, c)$ the $(|I|\times|I|)$-matrix whose $i$’th column is $u(q_i,c_{-i})$.
\[theorem:Solan and Solan\] Let $\Gamma = (I,(C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be a positive recursive general quitting game, where $Q_i = \left\{q_i\right\}$ for every player $i$.
- If the matrix $R(\Gamma, c)$ is not a $Q$-matrix for every action profile $c \in \times_{i
\in I} \Delta(C_i)$ of continue actions, then there is an absorbing stationary strategy profile $x$ such that for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$ the stationary strategy $x$, supplemented with threats of punishment, is a uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium of $\Gamma$.
- If the matrix $R(\Gamma, c)$ is a $Q$-matrix for some action profile $c \in \times_{i \in I} \Delta(C_i)$ of continue actions, then for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$ the game $\Gamma$ admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium $\xi$ in which, after every finite history, at most one player $i$ quits with positive probability, and does so with probability at most ${\varepsilon}$, while all other players play $c_{-i}$.
Theorem \[theorem:Solan and Solan\] is valid in the case where some players have no quitting actions, as well as when the absorbing probabilities are smaller then 1, that is, $P(a) \in (0,1]$ whenever $a_i \in Q_i$ for at least one player $i \in I$.
Quitting Absorbing Games
------------------------
Quitting absorbing games are absorbing games where at least one player has a quitting action.
\[definition:quitting absorbing game\] An absorbing game $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ is called a *quitting absorbing game* if for every $i \in I$, the set $A_i$ can be divided into two disjoint sets of *continue actions* and *quitting actions*, $A_i = C_i {\mathbin{\mathaccent\cdot\cup}}Q_i$ such that
- For every quitting action $q_i \in Q_i$ and for every action profile $a_{-i} \in A_{-i}$, $P(q_i, a_{-i}) > 0$.
- For every continue action $c_i \in c_i$ there is a continue action profile $c_{-i} \in \times_{j \ne i} C_{j}$ such that $P(c_i, c_{-i}) = 0$.
- There is at least one quitting action, namely $\cup_{i \in I} Q_i \ne \phi$.
We denote a quitting absorbing game by $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$. In contrast to general quitting games, where the game continues with probability 1 as soon as no player plays a quitting action, in quitting absorbing games the game may absorb in this case.
Two-Dimensions Quitting Absorbing Games {#section:two dimension}
---------------------------------------
We here define a simple class of quitting absorbing games, where two players have two continue actions, while all other players have a single continue action.
A *two-dimension quitting absorbing game* is a quitting absorbing game $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ that satisfies $|C_1|=|C_2|=2$ and $|C_i|=1$ for every $i > 2$.
In two-dimension quitting absorbing games, up to equivalences, there are 6 possible absorption structures for action profiles in $\times_{i \in I} C_i$:
- All action profiles are absorbing. In this case the game is equivalent to a one-shot game.
- There are three absorption structures for which the game is a general quitting game, see Figure \[table:general\].
- There are two additional absorption structures, see Figures \[table:L-shaped and spotted\].
If the absorption structure of $\Gamma$ is equivalent to that in Figure \[table:L-shaped and spotted\] (left), then the game is called *L-shaped*. If the absorption structure of $\Gamma$ is equivalent to that in Figure \[table:L-shaped and spotted\] (right), then the game is called *spotted*.\
------------- ---- ---- ----
C C Q
\[0.5ex\] C \*
C \*
Q \* \* \*
------------- ---- ---- ----
: Two-dimension quitting absorbing games that are general quitting games.[]{data-label="table:general"}
------------- ---- ---- ----
C C Q
\[0.5ex\] C \*
C \* \* \*
Q \* \* \*
------------- ---- ---- ----
: Two-dimension quitting absorbing games that are general quitting games.[]{data-label="table:general"}
------------- ---- ---- ----
C C Q
\[0.5ex\] C \* \*
C \* \* \*
Q \* \* \*
------------- ---- ---- ----
: Two-dimension quitting absorbing games that are general quitting games.[]{data-label="table:general"}
------------- ---- ---- ----
C C Q
\[0.5ex\] C \*
C \* \*
Q \* \* \*
------------- ---- ---- ----
: L-shaped game (left) and spotted game (right).[]{data-label="table:L-shaped and spotted"}
------------- ---- ---- ----
C C Q
\[0.5ex\] C \* \*
C \* \*
Q \* \* \*
------------- ---- ---- ----
: L-shaped game (left) and spotted game (right).[]{data-label="table:L-shaped and spotted"}
An *L-shaped game* is a two-dimension quitting absorbing game $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ with only one action profile $a \in \times_{i \in I} C_i$ such that $P(a) > 0$.
The game in Figure \[table:L-shaped and spotted\] (left) is an L-shaped game.
A *spotted game* is an absorbing game $\Gamma = (I, A = \times_{i \in I} A_i, P, u)$ such that every two distinct non-absorbing action profiles differ by at least two coordinates. That is, if $a \ne a' \in A$ are two non-absorbing action profiles, then there are $i \ne j \in I$ such that $a_i \ne a'_i$ and $a_j \ne a'_j$.
The game in Figure \[table:L-shaped and spotted\] (right) is a spotted game. We note that the definition of spotted games relates to every absorbing game, and not necessarily to two-dimension quitting absorbing games.
Main Results
------------
The main results of the paper extend the existence of a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium to the two new classes of games, defined in Section \[section:two dimension\].
\[theorem:spotted\] Every positive recursive spotted game admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$.
Section \[section:spotted\] is dedicated to the proof of Theorem \[theorem:spotted\].
\[theorem:main\] Every positive recursive two-dimension quitting absorbing game admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$.
In view of [@general_quitting] and Theorem \[theorem:spotted\], to prove Theorem \[theorem:main\] it is sufficient to prove the existence of a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in L-shaped two-dimension quitting absorbing games. This will be done in Section \[section:L-shaped\].
Spotted Games {#section:spotted}
=============
In this section we prove Theorem \[theorem:spotted\]. The proof is an adaptation of the proof of [@quitting]. By Lemma \[lemma:generic\], to prove that an absorbing game admits a sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, we can assume without loss of generality that the game is generic.\
**Step 1: Constructing best response matrices**\
Let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be a generic spotted game. For every non-absorbing action profile $a \in A$ and every player $i \in I$, the *best absorbing deviation* of player $i$ against $a$ is $b_i(a) \coloneqq \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{a_i' \ne a_i}{u(a_i', a_{-i})}$. Since the game is spotted, all deviations of each player $i$ from $a$ are absorbing. Since the game is generic, the best absorbing deviation is uniquely defined. Let $r^i(a) \coloneqq u(b_i(a), a_{-i})$. This is the payoff vector when player $i$ optimally deviates from $a$. Let $R(a)$ be the $\abs{I} \times \abs{I}$ matrix whose $i$-th column is $r^i(a)$. One of the following two conditions must hold:
1. $R(a)$ is a Q-matrix for some non-absorbing action profile $a \in A$.
2. $R(a)$ is not a Q-matrix for every non-absorbing action profile $a \in A$.
**Step 2: Case (E.1) yields a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium**\
Let $a' \in A$ be such that $R(a')$ is a Q-matrix. We show that in this case a sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium exists for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$. Construct an auxiliary general quitting game $\Gamma(a') = (I, (C'_i)_{i \in I}, (Q'_i)_{i \in I}, P', u)$, where $C'_i = \left\{a'_i\right\}$, $Q'_i = A_i \setminus \left\{a'_i\right\}$, and $$P'(a) \coloneqq \begin{dcases*}
P(a) & if $P(a) > 0$,\\
0 & if $a = a'$,\\
1 & otherwise.
\end{dcases*}$$ By Theorem \[theorem:Solan and Solan\], the game $\Gamma(a')$ admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium $\xi$, where all players play the action profile $a' \in A$, and in each stage only one player plays the best absorbing deviation with a positive probability. The reader can verify that the strategy profile $\xi$ is a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in $\Gamma$ as well, since the best deviations from $a'$ in both games $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma(a')$ are the same.\
**Step 3: Case (E.2) yields a stationary uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium**\
The condition implies that for every non-absorbing action profile $a \in A$ there is a vector $q^a \in \mathbb{R}^I$ such that the linear complementarity problem ${{\rm LCP}}(R(a), q^a)$ has no solution. Let $\widehat{\Gamma} = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, \widehat{u})$ be the auxiliary spotted game that is identical to $\Gamma$, except for the payoff at non-absorbing action profiles: $$\widehat{u}(a) \coloneqq \begin{dcases*}
u(a) & if $P(a) > 0$,\\
q^a & if $P(a) = 0$.
\end{dcases*}$$ For every $\lambda \in (0,1]$ let $x^\lambda$ be a stationary $\lambda$-discounted equilibrium of $\widehat{\Gamma}$, such that the limit $x^0 \coloneqq \lim_{\lambda \to 0} x^\lambda$ exists. As in [@quitting], because $R(a)$ is not a Q-matrix for every non-absorbing action profile, $x^0$ must be absorbing. Moreover, $x^0$ is a stationary uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$.
The L-Shaped Game {#section:L-shaped}
=================
In this section we prove the following result, which, together with Theorem \[theorem:spotted\] and Theorem \[theorem:Solan and Solan\], implies Theorem \[theorem:main\].
\[lemma:L-shaped main\] Every positive recursive L-shaped game admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, for every ${\varepsilon}>0$.
Throughout the section we will denote the two continue actions of Players 1 and 2 by $C_1 = \left\{c_1^1,c_1^2\right\}$, $C_2 = \left\{c_2^1,c_2^2\right\}$, respectively, and assume that $P(c_1^2, c_2^2, c_3,..., c_{|I|}) > 0$. We will use the following notations: $$\begin{aligned}
a^1 \coloneqq (c_1^1, c_2^1, c_3,...c_{|I|}){\text{,}}& &a^2 \coloneqq (c_1^1, c_2^2, c_3,...c_{|I|}){\text{,}}\\
a^3 \coloneqq (c_1^2, c_2^1, c_3,...c_{|I|}){\text{,}}& \text{and} &a^4 \coloneqq (c_1^2, c_2^2, c_3,...c_{|I|}) {\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$
------------------- --------- ---------- -------
$c_2^1$ $c_2^2$ $q_2$
\[0.5ex\] $c_1^1$ $a^1$ $a^2$ \*
$c_1^2$ $a^3$ $a^4$ \* \*
$q_1$ \* \* \*
------------------- --------- ---------- -------
: An L-shaped game.[]{data-label="table:L-shaped a1a2a3a4"}
Auxiliary Games
---------------
We start by introducing a collection of auxiliary games that are derived from the L-shaped game by turning some non-absorbing action profiles into absorbing action profiles.
\[def:auxiliary\] Let $\delta_1, \delta_2 \in [0,1]$ and let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be an L-shaped game. Let $\Gamma^{\delta_1,\delta_2} = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P^{\delta_1, \delta_2}, u^{\delta_1, \delta_2})$ be the quitting absorbing game that is defined as follows (see Figure \[table:L-shaped and auxiliary\]):
- $P^{\delta_1, \delta_2}(a^2) \coloneqq \delta_2$ and $P^{\delta_1, \delta_2}(a^3) \coloneqq \delta_1$.
- If $\delta_2 > 0$ then $u^{\delta_1, \delta_2}(a^2) \coloneqq u(a^4)$. Otherwise $u^{\delta_1, \delta_2}(a^2) \coloneqq u(a^2)$.
- If $\delta_1 > 0$ then $u^{\delta_1, \delta_2}(a^3) \coloneqq u(a^4)$. Otherwise $u^{\delta_1, \delta_2}(a^3) \coloneqq u(a^3)$.
- For every action profile $a \in A$ such that $a \ne a^2, a^3$, we set $P^{\delta_1, \delta_2}(a) \coloneqq P(a)$ and $u^{\delta_1, \delta_2}(a) \coloneqq u(a)$.
In other words, the auxiliary game $\Gamma^{\delta_1,\delta_2}$ is similar to $\Gamma$, but we turn one or two action profiles to absorbing, with absorbing payoff that is equal to $u(a^4)$. The auxiliary game $\Gamma^{\delta_1,\delta_2}$ is a quitting game if $\delta_1, \delta_2 > 0$ and a general quitting game if $\max\left\{\delta_1, \delta_2\right\} > 0$.\
------------------- --------- ------------- -------
$c_2^1$ $c_2^2$ $q_2$
\[0.5ex\] $c_1^1$ \*
$c_1^2$ $u(a^4)$ \* \*
$q_1$ \* \* \*
------------------- --------- ------------- -------
: An L-shaped game $\Gamma$ (left) and the auxiliary game $\Gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}$ (right).[]{data-label="table:L-shaped and auxiliary"}
------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------
$c_2^1$ $c_2^2$ $q_2$
\[0.5ex\] $c_1^1$ $u(a^4)\ ^{\delta_2}$\* \*
$c_1^2$ $u(a^4)\ ^{\delta_1}$\* $u(a^4)$ \* \*
$q_1$ \* \* \*
------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------
: An L-shaped game $\Gamma$ (left) and the auxiliary game $\Gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}$ (right).[]{data-label="table:L-shaped and auxiliary"}
We will denote the min-max value of player $i$ in the absorbing game $\Gamma$ by $\overline{v}_i(\Gamma) \coloneqq \min_{\sigma_i} \max_{\sigma_{-i}} \gamma_i(\sigma_i, \sigma_{-i})$ This is a lower bound on player $i$’s equilibrium payoff. We will prove that the min-max value of each player in the auxiliary game is not lower by much than her min-max value in the original game. To this end we need the following result.
\[lemma:pre-minmax\] Let $\Gamma = (I, (A_i)_{i \in I}, u, P)$ be a positive recursive quitting absorbing game. Fix a player $i \in I$, such that $\abs{Q_i} > 0$. For every ${\varepsilon}> 0$ there exists $T_{\varepsilon}\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that for every strategy profile $x_{-i}$ there is a pure strategy $a_i$ of player $i$ such that
- The payoff under $(a_i,x_{-i})$ is high: $\gamma_i(a_i,x_{-i}) \geq \overline{v}_i(\Gamma) - {\varepsilon}$.
- The probability of absorption up to time $T_{\varepsilon}$ under $(a_i,x_{-i})$ is high: ${{\rm \bf P}}_{a_i.x_{-i}}(\Gamma \text{ is absorbed in the first } T_{\varepsilon}\text{ stages}) \geq 1-{\varepsilon}$.
Since the game is positive recursive, and since player $i$ can obtain a positive payoff by quitting, then the min-max value of player $i$ is positive, that is, $\overline{v}_i(\Gamma) > 0$. Fix ${\varepsilon}> 0$ sufficiently small.\
Let $x_{-i} \in \times_{j \ne i} C_j$ be a strategy profile such that under $(a_i,x_{-i})$ the play never absorbs, for every continue action action $c_i \in C_i$ of player $i$. Since $\overline{v}_i(\Gamma) > 0$, it follows that there is a quitting action $q_i \in Q_i$ such that $\gamma_i(q_i,x_{-i}) \geq \overline{v}_i(\Gamma)$. It follows that $\gamma_i(q_i,x'_{-i}) \geq \overline{v}_i(\Gamma) - {\varepsilon}$ for every strategy profile $x'_{-i}$ that satisfies ${\left\lVertx_{-i}-x'_{-i}\right\rVert}_{\infty} \leq {\varepsilon}$. We deduce that there is a quitting action $q_i \in Q_i$ satisfies the requirements with $T_{\varepsilon}=1$, for every strategy profile $x'_{-i}$ for which ${{\rm \bf P}}(\text{absorption} \mid (a_i,x'_{-i})) \leq {\varepsilon}$ for every $a_i \in A_i$.\
Let $x_{-i}$ be a strategy profile such that for some continue action $c_i \in C_i$ of player $i$, under $(c_i,x_{-i})$ the game absorbs. Then one of the following conditions holds:
- Player $i$ has a quitting action $q'_i \in Q_i$ such that $\gamma_i(q_i,x_{-i}) \geq \overline{v}_i(\Gamma) -{\varepsilon}$.
- For every quitting action $q_i \in Q_i$ of player $i$, $\gamma_i(q_i,x_{-i}) < \overline{v}_i(\Gamma) -{\varepsilon}$ and there is a continue action $c_i \in C_i$ such that ${{\rm \bf P}}(\text{absorption} \mid c_i,x_{-i}) \geq {\varepsilon}$.
In the first case, it follows that the quitting action $q'_i \in Q_i$ satisfies the requirements with $T_{\varepsilon}=1$ against $x_{-i}$. In the latter case, it follows that $\gamma_i(a_i,x_{-i}) \geq \overline{v}_i(\Gamma)$. We deduce that the continue action $c_i$ satisfies the requirements with $T_{\varepsilon}=\tfrac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}$.
\[lemma:minmax\] Let $\Gamma$ be a quitting absorbing game. Then for every ${\varepsilon}>0$, there are $\delta_1', \delta_2'> 0$, such that for every $\delta_1 \in [0,\delta_1')$, $\delta_2 \in [0,\delta_2')$, and every player $i$ we have: $$\overline{v}_i(\Gamma^{\delta_1,\delta_2}) \ge \overline{v}_i(\Gamma) - {\varepsilon}.$$
Let $i \in I$. Since the game is positive and recursive, if $\abs{Q_i} = 0$ then $$\overline{v}_i(\Gamma^{\delta_1,\delta_2}) \ge 0 = \overline{v}_i(\Gamma) {\text{.}}$$ Then assume $\abs{Q_i} > 0$. Let ${\varepsilon}> 0$ and choose ${\varepsilon}' \leq \frac{{\varepsilon}}{4}$. Let $\sigma_i$ and $T$ be, respectively, the strategy and the integer given by Lemma \[lemma:pre-minmax\], with respect to player $i$ and ${\varepsilon}'$ in the game $\Gamma$. Denote $\delta' = \frac{{\varepsilon}'}{2T}$, and fix $\delta_1,\delta_2 < \delta'$. Hence $T\cdot (\delta_1 + \delta_2) \leq {\varepsilon}'$.\
If player $i$ follows $\sigma_i$ in the game $\Gamma^{\delta_1,\delta_2}$, then with probability larger than $1 - {\varepsilon}' - T\cdot \delta_1 - T\cdot \delta_2$, the game is absorbed in the first $T$ stages by an action profile that is absorbing in $\Gamma$ as well. Denote by $\gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}_i(\sigma)$ the payoff of player $i$ in $\Gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}$ under $\sigma$. Then, since payoffs are bounded by $1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}_i(\sigma_i, \sigma_{-i}) &\ge& (1 - \epsilon ' - T\cdot \delta_1 - T\cdot \delta_2) \cdot \gamma_{i}(\sigma_i, \sigma_{-i} \mid\text{absorption at the first T stages})\\
&\ge& (1 - {\varepsilon}' - T\cdot (\delta_1 + \delta_2)) \cdot (\overline{v}_i(\Gamma) - 2\cdot {\varepsilon}')\\
&\ge& \overline{v}_i(\Gamma) - {\varepsilon}' - \frac{{\varepsilon}}{4} - 2\cdot {\varepsilon}'\\
&\ge& \overline{v}_i(\Gamma) - 4 \cdot \frac{{\varepsilon}}{4} \\
&=& \overline{v}_i(\Gamma) - {\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$
Characterization of L-shaped games
----------------------------------
In this section we divide L-shaped games into two classes of games. This partition is analogous to the one given in Theorem \[theorem:Solan and Solan\]. We start by generalize the definition of best response matrix, presented in Definition \[definition:original best response\].
\[definition:best response matrix\] Let $\Gamma = (I,(C_i)_{i \in I},(Q_i)_{i \in I},u)$ be a general quitting game, and let $c \in \times_{i \in I} \Delta(C_I)$ be a profile of mixed continue actions. The matrix $R$ is a *best response matrix* to $c$ if $R$ is a $(|I|\times|I|)$-matrix whose $i$’th column is $u(q_i,c_{-i})$, where $q_i \in \Delta(Q_i)$ is a best quitting response to $c_{-i}$, that is, $q_i \in \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\Delta(Q_i)} u_i(q_i,c_{-i})$. Denote by $\mathcal{R}(\Gamma, c)$ the set of all best response matrices to the mixed action profile $c$ in the game $\Gamma$.
\[observarion:best response matrix\] Let $\delta_1, \delta_2 \in [0,1)$, and let $\alpha_1, \alpha_2 \in (0,1)$. If the matrix $R$ is a best response matrix of $\Gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}$, then $R$ is also a best response matrix of $\Gamma^{\alpha_1 \delta_1, \alpha_2 \delta_2}$.
\[definition:dQ\] An L-shaped game is called a *QL* game if there are $\delta_1, \delta_2 \in [0,1)$ such that $\max\left\{\delta_1, \delta_2\right\} > 0$ and at least one of the best response matrices of $\Gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}$ is a Q-matrix.
\[definition:CNQ\] An L-shaped game is called an *NQL* (non-Q L-shaped) game if the following sets do not contain a Q-matrix:
- $\mathcal{R}(\Gamma^{1,0}, c)$
- $\mathcal{R}(\Gamma^{0,1}, c)$
- $\mathcal{R}(\Gamma^{1,1}, c)$
where $c = (c_1^1, c_2^1, c^3, \dots, c^{\abs{I}} )$.
Obviously, every L-shaped game is either a QL game, an NQL game, or both. Section \[section:Q\] will be dedicated to discuss QL games, while section \[section:non q\] will be dedicated to discuss NQL games.
QL Games {#section:Q}
--------
In this section we prove that QL games admit uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$. The proof is similar to the proof of the analogous result for general quitting games, which was stated as Theorem \[theorem:Solan and Solan\].
\[lemma:Q sunspot\] Let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be a QL game. Then for every $\delta_1, \delta_2 \in (0, 1]$, at least one of the games $\Gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}$, $\Gamma^{\delta_1, 0}$, and $\Gamma^{0, \delta_2}$, admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium. Moreover, in that game, there is a continue mixed action profile $c \in C$, such that at each stage of the sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, at most one player $i$ quits with positive probability, and does so with probability at most ${\varepsilon}$, while all other players follow $c_{-i}$.
Let $\delta_1, \delta_2 \in (0, 1]$. Since $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ is a QL game, according to Observation \[observarion:best response matrix\], at least one of the games $\Gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}$, $\Gamma^{\delta_1, 0}$, and $\Gamma^{0, \delta_2}$, admits a best response matrix $R$ which is a Q-matrix. Denote this game by $\Gamma'$. By Theorem \[theorem:Solan and Solan\], the auxiliary game $\Gamma'$ admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium of the desired form.
\[lemma:Q-L sunspot\] Let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be a QL game. Then $\Gamma$ admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$.
Fix ${\varepsilon}> 0$. By Lemma \[lemma:Q sunspot\], there are $\delta_1,\delta_2 \in [0,1]$ such that $\max \left\{ \delta_1, \delta_2 \right\} > 0$ and the auxiliary game $\Gamma_{\delta_1,\delta_2} = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P^{\delta_1, \delta_2}, u^{\delta_1, \delta_2})$ admits a sunspot $\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}$-equilibrium $\xi$. Assume without lost of generality that $\delta_1>0$. The strategy profile $\xi$ is determined by a continue mixed action profile $c^\xi \in C$, such that at each stage of $\xi$, at most one player $i$ quits with positive probability, and does so with probability at most $\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}$, while all other players follow $c_{-i}^\xi$.
More formally, $\xi$ has the following structure: Let $c^{\xi}$ be the continue mixed action profile from Lemma \[lemma:Q sunspot\]. The continue mixed action of Player 2 in this action profile is $c^{\xi}_2 \coloneqq pc_2^1 + (1-p)c_2^2$, where if $\delta_2 >0$ then $p=0$. For every $t \in {{\mathbb N}}$, a player $i_t \in I$ is chosen by the correlation device, alongside a quitting action $q_{i_t}^t \in Q_i$, an integer $M_t \in {{\mathbb N}}$, and a deviation $\alpha_t \in (0, \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2})$. For the next $M_t$ stages, player $i_t$ plays $\alpha_t q_{i_t}^t + (1 - \alpha_t) c^{\xi}_{i_t}$, while all other players play $c^{\xi}_{-i_t}$. The auxiliary game $\Gamma_{\delta_1, \delta_2}$ is absorbing during these $M_t$ stages with a probability of $\rho_{\delta_1, \delta_2} (q_{i_t}^t, c^{\xi}, \alpha_t, M_t)
\coloneqq 1 - (1 - \alpha_t \cdot P^{\delta_1, \delta_2}(q_{i_t}^t, c_{-i_t}^{\xi}))^{M_t}$. If the game is not absorb, then $i_{t+1} \in I$, $q_{i_{t+1}}^{t+1} \in Q_i$, $M_{t+1} \in {{\mathbb N}}$, and $\alpha_{t+1} \in (0, \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2})$ are chosen by the correlation device, and the process is continue.
We will construct a sunspot strategy profile $\widehat{\xi}$ in $\Gamma$ that mimics $\xi$ as follows. The idea is that the strategy profile $\widehat{\xi}$ coincides with $\xi$ until it is Player 1’s turn to play the quitting action $c_1^2$ with small probability. Then, we will expand this turn into many stages, and let Player 2 play $c_2^2$ with at least small probability as well. On one hand, Player 2 will play $c_2^2$ with small probability so that no other player can gain more than ${\varepsilon}$ by deviating. On the other hand, we will repeat this play for many stages so that all the other players can monitor Player 2. The probability of Players 1 and 2 to play simultaneity $c_1^2$ and $c_2^2$ in these stages will be equal to the quitting probability of Player 1 quitting with $c_1^2$ in the original equilibrium of the auxiliary game. If $\delta_2>0$ as well, the symmetric process takes place when in $\widehat{\xi}$ it is Player 2 turn to quit with action $c_2^2$.
Formally, the sunspot strategy profile $\widehat{\xi}$ has the same structure as $\xi$: For every $t \in {{\mathbb N}}$, a player $\widehat{i}_t \in I$ is chosen by the correlation device, alongside a quitting action $q_{\widehat{i}_t}^t \in Q_i$, an integer $\widehat{M}_t \in {{\mathbb N}}$, and a deviation $\widehat{\alpha}_t \in (0, \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2})$. Player $\widehat{i}_t$ quits with probability $\widehat{\alpha}_t$ using $q_{\widehat{i}_t}^t$ for $\widehat{M}_t$, while all the other players play a continue action. If the game is not absorb, then $\widehat{i}_{t+1} \in I$, $q_{\widehat{i}_{t+1}}^{t+1} \in Q_i$, $\widehat{M}_{t+1} \in {{\mathbb N}}$, and $\widehat{\alpha}_{t+1} \in (0, \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2})$ are chosen by the correlation device, and the process is continue. Denote by $\rho (q_i, c, \alpha, M)
\coloneqq 1 - (1 - \alpha \cdot P(q_i, c_{-i}))^{M}$ the probability of the game $\Gamma$ to absorb when player $i$ plays the quitting action $q_i$ with probability $\alpha$ and the rest of the players play $c_{-i}$ for $M$ stages. Note that if $q_i \ne c_1^2, c_2^2$ then $\rho (q_i, c_, \alpha, M) = \rho_{\delta_1, \delta_2} (q_i, c, \alpha, M)$, and that the payoff when this absorption occurs is equal, that is $u(q_i, c_{-2}) = u_{\delta_1, \delta_2}(q_i, c_{-2})$.
The fashion of choosing $\widehat{i}_t$ and $q_{\widehat{i}_t}^t$ in $\widehat{\xi}$ is identical to the fashion of choosing $i_t$ and $q_{i_t}^t$ in $\xi$. If $q_{\widehat{i}_t}^t \ne c_1^2, c_2^2$, then $\widehat{M}_t$ and $\widehat{\alpha}_t$ are evaluate from $\widehat{i}_t$, $q_{\widehat{i}_t}^t$, and the correlation device that same way $M_t$ and $\alpha_t$ are evaluate from $i_t$, $q_{i_t}^t$, and the correlation device.
We now construct $\widehat{M}_t$ and $\widehat{\alpha}_t$ out of $M_t$ and $\alpha_t$ when $q_{\widehat{i}_t}^t = c_1^2$. Let $p = max\left\{ c^{\xi}_2(c_2^2), \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2} \right\}$, $\widehat{c}_2 \coloneqq pc_2^1 + (1-p)c_2^2$, and $\widehat{c}^{\xi, 2} \coloneqq (\widehat{c}_2, c^{\xi}_{-2})$. The function $\rho (c_1^2, \widehat{c}^{\xi, 2}, \alpha_t, M)$ is increasing on $M$. Then, there is an integer $\widehat{M}_t \ge M_t$ such that $\widehat{M}_t$ is large enough to monitor between $\widehat{c}^{\xi, 2}_2$ and $(1-{\varepsilon})pc_2^1 + ((1-p) + {\varepsilon}p) c_2^2$, and $\rho (c_1^2, \widehat{c}^{\xi, 2}, \alpha_t, \widehat{M}_t) \ge
\rho_{\delta_1, \delta_2} (c_1^2, c^\xi, \alpha_t, M_t)$. $\rho (c_1^2, \widehat{c}^{\xi, 2}, \alpha, \widehat{M}_t)$ is decreasing on $\alpha$. Then, there is $0 < \widehat{\alpha}_t \le \alpha_t$, such that $\rho (c_1^2, \widehat{c}^{\xi, 2}, \widehat{\alpha}_t, \widehat{M}_t) =
\rho_{\delta_1, \delta_2} (c_1^2, c^\xi, \alpha_t, M_t)$. Note that if $\widehat{\xi}$ is terminate after choosing quitting action $c_1^2$, then the payoff is $u(a^4) = u^{\delta_1, \delta_2}(a^3)$, which is the payoff if $\xi$ is terminate after choosing quitting action $c_1^2$. Therefore, if the correlation device choose quitting action $c_1^2$ at time $t$, the the sunspot strategy profiles $\xi$ and $\widehat{\xi}$ terminates at the same probability before time $t+1$, and yields the same payoff if they terminate. We repeat this calculation for quitting action $c_2^2$, if needed.
Thus, we created a process given by $\widehat{\xi}$, which is similar to the process given by $\xi$ in the following way - For every $t \in dN$, the probability of the process to be terminate after $t$ stages, is equal. Moreover, if the processes are terminated after time $t$, the payoff they yield are equal. For every player $i \ge 3$, the only new deviations are given due the change between $c^\xi$ to $\widehat{c}^{\xi, 2}$ and $\widehat{c}^{\xi, 1}$. But, $\abs{c^\xi - \widehat{c}^{\xi, 2}}, \abs{c^\xi - \widehat{c}^{\xi, 1}} \le \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}$, then any deviation of a player in $\widehat{\xi}$ is bounded by $\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2} + \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}$. For Players $1$ and $2$, the only new deviation is not playing $\widehat{c}^{\xi, 2}_2$ and $\widehat{c}^{\xi, 1}_1$ respectively when needed. But, they are being monitored for lowering the probability for termination of the game by more then ${\varepsilon}$, while they have no incentive to boost this probability (since they can quit in $\xi$ as well). Therefore, their deviation has no more then ${\varepsilon}$ influence. Therefore, $\widehat{\xi}$ is a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
Additional Family of Auxiliary Games
------------------------------------
In this section we define a second family of auxiliary games, which are similar to the auxiliary games $\Gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}$, with an additional property that one of the players is restricted in the mixed action he can play.
\[def:auxiliary NQL\] Let $\delta > 0$ and let $\alpha \in [0,1]$. Let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be an L-shaped game, and let $\Gamma^{\delta, 0} = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P^{\delta, 0}, u^{\delta, 0})$ be an auxiliary game of $\Gamma$. The auxiliary game $\Gamma^{\delta, 0}_\alpha$ is defined similarly to $\Gamma^{\delta, 0}$ with the following change: Player 2 cannot play the action $c_2^2$ with probability greater then $\alpha$.
The auxiliary game $\Gamma^{0, \delta}_\alpha$ is defined analogously to the auxiliary game $\Gamma^{\delta, 0}_\alpha$, with Player 1 and action $c_1^2$ replacing the role of Player 2 and action $c_2^2$. Both games $\Gamma^{0, \delta}_0$ and $\Gamma^{\delta, 0}_0$ are quitting games if $\delta > 0$, and general quitting games for every $\delta \ge 0$.
\[definition:chi\] Let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be an absorbing game. Let $a \in A$ be an action profile and let $x \in \times_{i \in I} \Delta(A_i)$ be a mixed action profile. The *per-stage probability of absorption by action profile $a$ under $x$ in $\Gamma$* is denoted by $$\chi(a,x) \coloneqq x(a) \cdot P(a) {\text{.}}$$ For every subset of action profiles $A' \subseteq A$, denote the *per-stage probability of absorption by $A'$ under $x$ in $\Gamma$* by $$\chi(A', x) \coloneqq \sum_{a \in A'}\chi(a,x) {\text{.}}$$ For every mixed action profile $x$ with $P(x)>0$, the *undiscounted payoff* under $x$ in $\Gamma$ is denote by $$\gamma(x) \coloneqq \sum_{a \in A} \dfrac{\chi(a,x)}{P(x)} u(a) {\text{,}}$$
where $P(x) = \sum_{a \in A}\chi(a,x) = \chi(A, x)$ is the per-stage probability of absorption under $x$ in $\Gamma$.\
The following lemma provides a condition for the existence of an almost stationary uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
\[lemma:alpha equilibrium\] Let $\Gamma$ be a generic L-shaped game. For every ${\varepsilon}> 0$ there exist $\delta_{\varepsilon}, c_{\varepsilon}> 0$, such that if $\delta < \delta_{\varepsilon}$, $\alpha \in [0,1]$, and the mixed action $x$ is a stationary equilibrium of $\Gamma^{\delta, 0}_\alpha$ that satisfies $0 < P^{1,0}(x) < c_{\varepsilon}$, then $\Gamma$ admits an almost stationary uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium,
Let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be a generic L-shaped game. Fix ${\varepsilon}> 0$. We will prove that $\Gamma$ admits a almost stationary uniform $18 {\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.\
**Step 1: Notations**\
For every $\delta > 0$, let $\Gamma^{\delta, 0} = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P^{\delta, 0}, u^{\delta, 0})$ be its auxiliary game. Denote by $\gamma^{\delta, 0}(x)$ the undiscounted payoff of this auxiliary game. In this proof, we will refer $c_1^2$ as a quitting action. That is, the quitting actions in the game are $$Q'_i \coloneqq
\begin{dcases*}
Q_1 \cup \left\{c_1^2\right\} & $i = 1$,\\
Q_i & $i \ge 2$,
\end{dcases*}$$ and the continue actions are $$C'_i \coloneqq
\begin{dcases*}
\left\{c_1^1\right\} & $i = 1$,\\
\left\{c_2^1, c_2^2\right\} & $i = 2$,\\
\left\{c_3\right\} & $i \ge 3$.
\end{dcases*}$$ Thus, Player 2 is the only player to have two continue actions, while all other players have a single continue action. Denote all action profiles that contain a single quitting action by $$A^1 \coloneqq \left\{a \in A \mid
\exists i \in I. a_i \in Q'_i, a_{-i} \in \times_{j \ne i}C'_j \right\} {\text{.}}$$ Denote $\widetilde{A}^1 \coloneqq A^1 \setminus \left\{a^3, a^4 \right\}$, and denote all action profiles that contain more then a single quitting action by $$A^{>1} \coloneqq A \setminus \left( A^1 \cup \left\{a^1, a^2 \right\} \right) {\text{.}}$$ Since $0 < P^{1,0}(x)$, it follows that $0 < P^{\delta,0}(x)$, and $x$ is absorbing in $\Gamma^{\delta, 0}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\delta, 0}(x) &=&
\sum_{a \in A^1} \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(a,x)}{P^{\delta,0}(x)} u^{\delta,0}(a) +
\sum_{a \in A^{>1}} \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(a,x)}{P^{\delta,0}(x)} u^{\delta,0}(a) \\
&=& \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(a^3,x)}{P^{\delta,0}(x)} u^{\delta,0}(a^3) +
\sum_{a \in A^1 \setminus \left\{a^3\right\}} \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(a,x)}{P^{\delta,0}(x)} u^{\delta,0}(a) +
\sum_{a \in A^{>1}} \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(a,x)}{P^{\delta,0}(x)} u^{\delta,0}(a) \\
&=& \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},x)}{P^{\delta,0}(x)} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,x)}{P^{\delta,0}(x)} u(a) +
\sum_{a \in A^{>1}} \dfrac{\chi(a,x)}{P^{\delta,0}(x)} u(a) {\text{.}}\\
\end{aligned}$$ Define $p_{min} \coloneqq \min \left\{P(a) \mid a \in A, a \ne a^1, a^2, a^3 \right\}$. Since by assumption $P^{\delta,0}(x) < c_{\varepsilon}$, it follows that for every player $i \in I$ and every quitting action $q_i \in Q'_i$, we have $x_i(q_i) < \frac{c_{\varepsilon}}{p_{min}}$. We will define a mixed action profile such that it is an almost stationary uniform $18{\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in $\Gamma$.\
**Step 2: Influence of the action profiles in $\bm{A^{>1}}$ on the undiscounted payoff is negligible**\
First, we prove that there is $c'_{\varepsilon}$ such that for every mixed action profile $y$, if $y_i(q_i) < c'_{\varepsilon}$ for every quitting action $q_i$ of player $i$, for every $i \in I$, then $\dfrac{\chi(A^{>1},y)}{P(y)} < {\varepsilon}$.\
Note that $1 - P(y) \ge (1 - c'_{\varepsilon})^{\abs{Q'}}$. Let $q_i \in Q'_i$ be a quitting action of player $i$, such that $q_i \ne c_1^2$. We can bound from below the probability of player $i$ to quit alone using $q_i$ by $$\chi(\left\{(q_i, a^1_{-i}), (q_i, a^2_{-i})\right\}, y) \ge
y(q_i) \cdot (1 - c'_{\varepsilon})^{\abs{Q'}} \cdot p_{min} {\text{.}}$$ Denote the quitting action profile that includes player $i$ quitting with $q_i$ while other players quit as well by $$A(q_i) \coloneqq \left\{a \in A \mid
\exists j \ne i. a_j \in Q'_j, a_i = q_i \right\} {\text{.}}$$ We can bound from above the probability of player $i$ to using $q_i$ alongside other players quitting by $$\chi(A(q_i), y) \le y(q_i) \cdot \frac{c'_{\varepsilon}}{p_{min}} \cdot \abs{A} {\text{.}}$$ Therefore, if $c'_{\varepsilon}\le \min \left\{1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}},
\dfrac{p_{min}^2 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{2 \abs{A}}\right\}$, it follows that $$\chi(\left\{(q_i, a^1_{-i}), (q_i, a^2_{-i})\right\}, y) \cdot {\varepsilon}\ge
\chi(A(q_i), y) {\text{.}}$$ Since it is true for every $q_i \ne c_1^2 \in Q_i$, we deduce $\chi(A^{>1},y) < {\varepsilon}\cdot P(y)$, as we wanted.
We can now approximate the undiscounted payoff of a mixed action profile with a small per-stage probability of absorbing. Let $\widetilde{x}$ be a strategy profile that satisfies $$P(\widetilde{x}) \le \min \left\{p_{min} \left( 1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}} \right),
\dfrac{p_{min}^3 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{2 \abs{A}}\right\} {\text{,}}$$ then $\chi(A^{>1},\widetilde{x}) < {\varepsilon}\cdot P(\widetilde{x})$. We can conclude these two boundaries of $\gamma(\widetilde{x})$. The first is an upper bound, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(\widetilde{x}) &=& \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},\widetilde{x})}
{P(\widetilde{x})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widetilde{x})}
{P(\widetilde{x})} u(a)
+ \sum_{a \in A^{>1}} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widetilde{x})}
{P(\widetilde{x})} u(a)
\nonumber \\
&\le& \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},\widetilde{x})}
{P(\widetilde{x})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widetilde{x})}
{P(\widetilde{x})} u(a)
+{\varepsilon}\nonumber \\
&\le& \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},\widetilde{x})}
{\chi(A^1,\widetilde{x})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widetilde{x})}
{\chi(A^1,\widetilde{x})} u(a)
+ {\varepsilon}\label{eq:step2_le} {\text{,}}\end{aligned}$$ and the second is a lower bound, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(\widetilde{x}) &=& \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},\widetilde{x})}
{P(\widetilde{x})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widetilde{x})}
{P(\widetilde{x})} u(a)
+ \sum_{a \in A^{>1}} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widetilde{x})}
{P(\widetilde{x})} u(a)
\nonumber \\
&\ge& \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},\widetilde{x})}
{P(\widetilde{x})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widetilde{x})}
{P(\widetilde{x})} u(a)
\nonumber \\
&\ge& \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},\widetilde{x})}
{\chi(A^1,\widetilde{x})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widetilde{x})}
{\chi(A^1,\widetilde{x})} u(a)
- {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}\label{eq:step2_ge}
\end{aligned}$$
**Step 3: Variant of Step 2 for an action deviation**\
We will prove a similar estimate as in Step 2, for a different mixed action profile: Let $i \in I$ be a player, and let $q_i \in Q_i$ be a quitting action of player $i$. Let $y$ be a mixed action profile such that $y(q') < c'_{\varepsilon}$ for every $q' \ne q_i \in Q$. We repeat the process as in Step 2. We know that $\chi(\left\{(q_i, a^1_{-i}), (q_i, a^2_{-i})\right\}, y) \ge
y(q_i) \cdot (1 - c'_{\varepsilon})^{\abs{Q'}} \cdot p_{min}$ and $\chi(A(q_i), y) \le y(q_i) \cdot \frac{c'_{\varepsilon}}{p_{min}} \cdot \abs{A}$. If $c'_{\varepsilon}\le \min \left\{1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}},
\dfrac{p_{min}^2 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{2 \abs{A}}\right\}$ we deduce that $$\label{eq:step3_1}
\chi(\left\{(q_i, a^1_{-i}), (q_i, a^2_{-i})\right\}, y) \cdot {\varepsilon}\ge
\chi(A(q_i), y) {\text{.}}$$ Denote the quitting action profile that includes player $j$ quitting with $q_j$ while other players quit as well, but player $i$ does not quit using $q_i$, by $$A(q_j ; q_i) \coloneqq \left\{a \in A \mid
\exists k \ne j. a_k \in Q'_k, a_j = q_j, a_i \ne q_i \right\} {\text{.}}$$ If $c'_{\varepsilon}\le \min \left\{1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}},
\dfrac{p_{min}^2 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{2 \abs{A}}\right\}$, we deduce that $$\label{eq:step3_2}
\chi(\left\{(q_i, a^1_{-i}), (q_i, a^2_{-i})\right\}, y) \cdot {\varepsilon}\ge
\chi(A(q_i), y)$$ From both Eqs. (\[eq:step3\_1\]) and (\[eq:step3\_2\]) we can deduce again that if $c'_{\varepsilon}< \min \left\{1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}},
\dfrac{p_{min}^2 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{2 \abs{A}}\right\}$ then $$\chi(A^{>1},y) < {\varepsilon}\cdot P(y) {\text{.}}$$ Hence, if $\widetilde{x}$ is a mixed action profile such that $P(\widetilde{x}) < \min \left\{p_{min} \left( 1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}} \right),
\dfrac{p_{min}^3 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{2 \abs{A}}\right\}$, and $q_i \in Q_i$ is a quitting action of player $i$ such that $q_i \ne c_1^2$, then $$\chi(A^{>1},(q_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})) < {\varepsilon}\cdot P(q_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}) {\text{.}}$$ Therefore $$\sum_{a \in A^{>1}} \dfrac{\chi(a,(q_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(q_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a) < {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}$$ From Step 2, we get that if $c_i \in C_i$ is a continue action, then $$\sum_{a \in A^{>1}} \dfrac{\chi(a,(c_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(c_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a) < {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}$$ We conclude that for every deviation $a_i \in A_i$ such that $a_i \ne c_1^2$, we have these two inequalities. The first is an upper bound of $\gamma(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})$ $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}) &=&
\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a)
\label{eq:step3_le} \\
&&+ \sum_{a \in A^{>1}} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a)
\nonumber \\
&\le& \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a) +
{\varepsilon}\nonumber \\
&\le& \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i,\widetilde{x}_{-i}))} u(a) +
{\varepsilon}\nonumber {\text{,}}\end{aligned}$$ while the second is a lower bound of $\gamma(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:step3_ge}
\gamma(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}) &=&
\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a) \\
&&+ \sum_{a \in A^{>1}} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a)
\nonumber \\
&\ge& \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{P(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i})} u(a) \nonumber \\
&\ge& \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widetilde{x}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i,\widetilde{x}_{-i}))} u(a) -
{\varepsilon}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
**Step 4: Constructing an auxiliary mixed action profile $\bm{\widehat{x}^\delta}$**\
We define a mixed action profile $\widehat{x}^\delta$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{x}^\delta_2(c_2^1) &\coloneqq& (1-\delta) \cdot x_2(c_2^1) {\text{,}}\\
\widehat{x}^\delta_2(c_2^2) &\coloneqq& x'_2(c_2^2) + \delta \cdot x_2(c_2^1) {\text{,}}\\
\widehat{x}^\delta_2(q_2) &\coloneqq& x_2(q_2) \quad \text{for every } q_2 \in Q_2 {\text{,}}\\
\widehat{x}^\delta_2(q_2) &\coloneqq& x_2(q_2) \quad \text{for every } i \ne 2,\ a_i \in A_i {\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ In words, in $\widehat{x}^\delta$, Player 2 increases the probability of playing the action $c_2^2$ at the expense of the action $c_2^1$. Note that $\chi^{\delta, 0}(\left\{a^3, a^4 \right\}, x) = \chi(a^4, \widehat{x}^\delta)$. We conclude that if $c_{\varepsilon}, \delta <
\min \left\{\dfrac{p_{min}}{2} \left( 1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}} \right),
\dfrac{p_{min}^3 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{4 \abs{A}}\right\}$, then $P(\widehat{x}^\delta) <
\min \left\{p_{min} \left( 1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}} \right),
\dfrac{p_{min}^3 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{2 \abs{A}}\right\}$. Therefore, Eqs. (\[eq:step2\_le\]) and (\[eq:step2\_ge\]) hold for the mixed action profile $\widehat{x}^\delta$, and Eqs. (\[eq:step3\_le\]) and (\[eq:step3\_ge\]) hold for every action deviation of $\widehat{x}^\delta$.\
Note that for every mixed action profile $y$, and every two action profiles $a, a' \in \widetilde{A}^1$ such that $a_{-2} = a'_{-2}$, $a_2 = c_2^1$, and $a'_2 = c_2^2$, we have $$\left| \dfrac
{\chi^{\delta, 0}(\left\{a, a'\right\}, y)}
{\chi(\left\{a, a'\right\}, \widehat{y}^\delta)}
- 1 \right| \le \delta {\text{.}}\nonumber$$ Therefore, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:step4}
\Bigg|&
\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^4\right\},\widehat{y}^\delta)}
{\chi(A^1,\widehat{y}^\delta)} u(a^4) &+
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widehat{y}^\delta)}
{\chi(A^1,\widehat{y}^\delta)} u(a)
\\
&- \dfrac{\chi^{\delta, 0}(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},y)}
{\chi^{\delta, 0}(A^1,y)} u(a^4) &-
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi^{\delta, 0}(a,y)}
{\chi^{\delta, 0}(A^1,y)} u(a) \Bigg| \le
3 \delta \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
**Step 5: Constructing an auxiliary mixed action profile $\bm{\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}}$**\
Let $\eta > 0$. We here define $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}$, a mixed action profile which is a variant of $\widehat{x}^\delta$. Denote the maximal probability in which a player plays a quitting action under $x$ by $x_{max} \coloneqq \max \left\{x_i(q_i) \mid i \in I, q_i \in Q'_i \right\}$. We will define action profile which presents the relative weight of playing the quitting actions in $\cup_{i \in I} Q_i$, while ensuring that each quitting action is played with probability at most $\eta$.\
If $\eta \ge x_{max}$, then define $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta} \coloneqq \widehat{x}^\delta$. Otherwise, for every $i \in I$ such that $i \ne 2$, define $$\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_i(a_i) \coloneqq
\begin{dcases*}
\frac{\eta}{x_{max}} \cdot \widehat{x}^\delta_i(a_i)
& if $a_i \in Q'_i$,\\
1 - \sum_{q_i \in Q'_i} \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_i(q_i)
& if $a_i \in C'_i$.
\end{dcases*}$$ For every quitting action $q_2 \in Q'_2$ of Player 2, define $$\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_2(q_2) \coloneqq
\frac{\eta}{x_{max}} \cdot \widehat{x}^\delta_2(q_2) {\text{,}}$$ and for the continue actions $c_2^1$ and $c_2^2$, define $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_2$ to satisfy the following two equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_2(c_2^1) + \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_2(c_2^2) &=&
1 - \sum_{q_2 \in Q'_2} \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_2(q_2)
{\text{,}}\label{eq:step5_1}\\
\dfrac{\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_2(c_2^1)}
{\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_2(c_2^1) + \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_2(c_2^2)} &=&
\dfrac{\widehat{x}^\delta_2(c_2^1)}
{\widehat{x}^\delta_2(c_2^1) + \widehat{x}^\delta_2(c_2^2)}
{\text{.}}\label{eq:step5_2}
\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[eq:step5\_1\]) ensures that $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_2$ is a mixed action profile, while Eq. (\[eq:step5\_2\]) ensures that while Player 2 plays continue actions, the ratio of the probabilities to play the continue actions $c_2^1$ and $c_2^2$ under $\widehat{x}^\delta$ and under $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}$ are the same. For every $\eta > 0$, every mixed action profile $y$, and every auxiliary mixed action profile $y^\eta$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},y^\eta)}
{\chi(A^1,y^\eta)} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,y^\eta)}
{\chi(A^1,y^\eta)} u(a)
=& \nonumber\\
&=\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},y)}
{\chi(A^1,y)} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,y)}
{\chi(A^1,y)} u(a)& \label{eq:step5}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that if $c_{\varepsilon}, \delta <
\min \left\{\dfrac{p_{min}}{2} \left( 1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}} \right),
\dfrac{p_{min}^3 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{4 \abs{A}}\right\}$, then Eqs. (\[eq:step2\_le\]), (\[eq:step2\_ge\]), (\[eq:step3\_le\]), (\[eq:step3\_ge\]), and (\[eq:step4\]) hold for $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}$.\
**Step 6: Statistical tests**\
We constructed a stationary strategy profile that is absorbing at every stage with low probability. Under this stationary strategy profile, Player 2 plays both actions $c_2^1$ and $c_2^2$ with positive probability, and he may profit by increasing the frequency in which he plays one of the actions at the expense of the other. To deter such detections, we add statistical tests to the strategy profile.\
If all players play non-absorbing stationary mixed action, they can verify whether a deviation by one of the players occur, using statistical test on the realized strategies. By @solan_three-player [Section 5.3], if stationary mixed action profile absorbs with a small probability in each turn, then this statistical test can still be uphold. That is, for our case, for stationary mixed action and every ${\varepsilon}' > 0$, there is $\eta({\varepsilon}') > 0$ such that if the game absorb with probability smaller then $\eta({\varepsilon}')$ in each turn, then the players determine if player $i$ play the continue mixture $y_i$, or deviate from it by more then ${\varepsilon}'$. Formally, for every ${\varepsilon}' > 0 $, there is an integer $T_{{\varepsilon}'} \in {{\mathbb N}}$, such that if $\left\{x_m\right\}_{m \in {{\mathbb N}}}$ are i.i.d. Bernoulli random variables with parameter $x$, then their average, after at least time $T_{{\varepsilon}'}$, from $x$ is small enough. That is, $$\mathcal{P} \left( \left| \dfrac{\sum_{m=1}^{T} x_m}{T}
- x \right| \ge {\varepsilon}' \;
\text{for some} \;
T \ge T_{{\varepsilon}'}
\right) \le {\varepsilon}' {\text{.}}$$ Let $\eta(\delta \cdot {\varepsilon}) > 0$ be the constant related to $\delta \cdot {\varepsilon}$, and set $\eta' \coloneqq \dfrac{\eta(\delta \cdot {\varepsilon})}{\abs{A}}$. Therefore, the players can identifying a deviation of Player 2 from $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta'}$, in scale of $\delta \cdot {\varepsilon}$.\
Let $\eta \le \eta'$. Define by $\sigma^{\delta, \eta}$ a strategy similar to $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}$, with the addition of statistical test by Players $1,3,4,\dots,\abs{I}$ whether the realized actions of Player 2 up to time $T$ are close to $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_2$, for every large enough $T$. We will show that if every player $i \in I$ cannot gain more then ${\varepsilon}$ by deviating from $\sigma^{\delta, \eta}$ to action $a_i \in A_i$ such then $a_i \notin C'_2$, then Player 2 cannot gain more then $2 {\varepsilon}$ by changing the distribution of her continue actions. We assumed that every quitting action $q_2 \in Q_2$ is less than an ${\varepsilon}$-efficient deviation against $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-2}$. Let $C_{-2} \coloneqq c_1^1 \times_{i \ge 3} c_i$ be the continue action profile of all players but Player 2. Since $P(\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}) < c_{\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_2(\sigma^{\delta, \eta}) + {\varepsilon}&\ge& \gamma_2(q_2, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-2}) \\
&\ge& (1 - c_{\varepsilon}) \cdot \gamma_2(q_2, C_{-2}) + c_{\varepsilon}\cdot 0 {\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for every $q_2 \in Q_2$, $$\gamma_2(q_2, C_{-2}) \le
\frac{1}{1 - c_{\varepsilon}} \gamma_2(\sigma^{\delta, \eta}) + \frac{{\varepsilon}}{1 - c_{\varepsilon}} {\text{,}}$$ and therefore, if $c_{\varepsilon}< \frac{{\varepsilon}}{1+{\varepsilon}}$ then $$\gamma(q_2, C_{-2}) \le
\gamma_2(\sigma^{\delta, \eta}) + 3 {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}$$ Since $C_{-2}$ is a possible strategy of Players $1, 3, \dots, \abs{I}$, the min-max value of Player 2 is bounded by her best response to $C_{-2}$. The game $\Gamma$ is positive and recursive, and therefore $$\overline{v}_2(\Gamma) \le
\max \left\{0,
\gamma_2(\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}) + 3 {\varepsilon}\right\}
= \gamma_2(\sigma^{\delta, \eta}) + 3 {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}$$ We conclude that if $\eta < \eta'$, $c_{\varepsilon}< \frac{{\varepsilon}}{1+{\varepsilon}}$, and every player $i \in I$ cannot gain more then ${\varepsilon}$ by deviating from $\sigma^{\delta, \eta}$ to action $a_i \in A_i$ such that $a_i \notin C'_2$, than Player 2 cannot gain more then $3{\varepsilon}$ by deviating from $\sigma^{\delta, \eta}$, and it is a $3{\varepsilon}$-equilibrium. Note that if $\kappa \in [1,\infty)$ is a positive constant, and every player $i \in I$ cannot gain more then $\kappa {\varepsilon}$ by deviating from $\sigma^{\delta, \eta}$ to action $a_i \in A_i$ such that $a_i \notin C'_2$, then $c_{\varepsilon}< \frac{{\varepsilon}}{1+{\varepsilon}}$ implies that Player 2 cannot gain more then $3 \kappa {\varepsilon}$ by deviating from $\sigma^{\delta, \eta}$, since $\frac{{\varepsilon}}{1+{\varepsilon}} \le \frac{\kappa {\varepsilon}}{1+\kappa {\varepsilon}}$.\
**Step 7: Constructing the almost stationary uniform $\bm{18 {\varepsilon}}$-equilibrium**\
Let $\eta'$ be as defined in Step 6 and $\eta < \eta'$. Let $\delta <
\min \left\{\dfrac{{\varepsilon}}{3},
\dfrac{p_{min}}{2} \left( 1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}} \right),
\dfrac{p_{min}^3 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{4 \abs{A}}\right\}$ and $c_{\varepsilon}<
\min \left\{\dfrac{{\varepsilon}}{1+{\varepsilon}},
\dfrac{p_{min}}{2} \left( 1 - \dfrac{1}{\sqrt[\abs{Q'}]{2}} \right),
\dfrac{p_{min}^3 \cdot {\varepsilon}}{4 \abs{A}}\right\}$. We will prove that every player $i \in I$ cannot gain more then $6{\varepsilon}$ by deviating from $\sigma^{\delta, \eta}$ to action $a_i \in A_i$ such that $a_i \notin C'_2$, thus, together with Step 6, completing the proof.\
Fix $i \in I$, and an action $a_i \in A_i$ such that $a_i \notin C'_2$. We will prove that $$\gamma(a_i, \sigma^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}) \le
\gamma(\sigma^{\delta, \eta}) + 6{\varepsilon}{\text{.}}$$ By definition, for every $a_i \in A_i$ $$\gamma(a_i, \sigma^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}) \le
\gamma(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}) {\text{.}}$$ In Eq. (\[eq:step3\_le\]) we found an upper bound to $\gamma(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i})$: $$\gamma(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}) \le
\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}))} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i,\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}))} u(a) +
{\varepsilon}{\text{.}}$$ We will use the equivalence of $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}$ and $\widehat{x}^{\delta}$. By Eq. (\[eq:step5\]) $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}))} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i,\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}_{-i}))} u(a) +
{\varepsilon}\\
&&\qquad
= \dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta}_{-i}))} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i,\widehat{x}^{\delta}_{-i}))} u(a) +
{\varepsilon}{\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. (\[eq:step4\]), We can switch between the games $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^{\delta, 0}$. Since $3 \delta < {\varepsilon}$, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta}_{-i}))} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,(a_i, \widehat{x}^{\delta}_{-i}))}
{\chi(A^1,(a_i,\widehat{x}^{\delta}_{-i}))} u(a) +
{\varepsilon}\\
&&\qquad
\le \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, x_{-i}))}
{\chi^{\delta,0}(A^1,(a_i, x_{-i}))} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(a,(a_i, x_{-i}))}
{\chi^{\delta,0}(A^1,(a_i,x_{-i}))} u(a) +
2{\varepsilon}{\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ We relate the result to $\gamma(a_i, x_{-i})$, through its lower bound presented in Eq. (\[eq:step3\_ge\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},(a_i, x_{-i}))}
{\chi^{\delta,0}(A^1,(a_i, x_{-i}))} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(a,(a_i, x_{-i}))}
{\chi^{\delta,0}(A^1,(a_i,x_{-i}))} u(a) +
2{\varepsilon}\\
&&\qquad
\le \gamma(a_i, x_{-i}) + 3{\varepsilon}{\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ Since the mixed action profile $x$ is an equilibrium in the game $\Gamma$, we get that $$\gamma(a_i, x_{-i}) + 3 {\varepsilon}\le \gamma(x) + 3 {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}$$ By the upper bound of $\gamma(x)$, presented in Eq. (\[eq:step2\_le\]), we get $$\gamma(x) + 3 {\varepsilon}\le
\dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},x)}
{\chi^{\delta,0}(A^1, x)} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(a,x)}
{\chi^{\delta,0}(A^1, x)} u(a)
+ 4 {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}\nonumber$$ We use Eq. (\[eq:step4\]), to switch again between the games $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^{\delta,0}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},x)}
{\chi^{\delta,0}(A^1, x)} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi^{\delta,0}(a,x)}
{\chi^{\delta,0}(A^1, x)} u(a)
+ 4 {\varepsilon}\\
&&\qquad
\le
\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},\widehat{x}^\delta)}
{\chi(A^1, \widehat{x}^\delta)} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widehat{x}^\delta)}
{\chi(A^1, \widehat{x}^\delta)} u(a)
+ 5 {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ We use again the equivalence of $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}$ and $\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}$. By Eq. (\[eq:step5\]) $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},\widehat{x}^\delta)}
{\chi(A^1, \widehat{x}^\delta)} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widehat{x}^\delta)}
{\chi(A^1, \widehat{x}^\delta)} u(a)
+ 5 {\varepsilon}\\
&&\qquad =
\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta})}
{\chi(A^1, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta})}
{\chi(A^1, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta})} u(a)
+ 5 {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ By the lower bound of $\gamma(x)$, presented in Eq. (\[eq:step2\_ge\]), we conclude that $$\dfrac{\chi(\left\{a^3, a^4\right\},\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta})}
{\chi(A^1, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta})} u(a^4) +
\sum_{a \in \widetilde{A}^1} \dfrac{\chi(a,\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta})}
{\chi(A^1, \widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta})} u(a)
+ 5 {\varepsilon}\le
\gamma(\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}) + 6 {\varepsilon}{\text{.}}$$ By definition $$\gamma(\widehat{x}^{\delta, \eta}) + 6 {\varepsilon}=
\gamma(\sigma^{\delta, \eta}) + 6 {\varepsilon}{\text{,}}$$ and the result follows.
\
\
Note that the same is true for the symmetric case of $\Gamma^{0, \delta}_\alpha$ and $P^{0,1}$: for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$ there exist $\delta_{\varepsilon}, c_{\varepsilon}> 0$, such that if $\delta < \delta_{\varepsilon}$, $\alpha \in [0,1]$, and the mixed action $x$ is a stationary equilibrium of $\Gamma^{0, \delta}_\alpha$ that satisfies $0 < P^{0,1}(x) < c_{\varepsilon}$, then the game $\Gamma$ admits an almost stationary uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
NQL Games {#section:non q}
---------
In this section we study NQL games. These games are similar to general quitting games that satisfy the second condition in Theorem \[theorem:Solan and Solan\]. The following lemma was proven by @general_quitting [Section 3.2, Case 3]. This lemma claims that the limit of discount equilibria cannot be a continue action, if the continue payoff is a witness of the best response matrix.
\[lemma:lambda absorbing\] Let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be a generic quitting game whose best response matrix is not a Q-matrix. Let $q \in {{\mathbb R}}^{\abs{I}}$ be a witness for this matrix. Denote by $\Gamma(q) = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ the quitting game that it similar to $\Gamma$, except that the non-absorbing payoff is $q$; that is, $u(c) \coloneqq q$. For every $\lambda > 0$, let $x^\lambda$ be a $\lambda$-discounted stationary equilibrium of $\Gamma(q)$. Then $\lim_{\lambda \to 0} x^\lambda$ is absorbing in $\Gamma(q)$.
We will prove a similar version of this lemma, which claims that the limit of undiscounted equilibria in the auxiliary games cannot be the action profile $a^1$.
\[lemma:auxiliary absorbing\] Let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be an NQL game. Let $\delta: {{\mathbb N}}\to [0,1]^2 \setminus \left\{(0,0)\right\}$ be a function such that $\lim_{n \to \infty} \delta(n) = \vec{0}$. Let $(x^n)_{n \in {{\mathbb N}}}$ be a converging sequence of mixed action profiles such that $x^n$ is a stationary equilibrium in the auxiliary game $\Gamma^{\delta(n)}$ for every $n \in {{\mathbb N}}$, and define $x^\infty \coloneqq \lim_{n \to \infty} x^n$. Then, $x^\infty \ne a^1$.
Assume by contradiction that $x^\infty = a^1$.\
**Step 1: Defining auxiliary games**\
Since $\lim_{n \to \infty} \delta(n) = \vec{0}$, there exists a sequence $\mathcal{M} \coloneqq \left\{m_n\right\}_{n=1}^\infty$ of natural numbers, that satisfies one of the following conditions:
- The two sequences $\left\{ \delta_1(m_n) \right\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\left\{ \delta_2(m_n) \right\}_{n=1}^\infty$ are strictly decreasing and positive. That is, for every $n < n' \in {{\mathbb N}}$, we have $0 < \delta_1(m_{n'}) < \delta_1(m_n)$ and $0 < \delta_2(m_{n'}) < \delta_2(m_n)$.
- The sequence $\left\{ \delta_1(m_n) \right\}_{n=1}^\infty$ is strictly decreasing and positive, while $\delta_2(m) = 0$ for every $m \in \mathcal{M}$.
- The sequence $\left\{ \delta_2(m_n) \right\}_{n=1}^\infty$ is strictly decreasing and positive, while $\delta_1(m) = 0$ for every $m \in \mathcal{M}$.
Condition (M3) is symmetric to condition (M2), hence we assume without loss of generality that we have a subsequence $\mathcal{M} \subseteq {{\mathbb N}}$ of infinity size that satisfies either condition (M1) or condition (M2).\
Let $\Gamma^{\mathcal{M}} = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P^{\mathcal{M}}, u^{\mathcal{M}})$ be the quitting game defined as follows:
- $P^{\mathcal{M}}(a) = 1$ for every $a \ne a^1,a^2 \in A$, and $P^{\mathcal{M}}(a^1) = 0$,
- If $M$ satisfies Condition (M1): $P^{\mathcal{M}}(a^2) = 1$, and $u^{\mathcal{M}} = u^{0.5, 0.5}$,
- If $M$ satisfies Condition (M2): $P^{\mathcal{M}}(a^2) = 0$, and $u^{\mathcal{M}} = u^{0.5, 0}$.
By Observation \[observarion:best response matrix\], the best response matrices of $\Gamma^\mathcal{M}$ coincide with the best response matrices of $\Gamma^{\delta(m)}$ for every $m \in \mathcal{M}$. Consequently, the game $\Gamma^\mathcal{M}$ is NQL game.\
**Step 2: Representing** $\bm{\lim_{m \to \infty} u^{\delta(m)}(x^{m})}$\
Recall that $P^{\delta(m)}(x^{m})$ is the probability under the strategy profile $x^{m}$ that the auxiliary game $\Gamma^{\delta(m)}$ terminates in a single stage. For every action profile $a \in A$, let $z(a) \coloneqq \lim_{m \to \infty} \dfrac{x^{m}(a) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(a)}{P^{\delta(m)}(x^{m})}$ be the limit probability of absorption by action profile $a$ under $x^{m}$. We claim that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{m \to \infty} u^{\delta(m)}(x^{m}) &=&
\sum_{i \in I} \sum_{q_i \in Q_i} z(q_i, a^1_{-i}) \cdot u(q_i, a^1_{-i}) + \label{eq:aux 1}\\
&&+ (z(c_1^2, c_2^1, a^1_{-1,2}) + z(c_1^1, c_2^2, a^1_{-1,2}) \nonumber \\
&&+ z(c_1^2, c_2^2, a^1_{-1,2})) \cdot u(a^4) {\text{.}}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ To show that Eq. holds, we recall that $$\label{eq:Q1}
u^{\delta(m)}(x^{m}) =
\sum_{a \in A} \dfrac
{x^{m}(a) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(a) \cdot u(a)}
{P^{\delta(m)}(x^{m})} {\text{.}}$$ We will show that $z(a) = 0$ for every action profile $a \not \in \left\{(q_i, a^1_{-i})\right\}_{q_i \in Q_i} \cup \left\{a^2, a^3, a^4\right\}$. Let then $a$ be such an action profile, and let $i_1,\dots,i_k$ be the players such that $a_{i_j} \in Q_{i_j}$ is a quitting action. We can assume without loss of generality that $(i_1,a_{i_1}) \ne (1, c_1^2),(2,c_2^2)$. Then $a_{i_1}\in Q_{i_1}$ and $P^{\delta(m)}(a^1_{-i_1}, a_{i_1})$ is independent of $m$ and $\delta$. Because $x^\infty = a^1$ is non-absorbing in $\Gamma^{\delta(m)}$, for every $i \in \left\{i_1,...i_k\right\}$, we have $\lim_{m \to \infty} x^{m}_i(a_i) = 0$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&&x^{m}(a^1_{-i_1,\dots,-i_k},a_{i_1},\dots,a_{i_k}) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(a^1_{-i_1,\dots,-i_k},a_{i_1},\dots,a_{i_k}) \le \\
&&\qquad \le x^{m}(a^1_{-i_1,\dots,-i_k},a_{i_1},\dots,a_{i_k}) \ll
x^{m}(a^1_{-i_1},a_{i_1}) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(a^1_{-i_1},a_{i_1}) {\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $x^{m}(a^1_{-i_1,\dots,-i_k},a_{i_1},\dots,a_{i_k}) \ll x^{m}(a^1_{-i_1},a_{i_1})$, and the claim follows.\
**Step 3: Constructing best response action profiles**\
Since $x^{m}$ is a stationary equilibrium in $\Gamma^{\delta(m)}$, and since $x^\infty = a^1$, for every player $i$ and every action $a_i \ne a^1_i \in A_i$, if $x^{m}_i(a_i) > 0$ for every large enough $m$, then $a_i$ is a best response against $a^1_{-i}$ in the game $\Gamma^{\delta(m)}$. Therefore, for every player $i \in I$ who satisfies $P^{\delta(m)}(x_i^{m}, a^1_{-i}) > 0$ for every $m$ sufficient large, every action profile $y_i$ that assigns a positive probability only to actions $a_i \in A_i$ that satisfy $x_i^{m}(a_i) > 0$ (for every $m$ sufficiently large), is a best response to $a^1_{-i}$ in $\Gamma^{\mathcal{M}}$, since they have the same best response matrices.
We now define such a mixed action profile, $y$. For every player $i \ne 1$, $$y_i(a_i) \coloneqq \lim_{m \to \infty}
\dfrac{x_i^{m}(a_i) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(a_i, a^1_{-i})}{P^{\delta(m)}(x_i^{m}, a^1_{-i})} {\text{.}}$$ Thus, $y_i$ represents the proportion probability of the player to quit with a specific action. For Player 1, we increase the probability to play the action $c_1^2$ by an amount that depends on the probability of the game to be absorb in $a^4$. If $x^{m}(a^4) > 0$ then $x^{m}_1(c_1^2) > 0$ and $x^{m}_2(c_2^2) > 0$. Let $P^{\delta(m)}_{1,2}(x^{m}) \coloneqq \dfrac{x^{m}(a^4) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(a^4)}{P^{\delta(m)}(x^{m})}$. Therefore, if $P^{\delta(m)}(x_1^{m}, a^1_{-1}) + P^{\delta(m)}_{1,2}(x^{m}) > 0$ for every $m$ sufficient large, the following action profile is a best response of Player 1 against $a^1_{-1}$ in $\Gamma^{\mathcal{M}}$: $$y_1(a_1) =
\begin{dcases*}
\lim_{m \to \infty} \dfrac{x_1^{m}(a_1) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(a_1, a^1_{-1})}{P^{\delta(m)}(x_1^{m}, a^1_{-1}) + P^{\delta(m)}_{1,2}(x^{m})} & if $a_1 \in Q_1$,\\
\lim_{m \to \infty} \dfrac{x_1^{m}(c_1^2) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(a^3) + P^{\delta(m)}_{1,2}(x^{m})}{P^{\delta(m)}(x_1^{m}, a^1_{-1}) + P^{\delta(m)}_{1,2}(x^{m})} & if $a_1 = c_1^2$,\\
0 & if $a_1 = c_1^1$.
\end{dcases*}$$\
**Step 4: The contradiction**\
The matrix $R \coloneqq (r^i)_{i \in I}$ is a best response matrix in $\Gamma^{\mathcal{M}}$, and therefore it is not a Q-matrix. We will derive a contradiction by showing that the linear complementary problem ${{\rm LCP}}(R,q)$ has a solution, for every $q \in R^{\abs{I}}$. Let $z \coloneqq (z_1,\dots,z_{\abs{I}})$, where $$z_i \coloneqq
\begin{dcases*}
\sum_{q_1 \in Q_1} y(q_1, a^1_{-i}) + y(a^3) + y(a^4) {\text{,}}& $i = 1$,\\
\sum_{q_2 \in Q_2} y(q_2, a^1_{-i}) + y(a^2) {\text{,}}& $i = 2$,\\
\sum_{q_i \in Q_i} y(q_i, a^1_{-i}) {\text{,}}& $i > 3$.
\end{dcases*}$$ If $z_1 = 0$, define $r^1 \coloneqq \vec{0}$. Otherwise, define $$\begin{aligned}
r^1 \coloneqq&&
\sum_{q_1 \in Q_1} \lim_{m \to \infty}
\dfrac{x_1^{m}(q_1) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(q_1, a^1_{-1})}
{P^{\delta(m)}(x_1^{m}, a^1_{-1}) +
P^{\delta(m)}_{1,2}(x^{m})} \cdot u(q_1)\\
&&+ \lim_{m \to \infty}
\dfrac{x_1^{m}(c_1^2) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(a^3) +
P^{\delta(m)}_{1,2}(x^{m})}
{P^{\delta(m)}(x_1^{m}, a^1_{-1}) +
P^{\delta(m)}_{1,2}(x^{m})} u(a^4)
{\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ If $z_2 = 0$, define $r^2 \coloneqq \vec{0}$. Otherwise, define $$\begin{aligned}
r^2 \coloneqq&&
\sum_{q_2 \in Q_2} \lim_{m \to \infty}
\dfrac{x_2^{m}(q_2) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(q_2, a^1_{-2})}
{P^{\delta(m)}(x_2^{m}, a^1_{-2})}
\cdot u(q_2)\\
&&+ \lim_{m \to \infty}
\dfrac{x_2^{m}(c_2^2) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(a^2)}
{P^{\delta(m)}(x_2^{m}, a^1_{-2})}
u(a^2) {\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ For every player $i \ne 1$, if $z_i = 0$, define $r^i \coloneqq \vec{0}$. Otherwise, define $$r^i \coloneqq \sum_{q_i \in Q_i} \lim_{m \to \infty} \dfrac{x_i^{m}(q_i) \cdot P^{\delta(m)}(q_i, a^1_{-i})}{P^{\delta(m)}(x_i^{m}, a^1_{-i})} \cdot u(q_i)
{\text{.}}$$ Set $w \coloneqq \lim_{m \to \infty} u_{\delta(m)}(x^{m})$ to be the limit payoff under $x^{m}$. Since the game is positive, $w \in {{\mathbb R}}_+^{\abs{I}}$. We note that:
1. $w = Rz$, \[equation:Q1\]
2. $z$ is a probability distribution: $z_i \ge 0$ for every $i \in I$, and $\sum_{i=1}^{\abs{I}} z_i = 1$, \[equation:Q2\]
3. $w_i \ge R_{i,i}$ for every $i \in I$, \[equation:Q3\]
4. if $z_i > 0$ then $w_i = R_{i,i}$ for every $i \in I$. \[equation:Q4\]
Indeed, Condition (Q1) is given by Eq. (\[eq:Q1\]). Condition (Q2) follows from the definitions. Conditions (Q3) and (Q4) hold by the definition of equilibrium: for every $\delta$ sufficient small and for every $i \in I$, player $i$ cannot gain more than the equilibrium payoff while quitting alone, since the quitting probability of all other players is small, and quitting alone is an option for player $i$ in the game. If $z_i > 0$, then player $i$ quits with a positive probability and he is indifferent between quitting alone and the equilibrium payoff. Conditions (Q1)-(Q4) imply that $R$ is a Q-matrix, a contradiction.
\
The next lemma asserts that if the limit of a sequence of stationary equilibria is absorbing in a sequence of games, then the limit is an equilibrium in the limit game. The claim is similar to Lemma 4 of [@absorbing], hence its proof is omitted.
\[lemma:absorbing equilibrium\] Let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be an NQL game. Let $\delta: {{\mathbb N}}\to [0,1]^2 \setminus \left\{(0,0)\right\}$ be a function such that $\lim_{n \to \infty} \delta(n) = \vec{0}$. Let $(x^n)_{n \in {{\mathbb N}}}$ be a converging sequence of mixed action profiles such that $x^n$ is a stationary equilibrium in the auxiliary game $\Gamma^{\delta(n)}$ for every $n \in {{\mathbb N}}$, and set $x^\infty \coloneqq \lim_{n \to \infty} x^n$. If $x^\infty$ is absorbing in $\Gamma$, that is, $P(x^\infty) > 0$, then $x^\infty$ is a stationary uniform $0$-equilibrium of $\Gamma$.
The following theorem, presented original by [@browder_1960] will be helpful during Lemma \[lemma:NQL main\].
\[Theorem:browder\] Let $X \subseteq {{\mathbb R}}^n$ be a convex and compact set, and let $F : [0,1] \times X \to X$ be a continuous function. Define $C_F := \{ (t,x) \in [0,1] \times X \colon x = f(t,x)\}$ be the set of fixed points of $f$. There is a connected component $T$ of $C_F$ such that $T \cap (\{0\} \times X) \neq \emptyset$ and $T \cap (\{1\} \times X) \neq \emptyset$.
In the notations of Browder’s Theorem, by Kakutani’s Fixed Point Theorem, every set-valued function $F : X \to X$ with non-empty and convex values and closed graph has at least one fixed point. Browder’s Theorem states that when the set-valued function $F$ depends continuously on a one-dimensional parameter whose range is $[0,1]$, the set of fixed points, as a function of the parameter, has a connected component whose projection to the set of parameters is $[0,1]$.\
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section: every NQL game admits an almost stationary ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
\[lemma:NQL main\] Let $\Gamma = (I, (C_i)_{i \in I}, (Q_i)_{i \in I}, P, u)$ be an NQL game. Then for every ${\varepsilon}> 0$, the game $\Gamma$ admits an almost stationary uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
By Lemma \[lemma:generic\], we can assume without loss of generality that $\Gamma$ is a generic game. Fix ${\varepsilon}> 0$.\
**Step 1: Construction of a continuous game-valued function**\
Since the game $\Gamma$ is an NQL game, the best response matrices of the games $\Gamma^{1,1}$, $\Gamma^{1,0}_0$, and $\Gamma^{0,1}_0$ are not Q-matrices. Let $q$, $q_1$ and $q_2$ be witnesses of these matrices (respectfully). Denote $\Theta \coloneqq [-1, 2]$, $\Omega \coloneqq (0,1]$, and $\mathcal{Q} \coloneqq \left\{q, q_1, q_2\right\}$. For every $\theta \in \Theta$ and every $\omega \in \Omega$, define $$\Gamma_{\omega, \theta}(\mathcal{Q}) \coloneqq
\begin{dcases*}
\Gamma^{\omega, 0}_{1 + \theta} (-\theta q_1 + (1+\theta) q) {\text{,}}&$\theta \in [-1,0]$,\\
\Gamma^{\theta \omega, (1 - \theta) \omega}(q) {\text{,}}& $\theta \in [0,1]$,\\
\Gamma^{0, \omega}_{2 - \theta} ((\theta-1) q_2 + (2-\theta) q) {\text{,}}&$\theta \in [1,2]$.
\end{dcases*}$$
[y[65pt]{}|| y[90pt]{}| y[90pt]{}| y[15pt]{}]{} & $c_2^1$ & $c_2^2\ (\le 1 + \theta)$ & $q_2$\
\[0.5ex\] $c_1^1$ & $- \theta q + (1 + \theta) q_1$ & $ - \theta q + (1 + \theta) q_1$ & \*\
$c_1^2$ & $u(a^4)\ ^{\omega}$\* & $u(a^4)$ \* & \*\
$q_1$ & \* & \* & \*\
$-1 \le \theta \le 0$
[y[60pt]{}|| y[90pt]{}| y[90pt]{}| y[20pt]{}]{} & $c_2^1$ & $c_2^2$ & $q_2$\
\[0.5ex\] $c_1^1$ & $q$ & $u(a^4)\ ^{(1-\theta) \omega}$\* & \*\
$c_1^2$ & $u(a^4)\ ^{\theta \omega}$\* & $u(a^4)$ \* & \*\
$q_1$ & \* & \* & \*\
$0 \le \theta \le 1$
[y[60pt]{}|| y[90pt]{}| y[90pt]{}| y[20pt]{}]{} & $c_2^1$ & $c_2^2$ & $q_2$\
\[0.5ex\] $c_1^1$ & $(2 - \theta) q + (\theta - 1) q_2$ & $u(a^4)\ ^{\omega}$\* & \*\
$c_1^2\ (\le 2 - \theta)$ & $(2 - \theta) q + (\theta - 1) q_2$ & $u(a^4)$ \* & \*\
$q_1$ & \* & \* & \*\
$1 \le \theta \le 2$
The function $(\omega, \theta) \mapsto \Gamma_{\omega, \theta}(\mathcal{Q})$ maps an auxiliary game to each pair of parameters $(\omega, \theta) \in \Omega \times \Theta$. This function is continuous, in the sense that the absorption function and the payoff function change continuously with $\omega$ and $\theta$. For every $\omega \in \Omega$, in the game $\Gamma_{\omega, -1}(\mathcal{Q})$ Player 2 cannot play the action $c_2^2$. As $\theta$ increases from $-1$ to $0$, the probability by which Player 2 can play the action $c_2^2$ in the game $\Gamma_{\omega, \theta}(\mathcal{Q})$ increases to $1$, yet this action does not guarantee absorption. As $\theta$ increases from $0$ to $1$, the probability of absorption under $a^2$ (respectively $a^3$) increases to $\omega$ (respectively decreases to $0$). As $\theta$ increases from $1$ to $2$, the probability by which Player 1 can play the action $c_1^2$ decreases from $1$ to $0$. The non-absorbing payoff changes with $\theta$ as well: As $\theta$ increases to $0$, it changes linearly from $q_2$ to $q$; as $\theta$ increases from $0$ to $1$, it remains $q$; and as $\theta$ increases from $1$ to $2$, it changes linearly from $q$ to $q_1$.\
**Step 2: Applying Browder’s Theorem**\
For every $\lambda > 0$, every $\omega \in \Omega$, and every $\theta \in \Theta$, let $\Xi^\lambda_\omega(\theta)$ be the set of all $\lambda$-discounted stationary equilibria of the auxiliary game $\Gamma_{\omega, \theta}(\mathcal{Q})$. Fix for a moment $\omega \in \Omega$ and $\lambda > 0$. Define $\mathcal{M}^\lambda_\omega \coloneqq \left\{ (\theta, \xi(\theta) \mid
\theta \in \Theta, \xi(\theta) \in \Xi^\lambda_\omega(\theta) \right\}$. [@browder_1960] implies that the set $\mathcal{M}^\lambda_\omega$ has a connected component whose projection to the first coordinate is $\Theta$. Denote this connected component by $M^\lambda_\omega$.\
Define $M^0_\omega \coloneqq \limsup_{\lambda \to 0} M^\lambda_\omega
= \cap_{\lambda > 0} \cup_{\lambda' < \lambda} M^{\lambda'}_\omega $, and $M^0_0 \coloneqq \limsup_{\omega \to 0} M^0_\omega
= \cap_{\omega > 0} \cup_{\omega' < \omega} M^0_{\omega'}$. The sets $(M^\lambda_\omega)_{\lambda, \omega}$, $(M^0_\omega)_{\omega}$, and $M^0_0$ are all semi-algebraic sets, hence the sets $(M^0_\omega)_{\omega}$ are connected and their projection to the first coordinate is $\Omega$. Consequently, the same holds for the set $M^0_0$.\
**Step 3: Notations**\
Since $(M^0_\omega)_{\omega}$ and $M^0_0$ are connected sets whose projection to the first coordinate is $\Omega$, there exist continuous semi-algebraic functions $(\theta_\omega^0)_{\omega}, \theta_0^0 : [0,1] \to \Theta$, and $(\xi_\omega^0)_{\omega}, \xi_0^0 : [0,1] \to (\times_{i \in I} \Delta(A_i))$, such that
- the image $\theta_0^0$ and $\theta_\omega^0$ for every $\omega \in \Omega$ is $\Theta$,
- $(\theta_0^0(\beta), \xi_0^0(\beta)) \in M^0_\omega$ for every $\beta \in [0,1]$,
- $(\theta_\omega^0(\beta), \xi_\omega^0(\beta)) \in M^0_\omega$ for every $\beta \in [0,1]$ and every $\omega \in \Omega$.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that for every $\omega \in \Omega$ we have $\theta^0_\omega(0), \theta^0_0(0) = -1$ and $\theta^0_\omega(1), \theta^0_0(1) = 2$. Denote by $\Gamma(\omega, \beta)$ the auxiliary game $\Gamma_{\omega, \theta_{\omega}(\beta)}(\mathcal{Q})$.\
We divide the interval $[0,1]$ into smaller intervals, which represent the different type of the auxiliary game admitted by $\Gamma(\omega, \beta)$. This is done as follows. Define recursively $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_1 &\coloneqq& -1 {\text{,}}\\
\rho_i &\coloneqq& \inf \left( \left\{ \beta \mid
\beta > \tau_i, 0 < \theta^0_0(\beta) < 1 \right\} \cup \left\{ 1 \right\} \right) {\text{,}}\\
\tau_{i+1} &\coloneqq& \inf \left\{ \beta \mid
\beta > \rho_i, \theta^0_0(\beta) \notin (0,1) \right\} {\text{.}}\end{aligned}$$ The definition ends when $\rho_i = 1$.\
Since $\theta^0_0(\cdot)$ is a semi-algebraic function, it enters the interval $(0,1)$ finitely many times. Therefore, there is an integer $i \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $\rho_i = 1$. If $\beta \in (\rho_i, \tau_{i+1})$, then for small enough $\omega$, the auxiliary game $\Gamma(\omega, \beta)$ has the structure of the game $\Gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}$, where $\delta_1 = \theta_{\omega}(\beta) \cdot \omega$ and $\delta_2 = (1-\theta_{\omega}(\beta)) \cdot \omega$. If $\beta \in (\tau_i, \rho_i)$, then for small enough $\omega$, the auxiliary game $\Gamma(\omega, \beta)$ has the structure of either the game $\Gamma^{\delta, 0}_\alpha$ or the game $\Gamma^{0, \delta}_\alpha$, for some $\delta$ and $\alpha$.\
**Step 4: Properties of $\bm{\xi^0_0(\beta)}$ for $\bm{\rho_i \le \beta \le \tau_{i+1}}$**\
By the definition of $\tau$ and $\rho$, if $\rho_i < \beta < \tau_{i+1}$ then $0 < \theta_0^0(\beta) < 1$, and $\Gamma(\omega, \beta)$ is $\Gamma^{\delta_1, \delta_2}$, with $\delta_1 = \theta_{\omega}(\beta) \cdot \omega$ and $\delta_2 = (1-\theta_{\omega}(\beta)) \cdot \omega$. If $\beta \in \left\{\rho_i, \tau_{i+1}\right\}$, then $\theta_0^0(\beta) \in \left\{0,1\right\}$, and the auxiliary game $\Gamma(\omega, \beta)$ is either $\Gamma^{\delta, 0}$ or $\Gamma^{0, \delta}$, for some $\delta >0$. We will present some properties of both $\xi^0_\omega$ and $\xi^0_0$ in these cases. Lemma \[lemma:lambda absorbing\] implies the following.
\[claim:1\] For every $\omega \in (0,1]$, if $\rho_i < \beta < \tau_{i+1}$ then $\xi^0_\omega(\beta)$ is absorbing in $\Gamma(\omega,\beta)$.
From Claim \[claim:1\] we deduce that $\xi^0_\omega(\beta)$ is an equilibrium in $\Gamma(\omega,\beta)$ for every $\omega > 0$. Since $\lim_{\omega \to 0} \xi^0_\omega(\beta) = \xi^0_0(\beta)$, using Lemma \[lemma:auxiliary absorbing\] we obtain the following result
\[claim:2\] For every $\rho_i < \beta < \tau_{i+1}$, we have $\xi^0_0(\beta) \ne a^1$.
As the following claim asserts, Claim \[claim:2\] extends to $\beta = \rho_i$ and $\beta = \tau_{i + 1}$.
\[claim:3\] $\xi^0_0(\rho_i), \xi^0_0(\tau_{i+1}) \ne a^1$.
We will argue that $\xi^0_0(\rho_i) \ne a^1$; the proof for $\xi^0_0(\tau_{i+1})$ is analogous. Since $\xi^0_\omega(\beta)$ is an equilibrium in $\Gamma(\omega,\beta)$ for every $\omega > 0$ and every $\rho_i < \beta < \tau_{i+1}$, $\lim_{\omega \to 0^+} \xi^0_\omega(\rho_i + \omega) = \xi^0_0(\rho_i)$, the result follows from Lemma \[lemma:auxiliary absorbing\].
\
\
Since $\xi^0_0(\beta) \ne a^1$ for every $\rho_i \le \beta \le \tau_{i+1}$, Claims \[claim:2\] and \[claim:3\], together with Lemma \[lemma:absorbing equilibrium\], yields the following.
\[claim:real absorbing\] For every $\rho_i \le \beta \le \tau_{i+1}$, if $\xi^0_0(\beta)$ is absorbing in $\Gamma$, then $\Gamma$ admits an almost stationary ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
It is left to handle the case where $\xi^0_0(\beta) = (1-t_{\beta}) a^1 + t_\beta a^2$ or $\xi^0_0(\beta) = (1-t_{\beta}) a^1 + t_\beta a^3$, for every $\beta \in [\rho_i, \tau_{i + 1}]$, where $t_\beta > 0$. The interval $[\rho_i, \tau_{i + 1}]$ is called *a type 1 interval* if $\xi^0_0(\beta) = (1-t_{\beta}) a^1 + t_\beta a^2$ for every $\beta \in [\rho_i, \tau_{i + 1}]$. The interval $[\rho_i, \tau_{i + 1}]$ is called *a type 2 interval* if $\xi^0_0(\beta) = (1-t_{\beta}) a^1 + t_\beta a^3$ for every $\beta \in [\rho_i, \tau_{i + 1}]$. We argue that the interval $[\rho_i, \tau_{i + 1}]$ is either a type 1 interval or a type 2 interval. Indeed, otherwise, there are $\beta, \beta' \in [\rho_i, \tau_{i + 1}]$, such that $\xi^0_0(\beta) = (1-t_{\beta}) a^1 + t_\beta a^2$ and $\xi^0_0(\beta') = (1-t_{\beta'}) a^1 + t_\beta a^3$. The continuity of $\xi$ implies that one of the following two conditions holds:
- $\xi^0_0(\beta'') = a^1$ for some $\beta'' \in [\rho_i, \tau_{i + 1}]$,
- $\xi^0_0(\beta'')$ is absorbing in the game $\Gamma$ for some $\beta'' \in [\rho_i, \tau_{i + 1}]$.
The former alternative is impossible due to Claim \[claim:2\], while by Claim \[claim:real absorbing\], the latter alternative implies that the game $\Gamma$ admits an almost stationary ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium. It follows that it is left to handle the case where $[\rho_i, \tau_{i + 1}]$ is either a type 1 interval or a type 2 interval.\
**Step 5: Properties of $\bm{\xi^0_0(\beta)}$ where $\bm{\tau_i \le \beta \le \rho_i}$**\
By the definition of $\tau$ and $\rho$, if $\tau_i \le \beta \le \rho_i$ then either $\theta_0^0(\beta) \le 0$, in which case $\Gamma(\omega, \beta) = \Gamma^{\omega, 0}_\alpha$ for some $\alpha \in [0,1]$; or $\theta_0^0(\beta) \ge 1$, in which case $\Gamma(\omega, \beta) = \Gamma^{0, \delta}_\alpha$ for some $\alpha \in [0,1]$.
\[claim:4\] There exists $c_{\varepsilon}' > 0$, such that for every $\beta \in [0,1]$, if $\theta^0_0(\beta) \le 0$ and $0 < P^{0,1}(\xi^0_0(\beta)) < c_{\varepsilon}'$, then $\Gamma$ admits an almost stationary ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
Let $c_{\varepsilon}, \delta_{\varepsilon}> 0$ be given by Lemma \[lemma:alpha equilibrium\], and set $c_{\varepsilon}' \coloneqq \frac{c_{\varepsilon}}{2}$. If $0 < P^{0,1}(\xi^0_0(\beta)) < c_{\varepsilon}'$, then there are $\beta'$ close to $\beta$ and $\omega < \delta_{\varepsilon}$, such that $0 < P^{0,1}(\xi^0_\omega(\beta')) < c_{\varepsilon}$. The result follows from Lemma \[lemma:alpha equilibrium\].
\
\
An analogous result holds when $\theta^0_0(\beta) \ge 1$.
\[claim:5\] There exist $c_{\varepsilon}> 0$, such that for every $\beta \in [0,1]$, if $\theta^0_0(\beta) \ge 1$ and $0 < P^{1,0}(\xi^0_0(\beta)) < c_{\varepsilon}$, then the game $\Gamma$ admits an almost stationary ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
\[claim:side\] Let $\beta, \beta' \in [\tau_i, \rho_i]$. If there are $t, t' \in (0,1]$ such that $\xi^0_0(\beta) = (1 - t) a^1 + t a^2$ and $\xi^0_0(\beta') = (1 - t') a^1 + t' a^3$, then $\Gamma$ admits an almost stationary ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
Without loss of generality, $\theta^0_0(\beta'') \le 0$ for every $\beta'' \in [\tau_i, \rho_i]$. We know that $P^{0,1}(\xi^0_0(\beta)) > 0$ and $P^{0,1}(\xi^0_0(\beta')) = 0$. By the intermediate value theorem, there is $\beta''$ between $\beta$ and $\beta'$, such that $0 < P^{0,1}(\xi^0_0(\beta)) < c'_{\varepsilon}$. The result follow from Claim \[claim:4\].
\
\
We deduce from Claim \[claim:side\] that if $[\rho_i, \tau_{i+1}]$ is a type 1 interval (and therefore $\xi^0_0(\tau_{i+1}) = (1 - t) a^1 + t a^2$, for some $t > 0$), and $[\rho_{i+1}, \tau_{i+2}]$ is a type 2 interval, (and therefore $\xi^0_0(\rho_{i+1}) = (1 - t') a^1 + t' a^3$, for some $t' > 0$), then $\Gamma$ admits an almost stationary ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium. Hence, it left to handle the case where all intervals $[\rho_i, \tau_{i+1}]$ have the same type.\
**Step 6: The connected component ends**\
Without loss of generality, assume that all intervals $[\rho_i, \tau_{i+1}]$ have type 1. Then, $\xi^0_0(\rho_1) = (1 - t) a^1 + t a^2$ (where $t > 0$), and hence $P^{0,1}(\xi^0_0(\rho_1)) = 0$. If $\xi^0_0(0)$ is not a mixture of $a^1$ and $a^2$, then $P^{0,1}(\xi^0_0(0)) > 0$. Therefore, for every $c > 0$, there is $\beta \in [\tau_1, \rho_1]$ such that $0 < P^{0,1}(\xi^0_0(\beta)) < c$. By Claim \[claim:4\], the game $\Gamma$ admits an almost stationary ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.\
If $\xi^0_0(0)$ is a mixture of $a^1$ and $a^2$, then, since $\theta^0_0(0) = -1$, we deduce that $\xi^0_0(0) = a^1$. We will prove that this case is not possible, and conclude the proof. As in Claim \[claim:1\], one can show that $\xi^0_\omega(0) \neq a^1$ for every $\omega > 0$. Therefore $\xi^0_\omega(0)$ are equilibria in $\Gamma(\omega,0)$ for every $\omega > 0$. The game $\lim_{\omega \to 0} \Gamma(\omega, 0)$ is a general quitting game with a single player who has two continue actions, while the other players have a single continue action. Since $\lim_{\omega \to 0} \xi^0_\omega(0) = a^1$, this is a contradiction, as in Claim \[claim:3\].
Uniform Sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium {#subsection:L-shaped proof}
-------------------------------------------
In this section we prove Lemma \[lemma:L-shaped main\], which state that every positive recursive L-shaped game admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, thus completing the proof of Theorem \[theorem:main\].\
Let ${\varepsilon}>0$, and let $\Gamma$ be an L-shaped game. $\Gamma$ is either NQL game or QL game. If $\Gamma$ is an NQL game, then then by Lemma \[lemma:NQL main\], it admits an almost uniform ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium. If $\Gamma$ is a QL game, then by Lemma \[lemma:Q-L sunspot\], it admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium.
Discussion {#section:discussion}
==========
The problem that inspired this paper is whether every stochastic game admits a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium. [@general_quitting] proved that every general quitting game admits such an equilibrium, and in this paper, we proved the result to another family of absorbing games. To do so, we developed two techniques that were used in this paper.\
The first technique, which was introduced in Section \[section:spotted\], consists of dividing the set of non-absorbing mixed action profiles to equivalence classes. Two mixed action profiles, $x$ and $y$, are in the same equivalence class if there is $i$ such that $x_{-i} = y_{-i}$. In spotted games, each equivalence class is composed of a single action profile. We then considered, for each equivalence class, an auxiliary game where all mixed action profiles that do not belong to that class are absorbing. We then showed that a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in such an auxiliary game, in which the players play mainly a non-absorbing mixed action profile is a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in the original game. We also proved that if all these auxiliary games do not admit a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium, in which the players play mainly a non-absorbing mixed action profile, then a uniform absorbing stationary $0$-equilibrium exists. The second technique, which was introduced in Section \[section:L-shaped\], consists of two families of auxiliary games, where the limit of $\lambda$-discounted ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in the auxiliary games allow us to explore and find uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in the original game.\
We believe that by combining these two techniques, one can proved the existence of a uniform sunspot ${\varepsilon}$-equilibrium in more general families of absorbing games, specifically in quitting absorbing games, that were introduced in Definition \[definition:quitting absorbing game\].
[^1]: The School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997800, Israel. e-mail: orin25@gmail.com, eilonsolan@gmail.com.
[^2]: The authors acknowledge the support of the Israel Science Foundation, Grant \#217/17.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The quotient of the conformal group of Euclidean 4-space by its Weyl subgroup results in a geometry possessing many of the properties of relativistic phase space, including both a natural symplectic form and non-degenerate Killing metric. We show that the general solution posesses orthogonal Lagrangian submanifolds, with the induced metric and the spin connection on the submanifolds necessarily Lorentzian, despite the Euclidean starting pont. By examining the structure equations of the biconformal space in an orthonormal frame adapted to its phase space properties, we also find that two new tensor fields exist in this geometry, not present in Riemannian geometry. The first is a combination of the Weyl vector with the scale factor on the metric, and determines the timelike directions on the submanifolds. The second comes from the components of the spin connection, symmetric with respect to the new metric. Though this field comes from the spin connection it transforms homogeneously. Finally, we show that in the absence of conformal curvature or sources, the configuration space has geometric terms equivalent to a perfect fluid and a cosmological constant.'
address: 'Utah State University, Physics Department, Logan, UT 84322'
author:
- 'Jeffrey S. Hazboun and James T. Wheeler'
bibliography:
- '/Users/jeffrey/Documents/PhD/Dissertation/MyDissertation/Dissertation.bib'
title: |
Time and dark matter from the\
conformal symmetries of Euclidean space
---
[*Keywords*]{}: [conformal gravity, time, biconformal space, general relativity, Weyl gravity, gravitational gauge theory, Euclidean gravity]{}
Introduction \[sec:Historical-introduction\]
============================================
We develop a gauge theory based on the conformal group of a Euclidean space, and show that its group properties necessarily lead to a Lorentzian phase spacetime with *vacuum* solutions carrying both a cosmological constant and a cosmological perfect fluid as part of the generalized Einstein tensor. In curved models, this geometric background may explain or contribute to dark matter and dark energy. To emphasize the purely geometric character of the construction, we give a description of our use of the quotient manifold method for building gauge theories. Our use of the conformal group, together with our choice of local symmetry, lead to several structures not present in other related gauge theories. Specifically, we show the generic presence of a symplectic form, that there exists an induced metric from the non-degenerate Killing form, demonstrate (but do not use) Kähler structure, and find natural orthogonal, Lagrangian submanifolds. All of these properties arise directly from group theory.
In the remainder of this introduction, we give a brief historical overview of techniques leading up to, related to, or motivating our own, then describe the layout of our presentation.
As mathematicians began studying the various incarnations of non-Euclidean geometry, Klein started his Erlangen Program in 1872 as a way to classify all forms of geometries that could be constructed using quotients of groups. These *homogeneous spaces* allowed for straightforward classification of the spaces dependent on their symmetry properties. Much of the machinery necessary to understand these spaces originated with Cartan, beginning with his doctoral dissertation [@Cartan1910a]. The classification of these geometries according to symmetry foreshadowed gauge theory, the major tool that would be used by theoretical physicists as the twentieth century continued. We will go into extensive detail about how these methods are used in a modern context in section \[sec:Quotient-Manifold-Method\]. Most of the development, in modern language, can be found in [@Sharpe:1997a].
The use of symmetries to construct physical theories can be greatly credited to Weyl’s attempts at constructing a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism by adding dilatational symmetry to general relativity. These attempts failed until Weyl looked at a $U(1)$ symmetry of the action instead, thus constructing the first gauge theory of electromagnetism. These efforts were extended to non-Abelian groups by Yang and Mills [@Yang:1954ek], including all $SU(n)$ and described by the Yang-Mills action. The success of these theories as quantum pre-cursors inspired relativists to try and construct general relativity as a gauge theory. Utiyama [@Utiyama:1956p1235] looked at GR based on the the Lorentz group, followed by Kibble [@Kibble:1961p1468] who first gauged the Poincaré group to form general relativity.
Standard approaches to gauge theory begin with a matter action globally invariant under some symmetry group $\mathcal{H}$. This action generally fails to be locally symmetric due to the derivatives of the fields, but can be made locally invariant by introducing an $\mathcal{H}$-covariant derivative. The connection fields used for this derivative are called gauge fields. The final step is to make the gauge fields dynamical by constructing their field strengths, which may be thought of as curvatures of the connection, and including them in a modified action.
In the 1970’s the success of the standard model and the growth of supersymmetric gravity theories inspired physicists to extend the symmetry used to construct a gravitational theory. MacDowell and Mansouri [@MacDowell:1977p1566] obtained general relativity by gauging the de Sitter or anti-de Sitter groups, and using a Wigner-Inönu contraction to recover Poincaré symmetry. As a pre-cursor to supersymmetrizing Weyl gravity, two groups [@CrispimRomao:1977hj; @CrispimRomao:1978vf; @Kaku:1977pa; @Kaku:1977rk] looked at a gravitational theory based on the conformal group, using the Weyl curvature-squared action. These approaches are top-down, in the sense that they often start with a physical matter action and generalize to a local symmetry that leads to interactions. However, as this work expanded, physicists started using the techniques of Cartan and Klein to organize and develop the structures systematically.
In [@Neeman:1978p1517; @Neeman:1978p1521] Ne’eman and Regge develop what they refer to as the quotient manifold technique to construct a gauge theory of gravity based on the Poincaré group. Theirs is the first construction of a gravitational gauge theory that uses Klein (homogeneous) spaces as generalized versions of tangent spaces, applying methods developed by Cartan [@Kobayashi:1969p2015] to characterize a more general geometry. In their 1982 papers [@Ivanov:1982p1172; @Ivanov:1982p1201], Ivanov and Niederle exhaustively considered quotients of the Poincaré, de Sitter, anti-de Sitter and Lorentzian conformal groups ($ISO\left(3,1\right)$, $SO\left(4,1\right)$, $SO\left(3,2\right)$ and $SO\left(4,2\right)$) by various subgroups containing the Lorentz group.
There are a number of more recent implementations of Cartan geometry in the modern literature. One good introduction is Wise’s use of Cartan methods to look at the MacDowell-Mansouri action [@Wise:2006sm]. The “waywiser” approach of visualizing these geometries is advocated strongly, and gives a clear geometric way of undertsanding Cartan geometry. The use of Cartan techniques in [@Gryb:2012qt] to look at the Chern-Simons action in $2+1$ dimensions provides a nice example of the versatility of the method. This action can be viewed as having either Minkowski, de Sitter or anti-de Sitter symmetry and Cartan methods allow a straightforward characterization of the theory given the various symmetries. The analysis is extended to look first at the conformal representation of these groups on the Euclidean surfaces of the theory ($2$-dimensional spatial slices). The authors then look specifically at shape dynamics, which is found equivalent to the case when the Chern-Simons action has de Sitter symmetry. Tractor calculus is yet another example using a quotient of the conformal group, in which the associated tensor bundles are based on a linear, $(n+2)$-dim representation of the group. This is a distinct gauging from the one we study here, but one studied in [@Wheeler:2013ora].
Our research focuses primarily on gaugings of the conformal group. Initially motivated by a desire to understand the physical role of local scale invariance, the growing prospects of twistor string formulations of gravity [@ArkaniHamed:2012nw] elevate the importance of understanding its low-energy limit, which is expected to be a conformal gauge theory of gravity. Interestingly, there are two distinct ways to formulate gravitational theories based on the conformal group, first identified in [@Ivanov:1982p1172; @Ivanov:1982p1201] and developed in [@Wheeler:2013ora; @Wehner:1999p1653; @Wheeler:1997pc]. Both of these lead directly to scale-invariant general relativity. This is surprising since the best known conformal gravity theory is the fourth-order theory developed by Weyl [@Weyl1918a; @Weyl1918b; @Weyl1919; @Weyl1921a; @Weyl1923a] and Bach [@Bach1920]. When a Palatini style variation is applied to Weyl gravity, it becomes second-order, scale-invariant general relativity [@Wheeler:2013ora].
The second gauging of the conformal group identified in these works is the *biconformal* gauging. Leading to scale-invariant general relativity formulated on a $2n$-dimensional symplectic manifold, the approach took a novel twist for homogeneous spaces in [@Spencer:2008p167]. There it is shown that, because the biconformal gauging leads to a zero-signature manifold of doubled dimension, we can start with the conformal symmetry of a non-Lorentzian space while still arriving at spacetime gravity. We describe the resulting signature theorem in detail below, and considerably strengthen its conclusions. In addition to necessarily developing a direction of time from a Euclidean-signature starting point, we show that these models give a group-theoretically driven candidate for dark matter.
In the next Section, we describe the quotient manifold method in detail, providing an example by applying it to the Poincaré group to produce Cartan and Riemannian geometries. Then, in Section \[sec:Conformal-Quotients\], we apply the method to the conformal group in the two distinct ways outlined above. The first, called the auxiliary gauging, reproduces Weyl gravity. Focusing on the second, we identify a number of properties posessed by the homogeneous space of the biconformal gauging. In Section 4, we digress to complete both gaugings by modifying the quotient manifold and connections, then writing appropriate action functionals, thereby establishing physical theories of gravity. We return to study the homogeneous space of the biconformal gauging in Section 5, developing the Maurer-Cartan structure equations in an adapted basis. Then, in the next Section, we transform a known solution to the structure equations into the adapted basis and identify the properties of the resulting space. This reveals two previously unknown objects, one a tensor of rank three, and the other a vector. In Section 6 we find the form of the connection and basis forms when restricted to the configuration and momentum submanifolds. This reveals the possibility of Riemannian curvature of the submanifolds, even though the Cartan curvature of the full space vanishes. Imposing the form of the solution, we find the configuration space has a generalized Einstein tensor which contains both a cosmological constant and cosmological dust in addition to the usual Einstein tensor. Finally, we summarize our results.
Quotient Manifold Method\[sec:Quotient-Manifold-Method\]
========================================================
We are interested in geometries ultimately spacetime geometries which have continuous local symmetries. The structure of such systems is that of a principal fiber bundle with Lie group fibers. The quotient method starts with a Lie group, $\mathcal{G}$, with the desired local symmetry as a proper Lie subgroup. To develop the local properties any representation will give equivalent results, so without loss of generality we assume a linear representation, i.e. a vector space $\mathcal{V}^{n+2}$ on which $\mathcal{G}$ acts. Typically this will be either a signature $\left(p,q\right)$ (pseudo-)Euclidean space or the corresponding spinor space. This vector space is useful for describing the larger symmetry group, but is only a starting point and will not appear in the theory.
The quotient method, laid out below, is identical in many respects to the approaches of [@Wise:2006sm; @Gryb:2012qt]. The nice geometric interpretation of using a Klein space in place of a tangent space to both characterize a curved manifold and take advantage of its metric structure are also among the motivations for using the quotient method. In what follows not all the manifolds we look at will be interpreted as spacetime, so we choose not to use the interpretation of a Klein space moving around on spacetime in a larger ambient space. Rather we directly generalize the homogeneous space to add curvatures. The homogeneous space becomes a local model for a more general curved space, similar to the way that $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ provides a local model for an $n$-dim Riemannian manifold.
We include a concise introduction here, but the reader can find a more detailed exposition in [@Sharpe:1997a]. Our intention is to make it clear that our ultimate conclusions have rigorous roots in group theory, rather than to present a comprehensive mathematical description.
Construction of a principal $\mathcal{H}$-bundle $\mathfrak{B}\left(\mathcal{G},\pi,\mathcal{H},M_{0}\right)$ with connection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider a Lie group, $\mathcal{G}$, and a non-normal Lie subgroup, $\mathcal{H}$, on which $\mathcal{G}$ acts effectively and transitively. The quotient of these is a homogeneous manifold, $M_{0}$. The points of $M_{0}$ are the left cosets, $$g\mathcal{H}=\left\{ g'\mid g'=gh\: for\: some\: h\in\mathcal{H}\right\}$$ so there is a natural $1-1$ mapping $g\mathcal{H}\leftrightarrow\mathcal{H}$. The cosets are disjoint from one another and together cover $\mathcal{G}$. There is a projection, $\pi:\mathcal{G}\rightarrow M_{0}$, defined by $\pi\left(g\right)=g\mathcal{H}\in M_{0}$. There is also a right action of $\mathcal{G}$, $g\mathcal{H}\mathcal{G}$, given for all elements of $\mathcal{G}$ by right multiplication.
Therefore, $\mathcal{G}$ is a principal $\mathcal{H}$-bundle, $\mathfrak{B}\left(\mathcal{G},\pi,\mathcal{H},M_{0}\right)$, where the fibers are the left cosets. This is the mathematical object required to carry a gauge theory of the symmetry group $\mathcal{H}$. Let the dimension of $\mathcal{G}$ be $m$, the dimension of $\mathcal{H}$ be $k$. Then the dimension of the manifold is $n=m-k$ and we write $M_{0}^{\left(n\right)}$. Choosing a gauge amounts to picking a cross-section of this bundle, i.e., one point from each of these copies of $\mathcal{H}$. Local symmetry amounts to dynamical laws which are independent of the choice of cross-section.
Lie groups have a natural Cartan connection given by the one-forms, $\boldsymbol{\xi}^{A}$, dual to the group generators, $G_{A}$. Rewriting the Lie algebra in terms of these dual forms leads immediately to the Maurer-Cartan structure equations, $$\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\xi}^{A}=-\frac{1}{2}c_{\; BC}^{A}\boldsymbol{\xi}^{B}\wedge\boldsymbol{\xi}^{C}\label{Maurer-Cartan}$$ where $c_{\; BC}^{A}$ are the group structure constants, and $\wedge$ is the wedge product. The integrability condition for this equation follows from the Poincaré lemma, $\mathbf{d}^{2}=0$, and turns out to be precisely the Jacobi identity. Therefore, the Maurer-Cartan equations together with their integrability conditions are completely equivalent to the Lie algebra of $\mathcal{G}$.
Let $\boldsymbol{\xi}^{a}$ (where $a=1,\ldots,k$) be the subset of one-forms dual to the generators of the subgroup, $\mathcal{H}$. Let the remaining independent forms be labeled $\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha}$. Then the $\boldsymbol{\xi}^{a}$ give a connection on the fibers while the $\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha}$ span the co-tangent spaces to $M_{0}^{\left(n\right)}$. We denote the manifold with connection by $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(n\right)}=\left(M_{0}^{\left(n\right)},\boldsymbol{\xi}^{A}\right)$.
Cartan generalization
---------------------
For a gravity theory, we require in general a curved geometry, $\mathcal{M}^{\left(n\right)}$. To achieve this, the quotient method allows us to generalize both the connection and the manifold. Since the principal fiber bundle from the quotient is a local direct product, this is not changed if we allow a generalization of the manifold, $M_{0}^{\left(n\right)}\rightarrow M^{\left(n\right)}$. We will not consider such topological issues here. Generalizing the connection is more subtle. If we change $\boldsymbol{\xi}^{A}=\left(\boldsymbol{\xi}^{a},\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha}\right)$ to a new connection $\boldsymbol{\xi}^{A}\rightarrow\boldsymbol{\omega}^{A},\boldsymbol{\xi}^{a}\rightarrow\boldsymbol{\omega}^{a},\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha}\rightarrow\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}$ arbitrarily, the Maurer-Cartan equation is altered to $$\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{A}=-\frac{1}{2}c_{\; BC}^{A}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{B}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{C}+\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{A}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{A}$ is a $2$-form determined by the choice of the new connection. We need restrictions on $\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{A}$ so that it represents curvature of the geometry $\mathcal{M}^{\left(n\right)}=\left(M^{\left(n\right)},\boldsymbol{\omega}^{A}\right)$ and not of the full bundle $\mathfrak{B}$. We restrict $\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{A}$ by requiring it to be independent of lifting, i.e., horizontality of the curvature.
To define horizontality, recall that the integral of the connection around a closed curve in the bundle is given by the integral of $\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{A}$ over any surface bounded by the curve. We require this integral to be independent of lifting, i.e., horizontal. It is easy to show that this means that the two-form basis for the curvatures $\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{A}$ cannot include any of the one-forms, $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{a}$, that span the fiber group, $\mathcal{H}$. With the horizontality condition, the curvatures take the simpler form $$\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{A}=\frac{1}{2}\Omega_{\;\alpha\beta}^{A}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\beta}$$ More general curvatures than this will destroy the homogeneity of the fibers, so we would no longer have a *principal* $\mathcal{H}$-bundle.
In addition to horizontality, we require integrability. Again using the Poincaré lemma, $\mathbf{d}^{2}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{A}\equiv0$, we always find a term $\frac{1}{2}c_{\; B[C}^{A}c_{\; DE]}^{B}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{C}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{D}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{E}$ which vanishes by the Jacobi identity, $c_{\; B[C}^{A}c_{\; DE]}^{B}\equiv0$, while the remaining terms give the general form of the Bianchi identities, $$\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{A}+c_{\; BC}^{A}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{B}\wedge\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{C}=0$$
Example: Pseudo-Riemannian manifolds
------------------------------------
To see how this works in a familiar example, consider the construction of the pseudo-Riemannian spacetimes used in general relativity, for which we take the quotient of the $10$-dim Poincaré group by its $6$-dim Lorentz subgroup. The result is a principal Lorentz bundle over $\mathbb{R}^{4}$. Writing the one-forms dual to the Lorentz $\left(M_{\; b}^{a}\right)$ and translation $\left(P_{a}\right)$ generators as $\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\; b}^{a}$ and $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{a}$, respectively, the ten Maurer-Cartan equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \boldsymbol{\xi}_{\; b}^{c}\wedge\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\; c}^{a}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{a} & = & \boldsymbol{\omega}^{b}\wedge\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\; b}^{a}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the first describes a pure gauge spin connection, $\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\; b}^{a}=-\bar{\Lambda}_{\; b}^{c}\mathbf{d}\Lambda_{\; c}^{a}$ where $\Lambda_{\; c}^{a}$ is a local Lorentz transformation. Therefore, there exists a local Lorentz gauge such that $\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\; b}^{a}=0$. The second equation then shows the existence of an exact orthonormal frame, which tells us that the space is Minkowski.
Now generalize the geometry, $\left(M_{0}^{4},\boldsymbol{\xi}^{A}\right)\rightarrow\left(M^{4},\boldsymbol{\omega}^{A}\right)$ where $M_{0}^{4}=\mathbb{R}^{4}$ and we denote the new connection forms by $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{A}=\left(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{a},\mathbf{e}^{b}\right)$. In the structure equations, this leads to the presence of ten curvature $2$-forms, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{c}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; c}^{a}+\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a}\\
\mathbf{d}\mathbf{e}^{a} & = & \mathbf{e}^{b}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{a}+\mathbf{T}^{a}\end{aligned}$$ Since the $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{a}$ span the Lorentz subgroup, horizontality is accomplished by restricting the curvatures to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \frac{1}{2}R_{\; bcd}^{a}\mathbf{e}^{c}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{d}\\
\mathbf{T}^{a} & = & \frac{1}{2}T_{\; bc}^{a}\mathbf{e}^{b}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{c}\end{aligned}$$ that is, there are no terms such as, for example, $\frac{1}{2}R_{\; b\; de}^{a\; c}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; c}^{d}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{e}$ or $\frac{1}{2}T_{\; b\; d}^{a\; c\; e}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; c}^{b}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; e}^{d}$. Finally, integrability is guaranteed by the pair of Bianchi identities, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a}+\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{c}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; c}^{a}-\mathbf{R}_{\; c}^{a}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{c} & = & 0\\
\mathbf{d}\mathbf{T}^{a}+\mathbf{T}^{b}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{a}+\mathbf{e}^{b}\wedge\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a} & = & 0\end{aligned}$$ By looking at the transformation of $\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{a}$ under local Lorentz transformations, we find that despite originating as components of a single Poincaré-valued curvature, they are independent Lorentz tensors. The translations of the Poincaré symmetry were broken when we curved the base manifold (see [@Kibble:1961p1468; @Neeman:1978p1517; @Neeman:1978p1521], but note that Kibble effectively uses a $14$-dimensional bundle, whereas ours and related approaches require only $10$-dim). We recognize $\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{a}$ as the Riemann curvature and the torsion two-forms, respectively. Since the torsion is an independent tensor under the fiber group, it is consistent to consider the subclass of Riemannian geometries, $\mathbf{T}^{a}=0$. Alternatively (see Sec. \[sec: gravity\] below), vanishing torsion follows from the Einstein-Hilbert action.
With vanishing torsion, the quotient method has resulted in the usual solder form, $\mathbf{e}^{a}$, and related metric-compatible spin connection, $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{a}$, $$\mathbf{d}\mathbf{e}^{a}-\mathbf{e}^{b}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{a}=0,$$ the expression for the Riemannian curvature in terms of these, $$\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a}=\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{c}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; c}^{a},$$ and the first and second Bianchi identities, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}^{b}\wedge\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a} & = & 0\\
\mathbf{D}\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a} & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ This is a complete description of the class of Riemannian geometries.
Many further examples were explored by Ivanov and Niederle [@Ivanov:1982p1172; @Ivanov:1982p1201].
Quotients of the conformal group \[sec:Conformal-Quotients\]
============================================================
General properties of the conformal group
-----------------------------------------
Physically, we are interested in measurements of relative magnitudes, so the relevant group is the conformal group, $\mathcal{C}$, of compactified $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. The one-point compactification at infinity allows a global definition of inversion, with translations of the point at infinity defining the special conformal transformation. Then $\mathcal{C}$ has a real linear representation in $n+2$ dimensions, $\mathcal{V}^{n+2}$ (alternatively we could choose the complex representation $\mathbb{C}^{2^{[\left(n+2\right)/2]}}$ for $Spin\left(p+1,q+1\right)$). The isotropy subgroup of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the rotations, $SO\left(p,q\right)$, together with dilatations. We call this subgroup the homogeneous Weyl group, $\mathcal{W}$ and require our fibers to contain it. There are then only three allowed subgroups: $\mathcal{W}$ itself; the inhomogeneous Weyl group, $\mathcal{I}\mathcal{W}$, found by appending the translations; and $\mathcal{W}$ together with special conformal transformations, isomorphic to $\mathcal{I}\mathcal{W}$. The quotient of the conformal group by either inhomogeneous Weyl group, called the *auxiliary gauging*, leads most naturally to Weyl gravity [\[]{}for a review, see [@Wheeler:2013ora][\]]{}. We concern ourselves with the only other meaningful conformal quotient, the *biconformal gauging*: the principal $\mathcal{W}$-bundle formed by the quotient of the conformal group by its Weyl subgroup. To help clarify the method and our model, it is useful to consider both these gaugings.
All parts of this construction work for any $\left(p,q\right)$ with $n=p+q$. The conformal group is then $SO\left(p+1,q+1\right)$ (or $Spin\left(p+1,q+1\right)$ for the twistor representation). The Maurer-Cartan structure equations are immediate. In addition to the $\frac{n\left(n-1\right)}{2}$ generators $M_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}$ of $SO\left(p,q\right)$ and $n$ translational generators $P_{\alpha}$, there are $n$ generators of translations of a point at infinity (“special conformal transformations”) $K^{\alpha}$, and a single dilatational generator $D$. Dual to these, we have the connections $\xi_{\;\beta}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\alpha},$$\boldsymbol{\delta}$, respectively. Substituting the structure constants into the Maurer-Cartan dual form of the Lie algebra, eq.(\[Maurer-Cartan\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha} & = & \boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\beta}^{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\mu}^{\alpha}+2\Delta_{\nu\beta}^{\alpha\mu}\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\nu}\label{Homogeneous Spin Connection}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha} & = & \boldsymbol{\chi}^{\beta}\wedge\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\delta}\wedge\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha}\label{Homogeneous Solder Form}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\alpha} & = & \boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\alpha}^{\beta}\wedge\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\beta}-\boldsymbol{\delta}\wedge\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\alpha}\label{Homogeneous Co-Solder Form}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\delta} & = & \boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\alpha}\label{Homogeneous Weyl form}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{\nu\beta}^{\alpha\mu}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_{\nu}^{\alpha}\delta_{\beta}^{\mu}-\delta^{\alpha\mu}\delta_{\nu\beta}\right)$ antisymmetrizes *with respect to the original $\left(p,q\right)$ metric*, $\delta_{\mu\nu}=diag\left(1,\ldots,1,-1,\ldots,-1\right)$. These equations, which are the same regardless of the gauging chosen, describe the Cartan connection on the conformal group manifold. Before proceeding to the quotients, we note that the conformal group has a nondegenerate Killing form, $$K_{AB}\equiv tr\left(G_{A}G_{B}\right)=c_{\; AD}^{C}c_{\; BC}^{D}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\Delta_{db}^{ac}\\
& 0 & \delta_{b}^{a}\\
& \delta_{b}^{a} & 0\\
& & & 1
\end{array}\right)$$ This provides a metric on the conformal Lie algebra. As we show below, when restricted to $\mathcal{M}_{0}$, it may or may not remain nondegenerate, depending on the quotient.
Finally, we note that the conformal group is invariant under inversion. Within the Lie algebra, this manifests itself as the interchange between the translations and special conformal transformations $P_{\alpha}\leftrightarrow\delta_{\alpha\beta}K^{\beta}$ along with the interchange of conformal weights, $D\rightarrow-D$. The corresponding transformation of the connection forms, is easily seen to leave eqs.(\[Homogeneous Spin Connection\])-(\[Homogeneous Weyl form\]) invariant. In the biconformal gauging, below, we show that this symmetry leads to a Kähler structure.
Curved generalizations
----------------------
In this sub-Section and Section \[sec: gravity\] we will complete the development of the curved auxiliary and biconformal geometries and show how one can easily construct actions with the curvatures. In this sub-Section, we construct the two possible fiber bundles, $\mathcal{C}/\mathcal{H}$ where $\mathcal{W}\subseteq\mathcal{H}$. For each, we carry out the generalization of the manifold and connection. The results in this sub-Section depend only on whether the local symmetry is $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{I}\mathcal{W}$ or $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{W}$. In Section \[sec:PropertiesHomogeneousBCS\] and Section \[sec:RiemannianStrucInBCS\] we will return to the un-curved case to present a number of new calculations characterizing the homogenous space formed from the biconformal gauging.
The first sub-Section below describes the *auxiliary gauging*, given by the quotient of the conformal group by the inhomogeneous Weyl group, $\mathcal{I}\mathcal{W}$.
Since $\mathcal{I}\mathcal{W}$ is a parabolic subgroup of the conformal group, the resulting quotient can be considered a *tractor space*, for which there are numerous results [@Cap:2009a]. *Tractor calculus* is a version of the auxiliary gauging where the original conformal group is tensored with $\mathbb{R}^{\left(p+1,q+1\right)}$. This allows for a linear representation of the conformal group with $\left(n+2\right)$-dimensional tensorial (physical) entities called *tractors*. This linear representation, first introduced by Dirac [@Dirac1936a], makes a number of calculations much easier and also allows for straightforward building of tensors of any rank. The main physical differences stem from the use of Dirac’s action, usually encoded as the scale tractor squared in the $n+2$-dimensional linear representation, instead of the Weyl action we introduce in Sec \[sec: gravity\].
In sub-Section \[sub:The-biconformal-gauging\] below, we quotient by the homogeneous Weyl group, giving the *biconformal gauging*. This is *not* a parabolic quotient and therefore represents a less conventional option which turns out to have a number of rich structures not present in the auxiliary gauging. The biconformal gauging will occupy our attention for the bulk of our subsequent discussion.
### The auxiliary gauging: $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{I}\mathcal{W}$
Given the quotient $\mathcal{C}/\mathcal{I}\mathcal{W}$, the one-forms $\left(\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\mu},\boldsymbol{\delta}\right)$ span the $\mathcal{I}\mathcal{W}$-fibers, with $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{\alpha}$ spanning the co-tangent space of the remaining $n$ independent directions. This means that $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(n\right)}$ has the same dimension, $n$, as the original space. Generalizing the connection, we replace $\left(\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\delta}\right)\rightarrow\left(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha},\mathbf{e}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}\right)$ and the Cartan equations now give the Cartan curvatures in terms of the new connection forms, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha} & = & \boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\mu}^{\alpha}+2\Delta_{\nu\beta}^{\alpha\mu}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\nu}+\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}\label{Aux spin connection}\\
\mathbf{d}\mathbf{e}^{\alpha} & = & \mathbf{e}^{\beta}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\omega}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{\alpha}+\mathbf{T}^{\alpha}\label{Aux solder form}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha} & = & \boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\alpha}^{\beta}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\beta}-\boldsymbol{\omega}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}+\mathbf{S}_{\alpha}\label{Aux special conformal}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega} & = & \boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\Omega}\label{Aux dilatation}\end{aligned}$$ Up to local gauge transformations, the curvatures depend only on the $n$ non-vertical forms, $\mathbf{e}^{\alpha}$, so the curvatures are similar to what we find in an $n$-dim Riemannian geometry. For example, the $SO\left(p,q\right)$ piece of the curvature takes the form $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}=\frac{1}{2}\Omega_{\;\beta\mu\nu}^{\alpha}\mathbf{e}^{\alpha}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{\beta}$. The coefficients have the same number of degrees of freedom as the Riemannian curvature of an $n$-dim Weyl geometry.
Finally, each of the curvatures has a corresponding Bianchi identity, to guarantee integrability of the modified structure equations, $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \mathbf{D}\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}+2\Delta_{\nu\beta}^{\alpha\mu}\left(\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\nu}-\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{\nu}\right)\label{Bianchi for rotations}\\
0 & = & \mathbf{D}\mathbf{T}^{\alpha}-\mathbf{e}^{\beta}\wedge\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\Omega}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{\alpha}\label{Bianchi for torsion}\\
0 & = & \mathbf{D}\mathbf{S}_{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\beta}-\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\Omega}\label{Bianchi for co-torsion}\\
0 & = & \mathbf{D}\boldsymbol{\Omega}+\mathbf{T}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}-\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}\wedge\mathbf{S}_{\alpha}\label{Bianchi for dilatations}\end{aligned}$$ where $D$ is the Weyl covariant derivative, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{D}\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha} & = & \mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\mu}^{\alpha}-\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\mu}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\mu}\\
\mathbf{D}\mathbf{T}^{\alpha} & = & \mathbf{d}\mathbf{T}^{\alpha}+\mathbf{T}^{\beta}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}-\boldsymbol{\omega}\wedge\mathbf{T}^{\alpha}\\
\mathbf{D}\mathbf{S}_{\alpha} & = & \mathbf{d}\mathbf{S}_{\alpha}-\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\alpha}^{\beta}\wedge\mathbf{S}_{\beta}+\mathbf{S}_{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}\\
\mathbf{D}\boldsymbol{\Omega} & = & \mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\Omega}\end{aligned}$$ Equations eq.(\[Aux spin connection\]-\[Aux dilatation\]) give the curvature two-forms in terms of the connection forms. We have therefore constructed an $n$-dim geometry based on the conformal group with local $\mathcal{IW}$ symmetry.
We note no additional special properties of these geometries from the group structure. In particular, the restriction (in square brackets, $\left[\;\right]$, below) of the Killing metric, $K_{AB}$, to $\mathcal{M}^{\left(n\right)}$ vanishes identically, $$\left.\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\Delta_{db}^{ac}\\
& \left[0\right] & \delta_{b}^{a}\\
& \delta_{b}^{a} & 0\\
& & & 1
\end{array}\right)\right|_{\mathcal{M}^{\left(n\right)}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\end{array}\right)_{n\times n},$$ so there is no induced metric on the spacetime manifold. We may add the usual metric by hand, of course, but our goal here is to find those properties which are intrinsic to the underlying group structures.
### The biconformal gauging: $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{W}$ \[sub:The-biconformal-gauging\]
We next consider the biconformal gauging, first considered by Ivanov and Niederle [@Ivanov:1982p1201], given by the quotient of the conformal group by its Weyl subgroup. The resulting geometry has been shown to contain the structures of general relativity [@Wheeler:1997pc; @Wehner:1999p1653].
Given the quotient $\mathcal{C}/\mathcal{W}$, the one-forms $\left(\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\delta}\right)$ span the $\mathcal{W}$-fibers, with $\left(\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\alpha}\right)$ spanning the remaining $2n$ independent directions. This means that $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}$ has twice the dimension of the original compactified $\mathbb{R}^{\left(n\right)}$. Generalizing, we replace $\left(\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\delta}\right)\rightarrow\left(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha},\boldsymbol{D}\right)$ and the modified structure equations *appear* identical to eqs.(\[Aux spin connection\]-\[Aux dilatation\]). However, the curvatures now depend on the $2n$ non-vertical forms, $\left(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}\right)$, so there are far more components than for an $n$-dim Riemannian geometry. For example, $$\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}=\frac{1}{2}\Omega_{\;\beta\mu\nu}^{\alpha}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\nu}+\Omega_{\;\beta\;\nu}^{\alpha\;\mu}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\nu}+\frac{1}{2}\Omega_{\;\beta}^{\alpha\;\mu\nu}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\nu}$$ The coefficients of the pure terms, $\Omega_{\;\beta\mu\nu}^{\alpha}$ and $\Omega_{\;\beta}^{\alpha\;\mu\nu}$ each have the same number of degrees of freedom as the Riemannian curvature of an $n$-dim Weyl geometry, while the cross-term coefficients $\Omega_{\;\beta\;\nu}^{\alpha\;\mu}$ have more, being asymmetric on the final two indices.
For our purpose, it is important to notice that the spin connection, $\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}$, is antisymmetric with respect to the original $\left(p,q\right)$ metric, $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$, in the sense that $$\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}=-\delta^{\alpha\mu}\delta_{\beta\nu}\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\;\mu}^{\nu}$$ It is crucial to note that $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}$ retains this property, $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}=-\delta^{\alpha\mu}\delta_{\beta\nu}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\mu}^{\nu}$. This expresses metric compatibility with the $SO\left(p,q\right)$-covariant derivative, since it implies $$\mathbf{D}\delta_{\alpha\beta}\equiv\mathbf{d}\delta_{\alpha\beta}-\delta_{\mu\beta}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\alpha}^{\mu}-\delta_{\alpha\mu}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\mu}=0$$ Therefore, the curved generalization has a connection which is compatible with a locally $\left(p,q\right)$-metric. This relationship is general. If $\kappa_{\alpha\beta}$ is any metric, its compatible spin connection will satisfy $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}=-\kappa^{\alpha\mu}\kappa_{\beta\nu}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\mu}^{\nu}$. Since we also have local scale symmetry, the full covariant derivative we use will also include a Weyl vector term.
The Bianchi identities, written as $2$-forms, also *appear* the same as eqs.(\[Bianchi for rotations\]-\[Bianchi for dilatations\]), but expand into more components.
In the conformal group, translations and special conformal transformations are related by inversion. Indeed, a special conformal tranformation is a translation centered at the point at infinity instead of the origin. Because the biconformal gauging maintains the symmetry between translations and special conformal transformations, it is useful to name the corresponding connection forms and curvatures to reflect this. Therefore, the biconformal basis will be described as the solder form and the co-solder form, and the corresponding curvatures as the torsion and co-torsion. Thus, when we speak of “torsion-free biconformal space” we do not imply that the co-torsion (Cartan curvature of the co-solder form) vanishes. In phase space interpretations, the solder form is taken to span the cotangent spaces of the spacetime manifold, while the co-solder form is taken to span the cotangent spaces of the momentum space. The opposite convention is equally valid.
Unlike other quotient manifolds arising in conformal gaugings, the biconformal quotient manifold posesses natural invariant structures. The first is the restriction of the Killing metric, which is now non-degenerate, $$\left.\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\Delta_{db}^{ac}\\
& \left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \delta_{b}^{a}\\
\delta_{b}^{a} & 0
\end{array}\right]\\
& & 1
\end{array}\right)\right|_{\mathcal{M}^{\left(2n\right)}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \delta_{b}^{a}\\
\delta_{b}^{a} & 0
\end{array}\right)_{2n\times2n},$$ and this gives an inner product for the basis,
$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\left\langle \boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\beta}\right\rangle & \left\langle \boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\beta}\right\rangle \\
\left\langle \boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\beta}\right\rangle & \left\langle \boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\beta}\right\rangle
\end{array}\right]\equiv\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \delta_{\beta}^{\alpha}\\
\delta_{\alpha}^{\beta} & 0
\end{array}\right]\label{eq:KillingMetric-1}$$
This metric remains unchanged by the generalization to curved base manifolds.
The second natural invariant property is the generic presence of a symplectic form. The original fiber bundle always has this, because the structure equation, eq.(\[Homogeneous Weyl form\]), shows that $\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\alpha}$ is exact hence closed, $\mathbf{d}^{2}\boldsymbol{\omega}=0$, while it is clear that the two-form product is non-degenerate because $\left(\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\alpha}\right)$ together span $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}$. Moreover, the symplectic form is canonical, $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\Omega\right]_{AB} & = & \left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \delta_{\alpha}^{\beta}\\
-\delta_{\beta}^{\alpha} & 0
\end{array}\right]\end{aligned}$$ so that $\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\alpha}$ are canonically conjugate. The symplectic form persists for the $2$-form, $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\Omega}$, as long as it is non-degenerate, so curved biconformal spaces are generically symplectic.
Next, we consider the effect of inversion symmetry. As a $\left(\begin{array}{c}
1\\
1
\end{array}\right)$ tensor, the basis interchange takes the form $$I_{\; B}^{A}\boldsymbol{\chi}^{B}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \delta^{\alpha\nu}\\
\delta_{\beta\mu} & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\mu}\\
\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\nu}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\delta^{\alpha\nu}\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\nu}\\
\delta_{\beta\mu}\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\mu}
\end{array}\right)$$ In order to interchange conformal weights, $I_{\; B}^{A}$ must anticommute with the conformal weight operator, which is given by $$W_{\; B}^{A}\boldsymbol{\chi}^{B}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\delta_{\mu}^{\alpha} & 0\\
0 & -\delta_{\beta}^{\nu}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\mu}\\
\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\nu}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
+\boldsymbol{\chi}^{\alpha}\\
-\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\beta}
\end{array}\right)$$ This is the case: we easily check that $\left\{ I,W\right\} _{\; B}^{A}=I_{\; C}^{A}W_{\; B}^{C}+W_{\; C}^{A}I_{\; B}^{C}=0$. The commutator gives a new object, $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\; B}^{A} & \equiv & \left[I,W\right]_{\; B}^{A}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\delta^{\alpha\beta}\\
\delta_{\alpha\beta} & 0
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Squaring, $J_{\; C}^{A}J_{\; B}^{C}=-\delta_{\; B}^{A}$, we see that $J_{\; B}^{A}$ provides an almost complex structure. That the almost complex structure is integrable follows immediately in this (global) basis by the obvious vanishing of the Nijenhuis tensor, $$N_{\; BC}^{A}=J_{\; C}^{D}\partial_{D}J_{\; B}^{A}-J_{\; C}^{D}\partial_{D}J_{\; B}^{A}-J_{\; D}^{A}\left(\partial_{C}J_{\; B}^{D}-\partial_{B}J_{\; C}^{D}\right)=0$$
Next, using the symplectic form to define the compatible metric $$\begin{aligned}
g\left(u,v\right) & \equiv & \Omega\left(u,Jv\right)\end{aligned}$$ we find that in this basis $g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\delta_{\alpha\beta} & 0\\
0 & \delta^{\alpha\beta}
\end{array}\right)$, and we check the remaining compatibility conditions of the triple $\left(g,J,\Omega\right)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega\left(u,v\right) & = & g\left(Ju,v\right)\\
J\left(u\right) & = & \left(\phi_{g}\right)^{-1}\left(\phi_{\omega}\left(u\right)\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_{\omega}$ and $\phi_{g}$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{\omega}\left(u\right) & = & \omega\left(u,\cdot\right)\\
\phi_{g}\left(u\right) & = & g\left(u,\cdot\right)\end{aligned}$$ These are easily checked to be satisified, showing that that $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}$ is a Kähler manifold. Notice, however, that the metric of the Kähler manifold is *not* the restricted Killing metric which we use in the following considerations.
Finally, a surprising result emerges if we require $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}$ to match our usual expectations for a relativistic phase space. To make the connection to phase space clear, the precise requirements were studied in [@Spencer:2008p167], where it was shown that the flat biconformal gauging of $SO\left(p,q\right)$ in any dimension $n=p+q$ will have *Lagrangian submanifolds that are orthogonal with respect to the 2n-dim biconformal (Killing) metric and have non-degenerate $n$-dim restrictions of the metric* only if the original space is Euclidean or signature zero $\left(p\in\left\{ 0,\frac{n}{2},n\right\} \right)$, and then the signature of the submanifolds is severely limited $\left(p\rightarrow p\pm1\right)$, leading in the two Euclidean cases to Lorentzian configuration space, and hence the origin of time. For the case of flat, $8$-dim biconformal space [@Spencer:2008p167] proves the following theorem:
*Flat 8-dim biconformal space is a metric phase space with Lagrangian submanifolds that are orthogonal with respect to the 2n-dim biconformal (Killing) metric and have non-degenerate $n$-dim metric restrictions of the biconformal metric if and only if the initial 4-dim space we gauge is Euclidean or signature zero. In either of these cases the resulting configuration sub-manifold is necessarily Lorentzian [@Spencer:2008p167].*
Thus, it is possible to impose the conditions necessary to make biconformal space a metric phase space only in a restricted subclass of cases, and the configuration space metric *must* be Lorentzian. In [@Spencer:2008p167], it was found that with a suitable choice of gauge, the metric may be written in coordinates $y_{\alpha}$ as $$h_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{1}{\left(y^{2}\right)^{2}}\left(2y_{\alpha}y_{\beta}-y^{2}\delta_{\alpha\beta}\right)\label{eq: FlatBCS_Metric}$$ where the signature changing character of the metric is easily seen.
In the metric above, eq.(\[eq: FlatBCS\_Metric\]), $y_{\alpha}=W_{\alpha}$ is the Weyl vector of the space. This points to another unique characteristic of flat biconformal space. The structures of the conformal group, treated as described above, give rise to a natural *direction* of time, given by the gauge field of dilatations. The situation is reminiscent of previous studies. In 1979, Stelle and West introduced a special vector field to choose the local symmetry of the MacDowell-Mansouri theory. The vector breaks the de Sitter symmetry, eliminating the need for the Wigner-Inönu contraction. Recently, Westman and Zlosnik[@Westman:2013mf] have looked in depth at both the de Sitter and anti-de Sitter cases using a class of actions which extend that of Stelle and West by including derivative terms for the vector field and therefore lead to dynamical symmetry breaking. In [@BarberoG.:2003qm; @BarberoG.:1995ud] and Einstein-Aether theory [@Jacobson:2008aj], there is also a special vector field introduced into the action by hand that can make the Lorentzian metric Euclidean. These approaches are distinct from that of the biconformal approach, where the vector necessary for specifying the timelike direction occurs *naturally* from the underlying group structure. We will have more to say about this below, where we show explicitly that the Euclidean gauge theory necessarily posesses a special *vector*, $\mathbf{v}=\boldsymbol{\omega}-\frac{1}{2}\eta_{ab}\mathbf{d}\eta^{bc}$. This vector gives the time direction on two Lagrangian submanifolds, making them necessarily Lorentzian. The full manifold retains its original symmetry.
A brief note on gravitation\[sec: gravity\]
===========================================
Notice that our development to this point was based solely on group quotients and generalization of the resulting principal fiber bundle. We have arrived at the form of the curvatures in terms of the Cartan connection, and Bianchi identities required for integrability, thereby describing certain classes of geometry. Within the biconformal quotient, the demand for *orthogonal Lagrangian submanifolds with non-degenerate $n$-dim restrictions of the Killing metric* leads to the selection of certain Lorentzian submanifolds. Though our present concern has to do with the geometric background rather than with gravitational theories on those backgrounds, for completeness we briefly digress to specify the action functionals for gravity. The main results of the current study, taken up again in the final three Sections, concern only the homogeneous space, $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}$.
We are guided in the choice of action functionals by the example of general relativity. Given the Riemannin geometries of Section 2.3, we may write the Einstein-Hilbert action and proceed. More systematically, however, we may write the most general, even-parity action linear in the curvature and torsion. This still turns out to be the Einstein-Hilbert action, and, as noted above, one of the classical field equations under a full variation of the connection $\left(\delta\mathbf{e}^{b},\delta\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{a}\right)$, implies vanishing torsion. The latter, more robust approach is what we follow for conformal gravity theories.
It is generally of interest to build the simplest class of actions possible, and we use the following criteria:
1. The pure-gravity action should be built from the available curvature tensor(s) and other tensors which occur in the geometric construction.
2. The action should be of lowest possible order $\geq1$ in the curvatures.
3. The action should be of even parity.
These are of sufficient generality not to bias our choice. It may also be a reasonable assumption to set certain tensor fields, for example, the spacetime torsion to zero. This can significantly change the available tensors, allowing a wider range of action functionals.
Notice that if we perform an infinitesmal *conformal* transformation to the curvatures, $\left(\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\beta},\boldsymbol{\Omega}\right)$, they all mix with one another, since the conformal curvature is really a single Lie-algebra-valued two form. However, the generalization to a curved manifold breaks the non-vertical symmetries, allowing these different components to become independent tensors under the remaining Weyl group. Thus, to find the available tensors, we apply an infinitesmal transformation of the *fiber symmetry*. Tensors are those objects which transform linearly and homogeneously under these transformations.
The auxiliary gauging and Weyl gravity
--------------------------------------
The generalization of the auxiliary quotient, $\mathcal{C}/\mathcal{I}\mathcal{W}$, breaks translational symmetry, and a local transformation of the connection components immediately shows that the solder form, $\mathbf{e}^{\alpha}$, becomes a tensor. Correspondingly, the torsion, $\mathbf{T}^{\alpha}$, no longer mixes with the other curvature components. This suggests the possibility of a teleparallel theory based on the torsion, but this would involve little of the conformal structure. Instead we choose to set $\mathbf{T}^{\alpha}=0$ as an additional condition on our model. This gives us Riemannian or Weyl geometries instead of Cartan geometries and is therefore more in line with the requirements of general relativity.
When the torsion is maintained at zero, both the rotational curvature, $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}$, and the dilatational curvature, $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$, become tensorial. Because the $n$-dim volume form has conformal weight $n$ there is no curvature-linear action. Together with the orthonormal metric and the Levi-Civita tensor, we build the most general even parity curvature-quadratic action, $$S=\int\left(\alpha\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}\wedge\,^{*}\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\alpha}^{\beta}+\beta\boldsymbol{\Omega}\wedge\,^{*}\boldsymbol{\Omega}\right)$$ This was partially studied in the 1970s with an eye to supersymmetry [@CrispimRomao:1977hj; @CrispimRomao:1978vf; @Kaku:1977pa; @Kaku:1977rk; @Kaku:1978nz], where the $\beta=0$ case is shown to lead to Weyl gravity. Indeed, assuming a suitable metric dependence of the remaining connection components, $\left(\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha},\mathbf{f}_{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}\right)$, metric variation leads to the fourth-order Bach equation [@Bach1920]. However, it has recently been shown that varying all connection forms independently leads to scale-invariant general relativity [@Wheeler:2013ora].
In dimensions higher than four, our criteria lead to still higher order actions. Alternatively, curvature-linear actions can be written in any dimension by introducing a suitable power of a scalar field [@Dirac1936a; @Dirac1973a]. This latter reference, [@Dirac1973a], gives the $\phi^{2}R$ action often used in tractor studies.
Gravity in the biconformal gauging
----------------------------------
The biconformal gauging, based on $\mathcal{C}/\mathcal{W}$, also has tensorial basis forms $\left(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}\right)$. Moreover, each of the component curvatures, $\left(\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\beta},\boldsymbol{\Omega}\right)$, becomes an independent tensor under the Weyl group.
In the biconformal case, the volume form $e_{\qquad\alpha\beta\ldots\nu}^{\rho\sigma\ldots\lambda}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\beta}\wedge\ldots\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\nu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\rho}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\sigma}\wedge\ldots\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\lambda}$ has zero conformal weight. Since both $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ also have zero conformal weight, there exists a curvature-linear action in any dimension [@Wehner:1999p1653]. The most general linear case is $$S=\int\left(\alpha\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}+\beta\boldsymbol{\Omega}\delta_{\beta}^{\alpha}+\gamma\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\beta}\right)\wedge e_{\qquad\alpha\mu\ldots\nu}^{\beta\rho\ldots\sigma}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\mu}\wedge\ldots\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\nu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\rho}\wedge\ldots\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\sigma}$$ Notice that we now have three important properties of biconformal gravity that arise because of the doubled dimension: (1) the non-degenerate conformal Killing metric induces a non-degenerate metric on the manifold, (2) the dilatational structure equation generically gives a symplectic form, and (3) there exists a Weyl symmetric action functional linear in the curvature, valid in any dimension.
There are a number of known results following from the linear action. In [@Wehner:1999p1653] torsion-constrained solutions are found which are consistent with scale-invariant general relativity. Subsequent work along the same lines shows that the torsion-free solutions are determined by the spacetime solder form, and reduce to describe spaces conformal to Ricci-flat spacetimes on the corresponding spacetime submanifold [@Wheeler:2002]. A supersymmetric version is presented in [@Anderson:2003db], and studies of Hamiltonian dynamics [@Anderson:2004zy; @Wheeler:2003bi] and quantum dynamics [@Anderson:2004p612] support the idea that the models describe some type of relativistic phase space determined by the configuration space solution.
Homogeneous biconformal space in a conformally orthonormal, symplectic basis\[sec:PropertiesHomogeneousBCS\]
============================================================================================================
The central goal of the remainder of this manuscript is to examine properties of the homogeneous manifold, $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}$, which become evident in a conformally orthonormal basis, that is, a basis which is orthonormal up to an overall conformal factor. Generically, the properties we discuss will be inherited by the related gravity theories as well.
As noted above, biconformal space is immediately seen to possess several structures not seen in other gravitational gauge theories: a non-degenerate restriction of the Killing metric[^1], a symplectic form, and Kähler structure. In addition, the signature theorem in [@Spencer:2008p167] shows that if the original space has signature $\pm n$ or zero, the *imposition of involution conditions* leads to orthogonal Lagrangian submanifolds that have non-degenerate $n$-dim restrictions of the Killing metric. Further, *constraining the momentum space* to be as flat as permitted requires the restricted metrics to be Lorentzian. We strengthen these results in this Section and the next. Concerning ourselves only with elements of the *geometry* of the Euclidean $\left(s=\pm n\right)$ cases (as opposed to the additional restrictions of the field equations, involution conditions or other constraints), we show the presence of exactly such Lorentzian signature Lagrangian submanifolds *without further assumptions*.
We go on to study the transformation of the spin connection when we transform the basis of an $8$-dim biconformal space to one adapted to the Lagrangian submanifolds. We show that in addition to the Lorentzian metric, a Lorentzian connection emerges on the configuration and momentum spaces and there are two new tensor fields. Finally, we examine the curvature of these Lorentzian connections and find both a cosmological constant and cosmological “dust”. While it is premature to make quantitative predictions, these new geometric features provide novel candidates for dark energy and dark matter.
The biconformal quotient
------------------------
We start with the biconformal gauging of Section \[sec:Conformal-Quotients\], specialized to the case of compactified, *Euclidean* $\mathbb{R}^{4}$ in a conformally orthonormal, symplectic basis. The Maurer-Cartan structure equations are
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha} & = & \boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\mu}^{\alpha}+2\Delta_{\nu\beta}^{\alpha\mu}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\mu}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\nu}\label{eq:OrigStrucSpinConn}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha} & = & \boldsymbol{\omega}^{\beta}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\omega}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}\label{eq:OrigStrucSolder}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha} & = & \boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\alpha}^{\beta}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\beta}+\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}\label{eq:OrigStrucCoSolder}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega} & = & \boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}\label{eq:OrigStrucWeyl}\end{aligned}$$
where the connection one-forms represent $SO\left(4\right)$ rotations, translations, special conformal transformations and dilatations respectively. The projection operator $\Delta_{\gamma\beta}^{\alpha\mu}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_{\gamma}^{\alpha}\delta_{\beta}^{\mu}-\delta^{\alpha\mu}\delta_{\gamma\beta}\right)$ in eq.(\[eq:OrigStrucSpinConn\]) gives that part of any $\left({1\atop 1}\right)$-tensor antisymmetric with respect to the original Euclidean metric, $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$. As discussed in Section \[sub:The-biconformal-gauging\], this group has a non-degenerate, $15$-dim Killing metric. We stress that the structure equations and Killing metric and hence their restrictions to the quotient manifold are intrinsic to the conformal symmetry.
The gauging begins with the quotient of this conformal group, $SO\left(5,1\right)$, by its Weyl subgroup, spanned by the connection forms $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}$ (here dual to $SO(4)$ generators) and $\boldsymbol{\omega}$. The co-tangent space of the quotient manifold is then spanned by the solder form, $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}$, and the co-solder form, $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}$, and the full conformal group becomes a principal fiber bundle with local Weyl symmetry over this $8$-dim quotient manifold. The independence of $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}$ in the biconformal gauging makes the $2$-form $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}$ non-degenerate, and eq.(\[eq:OrigStrucWeyl\]) immediately shows that $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}$ is a symplectic form. The basis $\left(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}\right)$ is canonical.
The involution evident in eq.(\[eq:OrigStrucSolder\]) shows that the solder forms, $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}$, span a submanifold, and from the simultaneous vanishing of the symplectic form this submanifold is Lagrangian. Similarly, eq.(\[eq:OrigStrucCoSolder\]) shows that the $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\beta}$ span a Lagrangian submanifold. However, notice that neither of these submanifolds, spanned by either $\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}$ or $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}$ alone, has an induced metric, since by eq.\[eq:KillingMetric-1\], $\left\langle \boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\beta}\right\rangle =\left\langle \boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\beta}\right\rangle =0$. The *orthonormal* basis will make the Killing metric block diagonal, guaranteeing that its restriction to the configuration and momentum submanifolds have well-defined, non-degenerate metrics.
It was shown in [@Spencer:2008p167] this it is consistent (for signatures $\pm n,\,0$ *only*) to impose involution conditions and momentum flatness in this rotated basis in such a way that the new basis still gives Lagrangian submanifolds. Moreover, the restriction of the Killing metric to these new submanifolds is necessarily Lorentzian. In what follows, we do not need the assumptions of momentum flatness or involution, and work only with intrinsic properties of $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}$. This Section describes the new basis and resulting connection, while the next establishes that for initial Euclidean signature, the principal results of [@Spencer:2008p167] follow necessarily. Our results show that the timelike directions in these models arise from intrinsically conformal structures.
We now change to a new canonical basis, adapted to the Lagrangian submanifolds.
The conformally-orthonormal Lagrangian basis
--------------------------------------------
In [@Spencer:2008p167] the $\left(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}\right)$ basis is rotated so that the metric, $h_{AB}$ becomes block diagonal $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \delta_{\beta}^{\alpha}\\
\delta_{\beta}^{\alpha} & 0
\end{array}\right]\Rightarrow\left[h_{AB}\right] & = & \left[\begin{array}{cc}
h_{ab} & 0\\
0 & -h^{ab}
\end{array}\right]\end{aligned}$$ while the symplectic form remains canonical. This makes the Lagrangian submanifolds orthogonal with a non-degenerate restriction to the metric. Here we use the same basis change, but in addition define coefficients, $h_{a}^{\;\alpha}$ to relate the orthogonal metric to one conformally orthonormal on the submanifolds, $\eta_{ab}=h_{a}^{\;\alpha}h_{\alpha\beta}h_{b}^{\;\beta}$, where $\eta_{ab}$ is conformal to $diag\left(\pm1,\pm1,\pm1,\pm1\right)$. From [@Spencer:2008p167] we know that $h_{ab}$ is necessarily Lorentzian, $h_{ab}=\eta_{ab}=e^{2\phi}diag\left(-1,1,1,1\right)=e^{2\phi}\eta_{ab}^{0}$ and we give a more general proof below. Notice that the definition of $\eta_{ab}$ includes an unknown conformal factor. The required change of basis is then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}^{a} & = & h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\left(\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha}+\frac{1}{2}h^{\alpha\beta}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\beta}\right)\label{eq:NewInTermsOfOld_e}\\
\mathbf{f}_{a} & = & h_{a}^{\;\alpha}\left(\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha}-h_{\alpha\beta}\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\beta}\right)\label{eq:NewInTermsOfOld_f}\end{aligned}$$ with inverse basis change $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha} & = & \frac{1}{2}h_{a}^{\;\alpha}\left(\mathbf{e}^{a}-\eta^{ab}\mathbf{f}_{b}\right)\label{eq:OldInTermsOfNew1-1}\\
\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha} & = & h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\left(\mathbf{f}_{a}+\eta_{ab}\mathbf{e}^{b}\right)\label{eq:OldInTermsOfNew2-1}\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[eq:KillingMetric-1\]), the Killing metric is easily checked to be $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\left\langle \mathbf{e}^{a},\mathbf{e}^{b}\right\rangle & \left\langle \mathbf{e}^{a},\mathbf{f}_{b}\right\rangle \\
\left\langle \mathbf{f}_{a},\mathbf{e}^{b}\right\rangle & \left\langle \mathbf{f}_{a},\mathbf{f}_{b}\right\rangle
\end{array}\right] & = & \left[\begin{array}{cc}
h_{\alpha}^{\; a}h_{\beta}^{\; b}h^{\left(\alpha\beta\right)} & 0\\
0 & -h_{a}^{\;\alpha}h_{b}^{\;\beta}h_{\left(\alpha\beta\right)}
\end{array}\right]\\
& = & \left[\begin{array}{cc}
e^{-2\phi}\eta_{0}^{ab} & 0\\
0 & -e^{2\phi}\eta_{ab}^{0}
\end{array}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{\alpha\beta}=h_{\left(\alpha\beta\right)}$, and $h^{\alpha\beta}h_{\beta\gamma}=\delta_{\gamma}^{\alpha}$.
The new basis is also canonical, as we see by transforming the dilatation equation, eq.(\[eq:OrigStrucWeyl\]), to find $\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}=\mathbf{e}^{a}\mathbf{f}_{a}$. We refer to the $\mathbf{f}_{a}=0$ and $\mathbf{e}^{a}=0$ submanifolds as the configuration and momentum submanifolds respectively.
Properties of the structure equations in the new basis\[sub:OrthonormalProperties\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now explore the properties of the biconformal system in this adapted basis. Rewriting the remaining structure equations, eqs.(\[eq:OrigStrucSpinConn\], \[eq:OrigStrucSolder\], \[eq:OrigStrucCoSolder\]), in terms of $\mathbf{e}^{a}$ and $\mathbf{f}_{a}$, we show some striking cancelations that lead to the emergence of a connection compatible with the Lorentzian metric, and two new tensors.
We begin with the exterior derivative of eq.(\[eq:NewInTermsOfOld\_e\]), using structure equations eq.(\[eq:OrigStrucSolder\]) and eq.(\[eq:OrigStrucCoSolder\]), and then using the basis change equations eqs.(\[eq:OldInTermsOfNew1-1\], \[eq:OldInTermsOfNew2-1\]). Because eqs.(\[eq:OldInTermsOfNew1-1\], \[eq:OldInTermsOfNew2-1\]) involve the sum and difference of $\mathbf{e}^{a}$ and $\mathbf{f}_{b}$, separating by these new basis forms leads to a separation of symmetries. This leads to a cumbersome expansion, which reduces considerably and in significant ways, to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}\mathbf{e}^{a} & = & \mathbf{e}^{b}\wedge\Theta_{cb}^{ad}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; d}^{c}-\eta^{bc}\mathbf{f}_{c}\wedge\Xi_{db}^{ae}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; e}^{d}+\frac{1}{2}\eta_{bc}\mathbf{d}\eta^{ab}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{c}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{d}\eta^{ab}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{b}+2\eta^{ab}\mathbf{f}_{b}\wedge\boldsymbol{\omega}\label{ugly transformation}\end{aligned}$$ where we define projections $\Theta_{db}^{ac}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_{d}^{a}\delta_{b}^{c}-\eta^{ac}\eta_{bd}\right)$ and $\Xi_{cb}^{ad}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_{c}^{a}\delta_{b}^{d}+\eta^{ad}\eta_{cb}\right)$ that separate symmetries with respect to the new metric $\eta_{ab}$ rather than $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$. These give the antisymmetric and symmetric parts, respectively, of a $\left({1\atop 1}\right)$-tensor with respect to the *new* orthonormal metric, $\eta_{ab}$. Notice that these projections are independent of the conformal factor on $\eta_{ab}$.
The significance of the reduction lies in how the symmetries separate between the different subspaces. Just as the curvatures split into three parts, eq.(\[ugly transformation\]) and each of the remaining structure equations splits into three parts. Expanding these independent parts separately allows us to see the Riemannian structure of the configuration and momentum spaces. It is useful to first define $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a} & \equiv & \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a}+\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}\label{eq:SpinConnProjDef-1-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a}\equiv\Theta_{cb}^{ad}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; d}^{c}$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}\equiv\Xi_{cb}^{ad}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; d}^{c}$. Then, to facilitate the split into $\mathbf{e}^{a}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{b}$, $\mathbf{e}^{a}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{b}$ and $\mathbf{f}_{a}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{b}$ parts, we partition the spin connection and Weyl vector by submanifold, defining $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a} & \equiv & \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{a}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{a}=\sigma_{\; bc}^{a}\mathbf{e}^{c}+\gamma_{\; b}^{a\; c}\mathbf{f}_{c}\label{eq:antisymmetricSpin Connection}\\
\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a} & \equiv & \boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a}+\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a}=\mu_{\; bc}^{a}\mathbf{e}^{c}+\rho_{\; b}^{a\; c}\mathbf{f}_{c}\label{eq:symmetricSpin Connection}\\
\boldsymbol{\omega} & \equiv & W_{a}\mathbf{e}^{a}+W^{a}\mathbf{f}_{a}\label{eq:WeylVectorDecomp}\end{aligned}$$ We also split the exterior derivative, $\mathbf{d}=\mathbf{d}_{\left(x\right)}+\mathbf{d}_{\left(y\right)}$, where coordinates $x^{\alpha}$ and $y_{\alpha}$ are used on the $\mathbf{e}^{a}=e_{\alpha}^{\quad a}\mathbf{d}x^{\alpha}$ and $\mathbf{f}_{a}=f_{a}^{\quad\alpha}\mathbf{d}y_{\alpha}$ submanifolds, respectively. Using these, we expand each of the structure equations into three $\mathcal{W}$-invariant parts. The complete set (with curvatures included for completeness) is given in Appendix 1.
The simplifying features and notable properties include:
1. *The new connection:* The first thing that is evident is that all occurences of the spin connection $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}$ may be written in terms of the combination $$\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a}\equiv h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}h_{b}^{\;\beta}-h_{b}^{\;\alpha}\mathbf{d}h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\label{eq:DefinitionTau}$$ which, as we show below, transforms as a Lorentz spin connection. Although the basis change is not a gauge transformation, the change in the connection has a similar inhomogeneous form. Because $h_{\alpha}^{\; a}$ is a change of basis rather than local $SO\left(n\right)$ or local Lorentz, the inhomogeneous term has no particular symmetry property, so $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a}$ will have both symmetric and antisymmetric parts.
2. *Separation of symmetric and antisymmetric parts:* Notice in eq.(\[ugly transformation\]) how the antisymmetric part of the new connection, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a}$, is associated with $\mathbf{e}^{b}$, while the symmetric part, $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}$ pairs with $\mathbf{f}_{c}$. This surprising correspondence puts the symmetric part into the cross-terms while leaving the connection of the configuration submanifold metric compatible, up to the conformal factor.
3. *Cancellation of the submanifold Weyl vector:* The Weyl vector terms cancel on the configuration submanifold, while the $\mathbf{f}_{a}$ terms add. The expansion of the $\mathbf{d}\mathbf{f}_{a}$ structure equation shows that the Weyl vector also drops out of the momentum submanifold equations. Nonetheless, these submanifold equations are scale invariant because of the residual metric derivative. Recognizing the combination of $\mathbf{d}h$ terms that arises as $\mathbf{d}\eta^{ab}$, and recalling that $\eta_{ab}=e^{2\phi}\eta_{ab}^{0}$, we have $-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{d}\eta^{ac}\eta_{cb}=\delta_{b}^{a}\mathbf{d}\phi$. When the metric is rescaled, this term changes with the same inhomogeneous term as the Weyl vector.
4. *Covariant derivative and a second Weyl-type connection:* It is natural to define the $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; c}^{b}$-covariant derivative of the metric. Since $\eta^{cb}\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; c}^{a}+\eta^{ac}\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; c}^{b}=0$, it depends only on $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; c}^{a}$ and the Weyl vector, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{D}\eta^{ab} & \equiv & \mathbf{d}\eta^{ab}+\eta^{cb}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; c}^{a}+\eta^{ac}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; c}^{b}-2\boldsymbol{\omega}\eta^{ae}\label{eq:Derivative of metric}\\
& = & \mathbf{d}\eta^{ab}+2\eta^{cb}\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; c}^{a}-2\boldsymbol{\omega}\eta^{ab}\label{eq:Reduced derivative}\end{aligned}$$ This derivative allows us to express the structure of the biconformal space in terms of the Lorentzian properties.
When all of the identifications and definitions are included, and carrying out similar calculations for the remaining structure equations, the full set becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{c}\wedge\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\tau}}_{\; c}^{a}+\Delta_{db}^{ae}\eta_{ec}\mathbf{e}^{c}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{d}-\Delta_{eb}^{ac}\eta^{ed}\mathbf{f}_{c}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{d}+2\Delta_{fb}^{ae}\Xi_{de}^{fc}\mathbf{f}_{c}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{d}\label{eq:NewStrucSpinConn}\\
\mathbf{d}\mathbf{e}^{a} & = & \mathbf{e}^{c}\wedge\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; c}^{a}+\frac{1}{2}\eta_{cb}\mathbf{d}\eta^{ac}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{b}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{D}\eta^{ab}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{b}\label{eq:NewStrucSolder}\\
\mathbf{d}\mathbf{f}_{a} & = & \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; a}^{b}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{b}+\frac{1}{2}\eta^{bc}\mathbf{d}\eta_{ab}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{c}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{D}\eta_{ab}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{b}\label{eq:NewStrucCoSolder}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega} & = & \mathbf{e}^{a}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{a}\label{eq:NewStrucWeyl}\end{aligned}$$ with the complete $\mathcal{W}$-invariant separation in Appendix 1.
Gauge transformations and new tensors
-------------------------------------
The biconformal bundle now allows local Lorentz transformations and local dilatations on $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}$. Under local Lorentz transformations, $\Lambda_{\; c}^{a}$, the connection $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a}$ changes with an inhomogeneous term of the form $\bar{\Lambda}_{\; b}^{c}\mathbf{d}\Lambda_{\; c}^{a}$. Since this term lies in the Lie algebra of the Lorentz group, it is antisymmetric with respect to $\eta_{ab}$, $\Theta_{db}^{ac}\left(\bar{\Lambda}_{\; c}^{e}\mathbf{d}\Lambda_{\; e}^{d}\right)=\bar{\Lambda}_{\; b}^{e}\mathbf{d}\Lambda_{\; e}^{a}$and therefore only changes the corresponding $\Theta_{db}^{ac}$-antisymmetric part of the connection, with the symmetric part transforming homogeneously: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \Lambda_{\; c}^{a}\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; d}^{c}\bar{\Lambda}_{\; b}^{d}-\bar{\Lambda}_{\; b}^{c}\mathbf{d}\Lambda_{\; c}^{a}\\
\tilde{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \Lambda_{\; c}^{a}\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; d}^{c}\bar{\Lambda}_{\; b}^{d}\end{aligned}$$ Having no inhomogeneous term, $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}$ is a Lorentz tensor. This new tensor field $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}$ necessarily includes degrees of freedom from the original connection that cannot be present in $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a}$, the total equaling the degrees of freedom present in $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a}$. As there is no obvious constraint on the connection $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a}$, we expect $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}$ to be highly constrained. Clearly, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; d}^{c}$ transforms as a Lorentzian spin connection, and the addition of the tensor $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}$ preserves this property, so $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a}$ is a local Lorentz connection.
Transformation of the connection under dilatations reveals another new tensor. The Weyl vector transforms inhomogeneously in the usual way, $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\omega}}=\boldsymbol{\omega}+\mathbf{d}f$, but, as noted above, the expression $\frac{1}{2}\eta_{cb}\mathbf{d}\eta^{ac}$ also transforms, $$\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\eta}_{cb}\mathbf{d}\tilde{\eta}^{ac}=\delta_{b}^{a}\mathbf{d}\tilde{\phi}=\delta_{b}^{a}\left(\mathbf{d}\phi-\mathbf{d}f\right)$$ so that the combination $$\mathbf{v}=\boldsymbol{\omega}+\mathbf{d}\phi$$ is scale invariant. Notice the presence of two distinct scalars here. Obviously, given $\frac{1}{2}\eta^{ac}\mathbf{d}\eta_{cb}=\delta_{b}^{a}\mathbf{d}\phi$ we can choose a gauge function, $f_{1}=-\phi$, such that $\frac{1}{2}\eta^{ac}\mathbf{d}\eta_{cb}=0$. We also have, $\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega}=0,$ on the configuration submanifold, so that $\boldsymbol{\omega}=\mathbf{d}f_{2}$, for some scalar $f_{2}$ and this might be gauged to zero instead. But while one or the other of $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ or $\mathbf{d}\phi$ can be gauged to zero, their *sum* is gauge invariant. As we show below, it is the resulting vector $\mathbf{v}$ which determines the timelike directions.
Recall that certain involution relationships must be satisfied to ensure that spacetime and momentum space are each submanifolds. The involution conditions in homogeneous biconformal space are $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{b}-\mathbf{v}_{\left(x\right)}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{a}\label{eq:InvolutionE}\\
0 & = & \boldsymbol{\rho}_{\;\; a}^{b}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{b}-\mathbf{u}_{\left(y\right)}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{a}\label{eq:InvolutionF}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{v}\equiv\mathbf{v}_{\left(x\right)}+\mathbf{u}_{\left(y\right)}\equiv v_{a}\mathbf{e}^{a}+u^{a}\mathbf{f}_{a}$. These were imposed as constraints in [@Spencer:2008p167], but are shown below to hold automatically in Euclidean cases.
Riemannian spacetime in Euclidean biconformal space\[sec:RiemannianStrucInBCS\]
===============================================================================
The principal result of [@Spencer:2008p167] was to show that the flat biconformal space $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}$ arising from any $SO\left(p,q\right)$ symmetric biconformal gauging can be identified with a metric phase space only when the initial $n$-space is of signature $\pm n$ or zero. To make the identification, involution of the Lagrangian submanifolds was imposed, and it was assumed that the momentum space is conformally flat. With these assumptions the Lagrangian configuration and momentum submanifolds of the signature $\pm n$ cases are necessarily Lorentzian.
Here we substantially strengthen this result, by considering only the Euclidean case. We are able to show that further assumptions are unnecessary. The gauging *always* leads to Lorentzian configuration and momentum submanifolds, the involution conditions are automatically satisfied by the structure equations, and both the configuration and momentum spaces are conformally flat. We make no assumptions beyond the choice of the quotient $\mathcal{C}/\mathcal{W}$ and the structures that follow from these groups.
Because this result shows the development of the Lorentzian metric on the Lagrangian submanifolds, we give details of the calculation.
Solution of the structure equations
-----------------------------------
A complete solution of the structure equations in the original basis, eqs.(\[eq:OrigStrucSpinConn\]-\[eq:OrigStrucWeyl\]) is given in [@Wheeler:1997pc] and derived in [@Wehner:1999p1653], with a concise derivation presented in [@Anderson:2004zy]. By choosing the gauge and coordinates $\left(w^{\alpha},s_{\beta}\right)$ appropriately, where Greek indices now refer to *coordinates* and will do so for the remainder of this manuscript, the solution may be given the form, $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha} & = & 2\Delta_{\nu\beta}^{\alpha\mu}s_{\mu}\mathbf{d}w^{\nu}\label{eq:original solution spin connection}\\
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{\alpha} & = & \mathbf{d}w^{\alpha}\label{original solution solder form}\\
\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\alpha} & = & \mathbf{d}s_{\alpha}-\left(s_{\alpha}s_{\beta}-\frac{1}{2}s^{2}\delta_{\alpha\beta}\right)\mathbf{d}w^{\beta}\label{original solution co-solder}\\
\boldsymbol{\omega} & = & -s_{\alpha}\mathbf{d}w^{\alpha}\label{original solution weyl vector}\end{aligned}$$ as is easily checked by direct substitution. Our first goal is to express this solution in the adapted basis and find the resulting metric.
From the original form of the Killing metric, eq.(\[eq:KillingMetric-1\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\left\langle \mathbf{d}w^{\alpha},\mathbf{d}w^{\beta}\right\rangle & \left\langle \mathbf{d}w^{\alpha},\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}\right\rangle \\
\left\langle \mathbf{d}s_{\alpha},\mathbf{d}w^{\beta}\right\rangle & \left\langle \mathbf{d}s_{\alpha},\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}\right\rangle
\end{array}\right] & = & \left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \delta_{\beta}^{\alpha}\\
\delta_{\alpha}^{\beta} & -k_{\alpha\beta}
\end{array}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where we define $k_{\alpha\beta}\equiv s^{2}\delta_{\alpha\beta}-2s_{\alpha}s_{\beta}$. This shows that $\mathbf{d}w^{\alpha}$ and $\mathbf{d}s_{\alpha}$ do not span orthogonal subspaces. We want to find the most general set of orthogonal Lagrangian submanifolds, and the restriction of the Killing metric to them.
Suppose we find linear combinations of the orginal basis $\boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\beta},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\alpha}$ that make the metric block diagonal, with $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\alpha}=0$ and $\boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\beta}=0$ giving Lagrangian submanifolds. Then any further transformation, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}^{\alpha} & = & A_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}\boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\beta}\\
\tilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{\alpha} & = & B_{\;\alpha}^{\beta}\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ leaves these submanifolds unchanged and is therefore equivalent. Now suppose one of the linear combinations is $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{\alpha} & = & \alpha A_{\;\alpha}^{\beta}\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}+\beta\tilde{C}_{\alpha\mu}\mathbf{d}w^{\mu}\\
& = & A_{\;\alpha}^{\beta}\left(\alpha\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}+\beta C_{\beta\mu}\mathbf{d}w^{\mu}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $C=A^{-1}\tilde{C}$ and the constants are required to keep the transformation nondegenerate. Then $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\alpha}=\alpha\mathbf{d}s_{\alpha}+\beta C_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{d}w^{\beta}$ spans the same subspace. A similar argument holds for $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}{}^{\beta}$, so if we can find a basis at all, there is also one of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\alpha} & = & \alpha\mathbf{d}s_{\alpha}+\beta C_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{d}w^{\beta}\\
\boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\alpha} & = & \mu\mathbf{d}w^{\alpha}+\nu B^{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ Now check the symplectic condition, $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\alpha}\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\alpha} & = & \left(\mu\beta C_{\alpha\mu}\right)\mathbf{d}w^{\alpha}\mathbf{d}w^{\mu}+\alpha\mu\left(\delta_{\mu}^{\beta}-\nu\beta C_{\alpha\mu}B^{\alpha\beta}\right)\mathbf{d}w^{\mu}\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}+\left(\nu\alpha B^{\alpha\beta}\right)\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}\mathbf{d}s_{\alpha}\end{aligned}$$ To have $\boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\alpha}\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\alpha}=\mathbf{d}w^{\alpha}\mathbf{d}s_{\alpha}$, $B^{\alpha\beta}$ and $C_{\alpha\beta}$ must be symmetric and $$\begin{aligned}
B=B^{t} & = & \frac{\alpha\mu-1}{\nu\beta}C^{-1}\equiv\alpha\beta\bar{C}\end{aligned}$$ Replacing $B_{\alpha\beta}$ in the basis, we look at orthogonality of the inner product, requiring $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \left\langle \boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\beta}\right\rangle \\
& = & \left\langle \mu\mathbf{d}w^{\alpha}+\frac{\alpha\mu-1}{\beta}\bar{C}^{\alpha\mu}\mathbf{d}s_{\mu},\alpha\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}+\beta C_{\beta\nu}\mathbf{d}w^{\nu}\right\rangle \\
& = & \left(2\alpha\mu-1\right)\delta_{\beta}^{\alpha}-\frac{1}{\beta}\alpha\left(\alpha\mu-1\right)\bar{C}^{\alpha\mu}k_{\mu\beta}\end{aligned}$$ with solution $C_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\alpha\left(\alpha\mu-1\right)}{\beta\left(2\alpha\mu-1\right)}k_{\alpha\beta}$. Therefore, the basis $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\alpha} & = & \alpha\mathbf{d}s_{\alpha}+\frac{\alpha\left(\alpha\mu-1\right)}{\left(2\alpha\mu-1\right)}k_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{d}w^{\beta}\\
\boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\alpha} & = & \mu\mathbf{d}w^{\alpha}+\frac{2\alpha\mu-1}{\alpha}k^{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ satisfies the required properties and is equivalent to any other which does.
The metric restrictions to the submanifolds are now immediate from the inner products: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\beta}\right\rangle & = & \frac{2\alpha\mu-1}{\alpha^{2}}k^{\alpha\beta}\\
\left\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\beta}\right\rangle & = & -\frac{\alpha^{2}}{2\alpha\mu-1}k_{\alpha\beta}\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the metric on the Lagrangian submanifolds is proportional to $k_{\alpha\beta}$, and we normalize the proportionality to 1 by choosing $\mu=\frac{1+k\alpha^{2}}{2\alpha}$ and $\beta\equiv k\alpha$, where $k=\pm1$. This puts the basis in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\kappa}^{\alpha} & = & \frac{k}{2\beta}\left(\left(k\beta^{2}+1\right)\mathbf{d}w^{\alpha}+2k\beta^{2}k^{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}\right)\\
\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{\alpha} & = & \frac{1}{2\beta}\left(2k\beta^{2}\mathbf{d}s_{\alpha}+\left(k\beta^{2}-1\right)k_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{d}w^{\beta}\right)\end{aligned}$$
Now that we have established the metric $$k_{\alpha\beta}=s^{2}\left(\delta_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{2}{s^{2}}s_{\alpha}s_{\beta}\right)$$ where $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ is the Euclidean metric and $s^{2}=\delta^{\alpha\beta}s_{\alpha}s_{\beta}>0$, and have found one basis for the submanifolds, we may form an orthonormal basis for each, setting $\eta_{ab}=h_{a}^{\;\alpha}h_{b}^{\;\beta}k_{\alpha\beta}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}^{a} & = & \frac{k}{2\beta}h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\left(\left(1+k\beta^{2}\right)\mathbf{d}w^{\alpha}+2k\beta^{2}k^{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{d}s_{\beta}\right)\label{Solution solder form}\\
\mathbf{f}_{a} & = & \frac{1}{2\beta}h_{a}^{\;\alpha}\left(2k\beta^{2}\mathbf{d}s_{\alpha}-\left(1-k\beta^{2}\right)k_{\alpha\beta}\mathbf{d}w^{\beta}\right)\label{Solution co-solder form}\end{aligned}$$ We see from the form $k_{\alpha\beta}=s^{2}\left(\delta_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{2}{s^{2}}s_{\alpha}s_{\beta}\right)$ that at any point $s_{\alpha}^{0}$, a rotation that takes $\frac{1}{\sqrt{s^{w}}}s_{\alpha}^{0}$ to a fixed direction $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ will take $k_{\alpha\beta}$ to $s^{2}diag\left(-1,1,\ldots,1\right)$ so the orthonormal metric $\eta_{ab}$ is Lorentzian. This is one of our central results. Since eqs.(\[eq:original solution spin connection\]-\[original solution weyl vector\]) provide an exact, general solution to the structure equations, the induced configuration and momentum spaces of Euclidean biconformal spaces are *always* Lorentzian, without restrictions.
We now find the connections forms in the orthogonal basis and check the involution conditions required to guarantee that the configuration and momentum subspaces are Lagrangian submanifolds.
The connection in the adapted solution basis
--------------------------------------------
We have defined $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a}$ in eq. (\[eq:DefinitionTau\]) with antisymmetric and symmetric parts $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a}$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}$, subdivided between the $\mathbf{e}^{a}$ and $\mathbf{f}_{a}$ subspaces, eq(\[eq:antisymmetricSpin Connection\], \[eq:symmetricSpin Connection\]). All quantities may be written in terms of the new basis. We will make use of $s_{a}\equiv h_{a}^{\;\alpha}s_{\alpha}$ and $\delta_{ab}\equiv h_{a}^{\;\alpha}h_{b}^{\;\beta}\delta_{\alpha\beta}$. In terms of these, the orthonormal metric is $\eta_{ab}=s^{2}\left(\delta_{ab}-\frac{2}{s^{2}}s_{a}s_{b}\right)$, where $s^{2}\equiv\delta^{ab}s_{a}s_{b}>0$. Solving for $\delta_{ab}$, we find $\delta_{ab}=\frac{1}{s^{2}}\eta_{ab}+\frac{2}{s^{2}}s_{a}s_{b}$. Similar relations hold for the inverses, $\eta^{ab},\delta^{ab}$, see Appendix 2. In addition, we may invert the basis change to write the coordinate differentials, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}w^{\beta} & = & k\beta h_{a}^{\;\beta}\left(\mathbf{e}^{a}-k\eta^{ab}\mathbf{f}_{b}\right)\\
\mathbf{d}s_{\alpha} & = & \frac{1}{2\beta}h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\left(\left(1-k\beta^{2}\right)\eta_{ab}\mathbf{e}^{b}+k\left(1+k\beta^{2}\right)\mathbf{f}_{a}\right)\end{aligned}$$ The known solution for the spin connection and Weyl form, eqs.(\[eq:original solution spin connection\],\[original solution weyl vector\]) immediately become $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\; b}^{a} & = & 2\Delta_{db}^{ac}s_{c}k\beta\left(\mathbf{e}^{d}-k\eta^{de}\mathbf{f}_{e}\right)\label{Solution full spin connection}\\
\boldsymbol{\omega} & = & -k\beta s_{a}\mathbf{e}^{a}+\beta\eta^{ab}s_{a}\mathbf{f}_{b}\label{Solution Weyl vector}\end{aligned}$$ where we easily expand the projection $\Delta_{db}^{ac}$ in terms of the new metric. Substituting this expansion to find $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a}$, results in $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \beta\left(2\Theta_{db}^{ac}s_{c}+2\eta^{ae}\eta_{bd}s_{e}+2\eta^{ae}s_{e}s_{b}s_{d}\right)\left(k\mathbf{e}^{d}-\eta^{dg}\mathbf{f}_{g}\right)-h_{b}^{\;\alpha}\mathbf{d}h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\end{aligned}$$ The antisymmetric part is then $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a}\equiv\Theta_{cb}^{ad}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; d}^{c}=-\Theta_{cb}^{ad}h_{d}^{\;\alpha}\mathbf{d}h_{\alpha}^{\; c}$ with the remaining terms cancelling identically. Furthermore, as described above, $h_{\alpha}^{\; c}$ is a purely $s_{\alpha}$-dependent rotation at each point. Therefore the remaining $h_{d}^{\;\alpha}\mathbf{d}h_{\alpha}^{\; c}$ term will lie totally in the subspace spanned by $\mathbf{d}s_{\alpha}$, giving the parts of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{a} & = & -\frac{1-k\beta^{2}}{2\beta}\Theta_{cb}^{ad}\left(h_{b}^{\;\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial s_{\beta}}h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\right)h_{\beta}^{\; c}\eta_{cd}\mathbf{e}^{d}\label{Sigma solution}\\
\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{a} & = & -\frac{k+\beta^{2}}{2\beta}\Theta_{cb}^{ad}\left(h_{b}^{\;\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial s_{\beta}}h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\right)h_{\beta}^{\; c}\mathbf{f}_{c}\label{Gamma solution}\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the value of $k$ or $\beta$ in these expressions is essentially a gauge choice and should be physically irrelavant. If we choose $\beta^{2}=1$, we get either $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{a}=0$ or $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{a}=0$, depending on the sign of $k$.
Continuing, we are particularly interested in the symmetric pieces of the connection since they constitute a new feature of the theory. Applying the symmetric projection to $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a}$, we expand $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a} & \equiv & \Xi_{cb}^{ad}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; d}^{c}\end{aligned}$$ Using $\Xi_{ab}^{cd}\left(h_{d}^{\;\mu}\mathbf{d}h_{\mu}^{\; a}\right)=\frac{1}{2}h_{\alpha}^{\; c}h_{b}^{\;\beta}k^{\alpha\mu}\mathbf{d}k_{\mu\beta}$ (see Appendix 3) to express the derivative term in terms of $v_{a}$, we find the independent parts $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \left(-k\beta\delta_{b}^{a}s_{c}+\beta\gamma_{+}\left(\delta_{b}^{a}s_{c}+\delta_{c}^{a}s_{b}+\eta^{ad}\eta_{bc}s_{d}+2\eta^{ad}s_{b}s_{c}s_{d}\right)\right)\mathbf{e}^{c}\\
\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \left(\beta\delta_{b}^{a}\eta^{cd}s_{d}+k\beta\gamma_{-}\left(\delta_{b}^{a}\eta^{cd}s_{d}+\delta_{b}^{c}\eta^{ad}s_{d}+\eta^{ac}s_{b}+2\eta^{ad}\eta^{ce}s_{b}s_{d}s_{e}\right)\right)\mathbf{f}_{c}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_{\pm}\equiv\frac{1}{2\beta}\left(1\pm k\beta^{2}\right)$. Written in this form, the tensor character of $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a}$ and $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a}$ is not evident, but since we have chosen $\eta_{ab}$ orthonormal (referred to later as the orthonormal gauge), $\phi=0$, and $\mathbf{v}=\boldsymbol{\omega}+\mathbf{d}\phi=\boldsymbol{\omega}$ we have $\mathbf{v}_{\left(e\right)}+\mathbf{u}_{\left(f\right)}=-k\beta s_{a}\mathbf{e}^{a}+\beta\eta^{ab}s_{a}\mathbf{f}_{b}$ so that we may equally well write
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \left(\delta_{b}^{a}v_{c}-k\gamma_{+}\left(\delta_{b}^{a}v_{c}+\delta_{c}^{a}v_{b}+\eta^{ad}\eta_{bc}v_{d}+\frac{2}{\beta^{2}}\eta^{ad}v_{b}v_{c}v_{d}\right)\right)\mathbf{e}^{c}\label{eq:NewSymmSpinConnectionMu}\\
\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \left(\delta_{b}^{a}u^{c}+k\gamma_{-}\left(\delta_{b}^{a}u^{c}+\delta_{b}^{c}u^{a}+\eta^{ac}\eta_{bd}u^{d}+\frac{2}{\beta^{2}}\eta_{bd}u^{a}u^{c}u^{d}\right)\right)\mathbf{f}_{c}\label{eq:NewSymmSpinConnectionRho}\end{aligned}$$
which are manifestly tensorial.
The involution conditions, eqs.(\[eq:InvolutionE\]-\[eq:InvolutionF\]), are easily seen to be satisfied identically by eqs.(\[eq:NewSymmSpinConnectionMu\], \[eq:NewSymmSpinConnectionRho\]). Therefore, the $\mathbf{f}_{a}=0$ and $\mathbf{e}^{a}=0$ subspaces are Lagrangian submanifolds spanned respectively by $\mathbf{e}^{a}$ and $\mathbf{f}_{a}$. There exist coordinates such that these basis forms may be written $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}^{a} & = & e_{\mu}^{\quad a}\mathbf{d}x^{\mu}\label{Solder form in adapted coords}\\
\mathbf{f}_{a} & = & f_{a}^{\quad\mu}\mathbf{d}y_{\mu}\label{Co-solder form in adapted coordinates}\end{aligned}$$ To find such submanifold coordinates, the useful thing to note is that $\mathbf{d}\left(\frac{s_{\alpha}}{s^{2}}\right)=\delta_{\alpha\nu}k^{\mu\nu}\mathbf{d}s_{\mu}$ so that the basis may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}^{a} & = & h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\mathbf{d}\left(k\gamma_{+}w^{\alpha}+\beta\delta^{\alpha\beta}\left(\frac{s_{\alpha}}{s^{2}}\right)\right)\equiv h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\mathbf{d}x^{\alpha}\\
\mathbf{f}_{a} & = & \left(h_{a}^{\;\alpha}k_{\alpha\beta}\delta^{\beta\mu}\right)\mathbf{d}\left(k\beta\left(\frac{s_{\mu}}{s^{2}}\right)-\gamma_{-}\delta_{\mu\nu}w^{\nu}\right)\equiv f_{a}^{\;\mu}\mathbf{d}y_{\mu}\end{aligned}$$ with $x^{\alpha}=k\gamma_{+}w^{\alpha}+\beta\delta^{\alpha\beta}\left(\frac{s_{\alpha}}{s^{2}}\right)$ and $y_{\mu}=k\beta\left(\frac{s_{\mu}}{s^{2}}\right)-\gamma_{-}\delta_{\mu\nu}w^{\nu}$. This confirms the involution.
Curvature of the submanifolds
=============================
The nature of the configuration or momentum submanifold may be determined by restricting the structure equations by $\mathbf{f}_{a}=0$ or $\mathbf{e}^{a}=0$, respectively. To aid in the interpretation of the resulting submanifold structure equations, we define the curvature of the antisymmetric connection $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\: b}^{a}$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a} & \equiv & \mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{c}\wedge\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}_{\; c}^{a}\label{eq:RiemannCurvDef-1}\\
& = & \frac{1}{2}R_{\; bcd}^{a}\mathbf{e}^{c}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{d}+R_{\; b\; d}^{a\; c}\mathbf{f}_{c}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{d}+\frac{1}{2}R_{\; b}^{a\; cd}\mathbf{f}_{c}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{d}\end{aligned}$$
While all components of the overall Cartan curvature, $\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{A}=\left(\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{b}^{a},\mathbf{T}^{a},\mathbf{S}_{a},\boldsymbol{\Omega}\right)$ are zero on $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}$, the curvature, $\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a}$, and in particular the curvatures $\frac{1}{2}R_{\; bcd}^{a}\mathbf{e}^{c}\wedge\mathbf{e}^{d}$ and $\frac{1}{2}R_{\; b}^{a\; cd}\mathbf{f}_{c}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{d}$ on the submanifolds, may or may not be. Here we examine this question, using the structure equations to find the *Riemannian* curvature of the connections, $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{b}^{a}$ and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{b}^{a},$ of the Lorentzian submanifolds.
Momentum space curvature\[sub:SpencWheelerMetric\]
--------------------------------------------------
To see that the Lagrangian submanifold equations describe a Riemannian geometry, we set $\mathbf{e}^{a}=0$ in the structure equations, eqs.(\[eq:NewStrucSpinConn\]-\[eq:NewStrucWeyl\]) and choose the $\phi=0$ (orthonormal) gauge (or see Appendix 1, eqs.(\[eq:MomCurv\]-\[eq:MomDil\], with the Cartan curvatures set to zero). Then, taking the $\Theta_{db}^{ac}$ projection, we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \frac{1}{2}R_{\; b}^{a\; cd}\mathbf{f}_{c}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{d}-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{c}\wedge\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\rho}}_{\; c}^{a}+\Theta_{db}^{ac}\eta^{ac}\Delta_{cf}^{eb}\mathbf{f}_{b}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{a}\label{eq:MomentumRiemannCurv}\\
0 & = & \mathbf{d}_{\left(y\right)}\mathbf{f}_{b}-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{a}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{a}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ These are the structure equations of a Riemannian geometry with additional *geometric* terms, $-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{c}\wedge\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\rho}}_{\; c}^{a}+\Theta_{db}^{ac}\eta^{ac}\Delta_{cf}^{eb}\mathbf{f}_{b}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{a}$, reflecting the difference between Lorentz curvature and conformal curvature. The symmetric projection is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{D}^{\left(y\right)}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a} & = & -k\Xi_{db}^{ac}\Delta_{ec}^{df}\eta^{eg}\mathbf{f}_{f}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{g}\\
\mathbf{d}_{\left(y\right)}\mathbf{u}_{\left(f\right)} & = & 0\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{u}_{\left(f\right)},\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{a}$ and $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a}$ are given by eqs.(\[Solution Weyl vector\],\[Gamma solution\],\[eq:NewSymmSpinConnectionRho\]), respectively. Rather than computing $R_{\; b}^{a\; cd}$ directly from $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{a}$, which requires a complicated expression for the local rotation, $h_{\alpha}^{\; a}$, we find it using the rest of eq. (\[eq:MomentumRiemannCurv\]).
Letting $\beta=e^{\lambda}$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
k+\gamma_{-}^{2} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\cosh^{2}\lambda & k=1\\
\sinh^{2}\lambda & k=-1
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ the curvature is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}R_{\; b}^{a\; cd}\mathbf{f}_{c}\mathbf{f}_{d} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\cosh^{2}\lambda\Theta_{cb}^{ag}\left(\eta^{cf}+2\eta^{cd}\eta^{fe}s_{d}s_{e}\right)\mathbf{f}_{f}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{g} & k=1\\
\sinh^{2}\lambda\Theta_{cb}^{ag}\left(\eta^{cf}+2\eta^{cd}\eta^{fe}s_{d}s_{e}\right)\mathbf{f}_{f}\wedge\mathbf{f}_{g} & k=-1
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Now consider the symmetric equations. Notice that the Weyl vector has totally decoupled, with its equation showing that $\mathbf{u}_{\left(f\right)}$ is closed, a result which also follows from its definition. For the symmetric projection, we find $\Xi_{db}^{ac}\eta^{ac}\Delta_{cf}^{eb}\mathbf{f}_{b}\mathbf{f}_{a}\equiv0$. Then, contraction of $D^{a}\rho_{\; b}^{a\;\; c}$ with $\eta_{ad}\eta_{ce}u^{a}u^{e}$ , together with $\mathbf{d}_{\left(y\right)}\mathbf{u}_{\left(f\right)}=0$ shows that $u^{a}$ is covariantly constant, $D_{\left(y\right)}^{a}u^{b}=0$.
If we choose $k=-1$ and $\lambda=0$, the Riemann curvature of the momentum space vanishes. This is a stronger result than in [@Spencer:2008p167], since there only the Weyl curvature could be set to zero consistently. In this case, the Lagrangian submanifold becomes a vector space and there is a natural interpretation as the co-tangent space of the configuration space. However, the orthonormal metric in this case, $\left\langle \mathbf{f}_{a},\mathbf{f}_{b}\right\rangle =\eta_{ab}$, has the opposite sign from the metric of the configuration space, $\left\langle \mathbf{e}^{a},\mathbf{e}^{b}\right\rangle =-\eta^{ab}$. This reversal of sign of the metric together with the the units, suggests that the physical (momentum) tangent space coordinates are related to the geometrical ones by $p_{\alpha}\sim i\hbar y_{\alpha}$. This has been suggested previously [@Wheeler:1997tg] and explored in the context of quantization [@Anderson:2004p612].
Leaving $\beta$ and $k$ unspecified, we see that in general momentum space has non-vanishing Riemannian curvature of the connection $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{a}$, a situation suggested long ago for quantum gravity [@Born:1938p217; @Freidel:2006p21]. We consider this further in Section 7.3. Whatever the values of $\beta$ and $k$, the momentum space is conformally flat. We see this from the decomposition of Riemannian curvature into the Weyl curvature, $\mathbf{C}_{\; b}^{a}$, and Schouten tensor, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{R}}_{a}$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \mathbf{C}_{\; b}^{a}-2\Theta_{db}^{ae}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{R}}_{e}\mathbf{e}^{d}\end{aligned}$$ The Schouten tensor,$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{R}}_{a}\equiv\frac{1}{n-2}\left(R_{ab}-\frac{1}{2\left(n-1\right)}R\eta_{ab}\right)\mathbf{e}^{b}$ is algebraically equivalent to the Ricci tensor, $R_{ab}$. It is easy to prove that when the curvature $2$-form can be expressed as a projection in the form $\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a}=-2\Theta_{db}^{ae}\mathbf{X}_{e}\mathbf{e}^{d}$, then $\mathbf{X}_{a}$ is the Schouten tensor, and the Weyl curvature vanishes. Vanishing Weyl curvature implies conformal flatness.
Spacetime curvature and geometric curvature
-------------------------------------------
The curvature on the configuration space takes the same basic form. Still in the orthonormal gauge, and separating the symmetric and antisymmetric parts as before, we again find a Riemannian geometry with additional geometric terms, $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a}\left(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\right)-\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; c}^{a}-\Theta_{db}^{ac}\Delta_{fc}^{de}\eta_{eg}\mathbf{e}^{g}\mathbf{e}^{f}\label{Configuration structure eq curvature}\\
0 & = & \mathbf{d}_{\left(x\right)}\mathbf{e}^{a}-\mathbf{e}^{b}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{a}\label{Configuration structure eq solder}\end{aligned}$$ together with $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \mathbf{D}_{\left(x\right)}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a}-\Xi_{db}^{ac}\Delta_{fc}^{de}\eta_{eg}\mathbf{e}^{g}\mathbf{e}^{f}\\
0 & = & \mathbf{d}_{\left(x\right)}\mathbf{v}\end{aligned}$$
Looking first at all the $\Theta_{cb}^{ad}$-antisymmetric terms and substituting in (\[eq:NewSymmSpinConnectionMu\]) for $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a}$, we find that the Riemannian curvature is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{R}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \left(\gamma_{+}^{2}-k\right)\Theta_{db}^{ac}\left(\eta_{ce}+2s_{c}s_{e}\right)\mathbf{e}^{d}\mathbf{e}^{e}\end{aligned}$$ so the Weyl curvature vanishes and the Schouten tensor is $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{R}}_{a} & = & \frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma_{+}^{2}-k\right)\left(\eta_{ab}+2s_{a}s_{b}\right)\mathbf{e}^{b}\label{Configuration Schouten}\end{aligned}$$ The vanishing Weyl curvature tensor shows that the spacetime is conformally flat. This result is discussed in detail below.
The equation, $\mathbf{d}_{\left(x\right)}\mathbf{v}=0$ shows that $\mathbf{v}$ is hypersurface orthogonal. Expanding the remaining equation with $\mathbf{d}_{\left(x\right)}\mathbf{v}=0,\,\mathbf{D}_{\left(x\right)}\eta_{ab}=0$ and $\mathbf{D}_{\left(x\right)}\mathbf{e}^{a}=0$, contractions involving $\eta_{ab}$ and $v_{a}$ quickly show that $$D_{a}^{\left(x\right)}v_{b}=0$$ This, combined with $\mathbf{D}^{\left(y\right)}u^{a}=0$ and $u^{a}=-k\eta^{ab}v_{b}$ shows that the full covariant derivative vanishes, $D_{a}v_{b}=0$. The scale vector is therefore a covariantly constant, hypersurface orthogonal, unit timelike Killing vector of the spacetime submanifold.
Curvature invariant
-------------------
Substituting $\beta=e^{\lambda}$ as before, the components of the momentum and configuration curvatures become $$\eta_{df}\eta_{eg}R_{\; b}^{a\; fg}=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\cosh^{2}\lambda\left(\Theta_{db}^{ac}\delta_{e}^{f}-\Theta_{eb}^{ac}\delta_{d}^{f}\right)\left(\eta_{fc}+2s_{f}s_{c}\right) & k=1\\
\sinh^{2}\lambda\left(\Theta_{db}^{ac}\delta_{e}^{f}-\Theta_{eb}^{ac}\delta_{d}^{f}\right)\left(\eta_{fc}+2s_{f}s_{c}\right) & k=-1
\end{array}\right.$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\; bde}^{a} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\sinh^{2}\lambda\left(\Theta_{db}^{ac}\delta_{e}^{f}-\Theta_{eb}^{ac}\delta_{d}^{f}\right)\left(\eta_{fc}+2s_{f}s_{c}\right) & k=1\\
\cosh^{2}\lambda\left(\Theta_{db}^{ac}\delta_{e}^{f}-\Theta_{eb}^{ac}\delta_{d}^{f}\right)\left(\eta_{fc}+2s_{f}s_{c}\right) & k=-1
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Subtracting these $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{df}\eta_{eg}R_{\; b}^{a\; fg}-R_{\; bde}^{a} & = & k\left(\Theta_{db}^{ac}\delta_{e}^{f}-\Theta_{eb}^{ac}\delta_{d}^{f}\right)\left(\eta_{fc}+2s_{f}s_{c}\right)\end{aligned}$$ so that the difference of the configuration and momentum curvatures is independent of the linear combination of basis forms used. This coupling between the momentum and configuration space curvatures adds a sort of complementarity that goes beyond the suggestion by Born [@Born:1938p217; @Freidel:2006p21] that momentum space might also be curved. As we continuously vary $\beta^{2}$, the curvature moves between momentum and configuration space but this difference remains unchanged. We may even make one or the other Lagrangian submanifold flat.
For the Einstein tensors, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{ac}\eta_{bd}G_{\left(y\right)}^{cd}-G_{ab}^{\left(x\right)} & = & \frac{1}{2}k\left(\left(n-3\right)\eta_{ab}+\left(n-2\right)s_{a}s_{b}\right)\end{aligned}$$
Candidate dark matter
---------------------
There is a surprising consequence of the tensor $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a}$ in the Lorentz structure equation. The structure equations for the configuration Lagrangian submanifold above describe an ordinary curved Lorentzian spacetime with certain extra terms from the conformal geometry that exist even in the *absence of matter*. We gain some insight into the nature of these additional terms from the metric and Einstein tensor. In coordinates, the metric takes the form $$h_{\alpha\beta}=s^{2}\left(\delta_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{2}{s^{2}}s_{\alpha}s_{\beta}\right)$$ which is straightforwardly boosted to $s^{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta}^{0}$ at a point. Since the spacetime is conformally flat, gradients of the conformal factor must be in the time direction, $s_{\alpha}$, so we may rescale the time, $dt'=\sqrt{s^{2}}dt$ to put the line element in the form $$ds^{2}=-dt'^{2}+s^{2}\left(t'\right)\left(dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}\right)$$ That is, the *vacuum solution* is a spatially flat FRW cosmology. Putting the results in terms of the Einstein tensor and a coordinate basis, we expect an equation of the form $\tilde{G}_{\alpha\beta}=\kappa T_{\alpha\beta}^{matter}$ where the Cartan Einstein tensor is modified to $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{G}_{\alpha\beta} & \equiv & G_{\alpha\beta}-3\left(n-2\right)s^{2}s_{\alpha}s_{\beta}+\frac{3}{2}\left(n-2\right)\left(n-3\right)s^{2}h_{\alpha\beta}\label{eq:EinsteinTensor-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{\alpha\beta}$ is the familiar Einstein tensor. The new geometric terms may be thought of as a combination of a *cosmological constant* and a *cosmological perfect fluid*. With this interpretation, we may write the new cosmological terms as $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa T_{\alpha\beta}^{cosm} & = & \left(\rho_{0}+p_{0}\right)v_{\alpha}v_{\beta}+p_{0}h_{\alpha\beta}-\Lambda h_{\alpha\beta}\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa T_{ab}^{cosm}\equiv3\left(n-2\right)s^{2}v_{\alpha}v_{\beta}-\frac{3}{2}\left(n-2\right)\left(n-3\right)s^{2}h_{\alpha\beta}$. In $n=4$-dimensions, $\frac{1}{2}\left(\rho_{0}+p_{0}\right)=\Lambda-p_{0}$, with the equation of state and the overall scale undetermined. If we assume an equation of state $p_{0}=w\rho_{0}$, this becomes $$\frac{1}{2}\left(1+3w\right)\rho_{0}=\Lambda$$ This relation alone does not account for the values suggested by the current Planck data: about $0.68$ for the cosmological constant, $0.268$ for the density of dark matter, and vanishing pressure, $w=0$. However, these values are based on standard cosmology, while we have not yet included matter terms in eq.(\[eq:EinsteinTensor-1\]). Moreover, the proportions of the three geometric terms in eq.(\[eq:EinsteinTensor-1\]) may change when curvature is included. Such a change is suggested by the form of known solutions in the original basis, where $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is augmented by a Schouten term. If this modification also occurs in the adapted basis, the ratios above will be modified. We are currently examining such solutions.
Discussion
==========
Using the quotient method of gauging, we constructed the class of biconformal geometries . The construction starts with the conformal group of an $SO\left(p,q\right)$-symmetric pseudo-metric space. The quotient by $\mathcal{W}\left(p,q\right)\equiv SO\left(p,q\right)\times dilatations$ gives the homogeneous manifold, $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{2n}$. We show that this manifold is metric and symplectic (as well as Kähler with a different metric). Generalizing the manifold and connection while maintaining the local $\mathcal{W}$ invariance, we display the resulting biconformal spaces, $\mathcal{M}^{2n}$ [@Ivanov:1982p1172; @Ivanov:1982p1201; @Wheeler:1997pc].
This class of locally symmetric manifolds becomes a model for gravity when we recall the most general curvature-linear action [@Wehner:1999p1653].
It is shown in [@Spencer:2008p167] that $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{\left(2n\right)}\left(p,q\right)$ in any dimension $n=p+q$ will have *Lagrangian submanifolds that are orthogonal with respect to the 2n-dim biconformal (Killing) metric and have non-degenerate $n$-dim metric restrictions on those submanifolds* only if the original space is Euclidean or signature zero $\left(p\in\left\{ 0,\frac{n}{2},n\right\} \right)$, and then the signature of the submanifolds is severely limited $\left(p\rightarrow p\pm1\right)$. This leads in the two Euclidean cases to Lorenztian configuration space, and hence the origin of time [@Spencer:2008p167]. For the case of flat, $8$-dim biconformal space the Lagrangian submanifolds are necessarily Lorentzian.
Our investigation explores properties of the homogeneous manifold, $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{2n}\left(n,0\right)$. Starting with Euclidean symmetry, $SO\left(n\right)$, we clarify the emergence of Lorentzian signature Lagrangian submanifolds. We extend the results of [@Spencer:2008p167], eliminating all but the group-theoretic assumptions. By writing the structure equations in an adapted basis, we reveal new features of these geometries. We summarize our new findings below.
**A new connection**
There is a natural $SO\left(n\right)$ Cartan connection on $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{2n}$. Rewriting the biconformal structure equations in an orthogonal, canonically conjugate, conformally orthonormal basis automatically introduces a Lorentzian connection and decouples the Weyl vector from the submanifolds. This structure emerges directly from the transformation of the structure equations, as detailed in points $1$ through $4$ in $\S$\[sub:OrthonormalProperties\].
Specifically, we showed that all occurences of the $SO\left(4\right)$ spin connection $\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}$ may be written in terms of the new connection, $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a}\equiv h_{\alpha}^{\; a}\boldsymbol{\omega}_{\;\beta}^{\alpha}h_{b}^{\;\beta}-h_{b}^{\;\alpha}\mathbf{d}h_{\alpha}^{\; a}$, which has both symmetric and antisymmetric parts. These symmetric and antisymmetric parts separate *automatically* in the structure equations, with only the Lorentz part of the connection, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; b}^{a}=\Theta_{db}^{ac}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; c}^{d}$ describing the evolution of the configuration submanifold solder form. The spacetime and momentum space connections are metric compatible, up to a conformal factor.
The Weyl vector terms drop out of the submanifold basis equations. The submanifold equations remain scale invariant because of the residual metric derivative, $\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{d}\eta^{ac}\eta_{cb}=\delta_{b}^{a}\mathbf{d}\phi$. When the metric is rescaled, this term changes with the negative of the inhomogeneous term acquired by the Weyl vector.
**Two new tensors**
It is especially striking how the Weyl vector and the symmetric piece of the connection are pushed from the basis submanifolds into the mixed basis equations. These extra degrees of freedom are embodied in two new *Lorentz tensors*.
The factor $\delta_{b}^{a}\mathbf{d}\phi$ which replaces the Weyl vector in the basis equations allows us to form a *scale-invariant* $1$-form, $$\mathbf{v}=\boldsymbol{\omega}+\mathbf{d}\phi$$ It is ultimately this vector which determines the time direction.
We showed that the symmetric part of the spin connection, $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}$, despite being a piece of the connection, transforms as a tensor. The solution of the structure equations shows that the two tensors, $\mathbf{v}$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}$ are related, with $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}$ constructed cubically, purely from $\mathbf{v}$ and the metric. Although the presence of $\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\; b}^{a}$ changes the form of the momentum space curvature, we find the same signature changing metric as found in [@Spencer:2008p167]. Rather than imposing vanishing momentum space curvature as in [@Spencer:2008p167], we make use of a complete solution of the Maurer-Cartan equations to derive the metric. The integrability of the Lagrangian submanifolds, the Lorentzian metric and connection, and the possibility of a flat momentum space are all now seen as direct consequences of the structure equations, without assumptions.
**Riemannian spacetime and momentum space**
The configuration and momentum submanifolds have vanishing dilatational curvature, making them gauge equivalent to Riemannian geometries. Together with the signature change from the original Euclidean space to these Lorentzian manifolds, we arrive at a suitable arena for general relativity in which time is constructed covariantly from a scale-invariant Killing field. This field is provided automatically from the group structure.
**Effective cosmological fluid and cosmological constant**
Though we work in the homogeneous space, $\mathcal{M}_{0}^{2n}$, so that there are no Cartan curvatures, there is a net Riemannian curvature remaining on the spacetime submanifold. We show this to describe a conformally flat spacetime with the deviation from flatness provided by additional geometric terms of the form $$\tilde{G}_{\alpha\beta}\equiv G_{\alpha\beta}-\rho_{0}v_{\alpha}v_{\beta}+\Lambda h_{\alpha\beta}=0$$ that is, a background dust and a cosmological constant. The values $\rho_{0}=3\left(n-2\right)s^{2}$ and $\Lambda=\frac{3}{2}\left(n-2\right)\left(n-3\right)s^{2}$ give, in the absence of physical sources, the relation $\left(2+3w\right)\rho_{0}=\Lambda$ for an equation of state $p_{0}=w\rho_{0}$. An examination of more realistic cosmological models involving matter fields and curved biconformal spaces, $\mathcal{M}^{2n}$, is underway.
Appendix 1: Subparts of the structure equations {#appendix-1-subparts-of-the-structure-equations .unnumbered}
===============================================
Here we write the structure equations, including Cartan curvature. We expand the configuration, mixed and momentum terms separately. Note that the $\mathbf{f}_{a}\mathbf{f}_{b}$ part of the $\mathbf{d}\mathbf{e}^{a}$ equation and the $\mathbf{e}^{a}\mathbf{e}^{b}$ part of the $\mathbf{d}\mathbf{f}_{a}$ equation are set to zero. These are the involution conditions, which guarantee that the configuration and momentum subspaces are integrable submanifolds by the Frobenius theorem.
In the conformal-orthonormal basis, we have $g^{ab}\mathbf{d}g_{bc}=e^{-2\phi}\eta^{ab}\mathbf{d}\left(e^{2\phi}\eta_{bc}\right)=2\delta_{c}^{a}\mathbf{d}\phi$. The structure equations in the conformal-orthonormal basis are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{a} & = & \boldsymbol{\tau}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\tau}}_{\; c}^{a}+\Delta_{db}^{ae}\eta_{ec}\mathbf{e}^{c}\mathbf{e}^{d}-\Delta_{eb}^{ac}\eta^{ed}\mathbf{f}_{c}\mathbf{f}_{d}+2\Delta_{fb}^{ae}\Xi_{de}^{fc}\mathbf{f}_{c}\mathbf{e}^{d}+\boldsymbol{\Omega}_{\; b}^{a}\\
\mathbf{d}\mathbf{e}^{a} & = & \mathbf{e}^{c}\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; c}^{a}+\frac{1}{2}\eta_{cb}\mathbf{d}\eta^{ac}\mathbf{e}^{b}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{D}\eta^{ab}\mathbf{f}_{b}+\mathbf{T}^{a}\\
\mathbf{d}\mathbf{f}_{a} & = & \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\; a}^{b}\mathbf{f}_{b}+\frac{1}{2}\eta^{bc}\mathbf{d}\eta_{ab}\mathbf{f}_{c}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{D}\eta_{ab}\mathbf{e}^{b}+\mathbf{S}_{a}\\
\mathbf{d}\boldsymbol{\omega} & = & \mathbf{e}^{a}\mathbf{f}_{a}+\boldsymbol{\Omega}\end{aligned}$$ Then defining $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{D}^{\left(x\right)}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a} & \equiv & \mathbf{d}^{\left(x\right)}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; c}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; c}^{a}\\
\mathbf{D}^{\left(x\right)}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a} & \equiv & \mathbf{d}^{\left(x\right)}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; c}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; c}^{a}\\
\mathbf{D}^{\left(y\right)}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a} & \equiv & \mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; c}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; c}^{a}\\
\mathbf{D}^{\left(y\right)}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a} & \equiv & \mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; c}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; c}^{a}\end{aligned}$$ the separation of the structure equations into independent parts gives:
### Configuration space: {#configuration-space .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\Omega_{\; bcd}^{a}\mathbf{e}^{c}\mathbf{e}^{d} & = & \mathbf{d}^{\left(x\right)}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; c}^{a}+\mathbf{D}^{\left(x\right)}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; c}^{a}-k\Delta_{eb}^{ac}\eta_{cd}\mathbf{e}^{d}\mathbf{e}^{e}\label{eq:ConfiqCurv}\\
\frac{1}{2}T_{\; bc}^{a}\mathbf{e}^{b}\mathbf{e}^{c} & = & \mathbf{d}_{\left(x\right)}\mathbf{e}^{a}-\mathbf{e}^{b}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{a}+\frac{1}{2}\eta^{ac}\mathbf{d}^{\left(x\right)}\eta_{cb}\mathbf{e}^{b}\label{eq:ConfigBasis}\\
\frac{1}{2}S_{abc}\mathbf{e}^{b}\mathbf{e}^{c} & = & k\eta_{ab}\mathbf{e}^{c}\left(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; c}^{b}-\delta_{c}^{b}W_{d}\mathbf{e}^{d}+\frac{1}{2}\eta_{ce}\mathbf{d}^{\left(x\right)}\eta^{be}\right)\label{eq:ConfigInv}\\
\frac{1}{2}\Omega_{ab}\mathbf{e}^{a}\mathbf{e}^{b} & = & \mathbf{d}_{\left(x\right)}\left(W_{a}\mathbf{e}^{a}\right)\label{eq:ConfigDil}\end{aligned}$$
### Cross-term: {#cross-term .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\; b\; d}^{a\;\; c}\mathbf{f}_{c}\mathbf{e}^{d} & = & \mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{a}+\mathbf{d}^{\left(x\right)}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; c}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; c}^{a}\label{eq:MixedCurv}\\
& & +\mathbf{D}^{\left(x\right)}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a}+\mathbf{D}^{\left(y\right)}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; c}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; c}^{a} \nonumber \\
& & -2\Delta_{db}^{ac}\Xi_{ce}^{fd}\mathbf{f}_{f}\mathbf{e}^{e}\nonumber \\
T_{\;\; c}^{ab}\mathbf{f}_{b}\mathbf{e}^{c} & = & \mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\mathbf{e}^{a}-\mathbf{e}^{b}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{a}+\frac{1}{2}\eta^{ac}\mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\eta_{cb}\mathbf{e}^{b}\label{eq:MixedSolder}\\
& & -k\eta^{ac}\left(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\; c}^{b}\mathbf{f}_{b}+W_{d}\mathbf{f}_{c}\mathbf{e}^{d}-\frac{1}{2}\eta^{bd}\mathbf{d}^{\left(x\right)}\eta_{cd}\mathbf{f}_{b}\right) \nonumber \\
S_{a\;\; c}^{\; b}\mathbf{f}_{b}\mathbf{e}^{c} & = & \mathbf{d}^{\left(x\right)}\mathbf{f}_{a}-\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\; a}^{b}\mathbf{f}_{b}-\frac{1}{2}\eta^{cb}\mathbf{d}^{\left(x\right)}\eta_{ac}\mathbf{f}_{b}\label{MixedCosold}\\
& & +k\eta_{ab}\left(\mathbf{e}^{c}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; c}^{b}+W^{c}\mathbf{f}_{c}\mathbf{e}^{b}+\frac{1}{2}\eta^{bc}\mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\eta_{cd}\mathbf{e}^{d}\right) \nonumber \\
\Omega_{\; b}^{a}\mathbf{f}_{a}\mathbf{e}^{b} & = & \mathbf{d}_{\left(y\right)}\left(W_{a}\mathbf{e}^{a}\right)+\mathbf{d}_{\left(x\right)}\left(W^{a}\mathbf{f}_{a}\right)-\mathbf{e}^{a}\mathbf{f}_{a}\label{eq:MixedDil}\end{aligned}$$
### Momentum space: {#momentum-space .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\Omega_{\; b}^{a\;\; cd}\mathbf{f}_{c}\mathbf{f}_{d} & = & \mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; c}^{a}+\mathbf{D}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{a}-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; b}^{c}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; c}^{a}+k\Delta_{eb}^{ac}\eta^{ed}\mathbf{f}_{c}\mathbf{f}_{d}\label{eq:MomCurv}\\
\frac{1}{2}S_{a}^{\; bc}\mathbf{f}_{b}\mathbf{f}_{c} & = & \mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\mathbf{f}_{a}-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\; a}^{b}\mathbf{f}_{b}-\frac{1}{2}\eta^{cb}\mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\eta_{ac}\mathbf{f}_{b}\label{eq:MomBasis}\\
\frac{1}{2}T^{abc}\mathbf{f}_{b}\mathbf{f}_{c} & = & -k\eta^{ac}\left(\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\; c}^{b}\mathbf{f}_{b}-W^{b}\mathbf{f}_{b}\mathbf{f}_{c}-\frac{1}{2}\eta^{bd}\mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\eta_{cd}\mathbf{f}_{b}\right)\label{eq:MomInv-1}\\
\frac{1}{2}\Omega^{bc}\mathbf{f}_{b}\mathbf{f}_{c} & = & \mathbf{d}^{\left(y\right)}\left(W^{a}\mathbf{f}_{a}\right)\label{eq:MomDil}\end{aligned}$$
Appendix 2: Coordinate to orthonormal basis {#appendix-2-coordinate-to-orthonormal-basis .unnumbered}
===========================================
The Euclidean and Lorentzian metric components are related in the orthonormal basis by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{ab} & = & s^{2}\left(\delta_{ab}-\frac{2}{s^{2}}s_{a}s_{b}\right)\\
\eta^{ab} & = & \frac{1}{s^{2}}\left(\delta^{ab}-\frac{2}{s^{2}}\delta^{ac}\delta^{bd}s_{c}s_{d}\right)\\
\delta_{ab} & = & \frac{1}{s^{2}}\left(\eta_{ab}+2s_{a}s_{b}\right)\\
\delta^{ab} & = & s^{2}\left(\eta^{ab}+2\eta^{ac}s_{c}\eta^{ad}s_{d}\right)\end{aligned}$$
where $s^{2}=\delta^{\alpha\beta}s_{\alpha}s_{\beta}>0$.
Appendix 3: Symmetric projection of the derivative of the solder form {#appendix-3-symmetric-projection-of-the-derivative-of-the-solder-form .unnumbered}
=====================================================================
For the calculation of the symmetric pieces of the connection, we need to express the symmetric part, $\Xi_{cb}^{ad}h_{d}^{\;\alpha}\mathbf{d}h_{\alpha}^{\; c}$, in terms of the metric. Expanding the metric derivatives, $$\begin{aligned}
k^{\alpha\mu}\mathbf{d}k_{\mu\beta} & = & k^{\alpha\mu}\mathbf{d}\left(h_{\mu}^{\; a}h_{\beta}^{\; b}\eta_{ab}\right)\\
& = & h_{c}^{\;\alpha}h_{d}^{\;\mu}\eta^{cd}\left(\mathbf{d}h_{\mu}^{\; a}h_{\beta}^{\; b}\eta_{ab}+h_{\mu}^{\; a}\mathbf{d}h_{\beta}^{\; b}\eta_{ab}\right)\\
& = & h_{c}^{\;\alpha}h_{d}^{\;\mu}h_{\beta}^{\; b}\eta^{cd}\eta_{ab}\mathbf{d}h_{\mu}^{\; a}+h_{b}^{\;\alpha}\mathbf{d}h_{\beta}^{\; b}\\
& = & h_{c}^{\;\alpha}h_{\beta}^{\; b}\eta^{cd}\eta_{ab}\left(h_{d}^{\;\mu}\mathbf{d}h_{\mu}^{\; a}\right)+h_{b}^{\;\alpha}h_{\beta}^{\; c}\left(h_{c}^{\;\mu}\mathbf{d}h_{\mu}^{\; b}\right)\\
& = & 2h_{c}^{\;\alpha}h_{\beta}^{\; b}\Xi_{ab}^{cd}\left(h_{d}^{\;\mu}\mathbf{d}h_{\mu}^{\; a}\right)\end{aligned}$$ so that we can write $\Xi_{cb}^{ad}\left(h_{d}^{\;\mu}\mathbf{d}h_{\mu}^{\; c}\right)$ explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi_{cb}^{ad}\left(h_{d}^{\;\mu}\mathbf{d}h_{\mu}^{\; c}\right) & = & \frac{1}{2}h_{\alpha}^{\; a}h_{b}^{\;\beta}k^{\alpha\mu}\mathbf{d}k_{\mu\beta}\\
& = & \frac{1}{2}h_{\alpha}^{\; a}h_{b}^{\;\beta}k^{\alpha\mu}\mathbf{d}\left(s^{2}\delta_{\mu\beta}-2s_{\mu}s_{\beta}\right)\\
& = & h_{\alpha}^{\; a}h_{b}^{\;\beta}\frac{1}{s^{2}}\left(\delta_{\beta}^{\alpha}\delta^{\nu\rho}s_{\rho}-\delta^{\alpha\nu}s_{\beta}+\delta_{\beta}^{\nu}\delta^{\alpha\mu}s_{\mu}\right)\mathbf{d}s_{\nu}\\
& = & \frac{1}{s^{2}}\left(\delta_{b}^{a}\delta^{cd}s_{d}-\delta^{ac}s_{b}+\delta_{b}^{c}\delta^{ad}s_{d}\right)h_{c}^{\;\nu}\mathbf{d}s_{\nu}\\
& = & -\frac{\left(1-k\beta^{2}\right)}{2\beta}\left(\delta_{b}^{a}\eta^{cd}s_{d}+\delta_{b}^{c}\eta^{ad}s_{d}+\eta^{ac}s_{b}+2\eta^{af}\eta^{ce}s_{b}s_{e}s_{f}\right)\eta_{cf}\mathbf{e}^{f}\\
& & -\frac{k\left(1+k\beta^{2}\right)}{2\beta}\left(\delta_{b}^{a}\eta^{cd}s_{d}+\delta_{b}^{c}\eta^{ad}s_{d}+\eta^{ac}s_{b}+2\eta^{af}\eta^{ce}s_{b}s_{e}s_{f}\right)\mathbf{f}_{c} \end{aligned}$$
[^1]: There are non-degenerate restrictions in anti-de Sitter and de Sitter gravitational gauge theories.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Recently, a family of models that couple multifluid systems to the full Maxwell equations draw a lot of attention in laboratory, space, and astrophysical plasma modeling. These models are more complete descriptions of the plasma than reduced models like magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) since they naturally retain non-ideal effects like electron inertia, Hall term, pressure anisotropy/nongyrotropy, etc. One obstacle to broader application of these model is that an explicit treatment of their source terms leads to the need to resolve rapid kinetic processes like plasma oscillation and electron cyclotron motion, even when they are not important. In this paper, we suggest two ways to address this issue. First, we derive the analytic forms solutions to the source update equations, which can be implemented as a practical, but less generic solver. We then develop a time-centered, locally implicit algorithm to update the source terms, allowing stepping over the fast kinetic time-scales. For a plasma with $S$ species, the locally implict algorithm involves inverting a local $3S+3$ matrix only, thus is very efficient. The performance can be further elevated by using the direct update formulas to skip null calculations. Benchmarks illustrated the exact energy-conservation of the locally implicit solver, as well as its efficiency and robustness for both small-scale, idealized problems and large-scale, complex systems. The locally implicit algorithm can be also easily extended to include other local sources, like collisions and ionization, which are difficult to solve analytically.'
address:
- 'Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544'
- 'Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08543'
- 'University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD 20742'
- 'NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771'
author:
- Liang Wang
- 'Ammar H. Hakim'
- Jonathan Ng
- Chuanfei Dong
bibliography:
- 'Multi-Fluid.bib'
title: 'Exact and Locally Implicit Source Term Solvers for Multifluid-Maxwell Systems'
---
Plasma ,multifluid ,Two-Fluid ,Five-Moment ,Ten-Moment ,Source Terms ,Implicit solvers
Introduction
============
An Operator Splitting Scheme and the Homogeneous Terms
======================================================
\[sec:source-eqs\]Source Term Update Equations
==============================================
\[sec:exact\]An Exact Solution Scheme
=====================================
\[sec:implicit\]A Locally Implicit Scheme
=========================================
\[sec:benchmark\]Benchmark Problems
===================================
\[sec:conclusions\]Conclusions
==============================
\[subsec:appendix-skew-hermitian\]Useful Notes on the Matrix Form of the Linear System of Equations
===================================================================================================
\[sec:appendix-exact\]Deriving the Exact Solutions
==================================================
\[subsec:appendix-implicit-direct\]Direct Calculation of the Locally Implicit Scheme
====================================================================================
\[subsec:stability\]Stability of the Locally Implicty Scheme
============================================================
The Eigensystem of the Ten-Moment Model
=======================================
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We study projective surfaces $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ (with $r \geq 5$) of maximal sectional regularity and degree $d > r$, hence surfaces for which the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity ${\operatorname{reg}}(\mathcal{C})$ of a general hyperplane section curve $\mathcal{C} = X \cap \mathbb{P}^{r-1}$ takes the maximally possible value $d-r+3$. We use the classification of varieties of maximal sectional regularity of [@BLPS1] to see that these surfaces are either particular divisors on a smooth rational $3$-fold scroll $S(1,1,1)\subset \mathbb{P}^5$, or else admit a plane $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{P}^2 \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ such that $X \cap \mathbb{F} \subset \mathbb{F}$ is a pure curve of degree $d-r+3$. We show that our surfaces are either cones over curves of maximal regularity, or almost non-singular projections of smooth rational surface scrolls. We use this to show that the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of such a surface $X$ satisfies the equality ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) = d-r+3$ and we compute or estimate various of the cohomological invariants as well as the Betti numbers of such surfaces. We also study the geometry of extremal secant lines of our surfaces $X$, more precisely the closure $\Sigma(X)$ of the set of all proper extremal secant lines to $X$ in the Grassmannian $\mathbb{G}(1, \mathbb{P}^r).$'
address:
- 'Universität Zürich, Institut für Mathematik, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH – Zürich, Switzerland'
- 'Pukyong National University, Department of applied Mathematics, Daeyeon Campus 45, Yongso-ro, Nam-Gu, Busan, Republic of Korea'
- 'Korea University, Department of Mathematics, Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 136-701, Republic of Korea'
- 'Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Institut für Informatik, Von-Seckendorff-Platz 1, D – 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany'
author:
- 'Markus BRODMANN, Wanseok LEE, Euisung PARK, Peter SCHENZEL'
date: 'Busan, Halle, Seoul and Zürich, '
title: ON SURFACES OF MAXIMAL SECTIONAL REGULARITY
---
Introduction
============
Varieties of maximal sectional regularity {#varieties-of-maximal-sectional-regularity .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
In [@BLPS1] we have studied and classified projective varieties $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of dimension $n \geq 2$, of codimension $c \geq 3$ and of degree $d \geq c+3$ which are of maximal sectional regularity, which means that the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity ${\operatorname{reg}}(\mathcal{C})$ of a general linear curve section $\mathcal{C} = X \cap \mathbb{P}^{c+1} \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of $X$ takes the maximally possible value $d-c+1$. There are two possible types of such varieties, namely (see also Theorem \[theorem 2.1\] below):\
Either it holds $c=3$ and $X \approx H + (d-3)F$ is a divisor on a rational $(n+1)$-fold scroll $W \subset \mathbb{P}^{n+3}$ with $n-3$-dimensional vertex, where $H \subset W$ is the hyperplane divisor and $F = \mathbb{P}^n \subset W$ is a linear $n$-space;\
or else, there is linear subspace $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{F}(X) = \mathbb{P}^n \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ such that $X \cap \mathbb{F} \subset \mathbb{F}$ is a hypersurface of degree $d-c+1$.\
If $X$ is of type II, the $n$-space $\mathbb{F}(X)$ is unique and coincides with the so-called extremal variety of $X$, that is the closed union of all lines in $\mathbb{P}^r$ which are $(d-c+1)$-secant to a general curve section of $X$. Moreover, if the (algebraically closed) base field $\Bbbk$ is of characteristic $0$ or if $n = 2$, each variety $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of maximal sectional regularity is sectionally smooth rational (in the sense of Section 2 below) and hence is an almost non-singular linear projection of a rational $n$-fold scroll $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+n-1}$ (see Theorem \[theorem 2.5\]). In addition, this projecting scroll $\widetilde{X}$ is singular if and only if $X$ is a cone.
Surfaces of maximal sectional regularity {#surfaces-of-maximal-sectional-regularity .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------
In this paper we focus on the case in which $n=2$, hence the case in which $X$ is a surface of maximal sectional regularity, and we shall investigate in detail the structure of $X$. In this case, the above two possible types present themselves as follows (see Corollary \[corollary 2.1’\] below):\
*Type I:* It holds $r = 5$ and $X \approx H + (d-3)F$ is a smooth divisor on the smooth rational $3$-fold scroll $W = S(1,1,1) \subset \mathbb{P}^5$, where $H \subset W$ is the hyperplane divisor and $F = \mathbb{P}^2 \subset W$ is a ruling plane.\
*Type II:* There is a plane $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{P}^2 \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ such that $X \cap \mathbb{F} \subset \mathbb{F}$ is a pure curve of degree $d-r+3$.\
Moreover in this situation either the projecting surface scroll $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ is smooth or $X$ is a cone over a curve of maximal regularity. It turns out that the surfaces in question have a rich geometric, homological and cohomological structure, which we aim to investigate in this paper.
Preview of results {#preview-of-results .unnumbered}
------------------
*Section 2:* We give a few preliminaries, which mainly rely on results established in [@BLPS1]. We also establish a bound for the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of varieties which are almost non-singular projections of varieties satisfying the Green-Lazarsfeld property $N_{2,p}$ (see Theorem \[2.5’ Theorem\]). We shall revisit the extremal secant locus $\Sigma(X)$ of an arbitrary non-degenerate irreducible projective variety $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of degree $d$ and codimension $c \geq 2$, that is the closure of the set of all proper $(d-c+1)$-secant lines to $X$ in the Grassmannian $\mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r)$ of all lines in $\mathbb{P}^r$. This locus is particularly interesting if $X$ is a surface of extremal regularity and hence satisfies the inequality $\mathrm{reg}(X) \geq d-r+3$. We also consider the so-called special extremal locus ${}^*\Sigma(X)$ of a variety $X$ of maximal sectional regularity, hence the closure of the set of all lines in $\mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r)$ which are $(d-r+3)$-secant to a general curve section of $X$. We show that this latter locus has dimension $2$, if $X$ is a surface of maximal sectional regularity (see Proposition \[prop:dimspecextrloc\]).\
*Section 3:* We study sectionally smooth rational surfaces, hence surfaces whose general curve section is smooth and rational – a property which holds for surfaces of maximal sectional regularity. As sectionally smooth rational surfaces are almost non-singular projections of surface scrolls, they have a number of interesting properties and their cohomology is quite well understood. In particular, they satisfy the conjectural regularity bound of Eisenbud-Gôto [@EG] (see Theorem \[theorem 2.9\]). The results of this section will pave our way for a more detailed investigation of surfaces of maximal sectional regularity.\
*Section 4*: We investigate surfaces of maximal sectional regularity of type I. In particular, we compute their Betti tables (see Theorem \[t1-betti\]) and their cohomological Hilbert functions (see Theorem \[t1-coh\]). Moreover we show that the special extremal secant locus of such surfaces coincides with their extremal locus, and we show that these loci become Veronese Surfaces in a projective $5$-space under the Plücker embedding (see Proposition \[prop:extseclocI\]).\
*Section 5:* We study surfaces of maximal sectional regularity which fall under type II. We notably investigate the cohomological invariants and the cohomology tables of these surfaces (see Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] and Corollary \[coro:cohomology\]). If $X$ is a variety of maximal sectional regularity of dimension $n \geq 2$, which falls under type II, the union $Y := X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)$ of $X$ with its extremal variety $\mathbb{F}(X) = \mathbb{P}^n \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ plays a crucial role. As an application of Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\], we shall establish a lower bound on the number of defining quadrics of a variety of maximal sectional regularity $X$ of type II with arbitrary dimension $n \geq 2$ – a bound which is sharp if and only $Y$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay (see Corollary \[cor:higherdim\]). Finally, in the surface case, we give a comparison result for the Betti numbers of $X$ and $Y$ (see Proposition \[prop:BettiNumbers\]).\
*Section 6:* We study the index of normality $N(X)$ of a surface $X$ of maximal sectional regularity which falls under type II. In all examples we found, this index is sub-maximal and hence satisfies the inequality $N(X) \leq d-r$. In Theorem \[4.17” Proposition\] we give various conditions which are equivalent to the mentioned sub-maximality of $N(X)$. This sub-maximality notably implies that the homogeneous vanishing ideal of the union $Y = X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)$ is generated in degrees $\leq d-r+2$. This latter property allows to draw conclusions on the geometry of extremal secant lines to $X$ (see Remark \[remark:normality\]). We also revisit surfaces of degree $r+1$ in $\mathbb{P}^r$ and prove, that two of the eleven cases listed in [@B2] and [@BS6] may indeed not occur, as conjectured (see Remark \[3.3’ Remark\]).\
*Section 7:* This section is devoted to examples and open problems. We first provide examples of large families of surfaces of extremal regularity which are not of maximal sectional regularity and whose extremal secant locus is of any dimension in the maximally possible range $\{-1,0,1\}.$ (see Construction and Examples \[7.1 Construction and Examples\]). This is of some interest, as the paper [@GruLPe] let to the expectation that “there are only a few “exceptional“ varieties of extremal regularity without extremal secant lines”. We also provide some examples which make explicit the Betti tables in the case of surfaces of maximal sectional regularity which fall under type I (see Example \[example:t1\]). We also suggest a general construction principle which provides large classes of surfaces of maximal sectional regularity of type II (see Construction and Examples \[7.2 Construction and Examples\]). We use this principle to produce explicit examples for which we compute the Betti tables (see Examples \[7.3 Example\], \[7.4 Example\] and \[7.5 Example\]). Finally, we give some conclusive remarks and suggest a few open problems, which are related to the previously mentioned question on the sub-maximality of the index of normality (see Problems and Remark \[7.6 Problem and Remark\]).
Preliminaries
=============
The classification of varieties of maximal sectional regularity {#the-classification-of-varieties-of-maximal-sectional-regularity .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------------------
Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be a non-degenerate irreducible projective variety of dimension $n \geq 2$, codimension $c \geq 3$ and degree $d \geq c+3$. We recall the following classification result on varieties of maximal sectional regularity, which was established in [@BLPS1 Theorem 7.1]
\[theorem 2.1\] If either $n = 2$ or $\mathrm{Char}(\Bbbk) = 0$, the variety $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ is of maximal sectional regularity if and only if it falls under one of the following two types:
- [***Type I:***]{} $c=3$ and $X$ is a divisor of the $(n+1)$-fold scroll $$W := S(\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{(n-2)-\rm{times}},1,1,1) \subset \mathbb{P}^{n+3}$$ with $X \approx H + (d-3)F$, where $H$ is the hyperplane divisor of $W$ and $F \subset W$ is a linear subspace of dimension $n$.
- [***Type II:***]{} There exists an $n$-dimensional linear subspace $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{P}^n \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ such that $X \cap \mathbb{F} \subset \mathbb{F}$ is a hypersurface of degree $d-c+1$.
\[remark 2.2\] The previous classification result allows to conclude that there exist varieties $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of maximal sectional regularity of dimension $n$, of codimension $c$ and of degree $d$ for any given triplet $(n,c,d)$ with $n \geq 2$, $c \geq
3$ and $d \geq c+3$.\
For the purposes of the present paper, we notice in particular the following result (see also [@BLPS1 Theorem 6.3]):
\[corollary 2.1’\] Let $5 \leq r < d$. Then, a non-degenerate irreducible projective surface $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of degree $d$ is of maximal sectional regularity if and only if it falls under one of the following two types:
- [***Type I:***]{} $r=5$ and $X$ is a divisor of the smooth $3$-fold scroll $W := S(1,1,1) \subset \mathbb{P}^5$ with $X \approx H + (d-3)F$, where $H$ is the hyperplane divisor of $W$ and $F \subset W$ is a ruling plane. In this case, the surface $X$ is smooth.
- [***Type II:***]{} There exists a plane $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{P}^2 \subset \mathbb{P}^5$ such that $X \cap \mathbb{F} \subset \mathbb{F}$ is a pure curve of degree $d-r+3$. In this case, the surface $X$ is singular.
We now introduce the notion of sectional regularity and characterize surfaces of maximal sectional regularity by means of this invariant.
\[remark and definition 0\] (A) Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r = {\operatorname{Proj}}(S := \Bbbk[x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r])$ be a non-degenerate irreducible projective variety of dimension $n \geq 2$, of codimension $c \geq 2$ and of degree $d$. We introduce the notation $$\mathbb{H}_h := {\operatorname{Proj}}(S/hS) \mbox{ for all } h \in S_1 = \sum_{i=0}^r \Bbbk x_i \mbox{ with } h \neq 0\},$$ and we define the *sectional regularity* of $X$ by $$\mathrm{sreg}(X) := \mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{reg}(X \cap \mathbb{H}_h) \mid h \in S_1 \setminus \{0\}\}.$$ As the regularity is semi-continuous on hyperplane sections, we can say that $$\mathbb{W}(X) := \{h \in S_1 \setminus \{0\} \mid \mathrm{reg}(X \cap \mathbb{H}_h) = \mathrm{sreg}(X)\} \mbox{ is a dense open subset of } S_1 \setminus\{0\}.$$ Now, there is a dense open subset $\mathbb{U} \subseteq \mathbb{W}$ such that $X \cap \mathbb{H}_h$ is an integral scheme, and we denote the largest of these open sets by $\mathbb{U}(X).$\
(B) Now, assume that $4 \leq r < d$ and that $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r = {\operatorname{Proj}}(S := \Bbbk[x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r])$ is a non-degenerate irreducible projective surface of degree $d$. In this situation $$\mathcal{C}_h := X \cap \mathbb{H}_h \mbox{ is an integral curve of degree $d$ with } \mathrm{reg}(\mathcal{C}_h) = \mathrm{sreg}(X) \mbox{ for all } h \in \mathbb{U}(X).$$ Hence, in particular we see that $$\mathrm{sreg}(X) \leq d-r+3 \mbox{ with equality if and only if } X \mbox{ is of maximal sectional regularity}.$$
Curves of maximal regularity {#curves-of-maximal-regularity .unnumbered}
----------------------------
As the generic linear curve sections of varieties of maximal sectional regularity are curves of maximal regularity, it will be useful for us to keep in mind the following fact.
\[proposition 2.3\] Let $r\geq 4$ and let $\mathcal{C} \subset
\mathbb{P}^r$ be a curve of degree $d \geq r+2$ which is of maximal sectional regularity, so that ${\operatorname{reg}}(\mathcal{C}) = d-r+2$. Then $\mathcal{C}$ admits a unique $(d-r+2)$-secant line $\mathbb{L}$. Moreover, if $d \geq 3r-3,$ then $\mathrm{depth}(\mathcal{C} \cup
\mathbb{L}) = 1.$
The existence of the $(d-r+2)$-secant line $\mathbb{L}$ follows from the classification of curves of maximal regularity given in [@GruLPe]. The uniqueness of the extremal secant line $\mathbb{L}$ follows by [@BS2 (3.1)].\
Assume now that $d \geq 3r-3$. Note that $\mathbb{S} := \mathrm{Join}(\mathbb{L},C) \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ is a rational normal $3$-fold scroll of type $S(0,0,r-1)$ whose vertex $S(0,0) \subset S(0,0,1)$ equals $\mathbb{L}.$ So, in degree $2$, the homogeneous vanishing ideals $I_{\mathcal{C}}$ and $I_{\mathbb{S}}$ of $\mathcal{C}$ respectively of $\mathbb{S}$ in $S := \Bbbk[x_0.x_1,\ldots,x_r]$ satisfy the relation $$\mathrm{dim}_{\Bbbk}(I_{\mathcal{C}})_2 \geq \mathrm{dim}_{\Bbbk}(I_{\mathbb{S}})_2 = \binom{r-2}{2}.$$ Assume now that $\mathrm{depth}(\mathcal{C} \cup \mathbb{L}) \neq 1$, so that $\mathcal{C} \cup \mathbb{L}$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay. Then, by [@BS2 Proposition 3.3] it follows that $$\mathrm{dim}_\Bbbk(I_C)_2 = \binom{r+1}{2}-d-1, \mbox{ whence } \binom{r-2}{2} \leq \binom{r+1}{2}-d-1,$$ and this yields the contradiction that $d \leq 3r-4.$
Sectionally rational varieties {#sectionally-rational-varieties .unnumbered}
------------------------------
It is most important, that each variety $X$ of maximal sectional regularity is *sectionally rational*, which means that its general curve section is rational. If the general curve section of $X$ is even smooth and rational, we say that $X$ is *sectionally smooth rational*. A particularly interesting property of sectionally rational varieties is the fact, that they are birational linear projections of varieties of minimal degree. To make this statement more precise, we first give the following definition.
\[definition and remark 2.4\] (A) We define the *singular locus* of a finite morphism $f: X' \longrightarrow X$ of noetherian schemes by $$\mathrm{Sing}(f) := \{x \in X \mid \mathrm{length}\big(f^{-1}(x)\big) \geq 2\}.$$ Observe, that we also may write $$\mathrm{Sing}(f) = \mathrm{Supp}\big((f_*\mathcal{O}_{X'})/\mathcal{O}_X\big).$$
\(B) We say that the finite morphism $f: X' \longrightarrow X$ is *almost non-singular* if its singular locus $\mathrm{Sing}(f)$ is a finite set.
Now, we have the following result (see [@BLPS1 Theorem 4.1]).
\[theorem 2.5\] Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be a non-degenerate irreducible sectionally rational projective variety of dimension $n\geq 2$ and degree $d$. Assume furthermore that $\rm{char}(\Bbbk)=0$ or $n=2$. Then, we may write
- $X = \pi_{\Lambda}(\widetilde{X})$, where $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+n-1}$ is an $n$-dimensional variety of minimal degree,
- $\Lambda = \mathbb{P}^{d+n-r-2} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+n-1}$ is a linear subspace with $\widetilde{X} \cap \Lambda = \emptyset,$
- $\pi_{\Lambda}:\mathbb{P}^{d+n-1} \setminus \Lambda \longrightarrow \mathbb{P}^r$ is the linear projection map from $\Lambda$ and
- the induced finite morphism $\pi_{\Lambda}:\widetilde{X} \rightarrow X$ is the normalization of $X$.
Moreover, if $d\geq 5$, then $\widetilde{X}$ is a rational $n$-fold scroll. Finally, if $X$ is a sectionally smooth rational surface, the morphism $\pi_{\Lambda}:\widetilde{X} \rightarrow X$ is almost non-singular.
A regularity bound for almost non-singular projections {#a-regularity-bound-for-almost-non-singular-projections .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------
We know by Theorem \[theorem 2.5\], that sectionally smooth rational surfaces are almost non-singular linear projections of rational normal scrolls. This will allow us to prove that these surfaces satisfy the conjectural Eisenbud-Goto bound. In this subsection, we shall actually prove a much more general bounding result for the regularity of almost non-singular linear projections.
\[definition 2.6\] (A) Let $p \in \mathbb{N}$. The graded ideal $I \subset S := \Bbbk[x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r]$ is said to satisfy the *(Green-Lazarsfeld) property* $N_{2,p}$ (see [@GL]) if the Betti numbers of $S/I$ satisfy the condition $$\beta_{i,j} := \beta^S_{i,j}(S/I) = \beta^S_{i-1,j+1}(I) = 0 \mbox{ whenever } i \leq p \mbox{ and } j \neq 1,$$ – hence if the minimal free resolution of $I$ is linear up to the homological degree $p$ – and thus has the form $$\ldots \rightarrow S^{\beta_{p,1}}(-p-1)\rightarrow \ldots \rightarrow S^{\beta_{1,1}}(-2) \rightarrow I \rightarrow 0.$$ (B) The closed subscheme $Z \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ is said to satisfy the *property* $N_{2,p}$ if its homogeneous vanishing ideal $I_Z \subset S$ satisfies the property $N_{2,p}$.
Now, we may prove the announced regularity bound for almost non-singular projections of $N_{2,p}$-varieties.
\[2.5’ Theorem\] Let $r' \geq r$ be integers, let $X' \subset \mathbb{P}^{r'}$ be a non-degenerate projective variety of dimension $ \geq 2$ which satisfies the property $N_{2,p}$ for some $p \geq\max\{2,r'-r+1\}$. Let $\Lambda = \mathbb{P}^{r'-r-1}$ be a subspace such that $X' \cap \Lambda = \emptyset$ and let $\pi_\Lambda:\mathbb{P}^{r'} \setminus \Lambda: \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{P}^r$ be the linear projection from $\Lambda$. Let $X := \pi_\Lambda(X') \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ and assume that the induced finite morphism $\pi_{\Lambda}: X' \twoheadrightarrow X$ is almost non-singular. Then
- The homogeneous vanishing ideal $I_X \subset S$ of $X$ is generated by homogeneous polynomials of degrees $\leq r'-r+2$.
- ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) \leq \max\{{\operatorname{reg}}(X'), r'-r+2\}$.
Let $I_{X'} \subset S' := \Bbbk[x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r,x_{r+1},\ldots,x_{r'}] = S[x_{r+1},\ldots,x_{r'}]$ be the homogeneous vanishing ideal of $X' \subset \mathbb{P}^{r'} = {\operatorname{Proj}}(S')$ and let $A':= S'/I_{X'}$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $X'$. We assume that $\Lambda = {\operatorname{Proj}}(S'/(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r)S')$, consider $A'$ as a finitely generated graded $S$-module and set $t:= r'-r$. As $X'$ satisfies the condition $N_{2,p}$ with $p \geq\max\{2,t+1\}$, it follows by [@AK Theorem 3.6], that the minimal free presentation of $A'$ has the shape $$S^s(-2) \stackrel{v}{\rightarrow} S \oplus S^t(-1) \stackrel{q}{\rightarrow} A' \rightarrow 0$$ for some $s \in \mathbb{N}$. Moreover, the coordinate ring $A = S/I_X$ of $X$ is nothing else than the image $q(S)$ under $q$ of the direct summand $S \subset S\oplus S^t(-1)$. Therefore $$A'/A \cong {\operatorname{Coker}}\big(u:S^s(-2) \rightarrow S^t(-1)\big),$$ where $u$ is the composition of the map $v:S^s(-2) \rightarrow S\oplus S^t(-1)$ with the canonical projection map $w: S\oplus S^t(-1) \twoheadrightarrow S^t(-1)$. Hence, the $S$-module $(A'/A)(1)$ is generated by $t$ homogeneous elements of degree $0$ and related in degree $1$. As ${\operatorname{Sing}}(\pi_{\Lambda})$ is finite, we have $\dim(A'/A) \leq 1$. So, it follows by [@ChFN Corollary 2.4] that ${\operatorname{reg}}\big((A'/A)(1)\big) \leq t-1$, whence ${\operatorname{reg}}(A'/A) \leq t$. Now, the short exact sequence $0\rightarrow A \rightarrow A' \rightarrow A'/A \rightarrow 0$ implies that ${\operatorname{reg}}(A) \leq \max\{{\operatorname{reg}}(A'), t+1\}$. It follows that ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) = {\operatorname{reg}}(A) + 1 \leq \max\{{\operatorname{reg}}(A') + 1, t+2\} = \max\{{\operatorname{reg}}(X'), t+2\} = \max\{{\operatorname{reg}}(X'), r'-r+2\}$. This proves claim (b).\
To prove claim (a), observe that $I_X = {\operatorname{Ker}}(q) \cap S$ occurs in the short exact sequence of graded $S$-modules $0 \rightarrow I_X \rightarrow \mathrm{Im}(v) \stackrel{w\upharpoonright}{\rightarrow} \mathrm{Im}(u) \rightarrow 0$, where ${w\upharpoonright}$ is the restriction of the above projection map $w$. In particular, we may identify ${w\upharpoonright}$ with the canonical map $S^s(-2)/{\operatorname{Ker}}(v) \twoheadrightarrow S^s(-2)/{\operatorname{Ker}}(u)$. It follows, that $I_X \cong {\operatorname{Ker}}(u)/{\operatorname{Ker}}(v)$. In view of the exact sequence $0\rightarrow {\operatorname{Ker}}(u) \rightarrow S^s(-2) \stackrel{u}{\rightarrow}S^t(-1) \rightarrow A'/A \rightarrow 0$, we finally get ${\operatorname{reg}}({\operatorname{Ker}}(u)) \leq t+2 = r'-r+2$. Therefore ${\operatorname{Ker}}(u)$ is generated in degrees $\leq r'-r+2$, and hence so is $I_X$. This proves statement (a).
Extremal secant loci and extremal varieties {#extremal-secant-loci-and-extremal-varieties .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we recall a few facts on the geometry of proper $(d-c+1)$-secant lines to a non-degenerate irreducible projective variety $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of codimension $c$ and degree $d$. We also recall the related notion of extremal secant locus $\Sigma (X)$ of $X$, that is, the closure of the set of all proper $(d-c+1)$-secant lines of $X$ in the Grassmannian $\mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r)$.
\[4.1” Notation and Reminder\] (See [@BLPS1 Notation and Reminder 3.1]) (A) Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be as above and let $$\Sigma(X) := \overline{\{\mathbb{L} \in \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r) \mid d-c+1 \leq \mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) < \infty\}}$$ denotes the *extremal secant locus* of $X.$ Keep in mind, that setting $n := \dim(X) = r-c$ we can say (see [@BLPS1 Theorem 3.4]) $$\dim\big(\Sigma(X)\big) \leq 2n-2 \mbox{ with equality if and only if } X \mbox{ is of maximal sectional regularity}.$$ (B) Keep the above notations and hypotheses and let $\mathcal{U}(X)$ denote the largest open subset $\mathcal{U} \subset \mathbb{G}(c+1, \mathbb{P}^r )$ such that $$\mathcal{C}_{\Lambda} := X \cap \Lambda \subset \Lambda = \mathbb{P}^{c+1} \mbox{ is an integral curve of maximal regularity for all } \Lambda \in \mathcal{U}.$$ Observe that $$X \mbox{ is of maximal sectional regularity if and only if } \mathcal{U}(X) \neq \emptyset.$$
We introduce a subset of the extremal locus of a variety of maximal sectional regularity, which reflects in a particular way the nature of these varieties. We use this set to define the extremal variety of a variety of maximal sectional regularity.
\[4.2” Notation and Reminder\] (See [@BLPS1 Section 5]) (A) Let the notations and hypotheses be as in Notation and Reminder \[4.1” Notation and Reminder\], and assume that $X$ is of dimension $n \geq 2$ and of maximal sectional regularity, so that $\mathcal{U}(X) \neq \emptyset$. For all $\Lambda \in \mathcal{U}(X)$ let $\mathbb{L}_{\Lambda} \in \Sigma(X)$ denote the unique $(d-c+1)$-secant line to the curve $\mathcal{C}_{\Lambda} \subset \Lambda = \mathbb{P}^{c+1}$ (see Notation and Reminder \[4.1” Notation and Reminder\] (B) and Proposition \[proposition 2.3\]), so that $$\mathbb{L}_{\Lambda} \in \mathbb{G}(1, \mathbb{P}^r) \mbox{ with } \quad \mathrm{length}(\mathcal{C}_{\Lambda} \cap \mathbb{L}_{\Lambda}) = \mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}_{\Lambda}) = d-c+1.$$ The $(d-c+1)$-secant lines of the form $\mathbb{L}_{\Lambda}$ with $\Lambda \in \mathcal{U}(X)$ are called *special extremal secant lines*, whereas the set $${}^*\Sigma(X) := \overline{\{\mathbb{L}_{\Lambda} \mid \Lambda \in \mathcal{U}(X)\}} \subseteq \Sigma(X) \subset \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r)$$ is called the *special extremal secant locus* of $X$. If $n=1$, then $4 \leq r < d$ and $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ is a curve of maximal sectional regularity, and hence admits a unique extremal secant line $\mathbb{L} \in \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r)$ (see Proposition \[proposition 2.3\]). So, we define ${}^*\Sigma(X) := \{\mathbb{L}\}$ in this case.\
(B) We define the *extremal variety* and the *extended extremal variety* of $X$ respectively by $$\mathbb{F}(X) := \overline{\bigcup_{\Lambda \in \mathcal{U}(X)} \mathbb{L}_{\Lambda}} \quad (\quad \subseteq \quad) \quad \mathbb{F}^{+}(X) := \overline{\bigcup_{\mathbb{L} \in \Sigma(X)} \mathbb{L}}.$$ (C) Keep the previous notations and hypotheses, and assume that $5 \leq r < d$. Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r = {\operatorname{Proj}}\big(S := \Bbbk[x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r]\big)$ be a surface of maximal sectional regularity, so that $c+1 = r-1$ and $\mathrm{sreg}(X) = d-r+3$. Then, in the notations of Remark and definition \[remark and definition 0\] we have $$\mathbb{U}(X) = \{h \in S_1 \setminus\{0\} \mid {\operatorname{Proj}}(S/hS) \in \mathcal{U}(X)\}.$$ Moreover, for each $h \in \mathbb{U}(X)$, the line $\mathbb{L}_h := \mathbb{L}_{\mathbb{H}_h}$ is the unique $(d-r+3)$-secant line to the curve of maximal regularity $\mathcal{C}_h \subset \mathbb{H}_h$, and hence the line defined by the condition $$\mathbb{L}_h \in \mathbb{G}(1, \mathbb{P}^r)\quad \mbox{ with } \quad \mathrm{length}(\mathcal{C}_h \cap \mathbb{L}_h) = \mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}_h) = d-r+3.$$ Now, according to [@BLPS1 Theorem 6.3] we can say:
- If $X$ is of type I, then the extremal variety $\mathbb{F}(X)$ and the extended extremal variety $\mathbb{F}^{+}(X)$ of $X$ both coincide with the smooth $3$-fold scroll $W = S(1,1,1) \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of Corollary \[corollary 2.1’\].
- If $X$ is of type II, then the extremal variety $\mathbb{F}(X)$ of $X$ coincides with the plane $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{P}^2 \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of Corollary \[corollary 2.1’\].
The following result says that the extremal secant locus and the special extremal secant locus of a variety of maximal sectional regularity have the same dimension.
\[prop:dimspecextrloc\] Let $c \geq 3$, let $d \geq c+3$, let $n \geq 1$ and $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be a non-degenerate irreducible variety of dimension $n$ and degree $d$ which is of maximal sectional regularity. Then $\dim\big({}^*\Sigma(X)\big) = 2n-2$.
As ${}^*\Sigma(X) \subseteq \Sigma(X)$ it follows by the last observation made in Notation and Reminder \[4.1” Notation and Reminder\] (A) that $\dim\big({}^*\Sigma(X)\big) \leq \dim\big(\Sigma(X)\big) \leq 2n-2.$ It remains to show, that $\dim\big({}^*\Sigma(X)\big) \geq 2n-2.$\
We proceed by induction on $n.$ If $n = 1$, then our claim is clear by the definition of ${}^*\Sigma(X)$ (see Notation and Reminder \[4.2” Notation and Reminder\] (A)). So, let $n > 1$ and let $\mathbb{H} = \mathbb{P}^{r-1} \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be a general hyperplane. Then $X \cap \mathbb{H} \subset \mathbb{H}$ is a variety of dimension $n - 1$, codimension $c$ and degree $d$, which is of maximal sectional regularity. Moreover, each special extremal secant line $\mathbb{L} \in {}^*\Sigma(X \cap \mathbb{H})$ to $X \cap \mathbb{H}$ is a special extremal secant line to $X$. Therefore, we can say that ${}^*\Sigma(X \cap \mathbb{H}) \subseteq {}^*\Sigma(X) \cap \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{H}).$\
By induction, we have $\dim\big({}^*\Sigma(X \cap \mathbb{H})\big) \geq 2(n-1)-2 = 2n-4.$ If we apply [@BLPS1 Lemma 3.2] with $T = {}^*\Sigma(X)$ we obtain $\dim\big({}^*\Sigma(X)\big) \geq \dim\big({}^*\Sigma(X) \cap \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{H})) + 2.$ This proves our claim.
Sectionally Smooth Rational Surfaces
====================================
The projecting scroll {#the-projecting-scroll .unnumbered}
---------------------
In this section we investigate sectionally smooth rational surfaces. We do this, because surfaces of maximal sectional regularity are sectionally smooth rational. Let us recall first, that according to Theorem \[theorem 2.5\] we can say.
\[corollary 2.7\] Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be a non-degenerate irreducible projective and sectionally smooth rational surface of degree $d$ with $r \geq 4$ and $d \geq r+1$.\
Then, there exists a unique non-negative integer $a \leq \frac{d}{2}$ such that $X = \pi_{\Lambda} (\widetilde{X})$, where $\widetilde{X} = S(a,d-a) \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ and
- $\Lambda = \mathbb{P}^{d-r} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ is a subspace such that $\widetilde{X} \cap \Lambda = \emptyset$,
- $\pi_{\Lambda} : \mathbb{P}^{d+1} \setminus \Lambda \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^r$ is the linear projection map from $\Lambda$,
- the induced finite morphism $\pi_{\Lambda}: \widetilde{X} \rightarrow X$ is almost non-singular and coincides with the normalization of $X$, and
- $\widetilde{X}$ is smooth (or, equivalently, $a > 0$) if and only if $X$ is not a cone.
In the above situation, we call $\widetilde{X}= S(a,d-a)$ the *projecting scroll* of the surface $X$, $\Lambda \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ the *projecting center* for $X$ and $\pi_\Lambda:\widetilde{X} \twoheadrightarrow X$ the *standard normalization* of $X$.\
Algebraic and cohomological properties {#algebraic-and-cohomological-properties .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------
The precise aim of this section is to investigate a few algebraic and geometric properties of sectionally smooth rational surfaces, which are encoded in Corollary \[corollary 2.7\]. We begin with a few preliminaries.
\[2.7’ Notation and Reminder\] Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r = {\operatorname{Proj}}(S := \Bbbk[x_0,\ldots,x_r])$ be a non-degenerate irreducible projective surface of degree $d$, homogeneous vanishing ideal $I \subset S$ and homogeneous coordinate ring $A = S/I$.
\(A) (see [@BS6]) For any graded ideal $\mathfrak{b} \subseteq A_+ := S_+A$ and any graded $A$-module $M$ let $D_\mathfrak{b}(M) := \varinjlim {\operatorname{Hom}}_A({\mathfrak b}^n, M)$ denote the $\mathfrak{b}$-transform of $M$, and let $H^i_\mathfrak{b}(M), \quad (i \in \mathbb{N}_0)$ denote the $i$-th local cohomology module of $M$, both furnished with their natural grading. We usulally will write $H^i(M)$ instead of $H^i_{A_+}(M).$\
Let ${\mathfrak a} \subseteq A_+$ be the graded radical ideal which defines the non-Cohen-Macaulay locus $X \setminus \operatorname{CM}(X)$ of $X$. Observe that height ${\mathfrak a} \geq 2,$ so that the $\mathfrak{a}$-transform $$B(A):= D_{\mathfrak a}(A) = \varinjlim {\operatorname{Hom}}_A({\mathfrak a}^n, A) = \bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}(A:_{\rm{Quot}(A)}\mathfrak{a}^n) =
\bigoplus _{n \in {\mathbb Z}} \Gamma (\operatorname{CM}(Z), {\mathcal O}_Z (n))$$ of $A$ is a positively graded finite birational integral extension domain of $A$. In particular $B(A)_0 = \Bbbk$. Moreover $B(A)$ has the second Serre-property $S_2$. As $\mbox{Proj}(B(A))$ is of dimension $2$, it thus is a locally Cohen-Macaulay scheme.
If $E$ is a finite graded integral extension domain of $A$ which satisfies the property $S_2$, we have $A \subset B(A) \subset E$. So $B(A)$ is the least finite graded integral extension domain of $A$ which has the property $S_2$. Therefore, we call $B(A)$ the $S_2$[*-cover of*]{} $A$. We also can describe $B(A)$ as the endomorphism ring $\mbox{End}(K(A), K(A))$ of the canonical module $K(A) = K^3(A) = \mbox{Ext}^{r-2}_S(A, S(-r-1))$ of $A$.
\(B) The inclusion map $A \rightarrow B(A)$ gives rise to a finite morphism $$\pi: \widetilde{X}:= {\operatorname{Proj}}(B(A)) \twoheadrightarrow X, \mbox{ with } {\operatorname{Sing}}(\pi) = X \setminus {\operatorname{CM}}(X).$$ In particular $\pi$ is almost non-singular and hence birational. Moreover, for any finite morphism $\rho: Y \twoheadrightarrow X$ such that $Y$ is locally Cohen-Macaulay, there is a unique morphism $\sigma:Y \rightarrow \widetilde{X}$ such that $\rho = \pi \circ\sigma$. In addition $\sigma$ is an isomorphism if and only if ${\operatorname{Sing}}(\rho) = X \setminus {\operatorname{CM}}(X)$. Therefore, the morphism $\pi:\widetilde{X} \twoheadrightarrow X$ is addressed as the *finite Macaulayfication* of $X$. Keep in mind, that – unlike to what happens with normalization – there may be proper birational morphisms $\tau:Z \twoheadrightarrow X$ with $Z$ locally Cohen-Macaulay, which do not factor through $\pi$ (see [@B0]).
\(C) We also introduce the invariants $${\operatorname{e}}_x(X) := {\operatorname{length}}(H^1_{\mathfrak{m}_{X,x}}(\mathcal{O}_{X,x})),
(x \in X \mbox{ closed }) \; \mbox{ and }
{\operatorname{e}}(X):= \sum_{x\in X, {\rm{closed}}} {\operatorname{e}}_x(X).$$ Note that the latter counts the [*number of non-Cohen-Macaulay points*]{} of $X$ in a weighted way. Keep in mind that $${\operatorname{e}}(X) = h^1 (X, \mathcal{O}_X(j)) = h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) \mbox{ for all } j \ll 0.$$
Now, we are ready to prove the following result on sectionally smooth rational surfaces.
\[theorem 2.9\] Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be a non-degenerate irreducible projective and sectionally smooth rational surface of degree $d$ with $r \geq 4$ and $d \geq r+2$. Then it holds
- ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) \leq d - r + 3.$
- ${\operatorname{Reg}}(X) = {\operatorname{Nor}}(X) = {\operatorname{CM}}(X)$.
- The homogeneous coordinate ring of the projecting scroll $\widetilde{X}\subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ is the $S_2$-cover $B(A)$ of the homogeneous coordinate ring $A$ of $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ and the standard normalization $\pi_{\Lambda}: \widetilde{X} \rightarrow X$ is the finite Macaulayfication of $X$.
- If ${\operatorname{e}}(X) = 0,$ then $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) = 0$ for all $j \in \mathbb{Z}$. If ${\operatorname{e}}(X) \neq 0$, then $$h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) \begin{cases} = {\operatorname{e}}(X) &\mbox{ for all } j \leq 0;\\
= {\operatorname{e}}(X) + h^1(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(1)) + r - d -1 &\mbox{ for } j=1;\\
\leq \max\{0, h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j-1)) -1 \} &\mbox{ for all } j > 1;\\
\leq 1 &\mbox{ for } j = d-r;\\
= 0 &\mbox{ for all } j \geq d-r+1.
\end{cases}$$
- $h^3(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j)) =
h^2(\widetilde{X},\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}(j))$ for all $j \in \mathbb{Z}$, thus $$h^3(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j))= \begin{cases} \frac{(j+1)(dj+2)}{2} &\mbox{ for all } j \leq - 2,\\
0 &\mbox{ for all } j \geq -1. \end{cases}$$
(a): The projecting scroll $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ satisfies the conditions $N_{2,p}$ for all $p \in \mathbb{N}$, so that ${\operatorname{reg}}(\widetilde{X}) = 2$. Therefore, by Theorem \[2.5’ Theorem\] we get ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) \leq (d-1)-r+2 =d-r+3$, and this proves our claim.\
(b): As $X$ is a surface, we have ${\operatorname{Reg}}(X) \subset {\operatorname{Nor}}(X) \subset {\operatorname{CM}}(X)$. Therefore, it suffices to show that ${\operatorname{CM}}(X) \subset {\operatorname{Reg}}(X).$\
So, let $x \in {\operatorname{CM}}(X)$ be a closed point. We always write $\pi := \pi_\Lambda$. Then $\big(\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}\big)_x$ is a finite integral extension domain of the local $2$-dimensional CM ring $(\mathcal{O}_{X,x},\mathfrak{m}_{X,x})$. As the morphism $\pi: \widetilde{X} \rightarrow X$ is almost non-singular, the finitely generated $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$-module $$\big((\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}})/ \mathcal{O}_X\big)_x = \big(\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}\big)_x/ \mathcal{O}_{X,x}$$ is annihilated by some power of $\mathfrak{m}_{X,x}$ and hence contained in the local cohomology module $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}_{X,x}}(\mathcal{O}_{X,x})$. But this latter module vanishes because $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ is a local ${\operatorname{CM}}$-ring of dimension $>1$. This shows, that $x \notin \mathrm{Sing}(\pi)$.\
But this means, that $x$ has a unique preimage $\widetilde{x} \in \widetilde{X}$ under the morphism $\pi$ and that $$\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X},\widetilde{x}} \cong \mathcal{O}_{X,x}.$$ Assume now, that $x \notin {\operatorname{Reg}}(X).$ Then $\widetilde{x} \notin
{\operatorname{Reg}}(\widetilde{X})$. This means that $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ is a singular $2$-fold scroll with vertex $\widetilde{x}$. But this implies that the tangent space $\mathrm{T}_{\widetilde{x}}(\widetilde{X})$ of $\widetilde{X}$ at $\widetilde{x}$ has dimension $d+1$. In view of the above isomorphism, we thus get the contradiction that the tangent space $\mathrm{T}_x(X)$ of $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ at $x$ has dimension $d+1$. This proves that indeed $x \in {\operatorname{Reg}}(X)$.\
(c): Let $E$ denote the homogeneous coordinate ring of the projecting scroll $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$. As $E$ is a CM ring, we have canonical inclusions of graded rings $$A \subset B(A)=\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}(A:_{\rm{Quot}(A)}\mathfrak{a}^n) \subset E$$ (see Notation and Reminder \[2.7’ Notation and Reminder\] (A)). Keeping in mind statement (b) and observing that the projection morphism $\pi_\Lambda: \widetilde{X} \longrightarrow X$ provides the normalization of $X$, we thus get $${\operatorname{Proj}}(A/\mathfrak{a}) = X \setminus {\operatorname{CM}}(X) = X \setminus {\operatorname{Nor}}(X) = {\operatorname{Sing}}(\pi_{\Lambda})$$ and hence $E \subset
\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}(A:_{\rm{Quot}(A)}\mathfrak{a}^n) = B(A)$. Therefore $E = B(A)$ and statement (c) is shown.\
(d): Let $B := B(A)$ as above, let $D:= D_{A_+}(A)$ and consider the short exact sequence of graded $S$-modules $$0 \longrightarrow D \longrightarrow B \longrightarrow C \longrightarrow 0.$$ Observe that $\dim(C) \leq 1$, ${\operatorname{depth}}(C) > 0$ and that $\widetilde{C} \cong \mathcal{F} := \pi_*
\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}/\mathcal{O}_X$, so that $$\dim_{\Bbbk}(D_{A_+}(C)_j) = {\operatorname{e}}(X) \mbox{ for all } j \in \mathbb{Z}.$$ As $B$ is a Cohen-Macaulay module of dimension $3$, we have $$H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X) \cong H^2(A) \cong H^2(D) \cong H^1(C) \cong D_{A_+}(C)/C.$$ Hence, if ${\operatorname{e}}(X) = 0$, we have indeed $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) = 0$ for all $j \in \mathbb{Z}$.\
So, let ${\operatorname{e}}(X) > 0$. As $C_j = 0$ for all $j \leq 0$ we get that $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j))={\operatorname{e}}(X)$ for all $j \leq 0$. As $\dim_{\Bbbk}(D_1) = r+1 + h^1(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(1))$, we have $\dim_{\Bbbk}(C_1) = \dim_{\Bbbk}(B_1) - \dim_{\Bbbk}(D_1) = d+2 - \big(r+1+h^1(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(1))\big)$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(1)) &= \dim_\Bbbk(D_{A_+}(C)_1)-\dim_\Bbbk(C_1) = {\operatorname{e}}(X) - \dim_\Bbbk(C_1) = \\ &= {\operatorname{e}}(X) - h^1(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(1)) + r - d -1.\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $C$ is a Cohen-Macaulay module of dimension $1$. Moreover, the regularity of $B$ as an $A$-module and as a $B$-module take the same value ${\operatorname{reg}}(B) = {\operatorname{reg}}(\widetilde{X})-1 = 1$, so that the $A$-module $B$ is generated in degree $1$. Therefore, the $A$-module $C$ is generated in degree $1$, and hence $\dim_{\Bbbk}(H^1(C)_j) \leq \max\{0, \dim_{\Bbbk}(H^1(C)_{j-1})-1\}$ for all $j > 1$ (see for example [@BS1]). Therefore we get indeed $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) \leq \max\{0, h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j-1)) -1 \}$ for all $j > 1.$\
By statement (a) we have $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) = 0$ for all $j \geq d-r+1$.\
Finally, let us consider the exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{I}_X(-1) \longrightarrow \mathcal{I}_X \longrightarrow \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}} \longrightarrow 0,$$ where $\mathcal{C} = X \cap \mathbb{H} \quad (\mathbb{H}\in
\mathbb{G}(r-1,\mathbb{P}^r))$ is a general hyperplane section of $X$. As $\mathcal{C} \subset \mathbb{H} = \mathbb{P}^{r-1}$ is a smooth rational curve of degree $d$, we have $h^1(\mathbb{P}^{r-1},
\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}(1)) = d-r+1$ and $h^1(\mathbb{P}^{r-1},\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}(j+1)) \leq \mathrm{max}\{0, h^1(\mathbb{P}^{r-1},\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}(j))-1\}$ for all $j \geq 1$, so that $h^1(\mathbb{P}^{r-1},\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}(d-r+1)) \leq 1.$ Applying the above exact sequence and keeping in mind that $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(d-r+1)) = 0$ we get $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(d-r)) \leq 1.$ and this proves our claim.\
(e): Let the notation be as above. As the sheaf $\mathcal{F} :=
\pi_* \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}/\mathcal{O}_X$ has finite support, the sequence $$0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_X \longrightarrow \pi_* \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}} \longrightarrow \mathcal{F} \longrightarrow 0$$ together with the well known formulas for the cohomology of a rational surface scroll yields that $$h^3(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j)) = h^2(X,\mathcal{O}_X(j))= h^2(\widetilde{X},\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}(j)) = \begin{cases} \frac{(j+1)(dj+2)}{2}, &\mbox{ if } j \leq - 2,\\
0, &\mbox{ if } j \geq -1. \end{cases}$$ This proves statement (e).
Local properties {#local-properties .unnumbered}
----------------
Finally, we want to give the following result, in which $\mathrm{mult}_z(Z)$ is used to denote the *multiplicity* of the noetherian scheme $Z$ at the point $z \in Z.$
\[prop:loc,properties\] Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be a non-degenerate irreducible projective and sectionally smooth rational surface of degree $d$ with $r \geq 4$ and $d \geq r+2$. Let $\pi = \pi_\Lambda: \widetilde{X} \twoheadrightarrow X$ be the standard normalization of $X$. Then it holds:
- If $x \in \mathrm{Sing}(X)$, then $2 \leq \mathrm{length}(\pi^{-1}(x)) \leq \mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{mult}_x(X),\mathrm{e}_x(X)+1\}.$
- If $\mathbb{K} \in \mathbb{G}(k,\mathbb{P}^r)$ with $0 \leq k \leq r-1$ and $\mathrm{dim}(X \cap \mathbb{K}) \leq 0$, then $$\mathrm{length}\big({\operatorname{Reg}}(X) \cap \mathbb{K}\big) + 2\#\big({\operatorname{Sing}}(X) \cap \mathbb{K}\big) \leq d-r+k+2.$$
- If $\mathbb{L} \in \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r)$ is a proper extremal secant line to $X$ with $X \cap \mathbb{L} \subset \mathrm{Reg}(X)$, and $x \in \mathrm{Sing}(X)$, then $\dim(X \cap \langle x,\mathbb{L}\rangle) = 1$.
(a): Indeed, as $x$ is an isolated point of $\mathrm{Sing}(X) = \mathrm{Sing}(\pi_\Lambda)$ and as $\widetilde{X}$ is a Cohen-Macaulay surface, the semilocal ring $\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X},x} := \big({\pi}_{*}\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X},x}\big)_x$ is a Cohen-Macaulay finite integral extension domain of the local ring $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ and $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}_{X,x}}(\mathcal{O}_{X,x}) \cong \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X},x}/\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$. As $\pi^{-1}(x) \cong \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X},x}/\mathfrak{m}_{X,x}\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X},x}$ our claim follows easily.\
(b): Let $\mathbb{K}' := \overline{(\pi'_\Lambda)^{-1}(\mathbb{K})} \in \mathbb{G}(d-r+k+1,\mathbb{P}^{d+1})$ be the closed preimage of $\mathbb{K}$ under the linear projection $\pi'_\Lambda:\mathbb{P}^{d+1} \setminus \Lambda \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{P}^r$. Then $\widetilde{X} \cap \mathbb{K}' = \pi^{-1}(X \cap \mathbb{K})$, and so the morphism $\pi: \widetilde{X} \twoheadrightarrow X$ induces an isomorphism $$\pi\upharpoonright: \widetilde{X} \cap \mathbb{K}'\setminus \big[\pi^{-1}\big(\mathrm{Sing}(\pi)\cap \mathbb{K}\big)\big] \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} X \cap \mathbb{K} \setminus \big(\mathrm{Sing}(\pi)\cap \mathbb{K}\big) = \mathrm{Reg}(X) \cap \mathbb{K}.$$ Moreover $\widetilde{X} \cap \mathbb{K}'$ is of dimension $\leq 0.$ As $\widetilde{X} \subseteq \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ is a surface scroll and $\mathbb{K} \in \mathbb{G}(d-r+k+1,\mathbb{P}^{d+1})$, we get that $\mathrm{length}(\widetilde{X} \cap \mathbb{K}') \leq d-r+k+2.$ Now, our statement follows by the first inequality of statement (a).\
(c): Observe, that $\mathbb{K} := \langle x,\mathbb{L}\rangle$ is a plane. Assume that $\dim(X\cap \mathbb{K}) \leq 0$. Then, by statement (b) we get $$d-r+5 \leq \mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) + 2 \leq \mathrm{length}\big(\mathrm{Reg}(X) \cap \mathbb{K}\big) + 2\#\big(\mathrm{Sing}(X)\cap \mathbb{K}\big)
\leq d-r+4.$$ This contradiction proves our claim.
Surfaces of Type I
==================
The Betti numbers {#the-betti-numbers .unnumbered}
-----------------
In this section we study the surfaces which fall under type I of our classification. We begin by investigating their Betti numbers.
\[convention and remark\] (A) Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^5$ denote a projective surface contained in a smooth rational three-fold scroll in $\mathbb{P}^5$, hence that $$X \subset W:= S(1,1,1) \subset \mathbb{P}^5.$$ We assume furthermore that the divisor $X \subset W$ satisfies $$X \approx H+(d-3)F \mbox{ for some } d \geq 5,$$ where $H$ is a hyperplane section and $F$ is a plane of $W$. Then it is easy to check that $$\mathrm{deg} (X)=d \quad \mbox{and} \quad \mathrm{reg} (X)=d-2.$$
\(B) With the definition of the Betti numbers and the Betti diagram we follow the notations suggested by D. Eisenbud (see [@E]). So, if $Z \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ is a closed subscheme, with homogeneous vanishing ideal $I_Z \subset S:= \Bbbk[x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r]$ and homogeneous coordinate ring $A_Z := S/I_Z$, we write $$\beta_{i,j} = \beta_{i,j}(Z) := \mathrm{dim}_\Bbbk
\big(\mathrm{Tor}^S_i(\Bbbk,A_Z)_{i+j}\big) \mbox{ for all } i \in \mathbb{N}_0 \mbox{ and all } j \in\mathbb{Z}.$$ As usually, if $Z$ is non-degenerate, we list this numbers only the range $1\leq i \leq r+1-\mathrm{depth}(Z)$ and $1\leq j < \mathrm{reg}(Z)$
\[t1-betti\] In the previous notation we have the following Betti diagram of $X$ $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$i$}& $1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$ \\\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,1}$}& $3$&$2$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,2}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\vdots$}& $\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\vdots$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,d-4}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,d-3}$}& $\beta_{1,d-3}$&$\beta_{2,d-3}$&$\beta_{3,d-3}$&$\beta_{4,d-3}$&$\beta_{5,d-3}$\\\cline{1-7}
\end{tabular}$$ with the following entries $$\begin{gathered}
\beta_{1,d-3}={{d-1}\choose{2}},\quad \beta_{2,d-3}=2(d-1)(d-3),\quad\beta_{3,d-3}=3(d^2-5d+5) \\
\beta_{4,d-3}=2(d-2)(d-4)\quad \mbox{and} \quad \beta_{5,d-3}={{d-3}\choose{2}}.\end{gathered}$$
As in Convention and Remark \[convention and remark\] (A), we put $W = S(1,1,1)$, and denote the coordinate rings of $X$ and $W$ by $A_X$ and $A_W$ respectively. Then there is a short exact sequence $$0 \to I_X/I_W \to A_W \to A_X \to 0$$ of graded $S$-modules, where $I_W$ denotes the defining ideal of $W \subset \mathbb{P}^5$. In a first step we compute the Hilbert series $$H(I_X/I_W,t) = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}\dim_{\Bbbk}[I_X/I_W]_n \cdot t^n$$ of $I_X/I_W$. By applying sheaf cohomology to the corresponding short exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{I}_X/\mathcal{I}_W \to \mathcal{O}_W
\to \mathcal{O}_X \to 0$ we obtain an isomorphism $$[I_X/I_W]_n \cong H^0(W,\mathcal{O}_W(-X +nH))
\cong H^0(W,\mathcal{O}_W((n-1)H - (d-3)F)).$$ Therefore, it follows that $$\dim_{\Bbbk}[I_X/I_W]_n = \begin{cases}
\binom{n+1}{2} (n-d+3) & \text{ if } n \geq d-2 \\
\quad \quad 0 & \text{ if } n < d-2
\end{cases}$$ As an application to the Hilbert series $H(I_X/I_W,t)$ it turns out that $$H(I_X/I_W, t) = \sum_{n \geq d-2}\binom{n+1}{2}(n-d+3) t^n =
\frac{t^{d-2}}{(1-t)^4} \big( \binom{d-1}{2} -(d-1)(d-4)t +
\binom{d-3}{2}t^2 \big).$$ The formula for the expression of the generating function as a rational function might be proven directly or by some Computer Algebra System. The Hilbert series of $A_Y$ is given by $H(A_W,t) = (1+2t)/(1-t)^4$. By the above short exact sequence of graded modules it follows that $$H(A_X,t) = \frac{1}{(1-t)^4} \big( 1+2t - \binom{d-1}{2}t^{d-2}
+(d-1)(d-4)t^{d-1} - \binom{d-3}{2}t^d \big).$$ As a consequence of [@P Remark 4.8 (2)] the Betti diagram of $X$ now must have the shape as indicated in the statement. In particular the first row has the stated form. For the sake of simplicity, we put $\beta_{i,d-3} = \beta_i, i = 1,\ldots,5$. Then by the additivity of the Hilbert series on short exact sequences of graded $S$-modules the Betti diagram implies the following form of the Hilbert series $H(A_X,t)$ $$H(A_X,t) = \frac{1}{(1-t)^6} \big(
1-3t^2-\beta_1t^{d-2}+2t^3+\beta_2t^{d-1} -\beta_3 t^d+
\beta_4t^{d+1}-\beta_5 t^{d+2} \big).$$ By comparing both expressions for our Hilbert series we obtain the desired values for the remaining Betti numbers.
Cohomological properties {#cohomological-properties .unnumbered}
------------------------
We now provide a result which summarizes some cohomological properties of surfaces of type I. It is worth noticing that in this case the values for the sheaf cohomology of $\mathcal{O}_X$ and $\mathcal{I}_X$, and hence also the *index of normality* $$N(X) := \sup\{j\in \mathbb{N} \mid h^1(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) \neq 0 \}\quad ( \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{-\infty \})$$ of $X$ are completely determined.
\[t1-coh\] With the previous notation there are the following equalities for the cohomology:
- $h^1(\mathbb{P}^5, \mathcal{I}_X(j)) = \binom{j+1}{2} (d-j-3)$ for $1 \leq j \leq d-4$ and zero else.
- $h^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(j)) = 1/2(j+1)(dj+2)$ for all $j \geq 0$ and zero else.
- $h^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X(j)) = 0$ for all $j \in \mathbb{Z}$.
- $h^2(X, \mathcal{O}_X(-j)) = 1/2(j-1)(dj-2)$ for all $j \geq 2$ and zero else.
We start with the proof of (a), using the notations introduced in Convention and Remark \[convention and remark\]. Clearly $H^1(\mathbb{P}^5, \mathcal{I}_X(j)) = 0$ for all $j \leq 0$. So let $j \geq 1$. Then we use the short exact sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{I}_W \to \mathcal{I}_X \to \mathcal{O}_W(-X) \to 0.$$ Since $W$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay, this sequence yields that $H^i(\mathbb{P}^5, \mathcal{I}_W(j)) = 0$ for $i = 1,2$ and all $j \in \mathbb{Z}$. Therefore the long exact cohomology sequence induces isomorphisms $H^1(\mathbb{P}^5,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) \cong
H^1(W,\mathcal{O}_W(jH -X))$ for all $j \in \mathbb{Z}$. Because of $X \approx H + (d-3)F$ it follows that $$h^1(\mathbb{P}^5, \mathcal{I}_X(j)) = h^1(W,\mathcal{O}_W((j-1)H- (d-3)F)
= \binom{j+1}{2} h^1(\mathbb{P}^1, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(j+2-d)).$$ By duality we get $h^1(\mathbb{P}^1, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(j+2-d)) =
h^0(\mathbb{P}^1, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(d-j-4))$. This proves statement (a).\
Because of $h^1(\mathbb{P}^5, \mathcal{I}_X(1)) = d - 4$ (as shown in (a)) and because of $\deg(X) = d$, the linearly normal embedding of $X$ implies that $X \subset \mathbb{P}^5$ is isomorphic to the linear projection of a smooth rational normal surface scroll $\tilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$. As a consequence we have $H^i(X,\mathcal{O}_X(j)) \cong
H^i(\tilde{X},\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}}(j))$ for all $i,j \in
\mathbb{Z}$. Since $\tilde{X}$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay this yields statement in (c).\
The Hilbert function $$j \mapsto h_{A_{\tilde{X}}}(j) := \dim_{\Bbbk}
[A_{\tilde{X}}]_j = h^0(\tilde{X},\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}}(j))$$ of the coordinate ring $A_{\tilde{X}}$ is given by $1/2(j+1)(dj+2)$, and this proves statement (b).\
By interchanging $j$ and $-j$ this provides also the proof of the statement in (d).
The extremal secant locus {#the-extremal-secant-locus .unnumbered}
-------------------------
Now, we consider the (special) secant locus of a surface of type I. We first give the following auxiliary result, which shall be of use for us again later.
\[4.12” Lemma\] Let $s > 1$, let $\mathcal{C} \subset \mathbb{P}^s$ be a closed subscheme of dimension $1$ and degree $d$ and let $\mathbb{H} = \mathbb{P}^{s-1} \subset \mathbb{P}^s$ be a hyperplane. Then $$\mathrm{length}(\mathcal{C} \cap \mathbb{H}) \geq d \mbox{ with equality if and only if } {\rm Ass}_{\mathcal{C}}(\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{C}) \cap \mathbb{H} = \emptyset.$$
Let $R = \Bbbk\oplus R_1\oplus R_2\oplus \ldots = \Bbbk[R_1]$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $\mathcal{C}$ and let $f \in R_1$ be such that $\mathcal{C}\cap \mathbb{H} = {\operatorname{Proj}}(R/fR)$. Let $H_R(t) = dt + c$ be the Hilbert polynomial of $R$. Then, the two exact sequences $$0\rightarrow fR \rightarrow R \rightarrow R/fR\rightarrow 0 \mbox{ and } 0 \rightarrow(0:_R f)(-1) \rightarrow R(-1) \rightarrow fR \rightarrow 0$$ yield that the Hilbert polynomial of $R/fR$ is given by $$H_{R/fR}(t) = d + H_{(0:_R f)}(t-1).$$ Observe that the polynomial $H_{(0:_R f)}(t-1)$ vanishes if and only if $(0:_R f)_t = 0$ for all $t \gg 0$, hence if and only if $$f\notin \bigcup_{\mathfrak{p} \in {\rm Ass}(R)\setminus \{R_+\}} \mathfrak{p}.$$ But this latter condition is equivalent to the requirement that ${\rm Ass}(\mathcal{C}) \cap \mathbb{H} = \emptyset$.
\[prop:extseclocI\] Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^5$ be a surface of maximal sectional regularity of degree $d > 5$ which is of type I. Then, in the notations of Convention and Remark \[convention and remark\] we have:
- $\mathbb{F}^+(X) = \mathbb{F}(X) = W = S(1,1,1).$
- ${}^*\Sigma(X) = \Sigma(X).$
- The image $\psi\big(\Sigma(X)\big)$ of $\Sigma(X)$ under the Plücker embedding $\psi: \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^5) \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{14}$ is a Veronese surface in a subspace $\mathbb{P}^5 \subset \mathbb{P}^{14}$.
Statement (a) is a restatement of Notation and Remark \[4.2” Notation and Reminder\] (C)(a).\
(b), (c): We identify $S(1,1,1) = W$ with the image of the Segre embedding $\sigma:\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^5$. Consider the canonical projection $$\varphi:\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^2 \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{P}^1 \mbox{ and its restriction } \varphi\upharpoonright:X \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{P}^1.$$ Let $$\Theta := \{\mathbb{P}^1 \times \{q\} \mid q \in \mathbb{P}^2\} \subset \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^5)$$ denote the closed subset of all fibers under the canonical projection $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^2 \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{P}^2$, hence the set of all line sections of $\varphi.$\
Fix a closed point $p \in \mathbb{P}^1$. Then, the fiber $\varphi^{-1}(p) = \{p\}\times \mathbb{P}^2 =: \mathbb{P}_p^2$ is a ruling plane of $W$. As $X$ is smooth (see Corollary \[corollary 2.1’\]) and hence locally Cohen-Macaulay, the fiber $(\varphi\upharpoonright)^{-1}(p) = X \cap \varphi^{-1}(p) = X \cap \mathbb{P}_p^2$ is of pure dimension $1$ and has no closed associated points. Therefore $\mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) = \deg(X \cap \mathbb{P}^2_p)$ for all lines $\mathbb{L} \subset \mathbb{P}^2_p$ not contained in $X$ (see Lemma \[4.12” Lemma\]). Consequently, if $\mathbb{P}^2_p$ would contain a proper extremal secant line to $X$, the curve $X \cap \mathbb{P}_p^2 \subset \mathbb{P}^2_p$ would be pure and of degree $d-2$, so that $X$ would be of type II. This contradiction shows, that no proper extremal secant line to $X$ is contained in a ruling plane $\mathbb{P}^2_p$. Hence each proper secant line to $X$ must be a line section of $W$.\
As $\Theta \subset \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^5)$ is closed, it follows that ${}^*\Sigma(X) \subseteq \Sigma(X) \subseteq \Theta,$ so that finally $\psi\big({}^*\Sigma(X)\big) \subseteq \psi\big(\Sigma(X)) \subseteq \psi(\Theta).$ Standard arguments on Plücker embeddings show that $\psi(\Theta)$ is the Veronese surface in some subspace $\mathbb{P}^5 \subset \mathbb{P}^{14}$. As ${}^*\Sigma(X)$ is of dimension $2$ (see Proposition \[prop:dimspecextrloc\]), as $\psi(\Theta)$ is irreducible and as $\psi$ is a closed embedding, statements (c) and (b) follow.
Surfaces of Type II
===================
The cohomological aspect {#the-cohomological-aspect .unnumbered}
------------------------
In this section, we investigate the surfaces of maximal sectional regularity which fall under type II. For the whole section we make the following convention.
\[convention and notation\] Let $5 \leq r < d$ and let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be a surface of degree $d$ and of maximal sectional regularity of type II which is not a cone. Set $Y := X \cup \mathbb{F}$, where $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{F}(X) = \mathbb{P}^2$ denotes the extremal plane of $X$. Moreover, let $I$ and $L$ respectively denote the homogeneous vanishing ideal of $X$ and of $\mathbb{F}$ in $S = \Bbbk[x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r]$.
\[4.14” Theorem\] Let the notations and hypotheses be as in Convention and Notation \[convention and notation\]. Then the following statements hold
- - $\mathrm{reg}(X) = d-r+3$ and $\mathrm{e}(X) \geq \binom{d-r+2}{2}.$
- $h^1(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j)) = 0$ for all $j\leq 1.$ In particular $X$ is linearly normal.
- $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) \begin{cases} = {\operatorname{e}}(X) &\mbox{ for all } j \leq 0;\\
= {\operatorname{e}}(X) + r - d -1 &\mbox{ for } j=1;\\
\leq \max\{0, h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j-1)) -1 \} &\mbox{ for all } j > 1;\\
= 1 &\mbox{ for } j = d-r;\\
= 0 &\mbox{ for all } j \geq d-r+1.
\end{cases}$
- $h^3(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j))= \begin{cases} \frac{(j+1)(dj+2)}{2}, &\mbox{ if } j \leq - 2,\\
0, &\mbox{ if } j \geq -1. \end{cases}$
- - $\mathrm{reg}(Y) \leq d-r+3.$
- $H^1_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y) \cong H^1_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X).$
- $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(j)) = h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) - \max\{0,\binom{-j+d-r+2}{2}\}$ for all $j \geq 0$. In particular $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(1)) = {\operatorname{e}}(X)-\binom{d-r+2}{2}$ and $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(d-r)) = 0.$
- $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(j)) \geq h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(j-1))$ for all $j \leq 1$, with equality for $j = 1$.
- $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(j)) \leq {\rm max}\{0,h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(j-1)) - 1\}$ for all $j > 1$.
- $h^3(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(j)) = 0$ for all $j \geq 0.$
- If $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y) = 0$, then $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(j)) = 0$ for all $j \in \mathbb{Z}$.
- For the pair $\tau(X) := \big({\operatorname{depth}}(X),{\operatorname{depth}}(Y)\big)$ we have
- $\tau(X) = (2,3)$ if $r+1 \leq d \leq 2r-4$;
- $\tau(X) \in \{(1,1),(2,2),(2,3)\}$ if $2r-3 \leq d \leq 3r-7$;
- $\tau(X) \in \{(1,1),(2,2)\}$ if $3r-6 \leq d$.
- $h^0(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(2))\geq \binom{r}{2}-d-1$ with equality if and only if $\tau(X) = (2,3).$
As an immediate application, we get the following information on the *cohomology tables* $$\big(h^i(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j))\big)_{i =1,2,3 \mbox{ and } j \in \mathbb{Z}}, \quad \quad \big(h^i(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(j))\big)_{i =1,2,3 \mbox{ and } j \in \mathbb{Z}}$$ of the sheaves of vanishing ideals $\mathcal{I}_X, \mathcal{I}_Y \subset \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}°r}$ of $X$ and $Y$.
\[coro:cohomology\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be as above. Then the ideal sheaves $\mathcal{I}_X, \mathcal{I}_Y \subset \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}°r}$ of $X$ and $Y$ have the following cohomology tables: $$\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c | c | c |c | c | c | c | c |c |}
\hline
$j$ & $\cdots$ & $-2$
& $-1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $2$ &$\cdots$ &$\varkappa-1$ &$\varkappa$ &$\varkappa+1$ &$\varkappa+2$ & $\cdots$ \\ \hline
$h^1(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j))$ &$\cdots$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ &$\ast$ &$\cdots$ &$\ast$ &$\ast$ &$\ast$ &$0$ & $\cdots$\\ \hline
$h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j))$ &$\cdots$ &${\operatorname{e}}$ &${\operatorname{e}}$ &${\operatorname{e}}$ &${\operatorname{e}}-\varkappa-1$ &$\ast$ &$\cdots$ &$\ast$ &$1$ &$0$ &$0$ & $\cdots$\\ \hline
$h^3(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j))$ &$\cdots$ &$\ast$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ &$\cdots$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ & $\cdots$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$ and $$\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c | c | c |c | c | c | c | c |c |}
\hline
$j$ & $\cdots$ & $-2$
& $-1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $2$ &$\cdots$ &$\varkappa-1$ &$\varkappa$ &$\varkappa+1$ &$\varkappa+2$ & $\cdots$ \\ \hline
$h^1(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y (j))$ &$\cdots$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ &$\ast$ &$\cdots$ &$\ast$ &$\ast$ &$\ast$ &$0$ & $\cdots$\\ \hline
$h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y (j))$ &$\cdots$ &${\operatorname{e}}$ &${\operatorname{e}}$ &${\operatorname{e}}$ &${\operatorname{e}}-\binom{d-r+2}{2}$ &$\ast$ &$\cdots$ &$\ast$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ & $\cdots$\\ \hline
$h^3(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y (j))$ &$\cdots$ &$\ast$ &$\ast$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ &$\cdots$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ & $\cdots$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$ where $\varkappa := d-r, \mathrm{e} :=\mathrm{e}(X)$ and $\ast$ stands for non-specified non-negative integers.
An auxiliary result {#an-auxiliary-result .unnumbered}
-------------------
Before we establish Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] we prove the following Lemma.
\[4.12” Lemma+\] Let the notations and hypotheses be as in Convention and Notation \[convention and notation\]. In addition let $\mathcal{C} := X \cap \mathbb{F}.$ Then the following statements hold.
- Each line $\mathbb{L} \subset \mathbb{F}$ which is not contained in $X$, satisfies $$\mathrm{length}(\mathcal{C}\cap \mathbb{L}) = \mathrm{length}(X\cap\mathbb{L}) = d-r+3.$$ In particular, $\mathcal{C} \subset \mathbb{F}$ is a curve of degree $d-r+2$ and has no closed associated points.
- $I_{d-r+3} \setminus I \cap L \neq \emptyset$ and for each $f \in I_{d-r+3} \setminus I \cap L$ it holds $I = (I \cap L, f)$
(a): First let $h \in \mathbb{U}(X)$. Then $\mathbb{L}_h \subset \mathbb{F}$ and $$\mathrm{length}(\mathcal{C}\cap \mathbb{L}_h) = \mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}_h) = \mathrm{length}(\mathcal{C}_h \cap \mathbb{L}_h) = d-r+3 .$$ This shows, that $\mathcal{C} \subset \mathbb{F}$ is a closed subscheme of dimension $1$ and degree $d-r+3$. Now, let $\mathbb{L} \subset
\mathbb{F}$ be an arbitrary line which is not contained in $X$. As $\mathcal{C} \subset \mathbb{F}$ is of dimension $1$ and of degree $d-r+3$ we have $\mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) =
\mathrm{length}(C \cap \mathbb{L}) \geq d-r+3$. As ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) \leq d-r+3$ (see Theorem \[theorem 2.9\] (a)) we also have $\mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) \leq d-r+3$, so that indeed $\mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) = d-r+3$. Now, it follows by Lemma \[4.12” Lemma\] that $\mathcal{C}$ has no closed associated point.\
(b): According to statement (a), there is a homogeneous polynomial $g \in S_{d-r+3} \setminus L$ such that the homogeneous vanishing ideal $(I + L)^{{\operatorname{sat}}} \subset S$ of $\mathcal{C}$ in $S$ can be written as $(L,g)$. In particular we have $I_{\leq d-r+2} \subset L$. As ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) = d-r+3$, the ideal $I \subset S$ is generated by homogeneous polynomials of degree $\leq d-r+3$. As $g \notin L$ it follows that $I_{d-r+3}$ is not contained in $L$ and hence that $I+L = (L,f)$ for all $f \in I_{d-r+3} \setminus
I \cap L$. Therefore $ I = I\cap(I+L) = I\cap (L,f) = (I\cap L,f)$ for all such $f$.
Proof of Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\]. {#proof-of-theorem-4.14-theorem. .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
(a)(1): Since $X$ admits $(d-r+3)$-secant lines, we have ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) \geq d-r+3$. On the other hand, ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) \leq d-r+3$ by Theorem \[theorem 2.9\] (a). This proves the stated equality for the regularity. For the moment, we postpone the proof of the stated estimate for the invariant $\mathrm{e}(X)$.\
(a)(2): It is obvious that $h^1(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j)) = 0$ for all $j \leq 0$. Assume $h^1(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(1))> 0$. Then $X$ is a regular projection of a surface $X' \subset \mathbb{P}^{r+1}$. Note that $X'$ is again a sectionally smooth rational surface and hence ${\operatorname{reg}}(X') \leq d - r+2$ by Theorem \[theorem 2.9\](a). On the other hand, the preimage $\mathcal{C}'$ of $\mathcal{C} = X \cap \mathbb{F}$ under this regular projection is a plane curve of degree $(d-r+3)$, and hence ${\operatorname{reg}}(X') \geq d - r+3$. This contradiction proves our claim.\
(a)(4): See Theorem \[theorem 2.9\](e)\
(b)(4) and (b)(6): Let $h \in \mathbb{U}(X)$ and consider the induced exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow \mathcal{I}_Y (-1) \rightarrow \mathcal{I}_Y \rightarrow \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h } \rightarrow 0$$ Keep in mind that $H^1 (\mathbb{P}^r , \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h } (j))=0$ for all $j \leq 1$ and $H^2 (\mathbb{P}^r , \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h } (j))=0$ for all $j \geq 1$ by [@BS2 Proposition 2.7(c),(d)]. Both claims now follow easily.\
(b)(5): Assume again that $h \in \mathbb{U}(X)$ and keep in mind that $S/(I\cap L ,h)^{\rm sat}$ is the homogeneous coordinate ring of $\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h$ in $S$. By [@BS2 Remark 3.2 B)] the graded $S$-module $$H^1(S/(I\cap L,h)^{\rm sat}) = \bigoplus_{j \in\mathbb{Z}}
H^1(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h}(j))$$ is generated by homogeneous elements of degree $2$. Now, the induced exact sequences of local cohomology modules $$H^1(S/(I \cap L, h)^{\rm sat}) \longrightarrow H^2(S/I\cap L)(-1)
\stackrel{\times h}{\longrightarrow} H^2(S/I\cap L) \longrightarrow
H^2(S/(I \cap L, h)^{\rm sat})$$ proves claim (b)(5), since the multiplication map $\cdot h$ is an epimorphism in all positive degrees and its kernel is generated by homogeneous elements of degree $2$.\
(b)(7): This is an immediate consequence of (b)(4) and (b)(5).\
(b)(2): Keep in mind that $$H^i_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X) \cong H^i(S/I) \mbox { and } H^i_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y) \cong H^i(S/I\cap L) \mbox{ for } i = 1,2,3.$$ According to Lemma \[4.12” Lemma+\](b) we have an exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow (S/L)(-d+r-3) \rightarrow S/I \cap L \rightarrow S/I \rightarrow 0.$$ Claim (b)(2) now follows immediately, since $H^i((S/L)(-d+r-3))$ vanishes for $i=1,2$.\
(a)(3): For all $j \neq d-r$ the values of $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j))$ are as requested by statement (a)(2) and by Theorem \[theorem 2.9\] (d). Observe that $h^2 (\mathbb{P}^r , \mathcal{I}_X (d-r)) \leq 1$ by Theorem \[theorem 2.9\] (d). So, it remains to show that $H^2 (\mathbb{P}^r , \mathcal{I}_X (d-r)) \neq 0$. This follows from the exact sequence $$H^2(S/I)_{d-r} \longrightarrow H^3(S/L)_{-3} \cong \Bbbk \longrightarrow H^3(S/I\cap L)_{d-r} = 0.$$ (b)(3):The first part of this claim follows immediately by (b)(6) and the exact sequence used in the proof of (b)(2). Now, the second part of (b)(3) comes immediately from (a)(3).\
(b)(1): The required vanishing conditions $$h^i (\mathbb{P}^r , \mathcal{I}_Y (d-r+3-i+k))=0 \mbox{ for } i=1,2,3 \mbox{ and all } k \geq 0$$ are obtained respectively by (a)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(6).\
Finally, the inequality for $\mathrm{e}(X)$ stated in (a)(1), follows from (b)(3) applied with $j=1.$\
(c): By (a)(3), we know that ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) \leq 2$. Also (b)(2) implies that, if ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) =1$ then ${\operatorname{depth}}(Y) =1$ and, if ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) =2$ then ${\operatorname{depth}}(Y) =2$ or $3$. Thus we need only to show (c)(1) and (c)(3). If $d \leq 2r-4= 2(r-1) -2$, then $\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay by [@BS2 Proposition 3.5]. Thus we have ${\operatorname{depth}}(Y) =3$ and hence ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) =2$. On the other hand, if $d \geq 3r-6$, then ${\operatorname{depth}}(\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h)=1$ by Proposition \[proposition 2.3\] and hence ${\operatorname{depth}}(Y) \leq 2$. Therefore either $\tau(X)=(1,1)$ or $\tau (X) = (2,2)$.\
(d): Since $X$ is linearly normal we have $h^0 (\mathbb{P}^r , \mathcal{I}_X (2)) = h^0 (\mathbb{P}^{r-1} , \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h} (2))$. Moreover, by [@BS2 Proposition 3.6], we have $$h^0 (\mathbb{P}^{r-1} , \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h} (2)) \geq {{r}\choose{2}}-d-1$$ where equality holds if and only if $\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay, or equivalently, if and only if ${\operatorname{depth}}(Y) = 3$. Finally, we know by $(c)$ that ${\operatorname{depth}}(Y) = 3$ if and only if $\tau(X)=(2,3)$. This completes the proof.
Simplicity of the socle of the second cohomology {#simplicity-of-the-socle-of-the-second-cohomology .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------
As a first application and extension of Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] we show that (in the previous notation) the vanishing condition $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y) = 0$ which occurs in statement (b)(7) of that Theorem is equivalent to the simplicity of the socle of the second total cohomology module $H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X) = \bigoplus_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}H^2(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j))$ of $\mathcal{I}_X$. To formulate our result, we recall the following notation.
\[4.16”’ Notation and Reminder\] Let $T = \bigoplus _{n \in \mathbb{Z}} T_n$ be a graded $S$-module. Then, we denote the *socle* of $T$ by ${\rm Soc}(T)$, thus: $${\rm Soc}(T) := (0:_T S_+) \cong {\operatorname{Hom}}_S(\Bbbk,T) = {\operatorname{Hom}}_S(S/S_+,T).$$ Keep in mind that the socle of a graded Artinian $S$-module $T$ is a $\Bbbk$-vector space of finite dimension which vanishes if and only if $T$ does.
\[proposition:soc.eq\] Let the notations and hypotheses be as in Convention and Notation \[convention and notation\]. Then following statements are equivalent:
- $\mathrm{e}(X)$ takes its minimally possible value $\binom{d-r+2}{2}.$
- $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y) = 0.$
- $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(j)) = 0$ for all $j \in \{0,1,2,\ldots,d-r-1\}.$
- $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_Y(j)) = 0$ for all $j \in \mathbb{Z}.$
- $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) = \binom{-j+d-r+2}{2}$ for all $j \in \{0,1,2,\ldots,d-r\}.$
- $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(j)) = \mathrm{max}\{0, \binom{-j+d-r+2}{2}\}$ for all $j \geq 0.$
- $\mathrm{dim}_{\Bbbk}\big(\mathrm{Soc}(H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X))\big) = 1.$
Indeed, the equivalences (i) $\Leftrightarrow$ (ii) $\Leftrightarrow$ (iii) $\Leftrightarrow$ (iv) $\Leftrightarrow$ (v) $\Leftrightarrow$ (vi) follow by Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\]. It remains to show the equivalence (iv) $\Leftrightarrow$ (vii). Consider the exact sequence of graded $S$-modules $$0 \longrightarrow H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y) \longrightarrow H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y) \longrightarrow H^3_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_{\mathbb{F}}(-d+r-3)).$$ As $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Soc}\big(H^3_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_{\mathbb{F}}(-d+r-3))\big) &= \Bbbk(d-r),\\
h^2(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y(j)) &= 0 \mbox{ for all } j \geq d-r, \mbox{ and }\\
h^2(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j)) &= 0 \mbox{ for all } j \geq d-r+1\end{aligned}$$ we get an isomorphism of graded $S$-modules $$\mathrm{Soc}\big(H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y)\big) \cong \mathrm{Soc}\big(H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X)\big)_{\leq d-r-1}.$$ From this isomorphism, we see that $$H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y) = 0 \mbox{ if and only if } \mathrm{Soc}\big(H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X)\big)_{\leq d-r-1} = 0.$$ By Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] (b)(7) the module $H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y)$ vanishes if and only if the number $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y)$ does. So, condition (iv) holds, if and only if $\mathrm{Soc}\big(H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X)\big)$ is concentrated in degrees $\geq d-r$. By Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] (a)(4) this is the case if and only if condition (vii) holds.
\[remark.eq.cond\] (A) If the above equivalent conditions (i) – (vii) hold, we must have $$\tau(X) \in \{(1,1), (2,3)\}.$$ Moreover $\tau(X) = (2,3)$ implies the above equivalent conditions (i) – (vii).\
(B) Observe, that the above minimality condition (i) describes a *generic situation*. So, it is noteworthy that the simplicity of the socle of $H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X)$ occurs in the generic situation, too. Below, we shall see, that in such a generic situation, a number of additional conclusions may be drawn.
\[corollary:coh.gen.\] Let the notations and hypotheses be as in Convention and Notation \[convention and notation\]. Then, the following statements hold:
- $h^1(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(2)) \leq h^0(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(2))-\binom{r}{2} +d+1.$
- If the equivalent conditions (i)-(vii) of Proposition \[proposition:soc.eq\] hold, the $S$-module $H^1_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X)$ is minimally generated by $h^0(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(2))-\binom{r}{2} +d+1$ homogeneous elements of degree $2$.
In view of Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\](b)(2) we may replace $X$ by $Y$. We choose $h \in \mathbb{U}(X)$ and apply cohomolgy to the induced exact sequence of sheaves $$0 \rightarrow \mathcal{I}_Y (-1) \stackrel{h}{ \rightarrow} \mathcal{I}_Y \rightarrow \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h } \rightarrow 0$$ in order to end up with an exact secuence of graded $S$-modules $$0 \rightarrow H^1_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y)/hH^1_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y)\rightarrow H^1_{*}(\mathbb{H}_h, \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h }) \rightarrow H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_Y)$$ (a): By Proposition 3.6 of [@BS2], the $S$-module $H^1_{*}(\mathbb{H}_h, \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h \cup \mathbb{L}_h })$ is minimally generated by $$h^0(\mathbb{H}_h, \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h}(2))-\binom{r}{2} +d+1$$ homogeneous elements of degree $2$. As $X$ is linearly normal, we have $ h^0(\mathbb{H}_h, \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_h}(2)) = h^0(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(2))$. Now, our claim follows immediately.\
(b): By our hypothesis, the third module in the above sequence vanishes. Now, we get our claim by Nakayama.
\[corollary:Hilb.funct.\] Let the notations and hypotheses be as in Convention and Notation \[convention and notation\]. Then, the following statements hold:
- For all $j \in \mathbb{N}_0$ we have $$h^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(j)) = d\binom{j+1}{2}+j+1 +h^2(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j))- {\operatorname{e}}(X).$$
- If the equivalent conditions (i)-(vii) of Proposition \[proposition:soc.eq\] hold, then $$h^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(j)) = \begin{cases}d\binom{j+1}{2}+j+1 + \binom{d-r+2-j}{2}-\binom{d-r+2}{2} &\mbox{ for } 0 \leq j \leq d-r, \\ \\
d\binom{j+1}{2}+j+1 -\binom{d-r+2}{2} &\mbox{ for } d-r < j.\end{cases}$$
(a): Once more, let $B$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of the projecting scroll $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ of $X$, let $D := D_{A_+}(A) = \Gamma_{*}(X,\mathcal{O}_X)$ be the $A_+$-transform of $A$ and consider the short exaxt sequence $0 \rightarrow D \rightarrow B \rightarrow C \rightarrow 0$ in which $C$ is a one-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay module of dimension $1$ with $$\dim_\Bbbk(C_j) = {\operatorname{e}}(X) - h^2(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j)) \mbox{ for all } j \in \mathbb{Z}.$$ As $$\dim_\Bbbk(B_j)= \chi(\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}}(j)) = d\binom{j+1}{2}+j+1 \mbox{ for all } j \in \mathbb{N}_0,$$ we get our claim.\
(b): This follows immediately from statement (a) bearing in mind the values of ${\operatorname{e}}(X)$ and of $h^2(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(j))$ imposed by the conditions (i) and (vi) of Proposition \[proposition:soc.eq\].
The second deficiency module {#the-second-deficiency-module .unnumbered}
----------------------------
We first remind the notion of deficiency module.
\[reminder.def.mod\] Let $A$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of the surface $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$, let $M$ be a finitely generated graded $A$-module and let $i \in \mathbb{N}_0$. Then, the $i$-th *deficiency module* of $M$ is defined by $$K^i(M) := \mathrm{Ext}^{r-i+1}_S(M,S(-r-1)) \cong H^i(M)^{\vee},$$ where $\bullet ^{\vee} := {}^*\mathrm{Hom}_{\Bbbk}(\bullet, \Bbbk)$ denotes the (contravariant exact) graded Matlis duality functor. The module $K^{\dim(M)}(M)$ is called the *canonical module* of $M$.
In this subsection, we are interested in the second deficiency module $$K^2(A) = \mathrm{Ext}^{r-1}_S(A,S(-r-1)) = H^2(A)^{\vee}$$ of the coordinate ring $A$ of $X$ and its induced sheaf $$\mathcal{K}^2_X := \widetilde{K^2(A)}.$$
\[proposition:def.mod\] Let the notations and hypotheses be as in Convention and Notation \[convention and notation\]. Let $\pi = \pi_\Lambda:\widetilde{X} \twoheadrightarrow X$ be the standard normalization of $X$. Let $B$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of the projecting scroll $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$, let $D := D_{A_+}(A) = \Gamma_{*}(X,\mathcal{O}_X) (\subseteq B)$ and set $\mathcal{F} := \pi_{*}(\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{X}})/\mathcal{O}_X = \widetilde{B/D}.$ Then, the following statements hold:
- $K^2(A) \cong K^1(B/D)$ is a Cohen-Macaulay module of dimension one, and
- $\mathrm{reg}(K^2(A)) = 0;$
- $\mathcal{K}^2_X \cong \widetilde{\Gamma_{*}(X,\mathcal{F})^{\vee}}.$
- For each closed point $x \in X$, the stalk $\mathcal{K}^2_{X,x}$ of $\mathcal{K}^2_X$ at $x$ coincides with the first deficiency module $K^1(\mathcal{O}_{X,x}) = \mathrm{Ext}^{r-1}_{\mathcal{O}_{X,x}}(\mathcal{O}_{X,x},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^r,x})$ of the local ring $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ of $X$ at $x$. In particular
- $\mathrm{length}_{\mathcal{O}_{X,x}}(\mathcal{K}^2_{X,x}) = \mathrm{e}_x(X)$ for all closed points $x \in X;$
- $\mathrm{Supp}(\mathcal{K}^2_X) = \mathrm{Sing}(X);$
- $\mathrm{length}_{\mathcal{O}_X}(\mathcal{K}^2_X) = \mathrm{e}(X).$
- If the equivalent conditions of Proposition \[proposition:soc.eq\] hold, then $K^2(A) \cong S/J(d-r)$, where $J \subset S$ is a saturated graded ideal such that:
- $I+L \subset J;$
- ${\operatorname{reg}}(J) = d-r+1;$
- $J$ is minimally generated by $L$ and $d-r+2$ forms of degree $d-r+1.$
- If the equivalent conditions of Proposition \[proposition:soc.eq\] do not hold, then the $S$-module $K^2(A)$ is minimally generated by one element of degree $r-d$ and some additional elements of degrees $> r-d.$
(a): Let $C := B/D.$ As seen in the proof of Theorem \[theorem 2.9\] (d) we have $$H^2(A) \cong H^2(D) \cong H^1(C), \quad \widetilde{D_{A_+}(C)} \cong \widetilde{C} \cong \mathcal{F} \mbox{ and } D_{A_+}(C) \cong \Gamma_{*}(X,\mathcal{F}).$$ Applying the functor $\bullet^\vee$ to the first isomorphism, we get $K^2(A) \cong K^1(C) = K^1(B/A)$. As $C$ is a Cohen-Macaulay module of dimension $1$, so is its canonical module $K^1(C)$.\
To prove claim (1), keep in mind that $K^2(A)$ is a Cohen-Macaulay module of dimension $1$, so that indeed $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{reg}}(K^2(A)) &= \mathrm{end}\big(H_1(K^2(A))\big) +1 = \sup\{j \in \mathbb{Z} \mid \mathrm{dim}_{\Bbbk}(K^2(A)_{j-1}) < \mathrm{dim}_{\Bbbk}(K^2(A)_j )\}+1 \\
& = \sup\{j \in \mathbb{Z} \mid \mathrm{dim}_{\Bbbk}(H^2(A)_{-j+1}) < \mathrm{dim}_{\Bbbk}(H^2(A)_{-j})\}+1 = -1+1 = 0.\end{aligned}$$ To prove claim (2), we apply the Matlis duality functor $\bullet^\vee$ to the short exact sequence $0\rightarrow C
\rightarrow D_{A_+}(C) \rightarrow H^2(A) \rightarrow 0$ and get an exact sequence of graded $A$-modules $0 \longrightarrow K^2(A)
\longrightarrow D_{A_+}(C)^\vee \longrightarrow C^\vee
\longrightarrow 0$. As $\widetilde{C^\vee} = 0$, we obtain $\mathcal{K}^2_X \cong \widetilde{\Gamma_{*}(X,\mathcal{F})^{\vee}}.$\
(b): The standard isomorphism $\widetilde{\mathrm{Ext}^{r-1}_S(A,S(-r-1))}_x \cong \mathrm{Ext}^{r-1}_{\mathcal{O}_{X,x}}(\mathcal{O}_{X,x},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^r,x})$ implies the requested isomorphism $\mathcal{K}^2_{X,x} \cong K^1(\mathcal{O}_{X,x}).$ As taking local Matlis duals preserve lengths, local duality implies that $$\mathrm{e}_x(X) = \mathrm{length}\big(H^1_{\mathfrak{m}_{X,x}}(\mathcal{O}_{X,x})\big) = \mathrm{length}\big(K^1(\mathcal{O}_{X,x})\big),$$ and this implies claim (1). Now, claims (2) and (3) are immediate.\
(c): As $H^2(A) \cong H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X )$ our hypotheses imply that $\mathrm{Soc}(H^2(A)) = H^2(A)_{d-r}\cong
\Bbbk,$ and hence the standard isomorphism $\mathrm{Soc}\big(H^2(A)\big)^\vee \cong H^2(A)^\vee \otimes_A
\Bbbk$ shows that $K^2(A)$ is generated by one single element of degree $r-d$. Therefore $K^2(A) \cong S/J(d-r)$ for some homogeneous ideal $J \subset S$. By statement (a), this ideal $J$ is saturated. If we apply cohomology to the exact sequence $0\rightarrow S/I\cap L
\rightarrow S/I \oplus S/L \rightarrow S/(I+L) \rightarrow 0$ and keep in mind, that $H^2(S/I\cap L) = H^2_{*}(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_{X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)}) = 0$, we get a monomorphism $H^2(A) \rightarrow H^2(S/(I+L))$. Therefore $(I+L)K^2(A) = 0$ and hence $I+L \subseteq J$. As $K^2(A)$ is of dimension $1$, the inclusion is strict. This proves claim (1).\
According to Statement (a)(1) we have ${\operatorname{reg}}(J) = {\operatorname{reg}}(S/J)+1 = {\operatorname{reg}}(K^2(A)(r-d))+1 = {\operatorname{reg}}(K^2(A)) + d-r+1 = d-r+1$, and this proves claim (2).\
Moreover, in view of condition (v) of Proposition \[proposition:soc.eq\] we have $$\dim_\Bbbk(S/J)_k = \dim_\Bbbk\big(H^2(A)_{r-d+k}\big) = \binom{\min\{k,d-r\}+2}{2} \mbox{ for all } k \in \mathbb{N}_0,$$ so that $$\dim_\Bbbk\big((S/J)_k\big) = \dim_\Bbbk\big((S/L)_k\big) \mbox{ for all } k \leq d-r \mbox{ and }$$ $$\dim_\Bbbk\big((S/J)_{d-r+1} \big) = \dim_\Bbbk\big((S/L)_{d-r+1}\big) - (d-r+2).$$ In view of claims (1) and (2) this proves claim (3).\
(d): If the equivalent conditions of Proposition \[proposition:soc.eq\] do not hold, then $\dim_\Bbbk\big(\mathrm{Soc}(H^2(A))_j\big)$ vanishes for all $j > d-r$, takes the value $1$ for $j=d-r$ and does not vanish for some $j < d-r$ (see Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] (a)(3)). Now, we get our claim by the isomorphism $\mathrm{Soc}\big(H^2(A)\big)^\vee \cong H^2(A)^\vee \otimes_A \Bbbk.$
\[Remark:def.mod\] Observe that the previous proposition generalizes Theorem 3.6 (e) of [@BS6].
An application in higher dimensions {#an-application-in-higher-dimensions .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
We now draw a conclusion for higher dimensional varieties of maximal sectional regularity.
\[cor:higherdim\] Let $n \geq 2$ and let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be an $n$-dimensional variety of maximal sectional regularity of degree $d$ and of type II. Then $X$ is linearly normal and we have $$h^0 (\mathbb{P}^r ,\mathcal{I}_X (2)) \geq {{r-n+1}\choose{2}}-d-1$$ with equality if and only if $X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay. Moreover, if equality is attained, then ${\operatorname{depth}}(X)=n$.
For $n = 2,$ our claim follows by Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] (a)(2) and (d).\
So let $n > 2$. Note that a general hyperplane section $X' = X \cap \mathbb{H} \subset \mathbb{H}, (\mathbb{H} =\mathbb{P}^{r-1})$ of $X$ is again a variety of maximal sectional regularity and of degree $d$ of type II. So, by induction and on use of the exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{I}_X (-1) \longrightarrow \mathcal{I}_X \longrightarrow \mathcal{I}_{X'} \longrightarrow 0$$ it first follows that $h^1(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X (1)) = 0$ and then that $h^0 (\mathbb{P}^r ,\mathcal{I}_X (2)) = h^0 (\mathbb{H} ,\mathcal{I}_{X'}(2)) \geq {{r-n+1}\choose{2}}-d-1.$ So, $X$ is linearly normal and satisfies the requested inequality.\
As $\mathbb{F}(X') = \mathbb{F}(X \cap \mathbb{H})= \mathbb{F}(X) \cap \mathbb{H}$ (see [@BLPS1 Lemma 5.1 (a)]), we have $\big(X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)\big)\cap \mathbb{H} = X' \cup \mathbb{F}(X')$. So, $\big(X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)\big)\cap \mathbb{H}$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay if and only $X' \cup \mathbb{F}(X')$ is. Therefore, again by induction, equality holds if and only if $X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay.\
Finally, by [@BLPS1 Theorem 7.1] we know that $X \cap \mathbb{F} \subset \mathbb{F}$ is a hypersurface. Therefore ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) = n$ if $X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay.
Comparing Betti numbers {#comparing-betti-numbers .unnumbered}
-----------------------
We finish this section with a comparison of the Betti numbers of $X$ and $Y = X \cup \mathbb{F}(X).$
\[prop:BettiNumbers\] Let the notations and hypotheses be as in Convention and Notation \[convention and notation\] and assume that $X$ is not a cone. Set $m:= {\operatorname{reg}}(Y)$. Then the following statements hold:
- For all $i \geq 1$ we have $$\beta_{i,j}(X) = \begin{cases}
\beta_{i,j}(Y) & \mbox{for $1 \leq j \leq m-1$},\\
\beta_{i,j}(Y) = 0 & \mbox{for $m \leq j \leq d-r+1$},\\
\beta_{i,d-r+2}(Y) + \binom{r-2}{i-1} & \mbox{for $j=d-r+2$}.
\end{cases}$$
- $m \leq d-r+2$ if and only if $\beta_{i,d-r+2}(X) = \binom{r-2}{i-1}$ for all $i \geq 1$.
Let $I$ and $L$ respectively denote the homogeneous vanishing ideals of $X$ and $\mathbb{F}(X)$ in $S = \Bbbk[x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r]$, so that $\beta_{i,j}(X) = \beta_{i,j}(S/I)$ and $\beta_{i,j}(Y) = \beta_{i,j}(S/I\cap L)$ for all $i,j \in \mathbb{N}$.\
(a): The exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow (S/L)(-d+r-3) \rightarrow S/I\cap L \rightarrow S/I \rightarrow 0$$ used in the proof of Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] induces the following long exact sequence: $${\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(\Bbbk,S/L)_{i+j-d+r-3} \rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(\Bbbk,S/I \cap L)_{i+j} \rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(\Bbbk,S/I)_{i+j}$$ $$\rightarrow{\operatorname{Tor}}^S_{i-1}(\Bbbk,S/L)_{(i-1)+j-d+r-2} \rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_{i-1}(\Bbbk,S/I\cap L)_{(i-1)+j+1}$$ For all non-negative integers $k$ we have $$\dim_K\big({\operatorname{Tor}}^S_k(\Bbbk,S/L)_{k+l}\big) = \beta_{k,l}(S/L) = \begin{cases}
0 & \mbox{if $l \neq 0$}\\
\binom{r-2}{k} & \mbox{if $l = 0$}
\end{cases}$$ Therefore, the above long exact sequence makes us end up with isomorphisms $${\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(\Bbbk,S/I \cap L)_{i+j} \cong {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(\Bbbk,S/I)_{i+j} \mbox{ for all } i \geq 1 \mbox{ and all } j \in \{1,2,\ldots, d-r+1\}.$$ As ${\operatorname{reg}}(S/I\cap L) = {\operatorname{reg}}(Y) - 1 = m-1$, we have $\beta_{i,j}(S/I\cap L) = 0 \mbox{ for all } i \geq 1 \mbox{ and all } j \geq m$. So by the above isomorphisms we get the requested values of $\beta_{i,j}(S/I)$ for all $i \geq 1$ and all $j \in\{1,\ldots,d-r+1\}$.
As ${\operatorname{reg}}(S/I\cap L) = {\operatorname{reg}}(Y) -1 \leq d-r+2$ (see Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\](b)(1)), the last module in the above exact sequences vanishes for $j=d-r+2$. So, our previous observation on the Betti numbers $\beta_{k,l}(S/L)$ yields a short exact sequence $$0\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(\Bbbk,S/I\cap L)_{i+d-r+2} \rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(\Bbbk,S/I)_{i+d-r+2} \rightarrow \Bbbk^{\binom{r-2}{i-1}} \rightarrow 0 \mbox{ for all } i \geq 1,$$ which shows that $\beta_{i,d-r+2}(S/I) = \beta_{i,d-r+2}(S/I \cap L) + \binom{r-2}{i-1}$, and this proves our claim.\
(b): As already said above, we have $m \leq d-r+3$ and hence $\beta_{i,j}(Y) = 0$ for all $i \geq 1$ and all $j \geq d-r+3$. Thus $m \leq d-r+2$ if and only if $\beta_{i,d-r+2} (Y)=0$ for all $i \geq 1$. Also by statement (a), the second condition holds if and only if $\beta_{i,d-r+2}(X) = \binom{r-2}{i-1}$ for all $i \geq 1$.
Special extremal secant lines {#special-extremal-secant-lines .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
In case of surfaces of type II, the special extremal secant locus is easily understood. We also shall see that proper $3$-secant lines which meet $X$ only in regular points are already special extremal lines and we shall approximate the singular locus of $X$ by the singular locus of the intersection of $X$ with the extremal $\mathbb{F}(X)$ plane of $X$.
\[prop:extseclinesII\] Let the hypotheses be as in Convention and Notation \[convention and notation\]. Then the following statements hold:
- The image $\psi\big({}^*\Sigma(X)\big)$ of the special extremal locus ${}^*\Sigma(X)$ of $X$ under the Plücker embedding $$\psi:\mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r\big) \longrightarrow \mathbb{P}^{\binom{r+1}{2}-1}$$ is a plane.
- Let $\mathbb{L} \in \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r)$ such that $\mathbb{L} \nsubseteq X.$ Then, the following statements are equivalent:
- $\mathbb{L} \in {}^*\Sigma(X);$
- $\mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) \geq 3$ and $X \cap \mathbb{L} \subset \mathrm{Reg}(X).$
- $\mathrm{Sing}(X) = \{x \in \mathrm{Sing}\big(X \cap \mathbb{F}(X)\big) \mid \mathbb{F}(X) \subsetneq \mathrm{T}_x(X)\}$. In particular, each point $x \in \mathrm{Sing}\big(X \cap \mathbb{F}(X)\big)$ not contained in a line $\mathbb{L} \subset X \cap \mathbb{F}(X)$ is a singular point of $X$.
(a): As $X$ is of type II, we know that $\overline{\bigcup_{\mathbb{L} \in {}^*\Sigma(X)} \mathbb{L}} = \mathbb{F}(X) = \mathbb{P}^2 \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ is a plane, so that ${}^*\Sigma(X) = \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{F}(X)) = \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^2)$. Standard arguments on Plücker embeddings show that $\psi\big(\mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^2)\big)$ is a plane in $\mathbb{P}^{\binom{r+1}{2}-1}$.\
(b): The implication “(i) $\Leftarrow $ (ii)" follows as $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{H} := X \cap \mathbb{H}$ is smooth for each $\mathbb{H} \in \mathcal{U}(X)$ and hence can only contain smooth points of $X$.\
So, let $\mathbb{L} \in \Sigma_3(X)$ such that $X \cap \mathbb{L}$ is finite and contained in ${\operatorname{Reg}}(X)$, and assume that $\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{H} \neq \mathbb{L}$ for all $\mathbb{H} \in
\mathcal{U}(X)$. We aim for a contradiction. Let $\pi =
\pi_\Lambda:\widetilde{X} \twoheadrightarrow X$ be the standard normalization of $X$, induced by the linear projection $\pi' =
\pi'_\Lambda : \mathbb{P}^{d+1} \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{P}^r$, consider the closed preimage $\mathbb{L}' :=
\overline{\pi'^{-1}(\mathbb{L})} \in
\mathbb{G}(d-r+2,\mathbb{P}^{d+1}),$ of $\mathbb{L}$ and observe that $\widetilde{X} \cap \mathbb{L}' = \pi^{-1}(X\cap\mathbb{L})$ is finite. Let $\mathbb{H}' \in \mathbb{G}(d,\mathbb{P}^{d+1})$ be a general hyperplane which contains the space $\mathbb{L}'$. If $\widetilde{X}$ is not a cone, we may conclude by [@BP2 Remark 2.3 (B)], that the intersection $\widetilde{X} \cap \mathbb{H}'
\subset \mathbb{H}'$ is a rational normal curve. If $\widetilde{X}$ is a cone, the fact that $\mathbb{L}$ avoids the singular locus of $X$ implies that $\mathbb{L}'$ does not contain the vertex of $\widetilde{X}$ and we end up again with the conclusion that $\widetilde{X} \cap \mathbb{H}' \subset \mathbb{H}'$ is a rational normal curve. As $\mathbb{H}'$ is general, the hyperplane $\mathbb{H} := \pi'(\mathbb{H}' \setminus \Lambda)
\in \mathbb{G}(r-1,\mathbb{P}^r)$ avoids the finite set $\mathrm{Sing}(\pi)$, and hence $\mathcal{C}_\mathbb{H} = X \cap \mathbb{H} = \pi(\widetilde{X}\cap\mathbb{H}') \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ is an integral curve, whence $\mathbb{H} \in \mathcal{U}(X).$\
By our assumption we have $\mathbb{L} \neq \mathbb{L}_\mathbb{H}$, hence $\mathbb{V} := \langle\mathbb{L}_\mathbb{H},\mathbb{L}\rangle \in \mathbb{G}(s,\mathbb{H})$ with $s \in \{2,3\}$. In particular, the intersection $X \cap \mathbb{V}$ is finite. As $\mathbb{L} \neq \mathbb{L}_\mathbb{H}$, we have $$\mathrm{length}(X \cap (\mathbb{L} \cup \mathbb{L}_\mathbb{H})) \geq \mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) + \mathrm{{\operatorname{length}}}(X \cap \mathbb{L}_\mathbb{H}) - \varepsilon$$ with $\varepsilon = 1$ if $\mathbb{L} \cap \mathbb{L}_\mathbb{H} \subset X$ and $\varepsilon = 0$ otherwise. In the first case, we have $s = 2$, so that always $3-\varepsilon \geq s$. Therefore, we obtain $$\mathrm{{\operatorname{length}}}(X \cap (\mathbb{L} \cup \mathbb{L}_\mathbb{H})) \geq \mathrm{length} (X \cap \mathbb{L}) +
\mathrm{length}(X\cap \mathbb{L}_\mathbb{H}) - \varepsilon \geq 3 + d-r+3 - \varepsilon \geq d-r+s+3.$$ As $\mathbb{L} \cup \mathbb{L}_\mathbb{H} \subset {\rm Reg}(X) \cap \mathbb{V}$ this contradicts Proposition \[prop:loc,properties\] (b).\
(c): Let $x \in \mathrm{Sing}(X)$. Let $\mathbb{H} \in \mathcal{U}(X)$ such that $\mathbb{L}_{\mathbb{H}} \cap \mathrm{Sing}(X) = \emptyset$ and consider the plane $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{H}} := \langle x, \mathbb{L}_{\mathbb{H}} \rangle \subset \mathbb{P}^r$. Then, by Proposition \[prop:loc,properties\] (c), we have $\mathrm{dim}(X \cap \mathbb{E}_\mathbb{H}) = 1$. If $x \notin \mathbb{F}(X)$, this would imply the contradiction that the intersection of $X$ with the three-space $\langle x, \mathbb{F}(X) \rangle$ contains infinitely many curves. Therefore $x \in \mathbb{F}(X)$.\
Now, let $\mathbb{L} \subset \mathbb{F}(X)$ be a general line such that $x \in \mathbb{L}$. Then, by Lemma \[4.12” Lemma+\] (a) we have $\mathrm{Sing}(X) \cap \mathbb{L} = \{x\}$ and ${\operatorname{length}}(X \cap
\mathbb{L}) = d-r+3$. Assume, that $\mathrm{mult}_x(\mathbb{L} \cap
X) = 1,$ so that $\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{Reg}(X) \cap \mathbb{L}) =
\mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) - 1 = d-r+2$. By Proposition \[prop:loc,properties\] (b) it follows that $d-r+4 =
d-r+2+2 \leq d-r+1+2 = d-r+3,$ and this contradiction shows that $\mathrm{mult}_x(\mathbb{L} \cap X) > 1$. This first shows that $\mathbb{L}$ is a tangent line to $X$ in $x$, and hence proves that $\mathbb{F}(X) \subseteq \mathrm{T}_x(X)$. As $x \in
\mathrm{Sing}(X)$, the inclusion is strict. As $\mathrm{mult}_x\big(\mathbb{L} \cap (X \cap \mathbb{F}(X)\big) =
\mathrm{mult}_x(\mathbb{L} \cap X) >1$ it also follows that a general line $\mathbb{L} \subset \mathbb{F}(X)$ which runs through $x,$ is tangent to $X \cap \mathbb{F}(X)$ in $x$, so that $x \in
\mathrm{Sing}\big(X\cap \mathbb{F}(X)\big).$ This proves the inclusion ”$\subseteq$” between the two sets in question. As the converse inclusion is obvious, we get the requested equality. The additional claim now follows easily, as $X$ is a union of lines.
The index of normality of $X$
=============================
Index of normality and extremal planes {#index-of-normality-and-extremal-planes .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------
Our next main result is devoted to the study of the relations among the index of normality $N(X)$, the Betti numbers $\beta_{i,j}(X)$ and the nature of the union $X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)$, where $X$ is a surface of maximal sectional regularity which is of type II. We begin with two auxiliary results.
\[4.16”” Lemma\] Let the notations and hypotheses be as in Convention and Notation \[convention and notation\]. Assume that $X$ is not a cone. Then we have the following statements
- ${\rm Soc}(H^1(S/I))(-r-1) \cong {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_r(\Bbbk,S/I)$.
- If ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) = 1$, then $H^1\big(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(N(X))\big) \cong {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_r(\Bbbk,S/I)_{N(X)+r+1}.$
- $N(X) \leq d-r$ if and only if $\beta_{r,d-r+2}(X) = 0$.
(a): If ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) > 1$, both of the occurring modules vanish and our claim is obvious. So, we assume that ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) = 1$ and consider the total ring of sections $D := D_{S_+}(S/I) = \bigoplus_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} H^0(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{O}_X(n))$ of $X$, as well as the short exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow S/I \longrightarrow D \longrightarrow H^1(S/I) \longrightarrow 0.$$ We apply the Koszul functor $K(\underline{x}; \bullet)$ with respect to $\underline{x} := x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r$ to this sequence and end up in homology with an exact sequence $$H_{r+1}(\underline{x};D) \rightarrow H_{r+1}(\underline{x};H^1(S/I)) \rightarrow H_r(\underline{x}; S/I) \rightarrow H_r(\underline{x}; D).$$ As ${\operatorname{depth}}(D) > 1$ the first and the last module in this sequence vanish, so that $$H_{r+1}(\underline{x};H^1(S/I)) \cong H_r(\underline{x}; S/I).$$ As the Koszul complex $K(\underline{x},S)$ provides a free resolution of $\Bbbk = S/S_+$ and $K(\underline{x}; S/I) \cong K(\underline{x}; S) \otimes_S S/I$ we have $H_r(\underline{x}; S/I) \cong {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_r(\Bbbk,S/I)$. As the sequence $\underline{x}$ has length $r+1$, we have $H_{r+1}(\underline{x}; H^1(S/I)) \cong
{\rm Soc}(H^1(S/I))(-r-1)$. Altogether, we now obtain the requested statement (a).\
(b): As $N(X) = {\rm end}(H^1(S/I))$, we have $$H^1\big(\mathbb{P}^r,\mathcal{I}_X(N(X))\big) \cong H^1(S/I)_{N(X)} = {\rm Soc}(H^1(S/I))_{N(X)}.$$ Now, our claim follows immediately by statement (a).\
(c): If ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) > 1$ we have $N(X) = -\infty$ and $\beta_{r,d-r+2}(X) = 0$, so that our claim is true. We thus may assume that ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) = 1$. As ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) = d-r+3$ we have $N(X) \leq d-r+1$ and ${\operatorname{Tor}}^S_r(\Bbbk,S/I)_{r + l} = 0$ for all $l \geq d-r+3$. Now, we may conclude by statement (b).
Now, we are ready to give the announced main result.
\[4.17” Proposition\] Let the notations and hypotheses be as in Convention and Notation \[convention and notation\]. Assume that $X$ is not a cone. Then
- The following statements are equivalent:
- $N(X) \leq d-r$.
- ${\operatorname{reg}}(X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)) \leq d-r+2$.
- $\beta_{i,d-r+2}(X) = \binom{r-2}{i-1}$ for all $i \geq 1$.
- $\beta_{r,d-r+2}(X) = 0$.
- The following statements are equivalent:
- $\beta_{1,d-r+2}(X) = 1$.
- $I\cap L = (I_{\leq d-r+2})$, where $I$ and $L$ are the homogeneous vanishing ideals of $X$ respectively of $\mathbb{F}(X)$ in $S$.
(a): (i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii): Let $N(X) \leq d-r$ and $I$ and $L
\subset S =\Bbbk[x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_r]$ respectively denote the homogeneous vanishing ideals of $X$ and of $\mathbb{F}(X)$. According to Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] (b)(1) we have ${\rm
end}(H^1(S/I\cap L) = {\rm end}(H^1(S/I))= N(X) \leq d-r$. So, it follows by Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] (b)(3) and (6) that ${\operatorname{reg}}(S/I \cap L) \leq d-r+1$, whence ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) \cup \mathbb{F}(X) =
{\operatorname{reg}}(I \cap L)
\leq d-r+2$.\
(ii) $\Rightarrow$ (i): As ${\rm end}(H^1(S/I)) = N(X)$, this is an easy consequence of Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] (b)(2).\
(ii) $\Rightarrow$ (iii): This follows by Propsition \[prop:BettiNumbers\].\
(iii) $\Rightarrow$ (ii): Assume that statement (iii) holds. Then we have in particular that $\beta_{1,d-r+2}(X) = 1$. Now, we may again conclude by Proposition \[prop:BettiNumbers\].\
(iii) $\Leftrightarrow$ (iv): This is clear by Lemma \[4.16”” Lemma\].\
(b): (i) $\Rightarrow $ (ii): Assume that $\beta_{1,d-r+2}(X) = 1$. Then, it follows by Proposition \[prop:BettiNumbers\] (a) that $(I_{\leq d-r+2}) = I \cap L$.\
(ii)$\Rightarrow$(i): This also follows immediately by Proposition \[prop:BettiNumbers\] (a).
\[remark:normality\] (A) The extremal plane $\mathbb{F}(X)$ of a surface $X$ of type II which satisfies $N(X) \leq d-r$ has some nice properties. We namely can say that the equivalent properties (i),(ii) of Theorem \[4.17” Proposition\] (b) imply the following statements, in which, for all $m \in \mathbb{N}$, we use $$\mathrm{Sec}_m(X) := \bigcup_{\mathbb{L} \in \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r) : \mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L})\geq m} \mathbb{L}$$ to denote the $m$-*th secant variety* of $X$.
- If $\mathbb{L} \in \Sigma(X)$, then $\mathbb{L} \subset X \cup \mathbb{F}(X),$
- $\mathrm{Sec}_{d-r+3}(X) = X \cup \mathbb{F}(X),$
- $\mathbb{F}^+(X) = \mathbb{F}(X).$
Indeed, assume that the equivalent statements (i) and (ii) of Theorem \[4.17” Proposition\](b) hold. Let $\mathbb{L} \in \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r)$ such that $d-r+3 \leq \mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) < \infty.$ Let $M \subset S$ be the homogeneous vanishing ideal of $\mathbb{L}$. Then, $(I_{d-r+2}) \subset M$. As $I\cap L = (I_{\leq d-r+2})$ it follows that $I \cap L \subset M$. As $\mathbb{L}$ is not contained in $X$, the ideal $I$ is not contained in $M$. It follows that $L \subset M$, and hence that $\mathbb{L} \subset \mathbb{F}(X)$. As $\Sigma(X)$ is the closure of all lines $\mathbb{L}$ as above, this proves claim (1).\
Claims (2) and (3) are immediate by claim (1), as $\mathbb{F}(X)$ is a union of lines and each line $\mathbb{L} \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ with $\mathrm{length}(X \cap \mathbb{L}) > d-r+3$ is contained in $X$.\
(B) Observe that statement (iii) of Theorem \[4.17” Proposition\] (a) implies that $\beta_{1,d-r+2}(X) = 1$. So, the equivalent statements (a) (i)–(iv) imply the equivalent statements (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of this theorem.\
(C) We have seen above, that surfaces $X$ of type II and sub-maximal index of normality behave nicely. We therefore can expect, that in the extremal case $N(X) = -\infty$ – hence in the case where ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) = 2$ – we get even more detailed information on the Betti numbers if $X$ is of “small degree".
Surfaces of degree $r+1$ in $\mathbb{P}^r$ {#surfaces-of-degree-r1-in-mathbbpr .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------
We now briefly revisit the special case of surfaces $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of degree $r+1$.
\[3.3’ Remark\] (s. [@B2], [@BS6]) (A) Assume that $r \geq 5$ and let our surface $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be of degree $r+1$. Then, we can distinguish $9$ cases, which show up by their numerical invariants as presented in the following table. Here $\sigma(X)$ denotes the *sectional genus* of $X$, that is the arithmetic genus of the generic hyperplane section curve $\mathcal{C}_h \quad
(h \in \mathbb{U}(X))$ or equivalently, the sectional genus of the polarized surface $(X, \mathcal{O}_X(1))$ in the sense of Fujita [@Fu]. Moreover $\mathrm{sreg}(X)$ denotes the sectional regularity introduced in Remark and Definition \[remark and definition 0\].
$$\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline
$\rm{Case}$ & ${\operatorname{sreg}}(X)$ & ${\operatorname{depth}}(X)$
& $\sigma(X)$ & ${\operatorname{e}}(X)$ & $h^1_A(1)$ & $h^1_A(2)$ \\ \hline
$1$ &$2$ &$3$ &$2$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ \\ \hline
$2$ &$3$ &$2$ &$1$ &$0$ &$0$ &$0$ \\ \hline
$3$ &$3$ &$2$ &$1$ &$1$ &$0$ &$0$ \\ \hline
$4$ &$3$ &$1$ &$1$ &$0$ &$1$ &$0$ \\ \hline
$5$ &$3$ &$2$ &$0$ &$2$ &$0$ &$0$ \\ \hline
$6$ &$3$ &$1$ &$0$ &$1$ &$1$ &$\leq 1$ \\ \hline
$7$ &$3$ &$1$ &$0$ &$0$ &$2$ &$\leq 2$ \\ \hline
$8$ &$4$ &$2$ &$0$ &$3$ &$0$ &$0$ \\ \hline
$9$ &$4$ &$1$ &$0$ &$0$ &$2$ &$3$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$\
The case $9$ occurs only if $r = 5$. In [@B2] and [@BS6] we listed indeed two more cases $10$ and $11$, of which we did not know at that time, whether they might occur at all. For these two cases we had ${\operatorname{sreg}}(X) = 4 = d-r+3$ and ${\rm e}(X) \in \{1,2\}$. As these surfaces would be of maximal sectional regularity, this would contradict Theorem \[t1-coh\] (b) and Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] (a). So, surfaces which fall under the cases $10$ and $11$ cannot occur at all. In the case $9$ we have ${\rm e}(X) = 0$, and hence by Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] (b)(3) the surface $X$ is of type I in this case.\
(B) The surfaces of types 8 and 9 are of particular interest, as they are the ones of maximal sectional regularity within all the 9 listed types. Observe, that among all surfaces $X$ of degree $r+1$ in $\mathbb{P}^r$, those of type 8 are precisely the ones $X$ which are of maximal sectional regularity and of arithmetic depth $\geq 2$. If $r \geq 6$, the surfaces of type 8 are precisely the ones which are of maximal sectional regularity.\
(C) Observe, that in the cases 5 – 9 we have $\sigma(X) = 0$. This means, that the surfaces which fall under these 5 types are all sectionally rational and have finite non-normal locus. So, by Theorem 4.1 in [@BLPS1], these surfaces are almost non-singular projections of a rational normal surface scroll $\widetilde{X} =
S(a,r+1-a)$ with $0 \leq a \leq \frac{r+1}{2}$, even if they are cones (see [@BS5 Corollary 5.11] for the non-conic case). So, according to Theorem \[2.5’ Theorem\] (b) the surfaces $X$ of types 5 – 9 all satisfy the Eisenbud-Goto inequality ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) \leq
4$, with equality in the cases 8 and 9 (see Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\] (a)(1) and Theorem \[t1-betti\] ). In the cases 1 – 5, the values of $h^i(\mathbb{P}^r, \mathcal{I}_X(n)) =: h^i(S/I)_n
\quad (i=1,2, n\in \mathbb{Z})$ (see [@BS6 Reminder 2.2 (C) and (D)]) show, that ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) = 3$. In the case 6 we may have ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) = 3$ whereas in the case 7, we know even that ${\operatorname{reg}}(X)$ may take both values $3$ and $4$ (see [@BS6 Example 3.5, Examples 3.4 (A),(B) and (C)]). This shows in particular, that there are sectionally rational surfaces $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ of degree $r+1$ with finite non-normal locus and ${\operatorname{sreg}}(X) < {\operatorname{reg}}(X)$.
\[3.5’ Corollary\] Assume that the surface $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r_K$ is of degree $r+1$. Then, the following statements are equivalent
- The surface $X$ is of type 8.
- ${\operatorname{e}}(X) = 3$.
- ${\operatorname{sreg}}(X) = 4$ and ${\operatorname{depth}}(X) =2$.
- ${\operatorname{sreg}}(X) = 4$ and $X$ does not fall under the case 9 of Remark \[3.3’ Remark\].
This follows easily on use of the table in Remark \[3.3’ Remark\] (A).
Examples and Problems
=====================
Surfaces of extremal regularity with small extremal secant locus {#surfaces-of-extremal-regularity-with-small-extremal-secant-locus .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As announced already in the Introduction, we now shall present a construction, which allows to provide examples of surfaces of extremal regularity whose extremal secant variety is of dimension $-1,0,$ or $1$. These surfaces are in particular not of maximal sectional regularity. We already have spelled out the meaning of such examples in relation what is said about varieties of extremal regularity in [@GruLPe].
\[7.1 Construction and Examples\] Let $a,b,d \in \mathbb{N}$ with $a \leq b$, let $r:=a+b+3$, assume that $d > r$ and consider the smooth threefold rational normal scroll of degree $a+b+1 = r-2$ $$Z := S(1,a,b) \subset \mathbb{P}^r.$$ Let $H, F \in {\rm Div}(Z)$ respectively be a hyperplane section and a ruling plane of $Z$, so that each divisor on $Z$ is linearly equivalent to $mH+nF$ for some integers $m,n$. Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be an non-degenerate irreducible surface of degree $d$ which is contained in $Z$ as a divisor linearly equivalent to $H+(d-r+2)F$.
\(A) One can easily see that $h^0 (X, \mathcal{O}_X (1)) = h^0 (Z, \mathcal{O}_Z (1))+d-r+1 = d+2$. This means that the linearly normal embedding $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ of $X$ by means of $\mathcal{O}_X (1)$ is of minimal degree and $X$ is a regular projection of $\widetilde{X}$. Keep in mind, that $\widetilde{X}$ is either a smooth rational normal surface scroll, a cone over a rational normal curve or the Veronese surface in $\mathbb{P}^5$. As $d+1 > 5$, and as a cone does not admit a proper isomorphic linear projection, $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ is a smooth rational normal surface scroll. This means that $X$ is smooth and sectionally rational. Also ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) = d-r+3$ (cf. [@P Theorem 4.3]) and hence $X$ is a surface of extremal regularity.
\(B) Let $\mathbb{L}$ be a line section of $Z$. Then the intersection number $\mathbb{L}\cdot X$ takes the maximal possible value $d-r+3$. This means that either $\mathbb{L}$ is contained in $X$ or else it is a proper $(d-r+3)$-secant line to $X$. On the other hand, observe that any proper $(d-r+3)$-secant line to $X$ must be contained in $Z$ as a line section, since $Z$ is cut out by quadrics.\
To reformulate this observation, we introduce the locally closed subset $$\Sigma^{\circ}(X) := \{\mathbb{L} \in \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r) \mid d-r+3 \leq \mathrm{length}(X \cap\mathbb{L}) < \infty\} \subset \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r)$$ of proper $(d-r+3)$-secant lines to $X$, so that $\overline{\Sigma^{\circ}(X)} = \Sigma(X)$. The previous observation now may be written in the form $$\Sigma^{\circ}(X) = \{\mathbb{L} \in \mathbb{G}(1,\mathbb{P}^r) \mid \mathbb{L} \mbox{ is a line section of } Z \mbox{ and } \mathbb{L} \nsubseteq X\}.$$
\(C) Suppose that $a \geq 2$ and let $\mathbb{L}$ be the unique line section $S(1)$ of $Z$. If $\mathbb{L}$ is contained in $X$, then we have $\Sigma^{\circ}(X) = \emptyset$ and hence $\Sigma (X) =
\emptyset$. So, in this case $X$ is a surface of maximal regularity, having no proper extremal secant line at all. Next, if $\mathbb{L}$ is not contained in $X$, then we have $\Sigma^{\circ}(X) =
\Sigma(X)=\{ \mathbb{L} \}$, and hence $\dim\big(\Sigma(X)\big) =
0$.
\(D) Suppose next, that $a =1$ and $b \geq 2$. Then, by part (B), we have $$\Sigma^{\circ}(X) = \{\mathbb{L} \in S(1,1) \mid \mathbb{L} \mbox{ is a line section of } Z \mbox{ and } \mathbb{L} \nsubseteq X\}.$$ Since $X \neq S(1,1)$, all but finitely many line sections of $Z$ are proper $(d-r+3)$-secant lines to $X$. This implies that $\dim\big(\Sigma(X)\big) = \dim\big(\Sigma^{\circ}(X)\big) = 1$ and that $\mathbb{F}^{+}(X)$ is exactly equal to $S(1,1)$.
Surfaces of maximal sectional regularity of type I {#surfaces-of-maximal-sectional-regularity-of-type-i .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------
We now provide a few examples for surfaces of maximal sectional regularity of type I, focusing on the various Betti tables which may occur. These tables have been computed by means of the Computer Algebra System Singular [@GrPf]. We use the divisorial description of surfaces of type I given in Theorem \[theorem 2.1\]
\[example:t1\] Let $X \subset W := S(1,1,1) \subset \mathbb{P}^{5}$ be a divisor which is linearly equivalent to $H + (d-3)F$. Then $X$ is given by an isomorphic projection of a smooth rational normal scroll $\widetilde{X} \subset \mathbb{P}^{d+1}$ (see [@P Lemma 3.1]).\
(A) Let $d=8$ and assume that $X$ has the parametrization $$\{\big(u^7s:u^7t:vs^7:vs^6t:vst^6:vst^7\big) \mid (s,t), (u,v) \in \Bbbk^2 \setminus\{(0,0)\}\}.$$ Then, $X$ has the following Betti table. $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$i$}& $1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$ \\\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,1}$}& $3$&$2$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,2}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,4}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,5}$}& $21$&$70$&$87$&$48$&$10$\\\cline{1-7}
\end{tabular}$$
\(B) Let $d=9$ and assume that $X$ has the parametrization $$\{\big(u^7s:u^7t:vs^8:vs^7t:vst^7:vt^8 \big) \mid (s,t), (u,v) \in
\Bbbk^2 \setminus\{(0,0)\}\}.$$ Then, we get the following Betti table for $X$. $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$i$}& $1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$ \\\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,1}$}& $3$&$2$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,2}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,4}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,5}$}& $28$&$96$&$123$&$70$&$15$\\\cline{1-7}
\end{tabular}$$
\(C) Let $d=10$ and assume that $X$ has the parametrization $$\{\big(u^9s:u^9t:vs^9:vs^8t:vst^8:vst^9\big) \mid (s,t), (u,v) \in \Bbbk^2 \setminus\{(0,0)\}\}.$$ Then, the Betti table of $X$ is as given below. $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$i$}& $1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$ \\\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,1}$}& $3$&$2$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,2}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,4}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,5}$}& $36$ &$126$&$165$ &$96$&$21$ \\\cline{1-7}
\end{tabular}$$
Surfaces of maximal sectional regularity of type II {#surfaces-of-maximal-sectional-regularity-of-type-ii .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------
Next, we aim to present examples which concern surfaces $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ $(r \geq 5)$ of maximal sectional regularity of degree $d > r$ and of type II. Set $Y := X \cup \mathbb{F}(X)$ and recall that $\tau(X)$ denotes the pair $({\operatorname{depth}}(X), {\operatorname{depth}}(Y))$. We will construct a few examples of $X$, having all possible $\tau(X)$ listed in Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\](c).\
\[7.2 Construction and Examples\] (A) We assume that the characteristic of the base field $\Bbbk$ is zero. Let $a,b$ be integers such that $3 \leq a \leq b$ and consider the standard smooth rational normal surface scroll $\widetilde{X} := S(a,b) \subset \mathbb{P}^{a+b+1}$. We shall construct surfaces of maximal sectional regularity of type II by projecting $\widetilde{X}$ from appropriate linear subspaces of $\mathbb{P}^{a+b+1}$. The occurring Betti diagrams have been computed by means of the Computer Algebra System Singular [@GrPf].
\(B) Let $\Lambda$ be an $(a-3)$-dimensional subspace of $\langle S(a) \rangle = \mathbb{P}^a$ which avoids $S(a)$ and let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^{b+3}$ be the linear projection of $\widetilde{X}$ from $\Lambda$. Observe that this linear projection maps $\langle S(a) \rangle$ onto a plane $\mathbb{P}^2 = \mathbb{F} \subset \mathbb{P}^{b+3}$. Suppose that this projection maps $S(a)$ birationally onto a plane curve $C_a \subset \mathbb{F}$ of degree $a$. Since $X \subset \mathbb{P}^{b+3}$ is a surface of degree $a+b$, we have ${\operatorname{reg}}(X) \leq a$ by Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\](a). On the other hand, a general line on $\mathbb{F}$ is a proper $a$-secant line to $X$. Therefore ${\rm reg}(X)=a$, $X$ is a surface of maximal sectional regularity of type II and $\mathbb{F}(X) = \mathbb{F}$. Finally, we get $\tau(X) = (2,3)$ by Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\](c).
\(C) Assume that $b \geq 3$. Let $\Lambda$ be a $(b-3)$-dimensional subspace of $\langle S(b) \rangle = \mathbb{P}^b$ which avoids $S(b)$ and let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^{a+3}$ be the linear projection of $\widetilde{X}$ from $\Lambda$. So, this linear projection maps $\langle S(b) \rangle$ onto a plane $\mathbb{P}^2 = \mathbb{F} \subset \mathbb{P}^{a+3}$. From now on, we assume that this projection maps $S(b)$ birationally onto a plane curve $C_b \subset \mathbb{F}$ of degree $b$. Then as in (B), one can see that $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ is a surface of maximal sectional regularity of type II and $\mathbb{F}(X) = \mathbb{F}$. If $b \leq a+2$, then we have $\tau(X) = (2,3)$ by Theorem \[4.14” Theorem\](c).
\(D) From now on, we assume that $b \geq a+3$, and we will vary the projection center $\Lambda$. To do so, we first consider the canonical isomorphism $$\kappa: \mathbb{P}^1 \rightarrow S(b), \quad [s:t] \mapsto [0:\ldots:0:s^b:s^{b-1}t:\ldots:st^{b-1}:t^b] \in \mathbb{P}^{a+b+1}.$$ Then, we choose a homogeneous polynomial $f \in \Bbbk[s,t]$ of degree $b$ which is not divisible by $s$ and by $t$. Now, let $$\Lambda_f = \mathbb{P}^{b-3} \subset \langle S(b)\rangle \setminus S(b)$$ be such that the composition map $$\varphi_f := \pi_{\Lambda_f} \circ \kappa: \mathbb{P}^1 \rightarrow C_b \subset \mathbb{F} = \mathbb{P}^2$$ of the linear projection map $$\pi_{\Lambda_f}: \mathbb{P}^{a+b+1}\setminus \Lambda_f \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{P}^{a+3}$$ with the above map $\kappa$ sends $[s:t]$ to $[s^b : f : t^b]$. Let $$X_f := \pi_{\Lambda_f}(\widetilde{X}) \subset \mathbb{P}^{a+2}$$ denote the image of the scroll $\widetilde{X}$ under the linear projection map $\pi_{\Lambda_f}$ centered at $\Lambda_f$. Then, we may write $$X_f := \{ [us^a:us^{a-1}t:\ldots:ust^{a-1}:ut^a:vs^b:vf(s,t):vt^b ] \mid (s,t), (u,v) \in K^2 \setminus\{(0,0)\}\}.$$ After an appropriate choice of $f$, this latter presentation is accessible to syzygetic computations.
\[7.3 Example\] Let $(a,b)=(3,5)$ and $f := s^4t+s^3t^2+s^2t^3+st^4$. Then $X_f \subset \mathbb{P}^6$ is of degree $d = 8 (= 2r-4)$ and the graded Betti numbers $\beta_{i,j} = \beta_{i,j}(X)$ of $X$ are as presented in the following table.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & $1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$&$6$\
& $6$&$8$&$3$&$0$&$0$&$0$\
& $4$&$12$&$12$&$4$&$0$&$0$\
& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\
& $1$&$4$&$6$&$4$&$1$&$0$\
By Proposition \[prop:BettiNumbers\] (a) it follows from this graded Betti diagram of $X$, that $$\tau(X)=(2,3).$$
\[7.4 Example\] Let $(a,b)=(3,8)$ and consider $X_{f_i} \subset \mathbb{P}^6$ $(i=1,2,3)$ for the following choices of $f_i$:
1. $f_1 = s^7t+s^6t^2+s^5t^3+s^4t^4+s^3t^5+s^2t^6+st^7$,
2. $f_2 = s^7t+s^6t^2+s^5t^3+s^4t^4+s^3t^5+s^2t^6$, and
3. $f_3 = s^7t+s^6t^2+s^5t^3+s^4t^4$.
Then $X_{f_i} \subset \mathbb{P}^6$ is of degree $d = 11 \quad (= 2r-1 = 3r-7)$ for all $i=1,2,3$. The graded Betti diagrams of $X_{f_1}$, $X_{f_2}$ and $X_{f_3}$ are given respectively in the three tables below.
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$i$}& $1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$&$6$ \\\cline{1-8}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,1}$}& $6$&$8$&$3$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,2}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $4$&$12$&$12$&$4$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,4}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,5}$}& $1$&$4$&$6$&$4$&$1$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,6}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,7}$}& $1$&$4$&$6$&$4$&$1$&$0$\\\cline{1-8}
\end{tabular}$$ $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$i$}& $1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$&$6$ \\\cline{1-8}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,1}$}& $5$&$5$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,2}$}& $1$& $0$&$1$& $0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $1$&$9$&$11$&$4$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,4}$}& $4$&$18$&$32$&$28$&$12$&$2$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,5}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,6}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,7}$}& $1$&$4$&$6$&$4$&$1$&$0$\\\cline{1-8}
\end{tabular}$$
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$i$}& $1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$ \\\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,1}$}& $3$&$2$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,2}$}& $10$& $27$&$24$& $7$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,4}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,5}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,6}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,7}$}& $1$&$4$&$6$&$4$&$1$\\\cline{1-7}
\end{tabular}$$ By Proposition \[prop:BettiNumbers\] (a) we can see from these tables that $$\tau (X_{f_1}) = (2,2), \quad \tau(X_{f_2}) = (1,1) \mbox{ and } \tau (X_{f_3}) = (2,3).$$
\[7.5 Example\] Let $(a,b)=(3,9)$ and consider $X_{f_i} \subset \mathbb{P}^6$, $(i=1,2)$ for the two choices
1. $f_1 = s^8t+s^7t^2+s^6t^3+s^5t^4+s^4t^5+s^3t^6+s^2t^7+st^8$ and
2. $f_2 = s^8t+s^7t^2+s^6t^3+s^5t^4+s^4t^5+s^3t^6+s^2t^7$.
Then $X_{f_i} \subset \mathbb{P}^6$ is of degree $d = 12 \quad (= 2r = 3r-6)$ for $i=1,2$. The graded Betti diagrams of $X_{f_1}$ and $X_{f_2}$ are given respectively in the tables below.
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$i$}& $1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$&$6$ \\\cline{1-8}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,1}$}& $6$&$8$&$3$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,2}$}& $0$& $0$&$0$& $0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $2$&$4$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,4}$}& $1$&$4$&$10$&$6$&$1$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,5}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,6}$}& $1$&$4$&$6$&$4$&$1$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,7}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,8}$}& $1$&$4$&$6$&$4$&$1$&$0$\\\cline{1-8}
\end{tabular}$$ $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$i$}& $1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$&$6$ \\\cline{1-8}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,1}$}& $5$&$5$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,2}$}& $0$& $0$&$1$& $0$&$0$&$0$ \\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,3}$}& $5$&$15$&$15$&$5$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,4}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,5}$}& $5$&$23$&$42$&$38$&$17$&$3$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,6}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,7}$}& $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\\cline{1-1}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\beta_{i,8}$}& $1$&$4$&$6$&$4$&$1$&$0$\\\cline{1-8}
\end{tabular}$$
By Proposition \[prop:BettiNumbers\] (a) we can verify that $$\tau(X_{f_1}) = (2,2) \mbox{ and } \tau(X_{f_2}) = (1,1).$$
\[7.6 Problem and Remark\] (A) Let $5 \leq r <d$ and let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^r$ be a non-degenerate surface of degree $d$ which is of maximal sectional regularity. We consider the three conditions
- $N(X) \leq d-r$.
- $\beta_{1,d-r+2}(X) = 1$.
- $\mathbb{F}(X) = \mathbb{P}^2$ or – equivalently – $X$ is of type II.
\(B) By the implication (i) $\Rightarrow$ (iii) given in statement (a) of Theorem \[4.17” Proposition\] we have the implication (i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii) among the above three conditions. By the implication (i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii) given in statement (b) of Theorem \[4.17” Proposition\] we have the implication (ii) $\Rightarrow$ (iii) among the above three conditions.\
We expect, that the converse of both implications holds but could not prove this. So we aim to pose the problem
- *Are the three conditions* (i), (ii) *and* (iii) *of part* (A) *equivalent ?*
Observe, that in view of Remark \[remark:normality\] (A) an affirmative answer to this would also answer affirmatively the question, whether for surfaces of type II, the extended extremal variety and the extremal variety of $X$ coincide (see Notation and Reminder \[4.2” Notation and Reminder\]), hence the question whether
- $\quad \mathbb{F}^{+}(X) = \mathbb{F}(X)$ *for $X$ of type II ?*
Obviously, this latter question would been affirmatively answered if we could answer affirmatively the question
- $\quad {}^*\Sigma(X) = \Sigma(X)$ *for $X$ of type II ?*
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
The first named author thanks to the Korea University Seoul, to the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach, to the Martin-Luther Universität Halle and to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for their hospitality and the financial support provided during the preparation of this work.The second named author was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education(2014008404). The third named author was supported by the NRF-DAAD GEnKO Program (NRF-2011-0021014). The fourth named author thanks to the Korea University Seoul, to the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach and to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for their hospitality respectively financial support offered during the preparation of this work.
[0000000]{}
: [*Graded mapping cone theorem, multisecants and syzygies*]{}, Journal of Algebra 331 (2011) 243 - 262.
: [*A bound on certain local cohomology modules and application to ample divisors*]{}, Nagoya Mathematical Journal 163 (2001) 87-106.
: [*A few remarks on blowing-up and connectedness*]{}, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 370 (1986) 51 - 60.
: [*Cohomology of certain projective surfaces with low sectional genus and degree*]{}, in: D. Eisenbud (Ed.) “Commutative Algebra, Algebraic Geometry and Computational Methods”, 172 - 200, Springer, 1999.
: [*On the regularity of varieties having an extremal secant line*]{}. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik. 545 (2002), 167 - 181.
: [*On projective varieties of maximal sectional regularity*]{}. Preprint (2014).
: [*On varieties of maximal sectional regularity in codimension two*]{}. In preparation.
: [*On varieties of almost minimal degree III: Tangent spaces and embedding scrolls*]{}. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 215 (2011) 2859 - 2872.
: [*Curves of degree $ r + 2$ in ${\mathbb P}^r$: Cohomological, geometric, and homological aspects*]{}. Journal of Algebra 242 (2001), 577 - 623.
: [*On projective curves of maximal regularity*]{}. Mathematische Zeitschrift 244 (2003), 271 - 289.
: [*Projective curves with maximal regularity and applications to syzygies and surfaces*]{}. Manuscripta Mathematica 135 (2011) 469 - 495.
: [*Projective surfaces of degree $r+1$ in Projective $r$-space and almost non-singular projections*]{}. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 216 (2012) 2241-2255.
: [*Local cohomology – an algebraic introduction with geometric applications*]{}. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics Vol. 60, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998.
: [*Sui multipli di une serie lineare di gruppi di punti appartenente ad une curva algebraic*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) 7 (1893), 89-110.
: [*Bounds for the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of modules*]{}. Mathematische Zeitschrift 258 (2008) 69 - 80.
: $3-1-2$ – [A computer algebra system for polynomial computations]{}. (2011).
: [*Commutative algebra with a view toward algebraic geometry*]{}. Graduate Texts in Mathematics 150, Springer, New York, 1994.
: [*Linear free resolutions and minimal multiplicity*]{}. J. Algebra 88 (1984) 89 - 133.
: [*Canonical models of surfaces of general type in positive characteristic*]{}. Publications Mathématiques de l’ I.H.E.S, 67 (1988) 97 - 144.
: [*Classification theories of polarized varieties*]{}, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series 155, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
: [*Some results on the syzygies of finite sets and algebraic curves*]{}. Compositio Mathematica 67 (1988), 301 - 314.
: [*On a theorem of Castelnuovo and the equations defining space curves*]{}. Inventiones Mathematicae 72 (1983), 491 - 506.
: [*Some effects of property $N_p$ on the higher normality and defining equations of nonlinearly normal varieties*]{}. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 582 (2005) 87 - 105.
: [*A sharp Castelnuovo bound for smooth surfaces*]{}. Duke Mathematical Jornal 55 (1987) 423 - 429.
: [*Lectures on curves on an algebraic surface*]{}. Annals of Mathematics Studies 59, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1966.
: [*A bound on the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity for curves*]{}. Mathematische Annalen 322 (2002) 69 - 74.
: [*On syzygies of divisors of rational normal scrolls*]{}. Mathematische Nachrichten 287 (2014), no. 11-12, 1383 - 1393.
: [*A Castelnuovo bound for smooth surfaces*]{}. Inventiones Mathematicae 83 (1986), 321 - 332.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The cosmic star formation rate density first increases with time towards a pronounced peak 10 Gyrs ago (or z=1-2) and then slows down, dropping by more than a factor 10 since z=1. The processes at the origin of the star formation quenching are not yet well identified, either the gas is expelled by supernovae and AGN feedback, or prevented to inflow. Morphological transformation or environment effects are also invoked. Recent IRAM/NOEMA and ALMA results are reviewed about the molecular content of galaxies and its dynamics, as a function of redshift. Along the main sequence of massive star forming galaxies, the gas fraction was higher in the past (up to 80%), and galaxy disks were more unstable and more turbulent. The star formation efficiency increases with redshift, or equivalently the depletion time decreases, whatever the position of galaxies, either on the main sequence or above. Attempts have been made to determine the cosmic evolution of the H$_2$ density, but deeper ALMA observations are needed to effectively compare with models.'
---
Introduction
============
The cosmic star formation and its evolution through the Hubble time is now well established (e.g. Madau & Dickinson 2014). One of the main issue is to understand the rather fast winding down of star formation after z=2, both globally and also in individual galaxies. The suppression of star formation in galaxies appears rather sudden and therefore is called quenching; this has been revealed by their bimodal distribution, between a blue cloud of galaxies actively forming stars, and a red sequence of dead objects. The paucity of galaxies in an intermediate sequence (e.g. Baldry et al. 2006) means that the quenching time-scale is typically smaller than 1 Gyr. However the quenching mechanism is hard to identify. In a recent study of 56 GOODS galaxies at z=1.7, Mancini et al. (2015) found an equal proportion of AGN in both star forming and quenched galaxies, and their morphology, traced by the bulge to disk ratio or their Sersic index, was also comparable over a large range of specific star formation rate (SFR).
Since star formation is directly linked to the amount of molecular gas present, and in which state, it is primordial to determine the gas fraction as a function of redshift, and also the star formation efficiency (SFE), defined by the ratio between SFR and gas mass. In the recent years, a large variety of data have been obtained, with somewhat discrepant results, revealing either low or high SFE at high redshift. In sub-millimeter galaxies (SMG), and ultra-luminous starbursts (ULIRGs) the SFE increases with redshift, and the depletion time (the inverse of SFE) which is of the order of 0.5-1Gyr for ULIRGs at z$\sim$ 0 becomes as low as 10-100 Myr at z=1-2 (Greve et al. 2005, Combes et al. 2011, 2013). But there exists a population of massive BzK galaxies, selected from their near-IR and optical colors, which are also actively forming stars (they are ULIRGs), but with a lower efficiency, with a depletion time-scale of the order of 0.3 Gyr at z$\sim$ 1.5 (Daddi et al. 2008), i.e. similar to local ULIRGs. This might be due to their extended molecular component (10 kpc scales), and their low density state, revealed by their low excitation: the CO emission as a function of the upper level $J$ peaks at $J=3$, as in the Milky Way (Dannerbauer et al 2009), justifiying the adoption of the standard CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor (5 times that adopted for ULIRGs). Let us recall that local main-sequence galaxies, such as the Milky Way, have a depletion time-scale of the order of 2 Gyr (Bigiel et al. 2011).
Starburst galaxies
==================
In a recent work with IRAM and ALMA, Silverman et al. (2015) detected CO emission in 7 galaxies from COSMOS, with SFR$\sim$ 300-800 M$_\odot$/yr, at 1.4 $<$ z $<$ 1.7. Their gas fraction was determined to be $\sim$ 30-50%, and their global SFE is enhanced, although the objects are unresolved, and the starbursting regions cannot be separated.
To trace redshift evolution, and in particular the winding down of star formation after z=1, the intermediate redshift epoch 0.2 $<$ z $<$ 1 is a key region to explore. We have observed the gas content of ULIRGs at these intermediate z, to make the link with local starbursts (Combes et al. 2011, 2013). Out of 69 ULIRG, 33 were detected in CO emission, with variable excitation. Some of the objects have a lower H$_2$ density, which can be explained in terms of at least two components. The objects where an interferometric map is available show the separation of the molecular emission in a nuclear starburst and an extended gas disk of scale $\sim$20 kpc. The presence of such an extended component may explain lower SFE, in particular when low gas excitation suggests a higher CO-to-H$_2$ conversion ratio.
This study at intermediate z, compared to all other starburst data, showed that both gas fraction and SFE increase with redshift, by a factor 3$\pm 1$, between z=0 and 1, with or without taking into account upper limits.
Recently, the Bzk galaxies at z=1.5, which show globally low excitation of the CO lines at low $J$ were observed to have quite high CO(5-4) fluxes, revealing a second component of more excited, denser and warmer molecular gas (Daddi et al. 2015). For this excited component, the objects have the same correlations than for ULIRGs, confirming that the starburst occurs either in a separate nuclear region, or in hot and dense star forming clumps. In local starbursts, the total CO SLEDs observed with Herschel reveal a very large variety of shapes, revealing several molecular components (Mashian et al 2015), suggesting that the overall CO-to-H$_2$ conversion ratio could explore even wider ranges than expected, from $\alpha$ =0.4 to 5 M$_\odot$/(K km/s pc$^2$) for the M(H$_2$) to L’CO ratio.
![Distribution in the redshift versus specific star-formation rate plane of all the star forming galaxies with CO flux measurements found in the literature, compared with the PHIBSS data by Genzel et al. (2015). The sSFR on the vertical axis is normalized to the main sequence (ms) value of sSFR at a given mass and redshift, according to the scaling relation given by Whitaker et al. (2012). The appartenance to the main sequence is defined by the two horizontal dashed lines, situated at $\pm$0.6 dex from the mid MS line.[]{data-label="fig1"}](combesf-f1.png){width="13cm"}
Main sequence galaxies
======================
Most of the cosmic star formation ($\sim$ 90%) occurs in the main sequence galaxies, and only about 10% in starbursts. The main sequence is clearly defined in an SFR versus stellar mass diagram as a power-law of slope slightly lower than 1. This power-law is similar at all redshift ranges, but the zero point is increasing with redshift, following the evolution of the cosmic star formation rate density described in the introduction. Large surveys of hundred thousands of galaxies locally (SDSS) or at high redshift (GOODS, COSMOS, ..) have shown a correlation between morphology and stellar populations since z$\sim$2.5 (Wuyts et al. 2011): blue star forming galaxies on the main sequence are exponential disks (Sersic index near 1), while quiescent red systems are of de Vaucouleurs type (Sersic index more near 4).
With the goal to explore the molecular gas content of main sequence galaxies, we undertook the PHIBSS project (Plateau de Bure HIgh z Blue Sequence Survey, Tacconi et al. 2010, 2013). In the first part of the project, 52 galaxies were detected at IRAM in the CO(3-2) line at z=1.2 and 2.3. The targets were selected to be massive (M$_* >$ 2.5 10$^{10}$ M$_\odot$) star forming galaxies (SFR $>$ 30 M$_\odot$/yr). Adopting a standard CO-to-H$_2$ conversion ratio for these main sequence objects, molecular masses were found between 10$^{10}$ and 3 10$^{11}$ M$_\odot$, corresponding to gas fraction in average of 33% at z=1.2 and 47% at z=2.3. The SFE was found to increase slightly with z, and the depletion time scale is in average 0.7 Gyr at z=1.2.
![Ratio of the molecular to stellar mass versus redshift, for galaxies on the main-sequence (Genzel et al. 2015). The best linear fit has a slope of 2.71 (dashed line). []{data-label="fig2"}](combesf-f2.png){width="8cm"}
The CO detection rate was quite high ($>$85%), in these « normal » massive Star Forming Galaxies (SFG). Some were mapped at high spatial resolution, and a rather regular velocity field was found, confirming the absence of major mergers. At z=1.2, it was possible to resolve four galaxy disks in clumps with the help of the velocity information, both with CO and \[OII\] lines (gas content and SFR), since there is a good correlation between molecular and ionised gas. This allowed us to draw a resolved Kennicutt-Schmidt (KS) relation (Freundlich et al. 2013). The high-z points extend the local KS relation towards high gas and SFR surface densities, with the same slope. For one galaxy at z=1.5, it was possible to observe the H$\alpha$ line at high resolution from the ground (Genzel et al. 2013). The KS slope depends strongly on the dust extinction model adopted, but falls around 1.
![Depletion time versus redshift for galaxies on the main sequence, computed from the dust emission (black circles), and from the CO lines (blue circles). The best linear fit has a slope of –0.77 (black dashed line).[]{data-label="fig3"}](combesf-f3.png){width="8cm"}
The evolution of specific SFR with redshift was compatible with the results of optical surveys, provided that the depletion time is varying on the main sequence as $t_{dep}$=1.5/(1+z) Gyr. The PHIBSS project is now being extended with the goal of observing CO lines in about 150 galaxies, exploring also intermediate redshifts (z=0.5-0.7), and some galaxies departing from the main sequence, either starbursts above the MS or quiescent galaxies below (PHIBSS2). Detecting smaller masses, and bright galaxies with more spatial resolution and/or more molecular lines in addition will be attempted with ALMA.
![ [**Left:**]{} The normalised H$_2$ density $\Omega$(H$_2$) as a function of redshift, for SMG and other high-z starbursts (Swinbank et al 2014, Combes et al. 2013) in red, compared to main sequence galaxies in blue (Tacconi et al 2013). The dashed lines are the model predictions, for different SFR (Lagos et al 2011). [**Right:**]{} The H$_2$ mass function for SMG and main sequence galaxies compared with models. The main sequence galaxies at z=1.5 (green) are from Daddi et al. (2010) and at z=1-2 (blue) from Tacconi et al. (2013). They are well above the predictions at z=2 by Lagos et al (2011) indicated by the blue dashed curve. From Swinbank et al. (2014).[]{data-label="fig4"}](combesf-f4.png){width="13cm"}
The first results and the scaling relations obtained on the main sequence, by comparison with all other data with CO detections at high redshift (cf Fig \[fig1\]), were presented in Genzel et al. (2015). On the MS, the gas fraction increases regularly with z, as shown in Fig \[fig2\].
Fig \[fig3\] displays the depletion time as a function of redshift, for the galaxies on the main sequence. There is a slight decrease, and the effect depends on the way the molecular gas content is estimated, either from the CO line, or from the dust emission.
A recent survey with ALMA of the continuum dust emission of 180 star forming galaxies between z=1 and 6.4 results in slightly different results (Scoville et al. 2015). The gas fraction estimated from the dust emission, assuming a constant dust temperature, is also highly increasing with redshift, reaching values as high as 50-80%. The depletion time-scale is found to be the same for starbursts and main sequence galaxies; it decreases strongly with redshift, to reach 200 Myr at z$>1$, therefore 10 times lower than for local MS galaxies.
The cosmic H$_2$ density
========================
One of the key issues to understand the cosmic star formation history is to observe the cosmic evolution of the H$_2$ density. Theoretical considerations and semi-analytical models predict that the molecular gas density must increase with redshift, and dominate over the atomic gas in galaxies (Obreschkow & Rawlings, 2009, Obreschkow et al. 2009). The phase transition from atomic to molecular hydrogen is favored by pressure (Blitz & Rosolowsky 2006), while surface density and consequently the pressure is higher in high-z galaxies. The modelisation predicts a molecular-to-atomic ratio H$_2$/HI varying as (1+z)$^m$, with m as high as 1.6. Some models however predict flatter evolutions of the H$_2$ density at high z (Lagos et al. 2011, Popping et al. 2014).
Decarli et al. (2014) and Walter et al. (2014) have attempted to constrain the H$_2$ density by observing a large cosmic volume of $\sim$7000 Mpc$^3$, in the Hubble deep field North with Plateau de Bure. They separate the results in three redshift bins: z$<$0.45, 1.01$<$z$<$1.89 and z$>$2. A blind molecular line survey has been carried out through scanning the whole 3mm band. The blind detection of 17 CO lines, together with the upper limits obtained by stacking the observations towards spectroscopically identified objects, constrain the CO luminosity functions at the corresponding redshifts. The results show that optical/mid-IR bright galaxies contribute less than 50% to the star formation rate density at 1 $<$ z $<$ 3, and the normalised density $\Omega$(H$_2$) at high z tends to be higher than the predictions.
It might be easier and certainly quicker to determine the evolution of the H$_2$ density from dust emission surveys. A recent 870$\mu$m continuum survey with ALMA of 99 SMG in the Extended Chandra Deep Field South (Swinbank et al. 2014) has discovered that the well detected sources (S$_{870}$ $>$ 4.2 mJy) are in average ULIRGs with SFR=300 M$_\odot$/yr, and dust temperatures of 32 K. They contribute to only 1-2% of SFR. The extrapolation of the counts down to S$_{870} >$ 1 mJy through stacking shows that these sources contribute to 20% of the cosmic star formation density over z=1-4 (see Fig \[fig4\]). Deriving H$_2$ masses from dust masses, the average SFE is found rather high, with depletion time-scale of 130 Myr.
Conclusions
===========
It is now well established that galaxies at high redshift have a larger gas fraction than local ones, whatever their position on the main sequence or above, in the starburst domain. The gas fraction can reach 50% and above.
There is not yet a consensus on the exact evolution of the star formation efficiency with redshift. The inverse of the SFE, the depletion time scale, is decreasing with redshift, however the amplitude of its variation with z is still debated. The various results depend on the way to estimate the total molecular gas amount, either from CO lines or from dust emission. The results may also depend on the definition of the Main Sequence (e.g. Renzini & Peng, 2015).
A higher SFE at high z might be explained by a higher surface density of molecular gas, if the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation is non-linear, which is not yet well known. Alternatively, a starburst can be triggered in nuclear regions when the gas is concentrated. Diagnostics could be searched for with CO excitation and the observation of several $J$ lines, and also dense gas tracers (HCN, HCO$^+$).
ALMA observations begin to estimate the evolution of the molecular gas mass in galaxies, however we are still far from a total census of $\Omega$(H$_2$) as a function of redshift.
Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G. et al.: 2006, *MNRAS* 373, 469
Bigiel, F., Leroy, A. K., Walter, F. et al. 2011, *ApJ*, 730, L13
Blitz L., Rosolowsky E.: 2006, *ApJ*, 650, 933
Combes, F., Garcia-Burillo, S., Braine, J. et al.: 2011 *A&A* 528, A124
Combes, F., Garcia-Burillo, S., Braine, J. et al.: 2013 *A&A* 550, A41
Daddi, E., Dannerbauer, H., Elbaz, D. et al.: 2008, *ApJ*, 673, L21
Daddi, E., Bournaud, F., Walter, F. et al., 2010, *ApJ*, 713, 686
Daddi, E., Dannerbauer, H., Liu, D. et al. 2015, *A&A* 577, A46
Dannerbauer, H., Daddi, E., Riechers, D. A. et al.: 2009, *ApJ*, 698, L178
Decarli, R., Walter, F., Carilli, C. et al.: 2014, *ApJ*, 782, 78
Freundlich, J., Combes, F., Tacconi, L. J. et al.: 2013, *A&A* 553, A130
Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Kurk, J. et al.: 2013, *ApJ*, 773, 68
Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Lutz, D. et al.: 2015, *ApJ*, 800, 20
Greve, T. R., Bertoldi, F., Smail, I. et al.: 2005 *MNRAS* 359, 1165
Lagos C. d P., Baugh C. M., Lacey C. G. et al. 2011, *MNRAS* 418, 1649
Madau, P., Dickinson, M.: 2014, *ARAA* 52, 415
Mancini, C., Renzini, A., Daddi, E. et al. 2015, *MNRAS* 450, 763
Mashian, N., Sturm, E., Sternberg, A. et al. 2015, *ApJ*, 802, 81
Obreschkow D., Croton D., de Lucia G. et al. 2009, *ApJ*, 698, 1467
Obreschkow D., Rawlings S.: 2009, *ApJ*, 696, L129
Popping G., Somerville R. S., Trager S. C., 2014, *MNRAS*, 442, 2398
Renzini, A., Peng, Y.-J. : 2015, *ApJ*, 801, L29
Scoville, N., Sheth, K., Aussel, H. et al.: 2015, *ApJ*, in press, arXiv1505-02159
Silverman, J. D., Daddi, E., Rodighiero, G. et al. 2015, *ApJ*, in press, arXiv1505-04977
Swinbank A. M., Simpson J. M., Smail I., et al. 2014, *MNRAS*, 438, 1267
Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Neri, R. et al.: 2010, *Nature*, 463, 781
Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R. et al.: 2013, *ApJ*, 768, 74
Walter, F., Decarli, R., Sargent, M. et al. 2014, *ApJ*, 782, 79
Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., & Franx, M. 2012, *ApJ*, 754, L29
Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., van der Wel, A. et al.: 2011 *ApJ*, 742, 96
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The discovery of an enhanced superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ in monolayers of FeSe grown on several oxide substrates has opened a new route to high-$T_c$ superconductivity through interface engineering. One proposal for the origin of the observed enhancement is an electron-phonon ([[$e$-ph]{}]{}) interaction across the interface that peaked at small momentum transfers. In this paper, we examine the implications of such a coupling on the phononic properties of the system. We show that a strong forward scattering leads to a sizable broadening of phonon lineshape, which may result in charge instabilities at long-wavelengths. However, we further find that the inclusion of Coulombic screening significantly reduces the phonon broadening. Our results show that one might not expect anomalously broad phonon linewidths in the FeSe interface systems, despite the fact that the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction has a strong peak in the forward scattering (small ${{\mathbf{q}}}$) direction.'
author:
- Yan Wang
- Louk Rademaker
- Elbio Dagotto
- Steven Johnston
title: 'Phonon linewidth due to electron-phonon interactions with strong forward scattering in FeSe thin films on oxide substrates'
---
=1
Introduction
============
Due to its structural simplicity, FeSe has played a leading role in many experimental and theoretical studies on Fe-based superconductors since its discovery in 2008 [@Hsu2008]. The enduring interest in this compound is partially owed to the high $T_c$ (ranging between $55\text{--}100{\mathrm{\; K}}$) achieved when monolayer FeSe films are grown on [[SrTiO$_3$]{}]{} substrates [@Wang2012a; @Ge2015] (FeSe/STO), a ten-fold enhancement from the $T_c\sim 8{\mathrm{\; K}}$ of bulk FeSe crystals at ambient pressure [@Hsu2008]. Intriguingly, the high $T_c$ in the interfacial system proves to be robust for various oxide substrates, including [[SrTiO$_3$]{}]{} (001) [@Wang2012a; @Lee2014], [[BaTiO$_3$]{}]{} (001) [@Peng2014a], [[SrTiO$_3$]{}]{} (110) [@Zhang2016b; @Zhou2016a; @Zhang2016a], anatase TiO$_2$ (001) [@Ding2016], and rutile TiO$_2$ (100) [@Rebec2016]. These oxide substrates, terminated at TiO$_2$ surface when interfaced with FeSe, have lattice parameters significantly larger than that of bulk FeSe and thus apply strong tensile strain on FeSe thin films. The anatase and rutile TiO$_2$ substrates even induce rather different strains along $a$ and $b$ axes of the monolayer FeSe. The $T_c$’s, however, are consistently above $55{\mathrm{\; K}}$, as measured by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES). This observation appears to rule out a direct correlation between the enhanced superconductivity and the tensile strain [@Peng2014a; @Rebec2016].
The electronic structure of the interfaces displaying enhanced $T_c$’s are also remarkably similar across the various substrates. For instance, the Fermi surface measured by ARPES consists of only electron pockets at the corners of the two-Fe Brillouin zone, indicating substantial electron doping from the parent compound. This observation poses a challenge to theories for the high $T_c$ based on the pairing mediated by spin fluctuations that are strongly enhanced by Fermi surface nesting. One potential solution to this problem is the involvement of bands below the Fermi level in pairing (so-called incipient band pairing) [@Bang2014; @Chen2015; @Linscheid2016; @Mishra2016a]. Another possibility is the involvement of a different type of pairing mediator such as nematic fluctuations [@Kang2016] or phonons particular to the interface [@Coh2015; @Lee2014; @Wang2012a]. Evidence for the latter has been provided by the common observation of replica bands in the electronic structure of superconducting FeSe monolayers on [[SrTiO$_3$]{}]{} [@Lee2014; @Zhang2016a], [[BaTiO$_3$]{}]{} [@Peng2014a], and rutile TiO$_2$ [@Rebec2016].
The replica bands observed by ARPES are exact copies of the original bands crossing the Fermi level in momentum space but with a weaker spectral weight. They are interpreted as being generated by an electron-phonon ([[$e$-ph]{}]{}) interaction between the FeSe electrons and oxygen phonons in the substrate [@Lee2014; @Lee2015; @Rademaker2016]. This view is supported by the fact that the $\sim 100{\mathrm{\; meV}}$ energy offset between the primary and the replica band coincides with the phonon energy of oxygen modes in [[SrTiO$_3$]{}]{} [@Li2014], [[BaTiO$_3$]{}]{} [@yWang2016a], and TiO$_2$ [@Rebec2016]. Due to the particular properties of the interface [@Lee2015; @Kulic2017; @Zhou2016], this interaction is strongly peaked for forward scattering (i.e., peaked at small momentum $|{{\mathbf{q}}}|$ transfer), as found by analyzing the electrostatic potential from the dipole induced by the oxygen modes [@Lee2014; @Lee2015; @Kulic2017] and by first-principles calculations [@yWang2016a; @Li2014; @Zhou2016]. This unique momentum structure accounts for the fact that the replicas sharply trace the dispersion of the primary band, which requires the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interactions be forward-focused. Such a coupling can also significantly enhance $T_c$, due to the linear dependence of $T_c$ on the dimensionless coupling constant $\lambda_m$ [@Rademaker2016; @Kulic2017], as opposed to the exponential dependence obtained for the usual BCS case. For example, assuming a narrow width $q_0$ for the forward scattering peak, some of the current authors found $\lambda_m\sim 0.15\text{--}0.2$ reproduces the measured spectral weight ratio between the replica band and the primary band and at the same time a $T_c\sim 60\text{--}70{\mathrm{\; K}}$ [@Rademaker2016]. Ref. has obtained similar results after extending this approach to a more realistic band structure.
Many aspects of the influence of the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interactions with strong forward scattering on electronic properties and superconductivity are summarized in Refs. . In comparison, there are no qualitative or quantitative studies of the phononic properties for the problem at hand. Here, we have carried out such a study to address two issues. First, Zhang *et al.* [@Zhang2016] recently measured the phonon linewidth of a $\sim 90{\mathrm{\; meV}}$ phonon mode penetrating from the [[SrTiO$_3$]{}]{} substrate into thin FeSe Films using high resolution electron energy loss spectroscopy (HREELS) and concluded a mode-specific [[$e$-ph]{}]{} coupling constant $\lambda\sim 0.25$. Not only does this echo the discovery of replica bands by the ARPES experiments in the same system, but it also calls for a theoretical consideration on the HREELS measurements. Doing so would corroborate both the total coupling strength and momentum dependence of the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} coupling in FeSe/STO system with those inferred from the ARPES measurements. Second, when a strong [[$e$-ph]{}]{} coupling is distributed over a subset of wave vectors, one expects tendencies towards charge-density-wave formation that can compete with superconductivity. Such tendencies will manifest themselves as Kohn anomalies in the phonon dispersion and broad phonon linewidths. One can, therefore, address this issue directly by examining the phononic self-energy.
Here, we examine the phonon linewidth due to [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interactions with strong forward scattering using the same model adopted in Ref. to study the electronic spectral function. We first describe the details of the model and method in Sec. \[sec:model\]. Next, in Sec. \[sec:analytical\] we give some analytical results for the normal state phonon properties in the *perfect* forward scattering limit, where the interaction is treated as a delta function at ${\bf q} = 0$. Our numerical results for both normal and superconducting state with finite $q_0$ are given in Sec. \[sec:numerical\]. Here, our results show that the forward focused peak in the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} coupling results in very broad phonon lineshapes. However, in Sec. \[sec:screened\_linewidth\] we reintroduce Coulomb screening, which subsequently undresses the phonon propagator and suppresses these effects. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:summary\] we summarize our results and make some concluding remarks in relation to the HREELS experiment of Zhang *et al.* [@Zhang2016]
Model and Method {#sec:model}
================
Our model Hamiltonian describes a single band model of FeSe electrons coupled to an optical phonon branch via a momentum-dependent coupling, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:elphHam}
H =
& \sum_{{{\mathbf{k}}},\sigma} \xi^{\phantom\dag}_{{\mathbf{k}}}c^\dag_{{{\mathbf{k}}},\sigma}c^{\phantom\dag}_{{{\mathbf{k}}},\sigma}
+ \sum_{{{\mathbf{q}}}} \omega^{\phantom\dag}_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left( b^\dag_{{{\mathbf{q}}}}b^{\phantom\dag}_{{\mathbf{q}}}+ \frac{1}{2}\right) \notag \\
& + \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{{{\mathbf{k}}},{{\mathbf{q}}},\sigma} g({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\mathbf{q}}})c^\dag_{{{\mathbf{k}}}+{{\mathbf{q}}},\sigma}
c^{\phantom\dag}_{{{\mathbf{k}}},\sigma} (b^\dag_{-{{\mathbf{q}}}} + b^{\phantom\dag}_{{\mathbf{q}}}).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $c^\dag_{{{\mathbf{k}}},\sigma}$ ($c^{\phantom\dag}_{{{\mathbf{k}}},\sigma}$) creates (annihilates) an electron with wavevector ${{\mathbf{k}}}$ and spin $\sigma$, $b^\dag_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ ($b^{\phantom\dag}_{{\mathbf{q}}}$) creates (annihilates) a phonon with wavevector ${{\mathbf{q}}}$; $\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ is the electronic band dispersion measured relative to the chemical potential $\mu$; $\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ is the phonon dispersion ($\hbar = 1$); and $g({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\mathbf{q}}})$ is the momentum dependent [[$e$-ph]{}]{} coupling.
We take a simple electronic band dispersion $\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}= -2t[\cos(k_x a)+\cos(k_y a)] - \mu$, where $a$ is the in-plane lattice constant. We set $t = 0.075{\mathrm{\; eV}}$ and $\mu = -0.235{\mathrm{\; eV}}$, which produces around $\Gamma$ point an electronlike Fermi pocket with $k_\text{F} = 0.97/a$, a Fermi velocity $v_\text{F} =
0.12{\mathrm{\; eV}}\cdot a/\hbar$ along the $k_y = 0$ line, and an effective electron band mass $m^{*}_{x,y} = \left(
\frac{\partial^2 \xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}}{\hbar^2\partial k_{x,y}^2} \right)_{{{\mathbf{k}}}=0}^{-1} = \frac{\hbar^2}{2ta^2} = 3.3 m_e$, which is similar to the electron pocket at the $M$ point in FeSe/STO seen in ARPES experiments [@Liu2012; @He2013; @Lee2014]. Since we have a single band model, it only takes a trivial $\mathbf{Q}=(\pi/a, \pi/a)$ shift to map our $\Gamma$-point pocket onto the electron pocket in the real system centered at the $M$ point and any physical quantities depending only on the momentum transfer ${{\mathbf{q}}}=
{{\mathbf{k}}}-{{\mathbf{k}}}'$, such as phonon linewidth, do not depend on the position of the pocket. Since we are not considering the effects of an unconventional pairing mechanism here, we do not need to consider the possibility of $d$-wave instabilities due to scattering between the electron pockets. As such, a single band model is sufficient for our purpose.
Throughout we approximate the experimental phonon dispersion with a dispersionless Einstein mode $\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}\approx \omega_\text{ph} = 100 {\mathrm{\; meV}}$ according to the observed energy separation between the replica band and the primary band [@Lee2014; @Rebec2016], as well as the phonon dispersion of the interface, as measured by HREELS [@Zhang2016]. We neglect the fermion momentum dependence in the coupling $g({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\mathbf{q}}})=g({{\mathbf{q}}})$, where ${{\mathbf{q}}}$ is the momentum transfer and adopt $g({{\mathbf{q}}})=g_0\sqrt{8\pi/(aq_0)^2}\exp(-|{{\mathbf{q}}}|/q_0)$ as derived from simple microscopic model [@Lee2014; @Lee2015; @Kulic2017]. Here, $g_0$ is adjusted to fix the total dimensionless coupling strength of the interaction and $q_0$ sets the range of the interaction in momentum space. The normalization factor $\sqrt{8\pi/(aq_0)^2}$ is chosen such that ${\langle}g^2({{\mathbf{q}}}) {\rangle}_{{\mathbf{q}}}\approx
g_0^2$ for $q_0\ll 2\pi$, where ${\langle}F_{{\mathbf{q}}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{q}}}= a^2\iint_\text{BZ} F_{{\mathbf{q}}}dq_x dq_y /(2\pi)^2$ denotes an momentum integral over the first Brillouin zone. We will typically set the in-plane lattice constant $a = 1$ below; however, we will occasionally write it out for clarity.
The values of $\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ and $g({{\mathbf{q}}})$ we use in the calculation include all the screening effect within the oxide substrate, but *none* from the FeSe film. Thus, we refer to them as the “bare” or “unscreened” quantities. In Sec. \[sec:screened\_linewidth\], we show that such a treatment is justified in calculating the electron self-energy using the “unscreened” phonon propagator *and* the “unscreened” coupling $g({{\mathbf{q}}})$, but it overestimates the phonon self-energy, especially the imaginary part (phonon linewidth) at ${{\mathbf{q}}}=0$, by overlooking the strong screening effect at ${{\mathbf{q}}}=0$ from the FeSe film. The difference between the fully screened phonon frequency $\omega_\text{ph}$ (by both the substrate and the FeSe film) and partially screened $\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ (only by the substrate itself) is small, however, so we do not distinguish them ($\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}\approx \omega_\text{ph}$) in sections \[sec:model\], \[sec:analytical\], and \[sec:numerical\]. Our calculation in Sec. \[sec:screened\_linewidth\] shows that the difference is within 10% for most parameters. The experimental measurements in Ref. on phonon frequency in [[SrTiO$_3$]{}]{} with and without FeSe deposited also support this conclusion.
![The Feynman diagram for the electron self-energy (a) and the phonon self-energy (b). The extra external legs (gray lines) are not part of self-energy but are attached for clarity. The lines (double-lines) with an arrow in the middle represent bare (dressed) electron propagators; the wiggly-lines (double-wiggly-lines) represent bare (dressed) phonon propagators. The gray triangle represents the vertex part. (c) The screened electron-phonon vertex, approximated by a series involving Coulomb interactions (dashed lines) and neglecting vertex corrections from the crossing diagrams.[]{data-label="fig:diagrams"}](fig_diagrams.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
The electron and phonon self-energies due to [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction are calculated using Migdal-Eliashberg theory, where the vertex part $\Gamma({{\rm i}}\omega_n,{{\mathbf{k}}};{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu,{{\mathbf{q}}})$ is approximated with the zeroth order vertex function $g({{\mathbf{q}}})$. Here, $\omega_n$ ($\omega_\nu$) is the fermionic (bosonic) Matsubara frequency. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]. As discussed in Ref. , in the forward scattering limit the vertex corrections are of order $\lambda_m$, and can thus be neglected in the weak coupling regime $\lambda_m \sim 0.15\text{--}0.25$ considered here. (Here, $\lambda_m$ measures the Fermi surface average of the mass enhancement due to the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction, see Ref. .) Note that the vertex correction is independent of the adiabatic parameter $\omega_\text{ph}/E_\text{F}$, in contrast to the standard Migdal’s approximation for $|\omega_\nu|/|{{\mathbf{q}}}| \ll v_\text{F}$. (The vertex correction is always proportional to $\lambda_m$ for either $|\omega_\nu|/|{{\mathbf{q}}}| \ll v_\text{F}$ or $|\omega_\nu|/|{{\mathbf{q}}}| \gtrsim v_\text{F}$ [@yWang2016], so our argument also applies for the forward-focused [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction.) There are alternative treatments that do not make use of Migdal’s approximation [@Gorkov2016; @Chubukov2016; @Rosenstein2016] in the nonadiabatic regime for momentum independent interaction $g({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\mathbf{q}}}) = g_0$. These approaches are beyond the scope of this work, which instead focuses on a momentum dependent interaction. Furthermore, we calculate the dressed electron Green’s function (electron propagator) from the self-energy using the bare phonon Green’s function (phonon propagator) \[see Fig. \[fig:diagrams\](a)\] and then insert this into the bubble diagram for the phonon self-energy \[see Fig. \[fig:diagrams\](b)\]. This approach is the so-called “unrenormalized Migdal-Eliashberg” scheme [@Marsiglio1990], where the phonon self-energy is not fed back into the electron self-energy self-consistently. As we will show in section \[sec:screened\_linewidth\], this treatment is justified when one includes the Coulomb screening of the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction in the problem.
Adopting Nambu’s 2-spinor scheme, the electron self-energy $\hat{\Sigma}({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n) =
{{\rm i}}\omega_n[1-Z({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n)]\hat{\tau}_0 +\chi({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n)\hat{\tau}_3 +\phi({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n)\hat{\tau}_1$ and the dressed electron Green’s function $\hat{G}^{-1}({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n) =
{{\rm i}}\omega_n\hat{\tau}_0 - \xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}\hat{\tau}_3 - \hat{\Sigma}({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n)$ are matrices in Nambu space with $\hat{\tau}_i$ being the Pauli matrices; $\omega_n = (2n+1) \pi/\beta$ are fermionic Matsubara frequencies with $\beta = 1/T$ the inverse temperature ($k_\text{B}=1$); $Z({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n)$ and $\chi({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n)$ renormalize the single-particle mass and band dispersion, respectively; and $\phi({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n)$ is the anomalous self-energy. The electron self-energy is self-consistently calculated from the one-loop diagram in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\](a) as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Sigma}({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n)
= & -\frac{1}{N\beta}\sum_{{{\mathbf{q}}},\nu} \Big[ |g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2 D_0({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu) \notag \\
& \hat{\tau}_3\hat{G}({{\mathbf{k}}}-{{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_n - {{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)\hat{\tau}_3 \Big], \label{eq:elselfE}\end{aligned}$$ where $D_0({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu) = -\frac{2\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}}{\omega^2_{{\mathbf{q}}}+ \omega_\nu^2}$ is the “bare” phonon propagator.
Once we obtain the electron Green’s function self-consistently, the polarization bubble in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\](b) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
P({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)
= & \frac{1}{N\beta}\sum_{{{\mathbf{k}}},n}{\operatorname{Tr}}\Big[ \hat{\tau}_3\hat{G}({{\mathbf{k}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_{n})\hat{\tau}_3 \notag\\
& \hat{G}({{\mathbf{k}}}-{{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_{n}-{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu) \Big]\label{eq:ePoltr},\end{aligned}$$ and $\Pi({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu) = |g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2 P({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)$ is the phonon self-energy and $\gamma({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega) = -{\operatorname{Im}}\Pi({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu\to \omega+{{\rm i}}\eta)$ is the phonon linewidth, which has been analytically continued to the real frequency axis. To perform the analytic continuation we use the spectral representation of the dressed Green’s function $$\begin{aligned}
&{\operatorname{Im}}\Pi({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega)
= -|g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2\pi \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega' \Bigg\{
\left[n_\text{F}(\omega' - \omega) - n_\text{F}(\omega') \right] \notag\\
&\quad\quad \frac{1}{N}\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}}{\operatorname{Tr}}\left[ \hat{\tau}_3\hat{A}({{\mathbf{k}}},\omega' - \omega)
\hat{\tau}_3\hat{A}({{\mathbf{k}}}+{{\mathbf{q}}},\omega') \right]
\Bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ where $n_\text{F}(x) =1/(e^{\beta x} + 1) $ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}({{\mathbf{k}}},\omega) = -\frac{1}{\pi}{\operatorname{Im}}\hat{G}({{\mathbf{k}}},\omega+i\eta). \label{eq:AG}\end{aligned}$$ $\hat{G}({{\mathbf{k}}},\omega+i\eta)$ is obtained by the same iterative analytic continuation method [@Marsiglio1988] we used in Ref. .
Finally, we find the dressed phonon propagator using $$\begin{aligned}
D({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega) &= \frac{2\omega_\text{ph}}{\omega^2-\omega_\text{ph}^2 + 2{{\rm i}}\gamma({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega)\omega_\text{ph}},\end{aligned}$$ and phonon spectral function $$\begin{aligned}
B({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega) &= -\frac{1}{\pi} {\operatorname{Im}}D({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega).\end{aligned}$$
In the numerical calculations, we solve the electron self-energy self-consistently on a $256\times 256$ $k$-grid. The convergence for the self-energy is reached if the difference of the self-energies from two consecutive iterations is less than $10^{-3}{\mathrm{\; meV}}$. The small imaginary part included in the iterative analytic continuation is $\eta = 3{\mathrm{\; meV}}$.
Analytical Results for the Perfect Forward Scattering case {#sec:analytical}
==========================================================
We begin by examining the perfect forward scattering limit, where several analytical results can be obtained. Here, we consider only the normal state in the low-temperature limit ($T_c < T \ll |\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}|$), because many qualitative features of the phonon linewidth are already manifested there.
For a normal metal with a parabolic band $\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}= \frac{k^2}{2m}-E_\text{F}$, i.e., electron gas in three-dimensions (3D), the analytical result of Eq. (\[eq:ePoltr\]) is the Lindhard function [@Fetter2003]. The corresponding result for electron gas in two-dimension (2D) is given in Refs. . Without the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction, we can apply the 2D electron gas result to our single band model, due to the small size of the Fermi pocket from the band dispersion $\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}=
-2t[\cos(k_x a)+\cos(k_y a)] - \mu \approx \frac{k^2}{2m^{*}}-E_\text{F}$, where $k=|{{\mathbf{k}}}|=\sqrt{k_x^2 +
k_y^2}$, $m^{*}=\frac{1}{2t}$, $E_\text{F} = \frac{k^2_\text{F}}{2m^{*}}$, and $k_\text{F} =
\sqrt{4+\frac{\mu}{t}}$. This approximate band dispersion is exact at the band bottom and suitable for small $k$. With this approximation, the imaginary part of the electron polarization without [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction is $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Im}}P_0({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega) =& -\frac{N_\text{F}}{\tilde{q}}
\Big[ \Theta(1-\nu_{-}^2)\sqrt{1-\nu_{-}^2} \notag \\
&- \Theta(1-\nu_{+}^2)\sqrt{1-\nu_{+}^2} \Big],
\label{eq:ePol0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{q}=|{{\mathbf{q}}}|/k_\text{F}$, $\nu_{\pm} = \omega/(2E_\text{F} \tilde{q}) \pm \tilde{q}/2$, $N_\text{F}
= m^{*}/\pi$ is density of states of two spins, and the step-function $\Theta(x)=1$ for $x>0$ and $\Theta(x)=0$ for $x<0$.
With the inclusion of the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction, the self-energy in Eq. (\[eq:elselfE\]) is nonzero but diagonal in the normal state. In the perfect forward scattering limit $|g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2 = g_0^2 (N\delta_{{{\mathbf{q}}},0}) =
\lambda_m \omega_\text{ph}^2 (N\delta_{{{\mathbf{q}}},0})$, where $\lambda_m \equiv {\langle}|g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2
{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{q}}}/\omega_\text{ph}^2 = g_0^2/\omega_\text{ph}^2$. The $(1,1)$-element of the self-energy is then given by [@Rademaker2016] $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma({{\mathbf{k}}}, {{\rm i}}\omega_n) &= \cfrac{a\omega^2_\text{ph}}{ {{\rm i}}\omega_n-\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}-b\omega_\text{ph}
- \cfrac{\omega^2_\text{ph}(1-b^2)}{{{\rm i}}\omega_n-\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}+b\omega_\text{ph}} },\end{aligned}$$ where $a=\lambda_m/\tanh\frac{\beta\omega_\text{ph}}{2}$ and $b=\tanh\frac{\beta\omega_\text{ph}}{2}
\tanh\frac{\beta\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}}{2}$. Using this self-energy and Dyson’s equation, we find that at low temperatures ($T\ll |\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}|$ and $T\ll \omega_\text{ph}$), the dressed Green’s function acquires a two-pole form $$\begin{aligned}
G({{\mathbf{k}}}, {{\rm i}}\omega_n) = \frac{A_\text{M}}{{{\rm i}}\omega_n-\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}^\text{M}} + \frac{A_\text{R}}{{{\rm i}}\omega_n-\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}^\text{R}},
\label{eq:GreenMRa}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_\text{M,R} = (\sqrt{1+4\lambda_m}\pm 1)/(2\sqrt{1+4\lambda_m})$ and $\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}^\text{M,R} =
\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}+\frac{1}{2}{\operatorname{sgn}}(\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}) \omega_\text{ph}(1 \mp \sqrt{1+4\lambda_m})$. Here, “M” and “R” denote the main and replica band, respectively. To simplify the calculation, we shift the two bands by the same energy $-\frac{1}{2}{\operatorname{sgn}}(\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}) \omega_\text{ph}(1 - \sqrt{1+4\lambda_m})$ (which is small if $\lambda_m
\ll 1$), and the dressed Green’s function becomes $$\begin{aligned}
G({{\mathbf{k}}}, {{\rm i}}\omega_n) = \frac{A_\text{M}}{{{\rm i}}\omega_n-\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}} + \frac{A_\text{R}}{{{\rm i}}\omega_n-\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}^\text{R}},
\label{eq:GreenMRb}\end{aligned}$$ where the shifted $\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}^\text{R} = \xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}+{\operatorname{sgn}}(\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}})\Delta\omega$ and $\Delta\omega =
\omega_\text{ph}\sqrt{1+4\lambda_m}$. Here, $A_\text{M} + A_\text{R} = 1$. Physically, Eq. (\[eq:GreenMRb\]) clearly indicates that the replica band exactly follows the dispersion of the main band, and its energy offset from the main band is $+\Delta\omega$ ($-\Delta\omega$) for the part of the main band above (below) the Fermi level.
![Normalized imaginary part of the electron polarization $-{\operatorname{Im}}P(q,\omega)/N_\text{F}$ without [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction (a) and with forward scattering [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction (b). $\lambda_m=0.16$ is used in panel (b). The parabolic band approximation for FeSe/STO model $\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}}\approx \frac{k^2}{2m^{*}} - E_\text{F}$ is assumed, so $P(q=|{{\mathbf{q}}}|,\omega)$ is isotropic in momentum space. $k_\text{F} \approx 1/a$, $v_\text{F} \approx 0.1
{\mathrm{\; eV}}\cdot\frac{a}{\hbar}$, $E_\text{F} \approx 0.05{\mathrm{\; eV}}$, and $\omega_\text{ph} = 0.1{\mathrm{\; eV}}$.[]{data-label="fig:imPolT0"}](fig_imPolT0.pdf){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
Using Eq. (\[eq:GreenMRb\]), the imaginary part of the electron polarization with the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction in perfect forward scattering limit can be expressed in terms of the noninteracting electron polarization as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&{\operatorname{Im}}P({{\mathbf{q}}}, \omega)
= A_\text{M}^2 {\operatorname{Im}}P_0({{\mathbf{q}}}, \omega)
\notag\\
&+ 2A_\text{M} A_\text{R}
{\operatorname{Im}}P_0\left({{\mathbf{q}}}, \omega-{\operatorname{sgn}}(\omega)\Delta\omega \right)\Theta\left(|\omega|-\Delta\omega\right)
\notag\\
&+ A_\text{R}^2
{\operatorname{Im}}P_0\left({{\mathbf{q}}}, \omega-{\operatorname{sgn}}(\omega)2\Delta\omega\right)\Theta\left(|\omega|-2\Delta\omega\right).
\label{eq:ePol}\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\operatorname{sgn}}(\omega)$ is the sign of $\omega$. Equation (\[eq:ePol\]) is also a good approximation when the coupling function $g({{\mathbf{q}}})\propto \exp\left(-|{{\mathbf{q}}}|/q_0 \right)$ has a sharp peak ($q_0\ll \pi/a$). Then, the phonon linewidth is given by $\gamma({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega) = -|g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2{\operatorname{Im}}P({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega)$.
In Fig. \[fig:imPolT0\] we show $-{\operatorname{Im}}P({\bf q},\omega)$ calculated from Eq. (\[eq:ePol0\]) and from Eq. (\[eq:ePol\]) in panel (a) and (b), respectively. Fig. \[fig:imPolT0\](a) manifests the electron-hole continuum for 2D electron gas at low temperature, while Fig. \[fig:imPolT0\](b) shows multiple scattering processes at low temperature corresponding to the three terms in Eq. (\[eq:ePol\]): one within the main band for $|\omega|>0$ that represents the original electron-hole continuum, one between the main and replica band for $|\omega| > \Delta\omega = \omega_\text{ph}\sqrt{1+4\lambda_m}$, and one within the replica band for $|\omega| > 2\Delta\omega$, in a descending order of weights ($A_\text{M}^2$, $2A_\text{M} A_\text{R}$, and $A_\text{R}^2$). As shown in Fig. \[fig:imPolT0\](b), at the fixed frequency $\omega = \omega_\text{ph}$, the magnitude of the imaginary part of the electron polarization has a sharp upturn at a finite momentum, leading to a peak that slowly decreases at larger momentum. This qualitative feature persists in the full numerical result in the next section. Note that since the coupling constant is a delta function, the phonon linewidth $\gamma({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega)$ is zero at all ${\bf q}$ values despite the fact that the polarization $P({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega)$ is nonzero.
Numerical Results {#sec:numerical}
=================
We now turn to the polarization and phonon linewidth for the case of an [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction with a small but nonzero width in momentum space. Figure \[fig:imPphT\] shows the imaginary part of the electron polarization $-{\operatorname{Im}}P({\bf q},\omega)$ and the phonon linewidth $\gamma_{\bf q}=-{\operatorname{Im}}\Pi({\bf
q},\omega_\text{ph})$ for various temperatures. Here, we have parameterized the total [[$e$-ph]{}]{} coupling using the double Fermi-surface averaged definition $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda = \frac{2}{\omega_\text{ph} \bar{N}_\text{F}N^2} \sum_{{{\mathbf{k}}},{{\mathbf{k}}}'} |g({{\mathbf{k}}}-{{\mathbf{k}}}')|^2 \delta(\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}})\delta(\xi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}'}),
\label{eq:lambda}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{N}_\text{F}$ is the density of states per spin and $N^{-2}\sum_{{{\mathbf{k}}},{{\mathbf{k}}}'}
\delta(\xi_{{\mathbf{k}}})\delta(\xi_{{{\mathbf{k}}}'}) = \bar{N}^2_\text{F}$. We have used this definition because the ${{\mathbf{q}}}$-averaged $\lambda_m = {\langle}|g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2 {\rangle}_{{\mathbf{q}}}/\omega_\text{ph}^2 = g_0^2/\omega_\text{ph}^2$ equals the mass enhancement factor $\left. -{\operatorname{Re}}\frac{\partial\Sigma(\omega)}{\partial\omega}\right|_{\omega=0}$ only in the limit of perfect forward scattering, while $\lambda$ approximates the mass enhancement factor when the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction is more uniform. The latter case occurs for the larger values of $q_0$ used in Fig. \[fig:imPphT\]. In addition, $\lambda$ as defined in Eq. (\[eq:lambda\]) does not depend on temperature where as $\lambda_m$ does. Empirically, we find $\lambda_m \propto (q_0a)\lambda$ (see Ref. for the proportionality constant), which can be used to approximately convert between the two definitions. In Fig. \[fig:imPphT\] we have set $\lambda=0.8$, which is equivalent to $\lambda_m=0.16$ for $q_0=0.1/a$ and within the suitable range of values that simultaneously fit both high $T_c$ value and the measured spectral weight of the replica bands [@Rademaker2016].
At low temperature and $\omega=\omega_\text{ph}$, the imaginary part of the polarization in Fig. \[fig:imPphT\](a) has a peak appearing at $|{{\mathbf{q}}}|=\sqrt{2m^{*}\omega_\text{ph}}$, which is a feature of the electron-hole continuum; with increasing temperature, the $-{\operatorname{Im}}P({{\mathbf{q}}}=0,\omega_\text{ph})$ increases, and the rate of increase is faster for smaller values of $q_0$. The phonon linewidth, shown in Fig. \[fig:imPphT\](b), strongly peaks at ${{\mathbf{q}}}=0$ for $q_0=0.1$ because the forward scattering coupling $g({{\mathbf{q}}})$ strongly suppresses the peak in the polarizability appearing at the finite $|{{\mathbf{q}}}|$. As the value of $q_0$ increases, however, the width of $g({{\mathbf{q}}})$ begins to overlap with the peak in the polarization, and a corresponding peak in the linewidth recovers at nonzero ${{\mathbf{q}}}$. In this case, both the temperature and the width of the coupling function $g({{\mathbf{q}}})$ dictate the full ${{\mathbf{q}}}$ dependence of the phonon linewidth. Thus, due to its sensitivity to these parameters, the momentum dependence of the phonon linewidth can be used to determine not only the overall strength of the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction but also the width of the coupling function.
![(a) Momentum and temperature dependence of the imaginary part of the electron polarization $-{\operatorname{Im}}P(q,\omega)$ for a fixed frequency $\omega = \omega_\text{ph}$ and various momentum width parameters $q_0=0.1$, $0.5$, $1$, and $2$ in the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} coupling function $g({{\mathbf{q}}})\propto \exp(-|{{\mathbf{q}}}|/q_0)$. The double Fermi-surface averaged coupling constant (defined in the text) is fixed at $\lambda = 0.8$. The colors (gray scales) of lines represent low (blue) to high (red) temperatures. (b) Similar to (a) but for phonon linewidth $\gamma({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega) = -{\operatorname{Im}}\Pi({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega) = -|g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2{\operatorname{Im}}P({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega)$.[]{data-label="fig:imPphT"}](fig_imPphT.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
To reproduce the replica bands observed in the ARPES experiments, the width of the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} coupling must be narrow in momentum space with $q_0 \approx 0.1/a\text{--}0.5/a$. Based on this observation, and the results shown in Fig. \[fig:imPphT\], one might expect that the phonon linewidth in the vicinity of ${{\mathbf{q}}}= 0$ should be very large. In turn, the real part of the phonon self-energy will also develop significant Kohn anomaly, leading to an instability of the lattice. It turns out that the Coulomb interaction will prevent this from occurring, as the divergence in the Coulomb interaction at ${{\mathbf{q}}}= 0$ effectively blocks the long-wavelength instability. We will discuss this issue in the next section.
Undressing of the phonon linewidth due to Coulombic Screening {#sec:screened_linewidth}
=============================================================
In this section we examine the effects of Coulomb screening by the FeSe electrons on the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} vertex and the phonon linewidth. Fig. \[fig:diagrams\](c) shows the diagramatic expansion of the [*screened*]{} [[$e$-ph]{}]{} vertex evaluated at the level of the random phase approximation. The screened vertex is $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{g}({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)
&= g({{\mathbf{q}}}) + g({{\mathbf{q}}})\left[-V_C({{\mathbf{q}}})\chi_0({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)\right] \notag \\
&\quad + g({{\mathbf{q}}})\left[-V_C({{\mathbf{q}}})\chi_0({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)\right]^2+\dots \notag \\
&= \frac{g({{\mathbf{q}}})}{1+V_C({{\mathbf{q}}})\chi_0({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_0({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu) = -P({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)$ is the charge susceptibility and $V_C({{\mathbf{q}}})$ is the Fourier transform of the Coulomb potential. In the contiuum limit, $V_C({{\mathbf{q}}}) = \frac{4\pi e^2}{|{{\mathbf{q}}}|^2}$ in three dimensions (3D) and $V_C({{\mathbf{q}}}) = \frac{2\pi e^2}{|{{\mathbf{q}}}|}$ in two dimensions (2D). The corresponding phonon self-energy is obtained by replacing the vertex function with the screened vertex with $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)
&= g({{\mathbf{q}}})\left[\bar{g}({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)\right]^* \left[-\chi_0({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu) \right] \notag \\
&= \frac{-|g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2 \chi_0({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu) }{1+V_C({{\mathbf{q}}})\chi_0({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)},\end{aligned}$$ where we have assumed $V_C({{\mathbf{q}}})\chi_0({{\mathbf{q}}},{{\rm i}}\omega_\nu)$ is real.
Here, we are interested in the case of an FeSe monolayer located a distance $h$ above the oxide substrate. We place the FeSe electrons at $z = 0$ and the ions in the termination layer of the substrate at $z = -h$. For this geometry, we introduce an anisotropic Coulomb potential [@Aristov2006] $$\begin{aligned}
V_C(q,q_z) &= \frac{4\pi e^2}{\epsilon_a q^2 + \epsilon_c q^2_z},\end{aligned}$$ where $q = \sqrt{q_x^2 + q_y^2}$ is the momentum transfer a plane parallel to the FeSe monolayer, and $\epsilon_a$ and $\epsilon_c$ are the zero-frequency dielectric constants parallel and perpendicular to the plane. By inverse Fourier transform, the real space formula is $$\begin{aligned}
V_C(x,y,z) &= \frac{e^2}{\sqrt{\epsilon_a\epsilon_c}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2 + \bar{z}^2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $r^2 = x^2 + y^2$ and $\bar{z} = (\epsilon_a/\epsilon_c)z^2$. After performing the 2D fourier transforming for the in-plane coordinates we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
V_C(q,z) &= \frac{2\pi e^2}{\sqrt{\epsilon_a\epsilon_c}}\frac{e^{-q|\bar{z}|}}{q}.\end{aligned}$$ To compute the screened [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction, we must use the interaction at $z = 0$ for the Coulomb potential since the particle-hole pairs are created in the FeSe layer. Putting this all together, the phonon linewidth is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega) &= \frac{\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}}{\omega_\text{ph}}
{\operatorname{Im}}\frac{|g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2\chi_0({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega)}{1+V_C(q,z=0)\chi_0({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega)/a^2}
\label{eq:screened_gamma}\end{aligned}$$ where we define the “unscreened" phonon energy as $\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}= \sqrt{\omega_\text{ph}^2 + [{\operatorname{Re}}\Pi({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega)]^2} - {\operatorname{Re}}\Pi({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega)$.
![The phonon linewidth $\gamma({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega=\omega_\text{ph})$ along a high symmetry path $M$-$\Gamma$-$X$-$M$ at $T = 30$ K. Results are shown for (a) $\epsilon_a = 1 = \epsilon_c$ and (b) $\epsilon_a = 25$, $\epsilon_c = 1$. The line color (gray scale) encodes the different values of $\lambda=0.2$, $0.4$, $0.6$, and $0.8$, as indicated by the color bar.[]{data-label="fig:screened_gamma"}](fig_gmq_wphT30K_Vc2D.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
We evaluated Eq. (\[eq:screened\_gamma\]) for several values of $q_0$ and $\lambda$, and the results are shown in Fig. \[fig:screened\_gamma\]. Since the exact values of the dielectric constants are not known for the FeSe interface systems, we show results for $\epsilon_a = \epsilon_c = 1$ in Fig. \[fig:screened\_gamma\](a) and $\epsilon_a = 25$, $\epsilon_c = 1$ in Fig. \[fig:screened\_gamma\](b). Note that the latter values are close to the estimates obtained by Kuli[ć]{} and Dolgov (Ref. ) in the limit of perfect forward scattering. In both cases, we find that the phonon linewidth is dramatically suppressed once Coulomb screening is included; however, as the values of $\epsilon_a$ and $\epsilon_c$ are increased, the magnitude of the linewidth increases. These results indicate that the long-range Coulomb interaction prevents the formation of a competing charge ordering at long-wavelengths, which is consistent with the notion that extend Coulomb interactions can suppress insulating behavior [@Poilblanc1997]. Our results also show that this effect will be somewhat senstive to the dielectric properties of the interface, which may offer a means to tune these properties. Finally, the undressing of the phonon linewidth observed here also provides a rationale for adopting an unrenormalized Migdal-Eliashberg scheme, where the phonon self-energy is not fed back into the electron self-energy in a self-consistent manner. In this case, the calculated phonon self-energy is small, justifying the use of the bare phonon propagator in the electron self-energy diagrams.
Comparing our results to the recent RHEELS measurements by Zhang *et al.* [@Zhang2016], we find that once the Coulomb screening is included, the computed linewidths are much smaller than those inferred experimentally. Moreover, in the experimental data, the linewidth is finite at $\Gamma$ point and maximal around $X$ point. Our calculated linewidth is exactly zero at $\Gamma$ point because the screening from the Coulomb potential diverges at ${{\mathbf{q}}}= 0$. However, we have not considered any impurity potential in our calculation, or other sources of broadening in the electron Green’s function, and, subsequently, the phonon linewidth once the charge susceptibility $\chi_0$ is computed. Regardless, $X$ point is not the maximal point for the linewidth in any of our calculation results. This discrepancy could also be due to the limitation of our single band model. The real system is multiband in nature and also shows strong magnetic fluctuations.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:summary}
=======================
In this paper, we have calculated the phonon linewidth, i.e., the imaginary part of the phonon self-energy in an unrenormalized Migdal-Eliashberg scheme in the weak to intermediate coupling regime for strong forward scattering [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction. Such an [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction dresses the electron propagator by simply creating the replica bands and shuffles the electron-hole continuum of 2D electron gas into three similar parts with descending weights beginning at $|\omega|>0$, $|\omega|>\Delta\omega$, and $|\omega|>2\Delta\omega$. If we do not include Coulomb screening, the phonon linewidth is a simple product of coupling function $|g({{\mathbf{q}}})|^2$ with a forward scattering peak around ${{\mathbf{q}}}=0$ and the electron polarization with a very similar momentum structure of the electron-hole continuum of 2D electron gas. Depending on the peak width $q_0$ of the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} coupling constant $g({{\mathbf{q}}})$ and the peak of electron polarization at $|{{\mathbf{q}}}|=\sqrt{2m^{*}\omega_\text{ph}}$, we find the linewidth $\gamma({{\mathbf{q}}},\omega_\text{ph})$ has a maximum value at ${{\mathbf{q}}}=0$ or $|{{\mathbf{q}}}| \approx
\sqrt{2m^{*}\omega_\text{ph}}$ at low temperature, and the linewidth is broad at ${{\mathbf{q}}}= 0$. Even if the latter happens, since the linewidth for small $|{{\mathbf{q}}}|$ tends to increase with temperature, the maximum may shift back to ${{\mathbf{q}}}=0$ at high temperature. The momentum resolved phonon spectral function at $\omega \approx
\omega_\text{ph}$ can be understood in the same picture.
The broad linewidths at ${{\mathbf{q}}}= 0$ would normally indicate an instability to a charge-ordered phase at long wavelengths. However, once the long-range Coulomb interaction screens the [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction we find that the phonons are undressed. Here, the anomalous broadening at ${{\mathbf{q}}}= 0$ is suppressed by the divergence in the Coulomb interaction at ${{\mathbf{q}}}= 0$ while the total phonon linewidth is reduced throughout the Brillioun zone. In this case, a small peak remains at nonzero momentum transfers; however, the magnitude of this peak is much smaller than the linewidths measured by HREELS [@Zhang2016]. Our results suggest that the broadening of the [[SrTiO$_3$]{}]{} phonons (with a maximum at $X$ point) observed by Zhang *et al.* are not due to the forward-focused [[$e$-ph]{}]{} coupling inferred from the ARPES measurements and are likely from some other source. To resolve the forward-focused [[$e$-ph]{}]{} interaction, the HREELS experiments should focus on smaller values of ${{\mathbf{q}}}$, which will be challenging given the large background signal at ${{\mathbf{q}}}= 0$.
We thank T. Berlijn, T. P. Devereaux, M. L. Kuli[ć]{}, E. W. Plummer, and D. J. Scalapino for useful discussions. L. R. acknowledges funding from the Dutch Science Foundation (NWO) via a Rubicon Fellowship and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY11-25915 and Grant No. NSF-KITP-17-019. S. J. is funded by the University of Tennessee’s Office of Research and Engagement’s Organized Research Unit program. Y. W. and E. D. are supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division. This research used computational resources supported by the University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Joint Institute for Computational Sciences.
[37]{}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 10.1073/pnas.0807325105) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0256-307X/29/i=3/a=037402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nmat4153) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature13894) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms6044) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.104510) [**** (), 10.1063/1.4950964](\doibase 10.1063/1.4950964) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.067001) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/16/i=2/a=023029) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.224514) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.077003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/srep32078) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.217003) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/17/i=7/a=073027) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1674-1056/24/i=11/a=117405) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/18/i=2/a=022001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4876750) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.134513) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/19/i=1/a=013020) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.224506) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0953-2048/29/i=5/a=054009) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.081116) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/ncomms1946) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.054517) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.174516) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.024505) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.42.2416) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.37.4965) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.546) @noop [**]{} (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.045124) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.56.R1645)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Time series prediction has been a long-standing research topic and an essential application in many domains. Modern time series collected from sensor networks (e.g., energy consumption and traffic flow) are often large-scale and incomplete with considerable corruption and missing values, making it difficult to perform accurate predictions. In this paper, we propose a low-rank autoregressive tensor completion (LATC) framework to model multivariate time series data. The key of LATC is to transform the original multivariate time series matrix (e.g., sensor$\times$time point) to a third-order tensor structure (e.g., sensor$\times$time of day$\times$day) by introducing an additional temporal dimension, which allows us to model the inherent rhythms and seasonality of time series as global patterns. With the tensor structure, we can transform the time series prediction and missing data imputation problems into a universal low-rank tensor completion problem. Besides minimizing tensor rank, we also integrate a novel autoregressive norm on the original matrix representation into the objective function. The two components serve different roles. The low-rank structure allows us to effectively capture the global consistency and trends across all the three dimensions (i.e., similarity among sensors, similarity of different days, and current time *v.s.* the same time of historical days). The autoregressive norm can better model the local temporal trends. Our numerical experiments on three real-world data sets demonstrate the superiority of the integration of global and local trends in LATC in both missing data imputation and rolling prediction tasks.'
author:
- |
Xinyu Chen\
McGill University\
`chenxy346@gmail.com`\
Lijun Sun\
McGill University\
`lijun.sun@mcgill.ca`\
bibliography:
- 'var.bib'
title: 'Low-Rank Autoregressive Tensor Completion for Multivariate Time Series Forecasting'
---
Introduction
============
Time series prediction serves as the foundation for a wide range of real-world applications and decision-making processes. Although the field of time series analysis has been developed for a long time, traditional time series models (e.g., autoregressive (AR), ARIMA, exponential smoothing) mainly focus on parametric models for small-scale problems [@hyndman2018forecasting]. However, the structure and properties of emerging “big” time series data have posed new challenges [@faloutsos2018forecasting]. In particular, modern time series data collected from field applications and sensor networks are often large-scale (e.g., time series from thousands of sensors), high-dimensional (e.g., matrix/tensor-variate sequences [@xiong2010temporal; @jing2018high]), and incomplete (even sparse) with considerable corruption and missing values. A critical challenge is to perform efficient and reliable predictions for large-scale time series with missing values [@yu2016temporal].
The fundamental of modeling of modern large-scale, high-dimensional time series is to effectively characterize the complex dependencies and correlations across different dimensions. Spatiotemporal data is an excellent example with complex dependencies/correlations across both spatial and temporal dimensions [@bahadori2014fast]. Taking traffic flow time series collected from a network of sensors as an example, we often observe clear spatial consistency (e.g., nearby sensors generate similar readings) and both long-term and short-term temporal trends and correlations [@li2015trend]. To model both long-term and short-term correlations, various neural sequence models have been developed [@yu2017long; @lai2018modeling; @li2019enhancing; @sen2019think]. However, these models cannot effectively deal with the missing data problem, and most of them requiring performing imputation as a preprocessing step, which may introduce potential bias. How to incorporate long-term/short-term patterns and sensor correlation in the presence of missing data remains an important research question.
To address data incompleteness, dimensionality reduction methods such as matrix/tensor factorization have been applied to model multivariate and high-order (matrix/tensor-variate) time series data [@xiong2010temporal; @yu2016temporal; @de2017tensorcast; @jing2018high; @sun2019bayesian]. To acquire prediction power, it is essential for these factorization-based models to impose certain time series structures on the latent layer. However, real-world time series data often have complex temporal structures beyond the simple AR model, exhibiting patterns at different scales and resolutions (weekly, daily, and hourly). For example, human behavior related time series (e.g., household energy consumption and highway traffic flow data) often simultaneously demonstrate long-term patterns at the daily and weekly levels and short-term perturbations. Clearly, these short-term and long-term patterns are critical to prediction tasks. Potential solutions to accommodate both of them are to introduce kernel structures in Gaussian process [@roberts2013gaussian] and to use the Hankel transformation following singular spectrum analysis and Hankel structured low-rank models [@golyandina2001analysis; @markovskylow]; however, the computational cost makes it challenging for large (number of sensors) and long (number of time points) multivariate time series data.
![Illustration of the proposed LATC imputer/predictor with a prediction window $\tau$ (green nodes: observed values; white nodes: missing values; red nodes/panel: prediction; blue panel: training data to construct the tensor). For example, if $\boldsymbol{Y}$ captures hourly traffic flow and the goal is perform prediction for the next $\tau=3$ hours, we can set $I=24$ and choose $J$ accordingly.[]{data-label="fig:key"}](predictor-explained.pdf)
In this paper, we propose a low-rank autoregressive tensor completion (LATC) framework to model large-scale multivariate time series with missing values. In LATC, the original multivariate time series matrix is transformed to a third-order tensor based on the most important seasonality, and thus both missing data imputation and future value prediction problems can be naturally translated to a universal tensor completion problem (see Figure \[fig:key\]). To achieve better prediction power, we use tensor nuclear norm minimization and truncated nuclear norm minimization to preserve the long-term/global trends. We then define a new autoregressive norm on the original matrix representation to characterize short-term/local trends. With this approach, all the observed data in tensor $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}$ will contribute to the final prediction (i.e., the red panel in Figure \[fig:key\]). We evaluate LATC on three real-world data sets for both missing data imputation and rolling prediction tasks, and compare it with several state-of-the-art approaches. Our numerical experiments show encouraging performance of LATC, suggesting that the model can effectively capture both global and local trends in time series data.
Related work
============
In this paper, we focus on developing low-rank models for large-scale multivariate time series data in the presence of missing values. Essentially, there are three types of approaches for this problem.
**Temporal factorization** Low-rank completion is a popular technique for collaborative filtering and missing data imputation. Some recent studies have used low-rank models for multivariate and high-order time series data [@xiong2010temporal; @yu2016temporal; @jing2018high; @sen2019think; @sun2019bayesian]. Essentially, these models require a well-designed generative mechanism on the temporal latent layer to achieve smoothing and to harness prediction power. For example, AR models are used to regularize factor matrix and core tensors in [@yu2016temporal; @sun2019bayesian] and [@jing2018high]. However, these models essentially only capture the global consistency/similarity among different time series, but they cannot effectively accommodate the global trends (daily/weekly patterns) on the temporal dimension. Therefore, a critical challenge is to design an effective temporal model, since AR might be too limited to capture periodic pattern at different scales.
**Hankel/delay embedding** Singular spectrum analysis (SSA) and Hankel structured low-rank completion are powerful approaches for time series analysis [@golyandina2001analysis; @markovskylow]. They are model-free approaches to detect spectral patterns at different scales in time series data. Essentially, SSA applies singular value decomposition (SVD) on the Hankel matrix obtained from the original univariate time series, and then uses those principle components to analyze the time series. The default SSA model is for univariate time series but it can be easily extended to the multivariate case. This approach can accomplish both missing data imputation and prediction tasks by performing low-rank completion on the Hankel matrix [@chen2014robust; @gillard2018structured; @agarwal2018model; @yokota2018missing; @zhang2019correction; @shi2020block]. However, such model is computationally expensive to model the Hankel matrices/tensors. It might be infeasible to deal with large and long multivariate time series.
**Tensor representation** Another approach is to fold a time series matrix into a tensor by introducing an additional “season” dimension (e.g., a third-order tensor with a “day” dimension). In fact, many real-world time series data resulted from human behavior/activities (e.g., traffic flow, customer demand, electricity consumption) exhibit both long-term and short-term patterns. Recent studies have used the tensor representation \[*sensor*$\times$*day*$\times$*time of day*\] to capture the patterns (e.g., [@figueiredo2013electrical; @tan2016short; @li2019tensor; @chen2020nonconvex]). The tensor representation also offers prediction ability by performing tensor completion [@tan2016short; @li2019tensor]. The tensor representation not only preserves the dependencies among sensors but also provides a new alternative to capture both local and global temporal patterns. These models have shown superiority over matrix-based models in missing data imputation tasks [@chen2020nonconvex].
Preliminaries
=============
#### Notations
We use boldface uppercase letters to denote matrices, e.g., $\boldsymbol{X}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$, boldface lowercase letters to denote vectors, e.g., $\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{M}$, and lowercase letters to denote scalars, e.g., $x$. Given a multivariate time series matrix $\boldsymbol{X}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ ($M$ sensors over $N$ time points), we use $\boldsymbol{X}_{[:t]}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times t}$ and $\boldsymbol{X}_{[t+1:]}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times (N-t)}$ to denote the submatrices of $\boldsymbol{X}$ that consist of the first $t$ columns and the last $N-t$ columns, respectively. Let $\boldsymbol{X}_{[t_1:t_2]}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times (t_2-t_1+1)}$ denote the submatrix of $\boldsymbol{X}$ formed by columns $t_1$ to $t_2$ and $\boldsymbol{x}_t$ denote the vector at time $t$. We denote the $(m,n)$th entry in $\boldsymbol{X}$ by $x_{m,n}$. The Frobenius norm of $\boldsymbol{X}$ is defined as $\|\boldsymbol{X}\|_{F}=\sqrt{\sum_{m,n}x_{m,n}^{2}}$. The nuclear norm (NN) is defined as $\|\boldsymbol{X}\|_{*}=\sum_{i=1}^{\min\{M,N\}}\sigma_i$, where $\sigma_i$ denotes the $i$th largest singular value of $\boldsymbol{X}$. The truncated nuclear norm (TNN) of $\boldsymbol{X}$ is defined as the sum of the $\left(\min\{M,N\}-\theta\right)$ smallest singular values, i.e., $\|\boldsymbol{X}\|_{\theta,*}=\sum_{i=\theta+1}^{\min\{M,N\}} \sigma_i$. The $\ell_2$-norm of $\boldsymbol{x}$ is defined as $\|\boldsymbol{x}\|_{2}=\sqrt{\sum_{m}x_{m}^{2}}$. We denote a third-order tensor by $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times I\times J}$ and the $k$th-mode ($k=1,2,3$) unfolding of $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}$ by $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)}$ [@kolda2009tensor]. Correspondingly, we define a folding operator that converts a matrix to a third-order tensor in the $k$th-mode as $\operatorname{fold}_{k}(\cdot)$; thus, we have $\operatorname{fold}_{k}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)})=\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}$.
#### Low-rank matrix/tensor completion
The low-rank matrix completion (LRMC) model imposes an underlying low-rank structure to recover an incomplete matrix. Given a partially observed matrix $\boldsymbol{Y}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ with an index set $\Omega$ of observed entries, LRMC can be formulated as: $$\begin{aligned}
\min _{\boldsymbol{X}}~&\operatorname{rank}(\boldsymbol{X}) \\ \text { s.t.}~& \mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{X})=\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{Y}), \\
\end{aligned}
\label{equ:lrmc}$$ where $\boldsymbol{X}$ is the recovered matrix. The symbol $\operatorname{rank}(\cdot)$ denotes the rank of a given matrix. The operator $\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}:\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}\mapsto\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ is an orthogonal projection supported on $\Omega$: $$\notag
[\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{X})]_{m,n}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
x_{m,n}, & \text{if $(m,n)\in\Omega$,} \\
0, & \text{otherwise}. \\
\end{array}\right.$$ Problem is NP-hard. A convex relaxation is to use $\|\boldsymbol{X}\|_{*}$ as a surrogate for the rank function [@recht2010guaranteed]. Low-rank tensor completion (LRTC) extends LRMC to higher-order tensors. Ref. [@liu2013tensor] defines the tensor nuclear norm as the weighted sum of NNs of all the unfolded matrices, i.e., $\|\boldsymbol{\cal{X}}\|_* = \sum_k \alpha_k \|\boldsymbol{\cal{X}}_{(k)}\|_*$, where $\alpha_k$s are non-negative weight parameters with $\sum_{k}\alpha_k=1$.
#### Autoregressive model of time series
Autoregressive model is a standard statistical model for time series. Given a time series matrix $\boldsymbol{X}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$, the vector autoregressive (VAR) model gives $$\boldsymbol{x}_t = \sum_{i} \boldsymbol{A}_i \boldsymbol{x}_{t-h_i} + {\epsilon}_{t},
\label{auto_regressive}$$ where $\mathcal{H}=\{h_1,\ldots,h_d\}$ is a set of time lags, $\boldsymbol{A}_{i}$ is a coefficients matrix for lag $h_i$, and $\epsilon_{mt}$s are Gaussian noises. VAR can capture the dependencies among different time series, but in the meanwhile it has a large number of parameters $M\times M\times d$. We can also model each individual time series follows an independent autoregressive model as ${x}_{m,t}=\sum_{i}{a}_{m,i}{x}_{m,t-h_i}+{\epsilon}_{m,t}$, and this reduces the coefficients to a matrix $\boldsymbol{A}=[a_{m,i}]\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times d}$.
Low-rank autoregressive tensor completion
=========================================
In this section, we introduce the low-rank autoregressive tensor completion (LATC) framework to impute missing values and predict future values of a multivariate time series matrix $\boldsymbol{Y}$. The setting of LATC is essentially the same as in TRMF [@yu2016temporal] and BTMF [@sun2019bayesian]. The two models introduce an autoregressive regularizer (on the temporal factor matrix $\boldsymbol{X}$) to characterize temporal dynamics when factorizing matrix $\boldsymbol{Y}\approx \boldsymbol{F}\boldsymbol{X}$. The learned autoregressive regularizer enables us perform prediction on the temporal factor matrix $\boldsymbol{X}$ to get $\boldsymbol{X}_{\text{new}}$, and then the final prediction can be obtained by $\boldsymbol{Y}_{\text{new}} = \boldsymbol{F}\boldsymbol{X}_{\text{new}}$. A fundamental challenge in factorization-based time series models is to design the structural model to effectively capture both long-term and short-term temporal dependencies.
The key idea of the proposed LATC model is to transform the **matrix-based prediction/imputation** problem to a universal low-rank **tensor completion** problem (see the illustration in Figure \[fig:key\]). Our main motivation to transform the time series matrix to a tensor is that many real-world time series, such as traffic flow and energy consumption data, are characterized by both long-term/global trends and short-term/local trends [@li2015trend]. The long-term trends refer to certain periodic, seasonal, and cyclical patterns. For example, traffic flow data over 24 hours on a typical weekday often shows a systematic “M” shape resulted from travelers’ behavioral rhythms, with two peaks during morning and evening rush hours [@lai2018modeling]. The pattern also exists at the weekly level with substantial differences from weekdays to weekends. The short-term trends capture certain temporary volatility/perturbation that deviates from the global patterns (e.g., due to incident/event). The short-term trends seem more “random”, but they are common and ubiquitous in reality. LATC leverages both global and local patterns by using a tensor structure. As shown in Figure \[fig:key\], the first step of LATC is to convert the multivariate time series matrix $\boldsymbol{Y}$ into a tensor. We define an operator $\mathcal{Q}(\cdot)$, which converts the multivariate time series matrix into a third-order tensor. For instance, a partially observed matrix $\boldsymbol{Y}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times (IJ)}$ can be converted into tensor $\mathcal{Q}(\boldsymbol{Y})\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times I\times J}$. Note that, given the size constraint, not all values are in $\boldsymbol{Y}$ to construct the tensor (see Figure \[fig:key\]). Correspondingly, $\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\cdot)$ denotes the inverse operator that converts the third-order tensor into a multivariate time series matrix.
We define LATC as the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\min _{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}},\boldsymbol{Z},\boldsymbol{A}}~&\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}\|_{*}+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{Z}\|_{\boldsymbol{A},\mathcal{H}} \\ \text { s.t.}~&\left\{\begin{array}{l}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}=\mathcal{Q}\left(\boldsymbol{Z}\right), \\ \mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{Z})=\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{Y}), \\ \end{array}\right. \\
\end{aligned}
\label{lrtc_ar}$$ where $\boldsymbol{Y}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times (IJ)}$ is the partially observed time series matrix and $\boldsymbol{Z}$ has the same size as $\boldsymbol{Y}$, and $\lambda$ is a weight parameter that controls the trade-off between the two terms in the objective function. We define the **autoregressive norm** of matrix $\boldsymbol{Z}$ with a lag set $\mathcal{H}$ and coefficient matrix $\boldsymbol{A}$ as: $$\|\boldsymbol{Z}\|_{\boldsymbol{A},\mathcal{H}}=\sum_{m,t}(z_{m,t}-\sum_{i}a_{m,i}z_{m,t-h_i})^{2}.
\label{auto_norm}$$ Note that, with this definition, $\boldsymbol{A}$ is also a variable to estimate. For simplicity, we use independent autoregressive models in Eq. instead of a full vector autoregressive model. To solve the optimization problem, we perform the following transformation by introducing auxiliary variables $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\min _{\{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}\}_{k=1}^{3},\boldsymbol{Z},\boldsymbol{A}}~&\sum_{k}\alpha_k\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k(k)}\|_{*}+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{Z}\|_{\boldsymbol{A},\mathcal{H}} \\ \text { s.t.}~&\left\{\begin{array}{l}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}=\mathcal{Q}\left(\boldsymbol{Z}\right),~k=1,2,3, \\ \mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{Z})=\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{Y}). \\ \end{array}\right. \\
\end{aligned}
\label{lrtc_ar_admm}$$
We next show the new optimization problem can be efficiently solved by employing the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) framework. First, we introduce the following lemma, which allows us to estimate $\boldsymbol{A}$.
\[proposition1\] For two time series matrices $\boldsymbol{Z}=\boldsymbol{X}$ consisting of $M$ time series with $N$ time points, suppose the two variables follow an autoregressive model with a lag set $\mathcal{H}=\{h_1,\ldots,h_d\}$: $$\notag
{z}_{m,t}=\sum_{i}{a}_{m,i}{x}_{m,t-h_i}+{\epsilon}_{m,t},\forall~m,t,
\label{ar_regularizer}$$ with $\epsilon_{mt}$ being Gaussian noise. Let $\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}=(\boldsymbol{v}_{h_d+1},\cdots,\boldsymbol{v}_{N})^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{(N-h_d)\times d}$ with $\boldsymbol{v}_{t}=({x}_{m,t-h_1},\cdots,{x}_{m,t-h_d})^\top$. Then, the solution to the problem $$\notag
\min_{\boldsymbol{a}_{m}}~\frac{1}{2}\|\boldsymbol{z}_{m,[h_d+1:]}-\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}\boldsymbol{a}_{m}\|_{2}^{2}$$ can be written as $$\hat{\boldsymbol{a}}_{m}:=(\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}^\top\boldsymbol{Q}_{m})^{-1}\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}^\top\boldsymbol{z}_{m,[h_d+1:]}=\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}^{+}\boldsymbol{z}_{m,[h_d+1:]},$$ where $\cdot^{+}$ denotes the pseudo-inverse of matrix.
Therefore, we can write down the following subproblems for ADMM: $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}&:=\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}~\alpha_k\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)}\|_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2}\|\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l}\|_{F}^{2}+\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l},\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})\big\rangle,\label{tensor_sub1} \\
\boldsymbol{Z}^{l+1}_{[:h_d]}&:=
\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{Z}}~\sum_{k}\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\|\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1})_{[:h_d]}-\boldsymbol{Z}\|_{F}^{2}
+\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1})_{[:h_d]}-\boldsymbol{Z},\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})_{[:h_d]}\big\rangle\right), \label{tensor_sub2} \\
\boldsymbol{Z}^{l+1}_{[h_d+1:]}&
\begin{aligned}[t]
&:=\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{Z}}~\sum_{m}\frac{\lambda}{2}\|\boldsymbol{z}_{m,[h_d+1:]}-\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}\boldsymbol{a}_{m}\|_{2}^{2}+\\ &\sum_{k}\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\|\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1})_{[h_d+1:]}-\boldsymbol{Z}\|_{F}^{2}+\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1})_{[h_d+1:]}-\boldsymbol{Z},\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})_{[h_d+1:]}\big\rangle\right)\\
\end{aligned} \label{tensor_sub3} \\
\boldsymbol{a}_{m}^{l+1}&:=\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}^{+}\boldsymbol{z}^{l+1}_{m,[h_d+1:]}, \label{tensor_sub5} \\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l+1}&:=\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l}+\rho(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}-\mathcal{Q}(\boldsymbol{Z}^{l+1})), \label{tensor_sub4}\end{aligned}$$ where the symbol $ \left<\cdot,\cdot\right>$ denotes the inner product, $\rho$ is the learning rate of ADMM algorithm, and $l$ denotes the count of iteration. The matrix $\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}$ used in Eq. and are defined on the matrix $\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}})$ where $\hat{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}$ is the estimated tensor at iteration $l+1$: $\hat{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}=\sum_{k}\alpha_k\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}$.
The subproblem for computing $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_k$ is convex, and the closed-form solution is given by $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}:=\operatorname{fold}_{k}\left(\mathcal{D}_{\alpha_k/\rho}(\mathcal{Q}(\boldsymbol{Z}^{l})_{(k)}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k(k)}^{l}/\rho)\right),\label{solution1}$$ where the symbol $\mathcal{D}_{\alpha/\rho}(\cdot)$ denotes the operator of singular value thresholding with shrinkage parameter $\alpha/\rho$. The solution in Eq. meets the singular value thresholding as shown in Lemma \[lemma1\].
\[lemma1\] For any $\alpha,\rho>0$, and $\boldsymbol{Z}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$, a global optimal solution to the problem $\min_{\boldsymbol{X}}~\alpha\|\boldsymbol{X}\|_{*}+\frac{1}{2}\rho\|\boldsymbol{X}-\boldsymbol{Z}\|_{F}^{2}$ is given by the singular value thresholding [@cai2010svt]: $$\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}:=\mathcal{D}_{\alpha/\rho}(\boldsymbol{Z})=\boldsymbol{U}{\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}}\left([\boldsymbol{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{Z})-\alpha/\rho]_{+}\right)\boldsymbol{V}^\top,$$ where $\boldsymbol{Z}=\boldsymbol{U}{\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}}(\boldsymbol{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{Z}))\boldsymbol{V}^\top$ is the singular value decomposition of $\boldsymbol{Z}$. The symbol $[\cdot]_{+}$ denotes the positive truncation at 0 which satisfies $[\boldsymbol{\sigma}-\alpha/\rho]_{+}=\max\{\boldsymbol{\sigma}-\alpha/\rho,\boldsymbol{0}\}$.
For variable $\boldsymbol{Z}$, the subproblems and are both convex least squares. We can therefore derive the closed-form solution $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{Z}_{[:h_d]}^{l+1}:=&\frac{1}{3}\sum_k\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l}/\rho)_{[:h_d]},\label{solution2} \\
\boldsymbol{z}_{m,[h_d+1:]}^{l+1}:=&\frac{1}{3(\rho+\lambda)}\sum_{k}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\rho\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})_{m,[h_d+1:]}+\frac{\lambda}{\rho+\lambda}\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}\boldsymbol{a}_{m}^{l},\label{solution3}\end{aligned}$$ where we impose a fixed consistency constraint, namely $\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{Z}^{l+1}):=\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{Y})$, to guarantee the transformation of observation information at each iteration. In addition, for Eq. , we can set $\lambda$ as $c_0\cdot\rho$ with $c_0$ being a constant determining the relative weight of time series regression.
Until now, we use the NN in the objective function of LATC. In fact, another way to capture global low-rank patterns is through the TNN minimization, which is experimentally proved to be better than NN minimization [@hu2013fast]. In this paper, we also test a variant of LATC based on TNN minimization, and solve the following subproblem for updating $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}$: $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}:=\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}~\alpha_k\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)}\|_{\theta,*}+\frac{1}{2}\rho\|\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l}\|_{F}^{2}+\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l},\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})\big\rangle,
\label{tnn_sub1}$$ where $\theta$ is a nonnegative integer. The TNN minimization reduces to NN minimization when $\theta=0$. Thus, Eq. is indeed a special case of Eq. . If we integrate Lemma \[lemma2\] into Eq. , we get $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}:=\operatorname{fold}_{k}\left(\mathcal{D}_{\theta,\alpha_k/\rho}(\mathcal{Q}(\boldsymbol{Z}^{l})_{(k)}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k(k)}^{l}/\rho)\right).\label{tnn_solution1}$$
\[lemma2\] For any $\alpha,\rho>0$, $\boldsymbol{Z}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$, and $\theta\in\mathbb{N}_{+}$ where $\theta<\min\{M,N\}$, an optimal solution to the problem $\min_{\boldsymbol{X}}~\alpha\|\boldsymbol{X}\|_{\theta,*}+\frac{1}{2}\rho\|\boldsymbol{X}-\boldsymbol{Z}\|_{F}^{2}$ is given by the generalized singular value thresholding [@zhang2011penalty; @chen2013reduced; @lu2015generalized]: $$\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}:=\mathcal{D}_{\theta,\alpha/\rho}(\boldsymbol{Z})=\boldsymbol{U}{\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}}\left([\boldsymbol{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{Z})-\mathfrak{1}_{\theta}\cdot\alpha/\rho]_{+}\right)\boldsymbol{V}^\top,\label{tnn_solution}$$ where $\boldsymbol{Z}=\boldsymbol{U}{\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}}(\boldsymbol{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{Z}))\boldsymbol{V}^\top$ is the singular value decomposition of $\boldsymbol{Z}$. The symbol $[\cdot]_{+}$ denotes the positive truncation at 0 as defined in Lemma \[lemma1\]. $\mathfrak{1}_{\theta}\in\{0,1\}^{\min\{M,N\}}$ is a binary indicator vector whose first $\theta$ entries are 0 and other entries are 1.
Experiments
===========
Experiment setup
----------------
In this section, we assess the performance of LATC using three real-world multivariate time series data sets: (1) **PeMS**[^1] (P) registers traffic speed time series from 228 sensors over 44 days with 288 time points per day (i.e., 5-min frequency). (2) **Guangzhou**[^2] (G) contains traffic speed time series from 214 road segments in Guangzhou, China over 61 days with 144 time points per day (i.e., 10-min frequency). (3) **Electricity**[^3] (E) records hourly electricity consumption transactions of 370 clients from 2011 to 2014. We use a subset of the last five weeks of 321 clients in our experiments.
Our experiments cover the same two tasks as in [@yu2016temporal]: missing data *imputation* and rolling *prediction*. As mentioned, in LATC, both imputation and prediction are achieved by performing tensor completion. For missing data imputation, we follow the default LATC framework as a general *imputer* procedure (see Algorithm \[imputer\]). The default prediction task follows the description in Figure \[fig:key\], in which we use the recovered values of the red submatrix as the prediction for the future $\tau$ time points as a window. Rolling prediction for multiple windows is obtained by applying LATC repeatedly. Algorithm \[predictor\] summarizes the rolling *predictor* procedure for $S$ rolling windows.
The sizes $M\times I\times J$ of the transformed tensors of the three data sets are: 228$\times$288$\times$44 for (P), 214$\times$144$\times$61 for (G), and 321$\times$24$\times$35 for (E). For the imputation task, we randomly mask certain amount (20%/40%) of values as missing. We consider two missing scenarios: random missing (RM) in which entries are missing randomly, and non-random missing (NM) in which each time series has block missing for randomly selected days (i.e., randomly removing mode-3 fibers in tensor $\mathcal{Q}(\boldsymbol{Y})$). For data set (P), we perform rolling predictions for the last 5 days (i.e., 1440 time points) with $\tau=9$ and $S=160$ for in the presence of missing values. Similarly, we also predict the last 7 days for data set (G) with $\tau=12$ and $S=84$ and the last 5 days for data set (E) with $\tau=6$ and $S=20$. We use $\text{MAPE}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n |\frac{x_i-\hat{x}_i}{x_i}|\times 100$ and $\text{RMSE}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \left(x_i-\hat{x}_i\right)^2}$ as performance metrics. The adapted data sets and Python implementation for these experiments are available in our GitHub repository <https://github.com/xinychen/tensor-learning>.
Initialize $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}$ as zeros and $\boldsymbol{A}$ as small random values. Set $\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{Z})=\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}(\boldsymbol{Y})$ and $l=0$.\
recovered matrix $\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}$.
Initialize $M$-by-$S\tau$ matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{X}}$ with zeros.\
predicted matrix $\tilde{\boldsymbol{X}}$.
Baseline models
---------------
We compare LATC with some state-of-the-art approaches, including: (1) Temporal Regularized Matrix Factorization (TRMF) [@yu2016temporal], which is an autoregression regularized temporal matrix factorization. (2) Bayesian Temporal Matrix Factorization (BTMF) [@sun2019bayesian], which is a fully Bayesian matrix factorization model by integrating vector autoregressive process into the latent temporal factors. (3) High-accuracy Low-Rank Tensor Completion (HaLRTC) [@liu2013tensor], which minimizes NN to achieve completion. (4) HaLRTC-TNN, which replaces NN with TNN in objective function. For the LATC framework, we build two variants: LATC-NN with NN minimization and LATC-TNN with TNN minimization. The detailed settings for these models are presented in Appendix \[app:parameter\].
Results
-------
\[imputation\_results\]
Models TRMF BTMF HaLRTC HaLRTC-TNN LATC-NN LATC-TNN
------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ --------------- ------------------- -------------------- --
20%, RM (P) 5.68/3.87 5.82/3.96 5.92/3.90 5.21/3.60 3.36/2.32 **2.97**/**2.14**
40%, RM (P) 5.75/3.92 5.93/4.02 7.05/4.56 6.08/4.18 4.13/2.84 **3.50**/**2.54**
20%, NM (P) 9.41/6.27 9.40/6.26 8.72/5.64 7.81/5.36 8.79/5.65 **7.31**/**5.15**
40%, NM (P) 9.54/6.40 9.51/6.39 9.46/6.04 8.33/5.69 9.70/6.12 **7.78**/**5.46**
20%, RM (G) 7.25/3.11 7.39/3.15 8.14/3.33 6.73/2.88 [7.12]{}/[2.97]{} **6.28**/**2.73**
40%, RM (G) 7.40/3.19 7.63/3.27 8.87/3.61 7.27/3.12 [7.82]{}/[3.24]{} **6.79**/**2.96**
20%, NM (G) 10.19/4.28 10.17/4.27 10.46/4.21 **9.32**/3.96 10.46/[4.21]{} 9.33/**3.95**
40%, NM (G) 10.37/4.46 10.38/4.48 10.88/4.38 **9.51**/4.08 10.89/4.38 **9.51**/**4.07**
20%, RM (E) 13.12/723 12.85/948 10.36/530 10.20/**482** 9.79/527 **9.71**/530
40%, RM (E) 13.63/862 13.34/1281 11.30/689 11.15/571 10.66/**738** **10.59**/789
20%, NM (E) 26.31/3665 19.72/1623 16.93/2260 16.83/728 **16.55**/802 16.58/**652**
40%, NM (E) 22.71/2941 18.00/1817 15.86/4921 15.70/1769 15.51/1467 **15.50**/**1026**
: Imputation performance (MAPE/RMSE).
**Imputation Results** Table \[imputation\_results\] shows the results for imputation tasks. As can be seen, the proposed LATC achieves the best imputation accuracy in almost all cases. Essentially, TNN-based models offer better performance than NN-based models. The superiority of LATC over HaLRTC clearly shows that the autoregressive norm can better capture temporal dynamics than the pure low-rank structure. On the other hand, LATC also outperforms the two matrix-based models: TRMF and BTMF. The result suggests that LATC can effectively leverage the global (i.e., “daily” for all three data sets) patterns and consistency on the temporal dimension, which is difficult to model using the local autoregressive dynamics alone in the matrix representation.
**Prediction Results** Table \[forecast\_results\_2\] shows the results for rolling prediction tasks. We use the same set of autoregressive lags for TRMF, BTMF, and LATC. As can be seen, the proposed LATC outperforms other models by a substantial margin. Although TRMF an BTMF are powerful in capturing the global consistency/similarity among sensors, the AR model alone is insufficient in capture the temporal patterns at different scales. Moreover, TRMF and BTMF work on the latent layer, which may ignore the local property of each time series. In this case, the tensor representation shows clear advantage. Similar to the imputation task, we find that LATC-TNN essentially gives better results than its NN-based counterpart in most cases. By comparing HaLRTC and LATC-NN side by side, we can clearly see the importance of the autoregressive norm in LATC. Appendix \[imputation-prediction-example\] provides some example results for both the imputation and prediction tasks as figures.
\[forecast\_results\_2\]
Models TRMF BTMF HaLRTC HaLRTC-TNN LATC-NN LATC-TNN
-------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -------------------- ---------------- -------------------- --
Original (P) 11.30/7.19 8.83/5.95 9.98/6.21 7.51/5.37 6.62/4.99 **6.39**/**4.97**
20%, RM (P) 10.57/6.79 8.84/5.99 10.09/6.27 7.64/5.44 6.77/5.08 **6.53**/**5.07**
40%, RM (P) 10.26/6.64 8.97/6.03 10.27/6.37 7.81/5.54 6.99/5.21 **6.82**/**5.16**
20%, NM (P) 11.21/7.07 9.02/6.03 10.35/6.39 7.73/5.50 7.96/5.50 **7.32**/**5.35**
40%, NM (P) 11.90/7.31 9.47/6.41 10.90/6.68 8.09/5.73 9.18/6.09 **7.88**/**5.65**
Original (G) 13.33/5.22 11.38/4.64 12.79/4.88 **10.39**/**4.29** 11.11/4.52 **10.39**/**4.29**
20%, RM (G) 13.34/5.22 11.49/4.67 12.86/4.90 10.43/**4.30** 11.24/4.54 **10.42**/**4.30**
40%, RM (G) 13.46/5.19 11.54/4.70 12.98/4.94 **10.47**/**4.32** 11.44/4.59 10.48/4.33
20%, NM (G) 13.84/5.30 11.62/4.74 13.05/4.96 **10.47**/**4.33** 12.02/4.68 10.48/4.34
40%, NM (G) 14.58/5.55 11.74/4.80 13.47/5.10 **10.67**/**4.42** 12.67/4.87 **10.67**/**4.42**
Original (E) 28.37/1154 27.83/1016 25.48/953 **24.94**/**779** 25.48/953 **24.94**/**779**
20%, RM (E) 27.88/1130 28.20/1023 25.87/983 **26.31**/**863** 25.87/983 **26.31**/**863**
40%, RM (E) 28.64/1336 28.50/1209 26.58/1042 26.63/**890** **26.07**/981 26.63/**890**
20%, NM (E) 28.99/1142 31.07/1335 27.67/1536 **25.15**/**811** 27.67/1536 26.78/861
40%, NM (E) 28.68/1472 32.46/1718 26.92/2179 27.19/899 **24.98**/1271 27.00/**888**
: Rolling prediction performance in the presence of missing values (MAPE/RMSE).
Conclusion
==========
We proposed LATC as a new framework to model large-scale multivariate time series data with missing values. By transforming the original matrix to a tensor, LATC can model both imputation and prediction as a universal tensor completion problem in which all observed data will contribute to the final prediction. We impose low-rank assumption to capture global patterns across all the three dimensions (sensor, time of day, and day), and further introduce a novel autoregressive norm to characterize local temporal trends. Our numerical experiment on three real-world data sets further confirms the importance of incorporating both global patterns and local trends in time series models. This study can be extended in several ways. A major limitation of LATC is its high computational cost: we have to train a new model for each prediction window. It will be interesting to develop strategies to avoid re-training, and making the prediction model online. LATC can also be extended to a high-dimensional setting for matrix and tensor time series data [@sun2019bayesian; @jing2018high]. In addition, if side information on sensors are available (e.g., location and network structure), additional regularizers can be introduced to impose local consistency for sensors [@bahadori2014fast].
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This research is supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, the Institute for Data Valorisation (IVADO), and the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). We would like to thank Jinming Yang from Shanghai Jiao Tong University for helpful discussion.
**Supplementary Material**
Parameter setting {#app:parameter}
=================
In this section, we give the parameter setting for our experiments. Note that all experiments were tested using Python 3.7 on a laptop with 2.3 GHz Intel Core i5 (CPU) and 8 GB RAM.
HaLRTC, HaLRTC-TNN, LATC-NN, and LATC-TNN
-----------------------------------------
In our experiments, given season length $I$, we set the time lags to $\mathcal{H}=\left\{1,\ldots,6,I-2,\ldots,I+3\right\}$ for each data set. For instance, in Electricity data, we have season length $I=24$ and set the time lags as $\{1,2,...,6,22,23,...,27\}$. To determine the convergence of the algorithm, we use $$\mathcal{C}^{l+1}=\frac{\|\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}^{l+1}-\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}^{l}\|_{F}}{\|\mathcal{P}_{\Omega}({\boldsymbol{Y}})\|_{F}}<\epsilon$$ as convergence condition, where $\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}^{l+1}$ and $\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}^{l}$ denote the recovered matrices at the $l+1$th iteration and $l$th iteration, respectively. For reaching convergence, we set $\epsilon=0.0001$ for the algorithm.
For imputation tasks, we set parameters of LATC-TNN for each data set as:
- (**P**) PeMS data: For RM scenarios, we set parameters $\rho=0.0001$, $\lambda=5\times\rho$, and $\theta=15$ for RM scenarios. For NM scenarios, we set $\rho=0.0001$, $\lambda=1\times\rho$, and $\theta=10$.
- (**G**) Guangzhou data: For RM scenarios, we set parameters $\rho=0.0001$, $\lambda=5\times\rho$, and $\theta=30$. For NM scenarios, we set $\rho=0.0001$, $\lambda=1\times\rho$, and $\theta=10$.
- (**E**) Electricity data: For RM scenarios, we set parameters $\rho=0.000001$, $\lambda=5\times\rho$, $\theta=5$ (for 20% missing), and $\theta=3$ (for 40% missing). For NM scenarios, we set $\rho=0.000001$, $\lambda=5\times\rho$, and $\theta=1$.
Here, HaLRTC is a special case of LATC-NN (i.e., with $\lambda=0$), and we evaluate the HaLRTC imputer/predictor with same $\rho$. Similarly, HaLRTC-TNN is a special case of LATC-TNN (i.e., with $\lambda=0$), and we also evaluate the HaLRTC-TNN imputer with same $\rho$ and $\theta$. To evaluate LATC-NN, we let $\theta=0$ in the parameters of LATC-TNN.
For prediction tasks, we choose parameters by testing on validation set. Table \[predictor\_parameter\] shows the tuned parameter setting for HaLRTC, HaLRTC-TNN, LATC-NN, and LATC-TNN on all three data sets according to validation RMSEs. The parameter set and validation set for each data set are given as:
- (**P**) PeMS data: We choose $\rho$ from $\{0.0001, 0.0005,0.001\}$, $\lambda$ from $\rho\times\{0,0.1,0.5,1,5,10\}$, and $\theta$ from $\{0,5,10,15\}$ by predicting the last 20-window time series (i.e., validation set) before the last 5 days (i.e., testing set).
- (**G**) Guangzhou data: We choose $\rho$ from $\{0.0001,0.0005,0.001\}$, $\lambda$ from $\rho\times\{0,0.1,0.5,1,5,10\}$, and $\theta$ from $\{0,5,10,15\}$ by predicting the last 10-window time series (i.e., validation set) before the last 7 days (i.e., testing set).
- (**E**) Electricity data: We choose $\rho$ from $\{0.0000001,0.000001,0.00001\}$, $\lambda$ from $\rho\times\{0,0.1,0.5,1,5,10\}$, and $\theta$ from $\{1,3,5,10,15\}$ by predicting the last 10-window time series (i.e., validation set) before the last 5 days (i.e., testing set).
-------------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- ----------------- ----------
HaLRTC
$\rho$ $\rho$ $\theta$ $\rho$ $\lambda$ $\rho$ $\lambda$ $\theta$
Original (P) 0.0001 0.0001 15 0.0005 $10\times\rho$ 0.0005 $10\times\rho$ 10
20%, RM (P) 0.0001 0.0001 15 0.001 $5\times\rho$ 0.0005 $10\times\rho$ 10
40%, RM (P) 0.0001 0.0001 15 0.0005 $10\times\rho$ 0.0005 $5\times\rho$ 15
20%, NM (P) 0.0001 0.0001 15 0.0005 $5\times\rho$ 0.0005 $5\times\rho$ 5
40%, NM (P) 0.0001 0.0001 15 0.0005 $5\times\rho$ 0.0001 $5\times\rho$ 15
Original (G) 0.0001 0.0001 10 0.0005 $5\times\rho$ 0.0001 $0.5\times\rho$ 10
20%, RM (G) 0.0001 0.0001 10 0.0005 $5\times\rho$ 0.0001 $0.1\times\rho$ 10
40%, RM (G) 0.0005 0.0001 10 0.0005 $5\times\rho$ 0.0001 $0.5\times\rho$ 10
20%, NM (G) 0.0001 0.0001 15 0.0001 $10\times\rho$ 0.0001 $0.1\times\rho$ 15
40%, NM (G) 0.0001 0.0001 15 0.0001 $10\times\rho$ 0.0001 $0\times\rho$ 15
Original (E) 0.000001 0.0000001 5 0.000001 $0\times\rho$ 0.0000001 $0\times\rho$ 5
20%, RM (E) 0.000001 0.0000001 1 0.000001 $0\times\rho$ 0.0000001 $0\times\rho$ 1
40%, RM (E) 0.000001 0.0000001 1 0.000001 $1\times\rho$ 0.0000001 $0\times\rho$ 1
20%, NM (E) 0.0000001 0.0000001 5 0.0000001 $0\times\rho$ 0.0000001 $5\times\rho$ 1
40%, NM (E) 0.0000001 0.0000001 1 0.000001 $10\times\rho$ 0.0000001 $5\times\rho$ 1
-------------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- ----------------- ----------
: Parameter setting for HaLRTC, HaLRTC-TNN, LATC-NN, and LATC-TNN predictors on real-world data sets where $\epsilon=0.0001$ is the stop criterion for convergence.[]{data-label="predictor_parameter"}
TRMF and BTMF
-------------
Time lags of imputation and prediction for both TRMF and BTMF are set as $\mathcal{H}=\{1,2\}$ and $\mathcal{H}=\{1,...,6,I-2,...,I+3\}$, respectively. For prediction tasks, the low rank of PeMS data prediction is 20 while of Guangzhou/Electricity data prediction is 10. For imputation tasks, the low ranks are:
- (**P**) data: 50 (for RM scenarios) and 10 (for NM scenarios) for both TRMF and BTMF.
- (**G**) data: 80 (for RM scenarios) and 10 (for NM scenarios) for both TRMF and BTMF.
- (**E**) data: 30 (for RM scenarios) for both TRMF and BTMF. For NM scenarios, we set 10, 30 for TRMF and BTMF, respectively.
Imputation/prediction performance {#imputation-prediction-example}
=================================
In this section, we provide some visualizations to demonstrate the performance of LATC. Figures \[pems\_imputation\], \[guangzhou\_imputation\], and \[electricity\_imputation\] show the imputation performance of LATC-TNN on different data sets under the 40% non-random missing (NM) scenarios. In all the three figures, the green panels represent the observed data, and the white panels correspond to missing values to impute. The blue curves are the ground-truth, and the red curves show the recovered matrix $\hat{\boldsymbol{X}}$. Figures \[pems\_forecasting\], \[guangzhou\_forecasting\], and \[Electricity\_forecasting\] show the prediction performance of LATC-TNN on different data sets under two missing scenarios (i.e., 40% random missing and 40% non-random missing). These figures only show the final predicted time windows. The prediction is performed by a rolling-window approach: in each step, we predict a length-$\tau$ time window (see Algorithm \[predictor\]).
Derivation detail
=================
In this section, we provide detailed derivation of some optimization problems in LATC.
Updating the variable $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k},k=1,2,3$
------------------------------------------------------------
For the optimization problem in Eq. , we can first write it as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}:=&\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}~\alpha_k\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)}\|_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2}\|\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l}\|_{F}^{2}+\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l},\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})\big\rangle, \\
=&\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}~\alpha_k\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)}\|_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2}\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l},\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l}\big\rangle+\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}),\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})\big\rangle \\
=&\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}~\alpha_k\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)}\|_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2}\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}),\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})\big\rangle-\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}),\rho\boldsymbol{Z}^{l}-\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})\big\rangle \\
=&\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}~\alpha_k\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)}\|_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2}\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l}+\frac{1}{\rho}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l}),\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l}+\frac{1}{\rho}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})\big\rangle \\
=&\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}~\alpha_k\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)}\|_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2}\|\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}})-\boldsymbol{Z}^{l}+\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})/\rho\|_{F}^{2} \\
=&\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}~\alpha_k\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)}\|_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2}\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{(k)}-\mathcal{Q}(\boldsymbol{Z}^{l})_{(k)}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k(k)}^{l}/\rho\|_{F}^{2}, \\
\end{aligned}$$ then applying Lemma \[lemma2\], we can therefore obtain the optimal solution to the variable $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}$ as $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}:=\operatorname{fold}_{k}\left(\mathcal{D}_{\alpha_k/\rho}(\mathcal{Q}(\boldsymbol{Z}^{l})_{(k)}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k(k)}^{l}/\rho)\right).$$
Similarly, we can write the closed-form solution to Eq. with TNN minimization.
Updating the variable $\boldsymbol{Z}$
--------------------------------------
For the optimization problem in Eq. , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{Z}^{l+1}_{[:h_d]}:=&
\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{Z}}~\sum_{k}\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\|\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1})_{[:h_d]}-\boldsymbol{Z}\|_{F}^{2}
+\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1})_{[:h_d]}-\boldsymbol{Z},\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})_{[:h_d]}\big\rangle\right) \\
=&\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{Z}}~\sum_{k}\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\big\langle\boldsymbol{Z},\boldsymbol{Z}\big\rangle-\rho\big\langle\boldsymbol{Z},\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l}/\rho)_{[:h_d]}\big\rangle\right) \\
=&\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{Z}}~\frac{\rho}{2}\sum_{k}\big\langle\boldsymbol{Z}-\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l}/\rho)_{[:h_d]},\boldsymbol{Z}-\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l}/\rho)_{[:h_d]}\big\rangle \\
=&\frac{1}{3}\sum_{k}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l}/\rho)_{[:h_d]}. \\
\end{aligned}$$ For the optimization problem in Eq. , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{Z}^{l+1}_{[h_d+1:]}&
\begin{aligned}[t]
&:=\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{Z}}~\sum_{m}\frac{\lambda}{2}\|\boldsymbol{z}_{m,[h_d+1:]}-\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}\boldsymbol{a}_{m}\|_{2}^{2}+\\ &\sum_{k}\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\|\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1})_{[h_d+1:]}-\boldsymbol{Z}\|_{F}^{2}+\big\langle\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1})_{[h_d+1:]}-\boldsymbol{Z},\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})_{[h_d+1:]}\big\rangle\right)\\
\end{aligned}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Rightarrow\boldsymbol{z}_{m,[h_d+1:]}:=&\operatorname{arg}\min_{\boldsymbol{z}}~\frac{\lambda}{2}\|\boldsymbol{z}-\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}\boldsymbol{a}_{m}\|_{F}^{2}+\frac{\rho}{2}\|\boldsymbol{z}-\frac{1}{3}\sum_{k}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l}/\rho)_{m,[h_d+1:]}\|_{F}^{2} \\
=&\frac{\lambda}{\rho+\lambda}\boldsymbol{Q}_{m}\boldsymbol{a}_{m}^{l}+\frac{1}{3(\rho+\lambda)}\sum_{k}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\rho\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}_{k}^{l+1}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{T}}_{k}^{l})_{m,[h_d+1:]}. \\
\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: from <http://pems.dot.ca.gov/> and <https://github.com/VeritasYin/STGCN_IJCAI-18>
[^2]: from <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1205228>
[^3]: from <https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/ElectricityLoadDiagrams20112014>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Automatically generated political event data is an important part of the social science data ecosystem. The approaches for generating this data, though, have remained largely the same for two decades. During this time, the field of computational linguistics has progressed tremendously. This paper presents an overview of political event data, including methods and ontologies, and a set of experiments to determine the applicability of deep neural networks to the extraction of political events from news text.'
author:
- |
John Beieler\
Human Language Technology Center of Excellence\
Johns Hopkins University\
[jbeieler1@jhu.edu]{}
bibliography:
- 'emnlp2016.bib'
title: 'Generating Politically-Relevant Event Data'
---
Introduction
============
Automated coding of political event data, or the record of who-did-what-to-whom within the context of political actions, has existed for roughly two decades. This type of data can prove highly useful for many types of studies. Since this type of data is inherently atomic, each observation is a record of a single event between a source and a target, it provides a disaggregated view of political events. This means that the data can be used to examine interactions below the usual monthly or yearly levels of aggregation. This approach can be used in a manner consistent with traditional hypothesis testing that is the norm within political science [@gleditsch1; @gleditsch2; @goldstein2]. Additionally, event data has proven useful in forecasting models of conflict since the finer time resolution allows analysts to gain better leverage over the prediction problem than is possible when using more highly aggregated data [@mine; @forecasting1; @forecasting2; @forecasting3].
The methods used to generate this data have remained largely the unchanged during the past two decades, namely using parser-based methods with text dictionaries to resolve candidate noun and verb phrases to actor and event categories. The underlying coding technologies have moved slowly in updating to reflect changes in natural language processing (NLP) technology. These NLP technologies have now advanced to such a level, and with accompanying open-source software implementations, that their inclusion in the event-data coding process comes as an obvious advancement. Given this, this paper presents the beginnings of how modern natural language processing approaches, such as deep neural networks, can work within the context of automatically generating political event data. The goal is to present a new take on generating political event data, moving from parser-based methods to classifier-based models for the identification and extraction of events. Additionally, this paper serves as an introduction to politically-relevant coding ontologies that offer a new application domain for natural language processing researchers.
Political Event Ontologies
==========================
Political event data has existed in various forms since the 1970s. Two of the original political event datasets were the World Event Interaction Survey (WEIS) and the Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB) [@azar; @weis]. These two datasets were eventually replaced by the projects created by Philip Schrodt and various collaborators. In general, these projects were marked by the use of the Conflict and Mediation Event Observations (CAMEO) coding ontology and automated, machine-coding rather than human coding [@cameo; @cameo2]. The CAMEO ontology is made up of 20 “top-level” categories that encompass actions such as “Make Statement” or “Protest.” Each of these twenty top-level categories contains finer-grained categories in a hierarchical manner. For example, the code `14` is the top-level code for “Protest” with the sub-code `142` representing a general demonstration or rally. Under the code `141` is code `1411` which codes “demonstrate or rally for leadership change.” Thus, as one moves down the hierarchy of CAMEO, more fine-grained events are encountered. All told, this hierarchical scheme contains over 200 total event classifications. This ontology has served as the basis for most of the modern event datasets such as the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (ICEWS) [@obrien], the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT)[^1], and the Phoenix[^2] dataset.
The defining feature of the CAMEO ontology is the presence of a well-defined ontology consistent of verb phrases and noun phrases used in the coding of actions and actors. For each of the 200+ categories of event types in CAMEO, there exists a list of verb phrases that define a given category. Similarly, the scope of what is considered a valid actor within CAMEO is defined by the noun phrases contained in the actor dictionaries. Thus, CAMEO is scoped entirely by the human-defined noun and verb phrases contained within underlying text dictionaries. The creation of these dictionaries is a massively costly task in terms of human labor; to date each phrase in the dictionaries was identified, defined, and formatted for inclusion by a human coder.
Lower Resolution Ontologies
---------------------------
While the CAMEO ontology offers fine-grained coding of political events within the 20 top-level categories, a small but convincing set of literature suggests that this level of granularity is not necessary to answer many of the questions event data is used to answer. , for example, suggests that dividing the CAMEO ontology into much lower-resolution categories, known as `QuadClasses`, provides enough information to perform accurate out-of-sample forecasts of relevant political events. Additionally, indicates that it is possible to recover this latent structure from coded events. These `QuadClass` variables, which are divided along conflict/cooperation and material/verbal axises, capture the information described in the above papers. As seen in Figure \[fig:quad\], a given event can be placed somewhere within the resultant quadrants based on what valence the event has (conflict or cooperation) and what realm the event occurred (verbal or material).
![QuadClass Event Quadrants[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](conf_coop_scale.jpeg){width="54.00000%"}
Since these `QuadClass` variables capture much of the information necessary, the methods discussed within this paper focus on this rather than the full CAMEO coding ontology.
Current Approaches
==================
The current state-of-the-art for CAMEO-coded political event extraction is presented by the PETRARCH2[^3] coder.[^4] The main features of PETRARCH2 include a deep reliance on information from a constituency parse tree. The default parse comes from the Stanford CoreNLP software [@stanford]. The exact operational details of PETRARCH2 are beyond the scope of this paper, with a complete explanation of the algorithm available in Norris (2016), it should suffice to say that this second version of PETRARCH makes extensive use of the actual structure of the parse tree to determine source-action-target event codings. This change to be more tightly coupled to the tree structure of the sentence allows for a clearer identification of actors and the assignment of role codes to the actors, and a more accurate identification of the who and whom portions of the who-did-what-to-whom equation.
At its heart, PETRARCH2 is still software to perform a lookup of terms in a set of text dictionaries. Given this, if the terms identified by the program are incorrect then the final event coding will also be incorrect. Additionally, if the terms identified by PETRARCH2 are not in the dictionaries, but would still be associated with a valid actor or event coding, then no event is coded. This means that no matter the algorithmic design of the event coder, the output will remain constrained by the verb and actor dictionaries.
The primary issue with these methods is twofold. First, the parser-based methods rely on human-created dictionaries. As noted above, this is a labor intensive task that is not easily replicable for expansion into new ontologies; CAMEO has become the de-facto coding standard for political events largely owing to the existence of the text dictionaries created over the course of two decades. introduced a method that potentially solves the issue of developing verb patterns for the coding of political events. This approach still does not address many of the other issues present with the current approaches to generating political event data, such as a reliance on syntactic parsers. The second issue, owing to the reliance on text dictionaries and parsers for the extraction of events, is the exclusively English-language nature of all available event datasets. The next section introduces an alternative to these parser-based methods that is applicable across ontologies, is tune-able for a given problem set, and is capable of working cross-lingually.
Statistical Approaches
======================
In order to replace the parser-based methods for identifying an event, a new system must indentify to which of the four `QuadClass` variables, Material Conflict, Material Cooperation, Verbal Conflict, or Verbal Cooperation, the event belongs. To accomplish this, this paper makes use of convolutional neural nets.
This paper considers two neural architectures to classify a political event. The first is a 1-dimensional ConvNet with pre-trained word embedding features as described in Kim . In short, it is a relatively shallow network with three parallel convolutional layers and two fully-connected layers. The fully-connected layers contain 150 and 4 units each. Dropout is applied to the two fully-connected layers so meaningful connections are learned by the model. The details of the model layers are in Table \[fig:wconv\].
Layer Frame Kernel Pool
------- ------- -------- ------
1 256 3 2
2 256 4 2
3 256 5 2
: Word-based convolutional layers.[]{data-label="fig:wconv"}
The second model is a character ConvNet based on the work by . The character ConvNet is a modified implementation since multiple experiments determined the fully specification in underperformed other specifications. The architecture for the character ConvNet consists of 3 convolutional layers and 3 fully-connected layers. The convolution layers are detailed in Table \[fig:convnet\]. The fully connected layers have 1024, 1024, and 4 output units, respectively.
Layer Frame Kernel Pool
------- ------- -------- ------
1 256 7 3
2 256 3 N/A
3 256 3 N/A
4 256 3 3
: Character-based convolutional layers.[]{data-label="fig:convnet"}
Data
====
The datasets used in this paper are shown in Table \[fig:data\]. Each of the “soft-labelled” datasets has QuadClass labels applied to them by PETRARCH2. The use of PETRARCH2 is necessary in order to generate enough training samples for the various classification algorithms to gain leverage over the classification task. The English corpus consists of data scraped from various online news media sites. The Arabic corpus labels are obtained via the use of a sentence-aligned English/Arabic corpus.[^5] Thus, if a sentence is labelled as *Material Conflict* in the English corpus, that label is transferred to the aligned sentence in the Arabic corpus. If multiple alignments occur the label is transferred to each of the relevant sentences. The next dataset is the same set of labelled Arabic sentences that were run through the machine-translation software *Joshua* [@joshua]. These datasets provide information for three experiments: English-language, Arabic-language, and machine translated English.
Dataset Sentences
--------------------------- -----------
Soft-labelled English 49,296
Soft-labelled Arabic 11,466
Machine-translated Arabic 3,931
: Data source type and size[]{data-label="fig:data"}
Experiments
===========
Table \[fig:exps\] shows the results of various models for classifying a sentence into one of four `QuadClasses`. Across the board, it is clear that the character-based ConvNets perform much better than the word-based models. The difference is less drastic for English-language inputs, a 9% difference in accuracy. For Arabic-language inputs, however, the difference is striking. The character model is over 20% more accurate than the word-based model. This is likely due to issues with tokenization and morphology when dealing with the word-based models. Even more impressive is the ability of the Arabic-language models to perform well even with a relatively small corpus of 11,466 coded sentences. These results demonstrate that character-based ConvNets are appropriate and powerful models for the classification of politically-relevant events.
\[tab:results\]
[l c c ]{} Model & Accuracy\
\
English Input & 0.85\
Native Arabic Input & 0.25\
Machine-translated Input & 0.60\
\
English input & 0.94\
Arabic input & 0.93\
Conclusion
==========
This paper has demonstrated that modern approaches to natural language processing, specifically deep neural networks, offer a promising avenue for the extraction of politically-relevant events. The methods shown in this paper can work across both ontologies and languages offering a level of flexibility unseen in the realm of CAMEO-coded political event data. The implementation of these methods will allow for the exploration of languages and ontologies, as an example expanding beyond the limits of CAMEO to code events such as crime events in Spanish-language news sources, that will open new avenues of social science research.
While these methods are promising, there is still much work left to develop a fully operational event extraction pipeline. In terms of classifying events, there is still the issue of handling the many nuances of event coding. For example, if a meeting occurs between three actors that would typically lead to nine coded events when handling the various combinations of actors and binary relations. Additionally, the methods presented on this paper do not touch upon the extraction of actor information. This is another area for which modern NLP approaches, such as semantic role labelling, are highly applicable and will likely improve on the state-of-the-art.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the DARPA Quantitative Crisis Response program.
[^1]: [gdeltproject.org](gdeltproject.org)
[^2]: [phoenixdata.org](phoenixdata.org)
[^3]: <https://github.com/openeventdata/petrarch2>
[^4]: Other coders exist, such as BBN’s ACCENT coder, but is not currently publicly available. PETRARCH2 and ACCENT approach event coding in roughly the same manner, however.
[^5]: The specific corpus is available at <https://www.ldc.upenn.edu/collaborations/past-projects/gale/data/gale-pubs>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
Jaewon Yang, Julian McAuley, Jure Leskovec\
Stanford University\
{jayang, jmcauley, jure}@cs.stanford.edu
title: |
Detecting Cohesive and 2-mode Communities in\
Directed and Undirected Networks
---
[**Categories and Subject Descriptors:**]{} H.2.8 [**\[Database Management\]**]{}: [Database Applications – [*Data mining*]{}]{}
[**General Terms:**]{} Algorithms, theory, experimentation.
[**Keywords:**]{} Network communities, Overlapping community detection, 2-mode communities.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Directed Community\
Affiliations {#sec:proposed}
===================
Community detection {#sec:fitting}
===================
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Community discovery {#sec:discussion}
===================
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
[[[**Acknowledgements.**]{}]{}]{} This research has been supported in part by NSF IIS-1016909, CNS-1010921, CAREER IIS-1149837, IIS-1159679, ARO MURI, DARPA GRAPHS, ARL AHPCRC, Okawa Foundation, PayPal, Docomo, Boeing, Allyes, Volkswagen, Intel, Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, and the Microsoft Faculty Fellowship.
[10]{}
L. Adamic and N. Glance. The political blogosphere and the 2004 [U.S.]{} election: divided they blog. In [*LinkKDD ’05*]{}, 2005.
Y.-Y. Ahn, J. Bagrow, and S. Lehmann. . , 2010.
E. Airoldi, D. Blei, S. Fienberg, and E. Xing. Mixed membership stochastic blockmodels. , 2007.
R. Andersen and K. Lang. Communities from seed sets. In [*WWW ’06*]{}, 2006.
R. Balasubramanyan and W. Cohen. Block-[LDA]{}: Jointly modeling entity-annotated text and entity-entity links. In [*SDM ’11*]{}, 2011.
B. Ball, B. Karrer, and M. Newman. Efficient and principled method for detecting communities in networks. In [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, 2011.
E. Boyle et al. —open source software for accessing gene ontology information and finding significantly enriched gene ontology terms associated with a list of genes. , 2004.
L. Breiger. The duality of persons and groups. , 1974.
R. Burt. Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network subgroups. , 1978.
D. Carney, B. Davies, and B. Horazdovsky. . , 2006.
M. Coscia, G. Rossetti, F. Giannotti, and D. Pedreschi. Demon: a local-first discovery method for overlapping communities. In [*KDD ’12*]{}, 2012.
L. Danon, J. Duch, A. Diaz-Guilera, and A. Arenas. Comparing community structure identification. , 2005.
I. Dhillon, Y. Guan, and B. Kulis. Weighted graph cuts without eigenvectors: A multilevel approach. , 2007.
S. Fortunato. Community detection in graphs. , 2010.
D. Gleich and Seshadhri. Neighborhoods are good communities. In [*KDD ’12*]{}, 2012.
P. Gopalan, D. Mimno, S. Gerrish, M. Freedman, and D. Blei. Scalable inference of overlapping communities. In [*NIPS ’12*]{}, 2012.
K. Henderson, B. Gallagher, T. Eliassi-Rad, H. Tong, S. Basu, L. Akoglu, D. Koutra, C. Faloutsos, and L. Li. Rolx: structural role extraction [&]{} mining in large graphs. In [*KDD*]{}, 2012.
P. W. Holland, K. B. Laskey, and S. Leinhardt. Stochastic blockmodels: First steps. , 1983.
C.-J. Hsieh and I. S. Dhillon. Fast coordinate descent methods with variable selection for non-negative matrix factorization. In [*KDD ’11*]{}, 2011.
S. Johnson. Hierarchical clustering schemes. , 1967.
G. Karypis and V. Kumar. Multilevel k-way partitioning scheme for irregular graphs. , 1998.
B. Klimt and Y. Yang. Introducing the enron corpus. In [*CEAS ’04*]{}, 2004.
R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins. Trawling the web for emerging cyber-communities. , 1999.
H. Kwak, C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon. What is twitter, a social network or a news media? In [*WWW ’10*]{}, 2010.
S. Lattanzi and D. Sivakumar. Affiliation networks. In [*STOC ’09*]{}, 2009.
E. Leicht and M. E. Newman. Community structure in directed networks. , 2008.
J. Leskovec, J. Kleinberg, and C. Faloutsos. Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations. In [*KDD ’05*]{}, 2005.
J. Leskovec, K. J. Lang, A. Dasgupta, and M. W. Mahoney. Community structure in large networks: Natural cluster sizes and the absence of large well-defined clusters. , 2009.
C-J. Lin. Projected Gradient Methods for Nonnegative Matrix Factorization. , 2007.
F. Malliaros and M. Vazirgiannis. Clustering and Community Detection in Directed Networks: A Survey. , 2013.
J. McAuley and J. Leskovec. Learning to discover social circles in ego networks. In [*NIPS ’12*]{}, 2012.
A. McCallum, X. Wang, and A. Corrada-Emmanuel. Topic and role discovery in social networks with experiments on enron and academic email. , 2007.
A. Mislove, M. Marcon, K. P. Gummadi, P. Druschel, and B. Bhattacharjee. Measurement and analysis of online social networks. In [*IMC ’07*]{}, 2007.
G. Palla, I. Derényi, I. Farkas, and T. Vicsek. Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society. , 2005.
S. Papadopoulos, Y. Kompatsiaris, A. Vakali, and P. Spyridonos. Community detection in social media. , 2011.
S. Pinkert, J. Schultz, and J. Reichardt. Protein interaction networks—more than mere modules. , 2010.
F. Radicchi, C. Castellano, F. Cecconi, V. Loreto, and D. Parisi. Defining and identifying communities in networks. , 2004.
M. Rosvall and C. Bergstrom. An information-theoretic framework for resolving community structure in complex networks. , 2007.
M. Rosvall and C. T. Bergstrom. Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. , 2008.
V. Satuluri and S. Parthasarathy. Scalable Graph Clustering using Stochastic Flows: Applications to Community Discovery. , 2009.
R. Ulanowicz, C. Bondavalli, and M. Egnotovich. Network analysis of trophic dynamics in south florida ecosystem, fy 97: The florida bay ecosystem. , 1998.
J. Xie, S. Kelley, and B. K. Szymanski. Overlapping community detection in networks: the state of the art and comparative study. , 2013.
J. Yang and J. Leskovec. Community-affiliation network model for overlapping community detection. In [*ICDM ’12*]{}, 2012.
J. Yang and J. Leskovec. Defining and evaluating network communities based on ground-truth. In [*ICDM ’12*]{}, 2012.
J. Yang and J. Leskovec. Overlapping community detection at scale: A non-negative factorization approach. In [*WSDM ’13*]{}, 2013.
H. Yu, P. Braun, M. A. Yildirim, I. Lemmens, K. Venkatesan, J. Sahalie, T. Hirozane-Kishikawa, F. Gebreab, N. Li, N. Simonis, and et al. High-quality binary protein interaction map of the yeast interactome network. , 2008.
E. Zheleva, H. Sharara, and L. Getoor. Co-evolution of social and affiliation networks. In [*KDD ’09*]{}, 2009.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
epsf
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Our goal is to investigate the strong field regime of general relativity. In particular we wish to focus on the study of coalescing black hole binaries. Over the last three decades since the pioneering work of Cadez, Smarr, Eppley and others, advances in computing technology, numerical algorithms and techniques and our understanding of the underlying physics have advanced to a point where we are able to carry out simulations of binary black hole collisions in 3+1 dimensions. One of the outcomes of such simulations will be an understanding of the underlying physics of the problem; and, therefore, a prediction and understanding of the gravitational radiation content. A detailed knowledge of how the resultant gravitational waveforms relate to the physical parameters of the binaries that produce them will be of importance to gravitational wave observatories (such as LIGO, VIRGO, TAMA, GEO600) now under construction around the world. With the building of these observatories, we stand at the epoch of the first direct observations of astrophysical sources that involve strong field general relativity.
The orbit and merger of two black holes is one candidate source for ground based detection of gravitational waveforms. This is of great interest to the relativity community. The binary black hole problem is a two-body problem in general relativity. It is a stringent dynamical test of the theory. However, studying spacetimes containing multiple black holes involves solving the Einstein equations, a complex system of non-linear, dynamic, elliptic-hyperbolic equations intractable in closed form. The intractability of the problem has led to the development of numerical codes capable of solving the Einstein equations.
Our approach to numerically solving the Einstein equations involves reformulating them as an initial value problem. In this 3+1 formulation [@York:ADM], spacelike hypersurfaces parameterized in time foliate the spacetime. The resulting equations are coupled elliptic and hyperbolic differential equations of the 3-metric, $g_{ij}$, and the extrinsic curvature, $K_{ij}$. The initial value problem is solved by specifying a hypersurface at an instant of time, say $t=0$, and evolving to the next hypersurface at time $t=\delta t$ with the evolution equations to obtain $g_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$ at the next time $t=\delta t$.
One vital issue in numerically solving the Einstein equation describing spacetimes containing black holes is handling the physical singularities. As one approaches the singularity, the values of the fields being computed approach infinity; therefore, a region containing the singularity must be avoided to keep the computation from halting. Excision techniques are promising in avoiding the singularity. Excising the singularity involves locating a region interior to the event horizon containing the singularity on each evolving hypersurface. This region is then “masked” from the computation. The derivatives at the boundary between the masked region and the computational domain are handled using causal differencing, a differencing scheme[@seidelsuen] that respects the causal structure of the spacetime.
In deciding where in space to excise we use the apparent horizon as opposed to the event horizon. By its very nature, the event horizon is a global construct depending on the entire spacetime. The apparent horizon, a local, [*i.e.*]{} spacelike 2-surface is more suitable. Following a suggestion by Unruh [@Thornburg:1987], the apparent horizon is used to define the excised region to be masked at each time during the evolution. Apparent horizons are defined locally for each time, and exist at, or inside of, the event horizon. In some spacetimes, choices of foliation may lead to the absence of an apparent horizon. When the discussions in this refer to a hypersurface, it is assumed an apparent horizon exists on that hypersurface.
Recent three-dimensional horizon locator codes are capable of finding the location of an apparent horizon in generic [*single*]{} black hole spacetimes [@Anninois; @Baumgarte; @Gundlach; @HCM; @Kemball; @Nakamura] and two [@Diener; @Pasch] are capable of finding disjoint multiple apparent horizons in the special case of conformally flat binary, time-symmetric black hole spacetimes. Multiple apparent horizon finding algorithms will be necessary in simulations of generic binary black hole spacetimes. The method presented in this paper, called the level flow method, is capable of detecting multiple apparent horizons in generic spacetimes. The level flow algorithm has two advantages: 1) It is independent of a good initial guess and 2) It is capable of following the surface through a change in topology. In level flow, the apparent horizon equation is reformulated as a parabolic equation and a set of surfaces are flowed with speeds dependent on the expansion of the outgoing null vectors normal to each surface.
The purpose behind developing the level flow method of tracking apparent horizons is to have a method capable of detecting multiple apparent horizons on any given hypersurface without a good guess. Specifically, we want a tracker that can detect the transition from a double to a single apparent horizon in single time step without [*a prior*]{} knowledge of the transition.
In the rest of this paper we discuss apparent horizons in general and current 3D work in $\S~\ref{sec:ah}$ and $\S~\ref{sec:method}$. In $\S~\ref{sec:LFM}$ we describe the level flow method in detail and give a brief description of the numerical method involved in solving the apparent horizon is in $\S~\ref{sec:NM}$. We demonstrate the use of the level flow tracker on model data and a binary black hole grazing collision in $\S~\ref{sec:testing}$ and $\S~\ref{sec:graze}$.
Apparent Horizons {#sec:ah}
=================
$M$ is the spacetime with metric ${}^4g_{ab}$ foliated by hypersurfaces $\Sigma$ parameterized by $t$ with 3-metric $g_{ab}$. Let $S$ be a surface with $S^2$ topology on $\Sigma$. The apparent horizon is the outermost marginally trapped surface in $\Sigma$, a surface with zero expansion. The zero expansion of the surface is defined in terms of outgoing null vectors to $S$, $k^a$, such that $k^a$ have zero divergence $$\nabla_a k^a = 0,$$ where $\nabla_a$ is the covariant derivative associated with ${}^4g_{ab}$. Referring to fig. (\[fig:aheqn\]), $k^a$ is defined in terms of the spacelike normals to $S$, $s^a$, and the future directed timelike normals, $n^a$, such that: $$k^a = s^a + n^a.
\label{eqn:ksn}$$ The expansion of the outgoing normals, $\nabla_a k^a$, can be rewritten in terms of quantities defined on the hypersurface: $$\kappa \equiv D^a s_a - K + s^a s^b K_{ab}.
\label{eqn:kappa}$$ $D_a$ denotes covariant differentiation with respect to $g_{ab}$, $K_{ab}$ is the extrinsic curvature, and $K$ is $g^{ab}K_{ab}$. In fact, there is a level set of surfaces in $\Sigma$ parameterized by $\kappa$. Each surface in the level set is defined by the constant expansion of its null vectors such that $$\kappa = c_n,
\label{eqn:cn}$$ where $c_n$ are constants labeled by the positive integer $n$. Marginally trapped surfaces are members of this set for $$\kappa = 0.
\label{eqn:aheqn}$$ Eqn.(\[eqn:aheqn\]) is called the apparent horizon equation since the apparent horizon is the outermost surface with $\kappa = 0$ in $\Sigma$.
The $S^2$ topology of the apparent horizon naturally lends itself to characterization via spherical coordinates. The function, $$\psi = r - h(\theta,\phi)
\label{eqn:shapefunc}$$ is a level set of 2-spheres in $\Sigma$, where $h(\theta,\phi)$ is called the apparent horizon shape function. A marginally trapped surface has $\psi = 0$. The spacelike normals to $S$ are defined from eqn. (\[eqn:shapefunc\]) such that $$s^i = g^{ij} \partial_j \psi / \sqrt{g^{kl}\partial_k \psi \partial_l \psi}
\label{eqn:spacenorms}$$ is the spacelike vector field at every point of $S$. The apparent horizon equation in spherical coordinates ($h(\theta,\phi),\theta,\phi$) is a 2-dimensional problem in $\theta$ and $\phi$.
Current 3-D Methods {#sec:method}
===================
The approaches to solving the apparent horizon equation on a three-dimensional hypersurface can be addressed roughly in two categories: methods that solve the apparent horizon equation directly and methods that solve it by first recasting it as a parabolic equation. This paper does not address spherical and axi-symmetric approaches. One of the first three-dimensional apparent horizon solvers was published by Nakamura, Kojima, and Oohara [@Nakamura]. They directly solve the apparent horizon equation by using spherical harmonic basis functions to expand the apparent horizon shape function, $h(\theta,\phi)$ into $$h(\theta,\phi) =
\sum^{l_{max}}_{l=0} \sum^{l}_{m=-l} a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi).$$ This method is called the pseudospectral method. A finite number of the coefficients, $\{a_{lm}\}$ parameterize the horizon shape function, and the maximum $l_{max}$ depends on the computation and deviations from a sphere. The apparent horizon equation can then be solved by writing it as $$\|\kappa(a_{lm})\| = 0,$$ and using functional integration routines to find the coefficients $a_{lm}$. Others have used similar methods [@Baumgarte; @Kemball; @Anninois].
In another approach to direct solutions of the apparent horizon equation is to treat it as a boundary value problem. One notes that a discretization of this equation leads to a system of algebraic equations which can then be solved via Newton’s method. Thornburg [@Thornburg] discusses applications of Newton’s method to this problem in general and shows results in axisymmetry. Huq [@Huq] has implemented a similar algorithm based on Newton’s method that utilizes Cartesian coordinates to difference the equations.
Tod [@Tod] first suggested the use of curvature flow in solving the apparent horizon equation by recasting it as a parabolic equation. Bernstein [@Bernstein] implemented Tod’s suggestion in axisymmetry. Gundlach [@Gundlach] introduced a fast flow method which combines the ideas of the flow method with the pseudospectral method. Pasch [@Pasch] and Diener [@Diener] implemented a similar method, a level-set method, in three-dimensions and found discrete apparent horizons in multi-black-hole spacetimes; however these spacetimes were confined to be conformally flat and time-symmetric.
Each of the approaches briefly described above, solving the apparent horizon equation directly or solving it [*via*]{} a parabolic equation, has its advantages. Direct methods tend to be faster while flow methods do not rely on “good” initial guesses. However, none of these methods are applicable to the generic, multi-black-hole problem. Herein lies the motivation behind the level flow method. The level flow method is the only method designed to locate discrete apparent horizons in generic spacetimes containing one or two discrete horizons.
Level Flow Method {#sec:LFM}
=================
Curvature Flow
--------------
The level flow method is a hybrid flow$/$level$-$set method. The previous section mentioned the flow method, this section gives more detail on the flow method which is the foundation of the level flow method. The flow approach, as suggested by Tod, is to rewrite the apparent horizon equation as the speed function in a parabolic equation. In the case of a time symmetric hypersurface, in which $K_{ab} = 0$, the apparent horizon equation reduces to the condition for a minimal surface, $D_a s^a =0$. In this case, the surface $S$ is at a local extremum of the area. The starting surface, $S(\lambda=0)$, is parameterized by coordinates $x^a$ and evolved in terms of a parameter $\lambda$. The equation of motion is $$\frac{\partial x^a}{\partial \lambda} = - H s^a
\label{eqn:mcf}$$ where $\partial x^a/\partial \lambda$ is a vector field, and $H$ is the mean curvature, which is the trace of extrinsic curvature associated with embedding $S$ in $\Sigma$ given by $$H = D_a s^a.
\label{eqn:mean}$$ Eqn.(\[eqn:mcf\]) is the gradient flow for the area functional. The area decreases monotonically with increasing $\lambda$. Grayson [@Grayson] has shown that a surface deforming under its gradient field (Eqn.(\[eqn:mcf\])) will evolve to a stable minimum surface (surface is local minimum of area) if there is one, otherwise to a point.
In numerical relativity, we are interested in the generic case, with $K_{ab} \neq 0$, for which the marginally trapped surfaces differ from minimal surfaces, the surfaces are not extrema of the area. However, Tod suggests an equation similar to Eqn.(\[eqn:mcf\]) as a curvature flow: $$\frac{\partial x^a}{\partial \lambda} = F(\kappa) s^a
\label{eqn:flow}$$ using $F(\kappa) = -\kappa$ where $\kappa = D_as^a + s^as^bK_{ab} -K$ as in eqn.(\[eqn:kappa\]). We have found eqn. (\[eqn:flow\]) to be a successful practical implementation of the flow method.
Level Flow {#sec:LSM}
----------
Eqn. (\[eqn:flow\]) gives us an initial value problem. Given information about the system at some initial $\lambda$, eqn. (\[eqn:flow\]) will describe the system for all its future propagation in $\lambda$. Directly solving eqn. (\[eqn:flow\]) will lead to a successful detection of single apparent horizons; however, solving it directly does not ensure correct handling of a topology change which is necessary for detection of multiple apparent horizons. By combining the flow method with a level-set idea however, this topology change can be effected and multiple apparent horizons can be tracked starting from a single guess surface.
First eqn. (\[eqn:flow\]) is recast from an equation governing the motion of the coordinates parameterizing $S$, namely $x^a$, to an equation governing the motion of the surface $\psi$. Noting that $\psi$ is parameterized by $\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \lambda} =
\frac{\partial x^a}{\partial \lambda}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x^a} \end{aligned}$$ by the chain rule, and multiplying eqn.(\[eqn:flow\]) by $\frac{\partial \psi}
{\partial x^a}$ gives $$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \lambda} =
F(\kappa) s^a \partial \psi/\partial x^a.$$ Using $$s^a = g^{ab}\frac{\partial \psi}
{\partial x^b}/\| \nabla \psi\|$$ and $$\|\nabla \psi\| = \sqrt{\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x^a} \frac
{\partial \psi}{\partial x^b} g^{ab}},
\label{eqn:nablapsi}$$ the test surface’s flow is given by: $$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \lambda} = F(\kappa) \|\nabla \psi\|.
\label{eqn:flow0}$$ Eqn.(\[eqn:flow0\]) is a reformulation of eqn. (\[eqn:flow\]) and will flow the surface, $\psi$, to a marginally trapped surface at $\psi=0$ when $\kappa=0$.
The strength of the flow methods is their ability to locate a surface with $\kappa =0$ given any non-pathological initial surface. For example, the apparent horizon in a spherically symmetric spacetime (Schwarzschild) was found by flowing an initial surface shaped as a leaf, see Fig. (\[fig:leaf\]). This ability is especially important when tracking horizons during evolutions of binary black hole spacetimes. In this case, finding apparent horizons for two discrete apparent horizons in each $\Sigma(t)$ involves flowing two initial guesses, one for each horizon [@Bruegmann]. On $\Sigma(t=0)$, the location of the apparent horizons may be known; however, as the black holes accelerate the task of guessing the locations of the two horizons becomes more difficult. Further, the two horizons merge into a single horizon at a single instant of time, rendering a good initial guess difficult. Some way of determining when two horizons merge into a single horizon is necessary. The level flow method takes care of these issues by not requiring a good initial guess $(\psi (\lambda=0))$ and by detecting multiple apparent horizons from a single guess $(\psi (\lambda=0))$.
The level flow method differs from the flow method in the specification of the speed function, $F(\kappa)$. $F(\kappa)=0$ determines when the propagation of the surface stops. The flow method is in the form of eqn. (\[eqn:flow\]), in which $F(\kappa) = -\kappa$. A good choice since $F(\kappa)=-\kappa=0$ indicates a marginally trapped surface; but this choice will not flow $\psi$ though a fission. In general the scheme fails as the surface pinches due to ill-defined normals at the surface. The level flow method alleviates this problem by looking for indications that the surface topology is about to change before the pinching occurs. (Another method which was introduced by Sethian and Osher [@Sethian] for non-relativistic problems is to flow a higher dimensional surface in which $\psi$ is embedded. This higher dimensional surface does not fission. This has only been implemented in a time-symmetric spacetime [@Pasch] and requires more computational power due to the extra dimension in the problem.)
The level flow method flows a set of two-dimensional surfaces in $\Sigma$ parameterized by $\kappa$. We call the set of surfaces a level set and label the set $S(c_n)$. Each surface has a constant value of $\kappa=c_n$ everywhere on it. The set of surfaces is defined by varying $c_n$ as the flow progresses $$c_{n+1} = c_n \pm \Delta c,
\label{eqn:c}$$ where $(+)$ indicates outward flow, $(-)$ inward flow, and $\Delta c \propto
\parallel \kappa \parallel_2$. Each surface obeys the equation of motion given in eqn. (\[eqn:flow0\]) with $F(\kappa)$ defined to flow to multiple surfaces. We choose two options for the speed function: $$\begin{aligned}
F(\kappa) &=& \kappa -c_n \\
F(\kappa) &=& (\kappa -c_n) \arctan^2(\frac{\kappa-c_n}{\kappa_o}).
\label{eqn:atan}\end{aligned}$$ As $\kappa-c_n \rightarrow 0$, both functions are solving for a particular surface in the level set, $S(c_n)$. The second function, eqn.(\[eqn:atan\]), behaves similarly to the first but allows for larger time steps near a fissioning surface because it moves points further from the $\kappa - c_n=0$ surface faster than the points closer to this surface.
Eqn. (\[eqn:flow0\]) is an initial value problem requiring $\psi$ to be specified at $\lambda = 0$. To initialize the starting surface, we need only supply an origin and radius. Taking into account that there may be more than one marginally trapped surface, it is best to start with an initial surface larger than the expected horizon. The values of $g_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$ are required everywhere on the surface to evaluate $\kappa$. These functions can be known analytically or generated by evolution codes. As the flow velocity approaches zero, $F(\kappa-c)\rightarrow 0$, $\kappa \sim c_n$ and a surface $S(c_n)$ is found within a tolerance ($\epsilon_{\kappa}$). When $\kappa = 0$, the located surface describes a marginally trapped surface.
Fig.(\[fig:level\]) shows the level set found in a spacetime containing two black holes with coordinate locations $(-0.954,0,-0.3)M$ and $(0.954,0,0.3)M$. Each 2-surface has a constant value of $\kappa$. We monitor the topology of the deforming surface by computing the radial component of the gradient of $\kappa$ with respect to the normals of each surface in the level set. The gradient is defined as: $$\frac{\|\kappa_{n-1} - \kappa_{n}\|}{\|\psi_{n-1} - \psi_{n}\|},$$ where $\psi$ is the function given in eqn.(\[eqn:shapefunc\]). A sharp increase in the gradient indicates the existence of multiple surfaces. To ensure that we do not erroneously abandon a single surface, we also monitor the maximum of the $l_2$-norm of $\kappa$. If $\kappa$ is no longer decreasing, we are no longer finding a solution to eqn.(\[eqn:cn\]); otherwise the single surface is retained. The level flow method is essentially a special set of surfaces with properties that let us determine when to break. If we only flowed to $\kappa = 0$, we would not form the collection of $\kappa=$constant surfaces.
Once a topology change is indicated, the radii and origins for each of the new surfaces are found (note that these four parameters for each surface are all that is needed to initiate two new trial surfaces). These origins and radii are determined using the location of the last of the single surfaces. Using this last single surface, we can find the origin of the last surface and the location on the surface with minimum gradient of the value of $\kappa$. This occurs at the farthest points from the pinching in the surface. Picture (a) in fig. (\[fig:yikes\]) shows the last single surface with an arrow drawn from the origin to the point on the surface with a minimal change in $\kappa$. The arrow indicates a chosen direction. All points lying in this direction are collected and averaged to find a radius and center of mass. All points lying in the opposite direction are also collected and used to calculate the radius and center of mass for the second surface using the dotted arrows in picture (b) of fig.(\[fig:yikes\]). These two sets of radii and centers are the initial starting parameters for each new trial surfaces. The tracker then flows the two new surfaces depicted in (c) of fig.(\[fig:yikes\]) until $\kappa = 0$ within $\epsilon_{\kappa}$.
The level flow code is only started by the user once, the subsequent flowing to multiple apparent horizons is done automatically.
The advantage to the level flow method is its capability to detect apparent horizons in generic, multiple black hole spacetimes from a single reasonable initial guess. The drawbacks are the dependence of $\Delta \lambda$ on the spatial grid size, $\Delta \lambda \sim N^{-2}$ where $N^2=N_{\theta}N_{\phi}$ is the number of grid points, and the fact that we flow to a speed of zero (the flow speed approaches zero as $\kappa$ approaches zero). When using apparent horizon tracking in our evolution code, we will not require knowledge of the apparent horizon location to high precision; in fact we can find a surface with $\kappa \le 0$ to remove the singularity thus alleviating some of the speed issues. Nonetheless, we plan to improve the speed of this algorithm. Some improvements have already been made to increase the efficiency of the current algorithm. The addition of the $\arctan^2$ function, eqn.(\[eqn:atan\]), speeds up the algorithm during the fissioning process. Monitoring the number of steps needed to complete a Crank-Nicholson iteration (see $\S$\[sec:NM\])) has also proven useful in increasing efficiency.
Numerical Method {#sec:NM}
================
The previous section described how the level flow method is used to solve the apparent horizon equation. The resulting parabolic equation is updated using an iterative Crank-Nicholson method updating the variables at every $\lambda$-step. Iterative Crank-Nicholson converges to an exact solution of the implicit problem. However, the detailed behavior of this convergence [@Teukolsky] shows that the Crank-Nicholson solution at a particular iteration has an amplification factor $|{\cal{A}}^{(n)}|$ that oscillates around unity. The behavior varies in pairs: $|{\cal{A}}^{(n)}| < 1$ for $n = 2,3$; $|{\cal{A}}^{(n)}| > 1$ for $n = 4,5$, etc. while $|\hspace{.1cm}|{\cal{A}}^{(n)}|-1| \rightarrow 0$ monotonically as $n \rightarrow \infty$. $n$ is counting the number of iterations it takes to get $\hat{\kappa} = \kappa$ within the specified tolerance. For the data presented here, a Crank-Nicholson iteration of $n=2$ or $n=3$ was maintained for errors less than the spatial grid spacing squared, $h^2$.
The spatial derivatives are approximated to second order in truncation error using centered finite differencing molecules. To verify the convergence of the level flow code, we include a plot of the convergence factor versus the number of iterations taken in fig. (\[fig:cnvg2\]).
The convergence factor is given by $$C_f \equiv \frac{{\hat{\kappa}}_{2h} - {\hat{\kappa}}_{4h}}{{\hat{\kappa}}_h
- {\hat{\kappa}}_{2h}},
\label{eqn:convergence}$$ where ${\hat{\kappa}}$ is the discretized $\kappa$ and $h$ is the spatial grid spacing. For a second order scheme, the convergence factor in eqn. (\[eqn:convergence\]) is $C_f = 4 + O(h^2)$.
For the closed form solutions detailed in the next section, the data are given by evaluating the closed form analytically on the two-surface. However, the goal is to use the level flow method during an evolution including evolutions involving a region excised from computational consideration. The approach we take to evaluate $\kappa$ from a Cartesian grid of data $(g_{ij}, K_{ij})$ is the same as that used and described in Huq [@Huq]. This approach discretizes the apparent horizon equation using Cartesian coordinates on 3d-stencils centered on points on the surface. These stencils are not aligned with the 3d-lattice from which we obtain $g_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$ data. Our apparent horizon surfaces are embedded in such lattices and as a result interpolations must be carried out to obtain the metric data on the surface as it evolves. The algorithms and methodology for evaluating $\kappa$ are described in detail in [@HCM; @Huq].
Testing the Method with Closed Form Solutions {#sec:testing}
=============================================
The level flow method of tracking apparent horizons has been designed to locate apparent horizons in single and multiple black hole spacetimes. To test the level flow tracker, we locate apparent horizons in Schwarzschild, Kerr, and Brill-Lindquist data. In particular, we also demonstrate the level flow method’s ability to detect binary black holes in the Brill-Lindquist data.
Schwarzschild Data {#sec:schwarz}
------------------
The Kerr-Schild metric provides a closed-form description of both the Schwarzschild and the Kerr solutions to the Einstein equation and is given by: $$g_{ab} = \eta_{ab} + 2Hl_{a} l_{b},
\label{eqn:KSmetric}$$ where $\eta_{ab}$ is the Minkowski metric, $\eta_{ab}=$diag$(-1,1,1,1)$. $H$ is a scalar function of the coordinates and $l_{a}$ is an ingoing null vector with respect to both the Minkowski and full metrics; that is $l_a$ satisfies the relation: $$\eta^{ab}l_{a}l_{b}=g^{ab}l_{a}l_{b}=0.$$
For the ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein form of the Schwarzschild solution, the metric given in eqn.(\[eqn:KSmetric\]) has the scalar function, $H$, given by: $$H=\frac{M}{r}$$ and the components of the null vector: $$\begin{aligned}
l_t & = & 1 \\
l_x & = & \frac{x}{r} \\
l_y & = & \frac{y}{r} \\
l_z & = & \frac{z}{r}\end{aligned}$$ where we have adopted rectangular coordinates ($t,x,y,z$) with $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$, and $M$ the mass of the black hole.
We track the apparent horizon in this situation for a single black hole of mass $M$. The area and radius of the event horizon for the Schwarzschild solution of the Kerr-Schild metric is known in closed form [@Misner] given by: $$A = 4\pi r^2_+
\label{eqn:area}$$ where $r_+$ is the event horizon radius and equals $2M$. In the slicing we have chosen, the apparent horizon coincides with the event horizon. Using the level flow method we found the apparent horizon to converge to the closed form solution giving a $0.35\%$ relative error at a course resolution ($17 \times 17$ grid). The area of the tracked apparent horizon is computed by $$A_{num} \equiv \int_S \sqrt{h} dx dy,
\label{eqn:areaS2}$$ and converges to the closed form solution, eqn.(\[eqn:area\]). In eqn.(\[eqn:areaS2\]) $h$ is the determinant of the 2-metric $h_{ab}$ on the apparent horizon surface, and $x$ and $y$ are surface coordinates. The numerical area is determined from eqn.(\[eqn:areaS2\]) by calculating the determinant at every point in the grid and using a trapezoidal integration scheme [@Huq].
Kerr Data
---------
The Kerr solution is a second solution given by the Kerr-Schild metric, eqn.(\[eqn:KSmetric\]). The Kerr solution is the solution for a spinning black hole, [*i.e.*]{} a black hole with an internal angular momentum per unit mass given by $a$. In rectangular coordinates $(t,x,y,z)$, the scalar function and null vector are given by: $$H = \frac{Mr^3}{r^2+a^2z^2}
\label{eqn:KSH}$$ and $$l_{\mu} = (1,\frac{rx+ay}{r^2+a^2},\frac{ry-ax}{r^2+a^2},\frac{z}{r}),
\label{eqn:KSl}$$ where $\mu = (t,x,y,z)$, $M$ is the mass of the black hole, $a=J/M$ is the angular momentum per unit mass of the black hole in the z-direction, and r is obtained from: $$\frac{x^2+y^2}{r^2+a^2}+ \frac{z^2}{r^2} = 1 :$$ $$r^2 = \frac{1}{2}(\rho^2-a^2) + \sqrt{\frac{1}{4}(\rho^2-a^2)^2+a^2z^2},
\label{eqn:r}$$ with $\rho = \sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$. The difference here is the addition of angular momentum. We test two cases, $a=0.5M$ and $a=0.9M$. Fig.(\[fig:a\]) presents a Schwarzschild ($a=0M$) case, together with the $a=0.5M$ and $a=0.9M$ cases. The solid line is the $\theta = \pi/2$ slice and the dashed line is the $\phi = \pi$ slice. We find the expected result, that the deformation in the $\phi = \pi$ slice increases with $a$.
The radius of the event horizon is given by $$r_+ = M + \sqrt{M^2 - a^2}.
\label{eqn:eventra}$$ The solution to eqn.(\[eqn:eventra\]) for $a=0.5M$ is $r_+=1.87M$ and the numerical solution we obtain for the horizon radius is $r_{num}
= 1.87M$, with an error of $0.06\%$. In the $a=0.9M$ case, $r_+=1.44M$ and $r_{num}= 1.46M$, with a $1.39\%$ error. The area of the horizon for each case can be calculated using $$A = 4 \pi (r_+^2 + a^2)
\label{eqn:areaa}$$ (generalizing eqn.(\[eqn:area\])), and compared to a numerical eqn.(\[eqn:areaS2\]). computation using eqn.(\[eqn:areaS2\]). In the $a=0.5M$ case, eqn.(\[eqn:area\]) gives $A = 46.89M^2$, numerically we obtain $A_{num} = 46.88M^2$, resulting in a $0.21\%$ error. In the $a=0.9M$ case, $A= 36.09M^2$ and $A_{num} = 36.39M^2$ with a $0.83\%$ error. The errors will decrease as $\kappa$ is driven closer to zero.
Brill-Lindquist Data {#sec:bl}
--------------------
In this section, we study a binary black hole system using Brill-Lindquist data \[\[Brill\]\]. These data are useful to us for two reasons: We can verify previous results of the critical separation, and study an example of how the tracker works in finding multiple apparent horizons. The 3-metric is time symmetric, $K_{ab} = 0$, and is conformally flat: $$g_{ab} = \phi^4 \eta_{ab}$$ where $$\phi = 1 + \sum^N_{i=1}\frac{M_i}{2r_i}$$ and $N$ is the number of holes (here $N=2$), $M_i$ is the mass of the ith black hole and the $r_i$ are the radial distances from the centers of the black holes
We use isotropic coordinates to express the metric as $$ds^2 = \phi^4 (dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2\theta d\phi^2)$$ with $$r_i = \sqrt{r^2+d_i^2 - 2d_i r \cos\theta},$$ where $d_i$ is the distance between the holes and the center of the coordinate system. When they are far apart, each hole has an apparent horizon of radius $M/2$ in these coordinates. The area of each of the holes when they are well separated is $16\pi M^2$.
The limiting separation of the holes between single and double horizons was found by Brill and Lindquist [@Brill] to be $1.56M$, Cadez $1.534M\pm0.002M$ [@Cadez], $[1.5M,1.6M]$ by Alcubierre [*et al.*]{} [@Alcubierre], and $1.535M$ by Huq [@Huq]. We found a critical separation 1.53(5)M. The apparent horizon at the critical separation of 1.535M is shown in fig.(\[fig:d1.535\]) using the level flow code with $33^2$ grid points.
The horizon found for a separation of $d=1.5M$ which is less than the critical separation, is shown in fig.(\[fig:d1.5\]). Fig.(\[fig:absy1.5\]) is a plot of the $l_2$-norm of the maximum of $\kappa(\theta)$ for the separation $d=1.5M$ at each iteration plotted versus the number of $\lambda$-steps. This is one of the checks in the level flow code to ensure that the apparent horizon equation is still being solved. We expect the expansion to continue to decrease if we have started outside the apparent horizon and are flowing inward. As we will see in fig.(\[fig:absy2.0\]), the expansion increases as fission occurs in a data set with separated holes.
As we increase the separation between the two holes to a separation greater than the critical separation, we can test the apparent horizon tracker in the case of multiple apparent horizons. We demonstrate with a separation of $d=2.0M$. The initial surface flows to the point of fissioning where the topology of the surface changes from a one surface into two surfaces. Fig.(\[fig:initial\]) is a plot of the initial surface that begins the flow. The level set found during this flow is depicted in fig.(\[fig:BLls\]). Each of the surfaces in fig.(\[fig:BLls\]) has a constant expansion, $\kappa = c_n$ and was used to indicate a topology change in the test surface. The values for the expansion are $c_1 = 0.14$, $c_2 = 0.12$, $c_3 = 0.1$, and $c_4 = 0.08$. The last single surface just before the topology change is not a surface in the level set; it is plotted in fig.(\[fig:tofission\]). At this point the tracker begins to flow two surfaces.
In contrast to a separation of $d=1.5M$ where there is no fission, here as fissioning becomes imminent, the $\kappa$ begins to increase. Fig.(\[fig:absy2.0\]) is a plot of the absolute value of the maximum across the surface of the expansion, $\kappa$, versus $\lambda$ up to the point of fission. The increase in the expansion is one of the signals of imminent fission. As the algorithm tries to find a surface with $\kappa = 0$ everywhere, it is driven into two surfaces. Once the new surfaces are found, the maximum of the expansion begins a monotonic decrease as in fig.(\[fig:absy1.5\]).
The exaggerated peanut shape in fig.(\[fig:bld1\]) and fig.(\[fig:bld2\]) is taken for the same $\lambda$-value as fig.(\[fig:tofission\]).
Once the fissioning is detected by the code, it automatically begins flowing two new surfaces of the same resolution as the parent surface. The series of snapshots shown in fig.(\[fig:bld1\]) and fig.(\[fig:bld2\]) is a subset of the set of surfaces found by the apparent horizon tracker as it follows the fission of the trial surface into two surfaces. The tracker starts with a spherical starting surface that deforms along the gradient field.
As the points defining the surface flow, the distance between the points can become too small for the finite difference scheme at that resolution. Redistribution of the points on the surface is taken care of automatically by updating the center and radius.
Apparent Horizons in a Grazing Collision {#sec:graze}
========================================
As stated in the Introduction, one of the main motivators of this work is to have an apparent horizon finder that can locate disjoint horizons during the evolution. This entails 1) finding the horizons without a good initial guess, and 2) detecting the topology change from two disjoint horizons to one horizon. To demonstrate the level flow’s ability to carry out 1) and 2), we report the results of apparent horizon tracking in the particular case of a short evolution of two spinning, Kerr-Schild black holes using the Binary Black Hole Grand Challenge Alliance Cauchy code [@BBH]. A future paper [@Grazing] will discuss the details of the evolution.
The evolution is free, [*i.e.*]{} the momentum and Hamiltonian constraint equations are only used as checks during the evolution. Since we cannot hold infinity on the grid in this formalism, we must specify outer boundary conditions for the dynamic variables, $g_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$. For the following work, we specify analytic outer boundary conditions with blending [@Gomez] between the analytic and numeric regions.
To specify initial data for two spinning, boosted black holes we use superposed Kerr-Schild black holes. We chose a Kerr-Schild metric \[\[Misner\]\] for two reasons: 1) The metric is well defined at the event horizon, and 2) The metric is Lorentz form-invariant in a simple sense, under boosts ($v>0$). The superposed data are constructed in an approximate manner by a conformal method based on the superposition of two isolated, boosted Kerr black holes.
The initial data follows from Matzner [*et al.*]{} [@Matzner] and was first implemented by Correll [@Correll]. The data is the superposition of two, isolated, boosted Kerr-Black holes with individual metrics given by eqn.(\[eqn:KSmetric\]). The resulting superposed metric is: $$\hat{g}_{ij} = {}_{(1)}g_{ij} + {}_{(2)}g_{ij} - \eta_{ij}
\label{eqn:KS2}$$ with the $\hat{}$ symbol indicating a quantity conformally related to the physical metric, $g_{ij} = \phi^4 \hat{g}_{ij}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:KS}
{}_{(1)}g_{ij}& =& \eta_{ij} + {}_{(1)}H(r_1){}_{(1)}l_i{}_{(1)}l_j \mbox{\hspace{0.5cm} and} \\
{}_{(2)}g_{ij}& =& \eta_{ij} + {}_{(2)}H(r_2){}_{(2)}l_i{}_{(2)}l_j\end{aligned}$$ are the the isolated Kerr-Schild metric forms with $l_i$ and $H$ corresponding to the single black holes. The two holes have comparable masses, $M_1 \sim M_2$, coordinate separation $r_{12}$, and velocities [**$v_1$**]{} and [**$v_2$**]{} assigned to them. For the argument of $H$ and $l_j$, we use $$\begin{aligned}
{r_1}^2 &=& (x-x_1)^i(x-x_1)^j \delta_{ij} \hspace{.2cm} \mbox{ and} \\
{r_2}^2 &=& (x-x_2)^i(x-x_2)^j \delta_{ij}\end{aligned}$$ with ${x_1}^i$ and ${x_2}^j$ the coordinate positions of the holes on the initial slice.
The extrinsic curvatures of the two isolated black holes are added to obtain a trial ${\hat{K}}_{ab}$ for the binary black hole system given as: $${}_{(0)}{\hat{K}}_{ij} = {}_{(1)}{\hat{K}}_{ij} + {}_{(2)}{\hat{K}}_{ij}.
\label{eqn:K0}$$ The subscript $0$ indicates that this is an approximation to the true extrinsic curvature of the binary black hole spacetime. ${}_{(1)}{\hat{K}}_{ij}$ and ${}_{(2)}{\hat{K}}_{ij}$ are the individual extrinsic curvatures associated with the isolated Kerr-Schild metric and their indices are raised and lowered by their individual metrics, eqn.(\[eqn:KS\]).
For the data we describe here (holes center initially separated by a coordinate distance exceeding $10M$ where $M$ is the mass of one of the holes), we expect that an initial value solution will be $\approx 10\%$ in error on the domain outside of the excision volume. See further discussion in [@Pedro]. We set the lapse function to: $$\alpha = \alpha_1 + \alpha_2 -1,$$ and the shift vector to: $$\beta^i = \beta_1^i + \beta_2^i.$$ The run presented in this paper has a grid $81 \times 81 \times 81$ in Cartesian coordinates $(x,y,z)$ with a domain of $(\pm10M,\pm10M,\pm10M)$ resulting in a spatial resolution of $M/4$. The data represent two black holes in a grazing collision. The holes are set initially at $(5M,1M,0M)$ and $(-5M,-1M,0M)$ in Cartesian coordinates with a boost speed of $\pm0.5\hat{x}$ toward one another and each has an angular momentum per unit mass of $a = 0.5M$ in the $(-)$z-direction. Fig.(\[fig:KSinit\]) is the initial configuration of this run; note that a naive sum of the spin and the orbit angular momentum yields zero for this configuration.
We post-process the data obtained from the evolution. For the purposes of this paper, we track the apparent horizons at three specific times during the evolution, namely $t=0M$, $2.8M$, and $3.4M$. At $0M$, the apparent horizons of the initial data are found, at $2.8M$ two disjoint apparent horizons are found; and finally, at $3.4M$ a single apparent horizon is found. For the horizons shown here, the level flow method used a sphere of radius $8M$ to initialize each run. Fig. \[fig:merged\] is a plot of the horizons with time going up the page. The lowest plot is of $t=0M$, with each horizon being a sphere centered at coordinates $(\pm 5M, \pm1M, 0M)$. The middle plot shows the horizons at a later time, $t=2.8M$. Here the deviation in shape as the horizons accelerate towards each other is seen. The final plot at the top of fig. \[fig:merged\] is the first single apparent horizon that envelops both black holes at $t=3.4M$.
The areas for the apparent horizons at $t=0M$ are $A = 43.6M^2$ for each hole. At $t=2.8M$, the horizons have deviated from a spherical shape and the areas for each hole are $A = 44.2M^2$, giving a measure of the accuracy to which we can maintain their areas constant. The area of the merged apparent horizon at $t=3.4M$ is $A_{merged} = 184M^2$. According to the black hole area theorem of Hawking and Ellis [@Hawking:Ellis], the area of the merged event horizon must equal at least the combined area of the individual event horizons. Although no strong statements can be made about the area of an apparent horizon, we do find $A_{merged} > A_1 + A_2$ in a consistent manner. We can further surmise that the final maximum area we could expect based on the initial configuration should be that of a Schwarzschild black hole of mass $2M$, giving an area of approximately $201M^2$. In some sense the area predicted by the Schwarzschild case is an upper bound. We see a $8.5\%$ deviation from that “idealized” case. In view of this upper limit, $8.5\%$ may be an indication of the greatest amount of gravitational radiation up to the time of merger ($t=3.4M$) given our approximate initial data, gauge condition, and boundaries.
Conclusion {#sec:sum}
==========
Apparent horizon location and tracking constitute an important part of numerical evolutions of black hole spacetimes using excision techniques. We have demonstrated a method for finding apparent horizons in situations where the location of the apparent horizon may not be known; hence a good initial guess for the finder may not be possible. The method we have discussed works with generic 3-metric and extrinsic curvature data and with an arbitrary initial starting surface. Furthermore, the method is capable of detecting a topology change as the finder flows towards the apparent horizon. This ability is important for situations where there are multiple apparent horizons in the data. This allows us to locate apparent horizons in binary black hole evolutions without knowing where the apparent horizons are; and it allows us to locate the first single apparent horizon that forms at the merger of two black holes. The level flow method is successful at locating the apparent horizons in generic spacetimes as demonstrated by the Schwarzschild and Kerr data. It also found multiple apparent horizons starting from a single starting surface as demonstrated with the Brill-Lindquist data. Most importantly, the level flow method has been successful at identifying apparent horizons in a binary black hole evolution involving two Kerr-Schild black holes. Beginning with a single guess surface, two discrete apparent horizons were found at early times, and the later single merged horizon was found.
One of the drawbacks of this method currently is its slow convergence property due to the parabolic nature of the equation solved. This, however does not pose a problem since the level-flow method can be used in conjunction with other methods which may be more efficient given a good initial guess. The level-flow method has the definite advantage of being capable of finding multiple surfaces in the data. It can be used to get extremely good initial guesses for other methods that converge more quickly close to the solution. We are currently using the level flow method in this manner in numerical evolutions of black hole collisions.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank Pablo Laguna for suggesting this topic to DMS, Randy Correll for supplying the initial data routine used in the evolution, and Luis Lehner for discussions on the tracker and evolution. This work was supported by NSF ASC/PHY9318152, NSF PHY9800722, NSF PHY9800725 to the University of Texas and NSF PHY9800970 and NSF PHY9800973 to the Penn State University.
\[York:ADM\] J. York, “Kinematics and Dynamics in General Relativity", [*Sources of Gravitational Radiation*]{}, edited by L. Smarr, Cambridge Univ. Press (1979).
Seidel, E. and Suen, W., Phys. Rev. Lett [**69**]{}, 1845 (1992)
\[Thornburg:1987\] W. Unruh, quoted in J. Thornburg, Class. Quant. Grav., [**4**]{}, 1119 (1987).
\[Anninois\] P. Anninos, K. Camarda, J. Libson, J. Masso, E. Seidel, W-M. Suen, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{} 024003 (1998).
\[Baumgarte\] T. Baumgarte, G. Cook, M. Sheel, S. Shapiro, S. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{} 4849-4857 (1996).
C. Gundlach, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**57**]{}, 863-875 (1998). \[Gundlach\]
\[HCM\] M.F. Huq, M.W. Choptuik and R.A. Matzner, “Locating Boosted Kerr and Schwarzschild Apparent Horizons”, gr-qc/0002076, [*Submitted to Phys Rev D*]{}.
\[Kemball\] A.J. Kemball, N.T. Bishop, “The Numerical Determination of Apparent Horizons”, Class. Quant. Grav. [**8**]{}, 1361 (1991).
\[Nakamura\] T. Nakamura, Y. Kojima, K. Oohara, “A Method of Determining Apparent Horizons in Three-Dimensional Numerical Relativity”, Phys. Lett. [**106A**]{}, (1984).
\[Diener\] P. Diener, N. Jansen, A. Khokhlov and I. Novikov, “Adaptive mesh refinement approach to construction of initial data for black hole collisions,” gr-qc/9905079.
E. Pasch, [*SFB 382* ]{} Report Number [**63**]{} (1997). \[Pasch\]
\[Thornburg\] J. Thornburg, “Finding apparent horizons in numerical relativity,” Phys. Rev. [**D54**]{}, 4899 (1996).
\[Huq\] M.F. Huq, “Apparent Horizons in Numerical Spacetimes,” PhD Dissertation, University of Texas, (1996).
K.P. Tod, [*Clas. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**8**]{}, L115-L118 (1991). \[Tod\]
D. Bernstein, [*unpublished notes*]{} (1993). \[Bernstein\]
\[Grayson\] M. Grayson, [*The Heat Equation Shrinks Embedded Plane Curves to Round Points*]{}, J. Diff. Geom., [**26**]{}, 285 (1987).
B. Bruegmann, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D*]{} [**8**]{} (1999) 85. \[Bruegmann\]
S. Osher, J. Sethian, [*J. Comp. Phys.*]{} [**79**]{}, 12-49 (1988). \[Sethian\]
\[Teukolsky\] S.A. Teukolsky, [*Phys.Rev. D.*]{}. [**61**]{} 087501 (2000).
\[Misner\] C. Misner, K. Thorne, J. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{}, W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, (1970).
\[Brill\] D.R. Brill, R.W. Lindquist, Phys. Rev. [**131**]{}, 471 (1963).
A. Cadez, [*Ann. of Phys.*]{} [**83**]{} (1974) 449-457. \[Cadez\]
\[Alcubierre\] M. Alcubierre, S. Brandt, B. Bruegmann, C. Gundlach, J. Mosso, E. Seidel and P. Walker, “Test beds and applications for apparent horizon finders in numerical relativity,” gr-qc/9809004.
\[BBH\] Binary Black Hole Grand Challenge Alliance, National Science Foundation.
http://www.npac.syr.edu/projects/bh/
\[Grazing\] R. Correll [*et al.*]{}, in preparation.
\[Gomez\] R. Gomez, in Proceedings of “The Grand Challenge Alliance Fall Meeting," Los Alamos, (1997).
R. Matzner, M. Huq, D. Shoemaker, [*Phs. Rev. D*]{} [**59**]{}, 024015 (1999). \[Matzner\]
\[Correll\] R. Correll, “Numerical evolution of Binary Black Hole Spacetimes,” PhD Dissertation, University of Texas, (1998).
\[Pedro\] P. Marronetti [*et al.*]{}, [*Phs. Rev. D*]{} in press (2000).
\[Hawking:Ellis\] S. Hawking, G. Ellis, [*The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time*]{} Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1973).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Multisequences over finite fields play a pushing role in the applications that relate to parallelization, such as word-based stream ciphers and pseudorandom vector generation. It is interesting to study the complexity measures for multisequences. In this paper, we propose three constructions of multisequences over finite fields from rational function fields and Hermitian function fields. We also analyze the joint nonlinear complexity of these multisequences. Moreover, the length and dimension of these multisequences are flexible.
[**Keywods**]{}: Sequence, multisequence, joint nonlinear complexity, function field
author:
- 'Yang Yan[^1], Qiuyan Wang[^2], Chenhuang Wu[^3]'
title: 'Multisequences with high joint nonlinear complexity from function fields [^4] '
---
Introduction
============
The study of pseudorandom sequences is a hot research topic, due to their utilization in the generation of pseudorandom numbers and cryptography. The performance of a pseudorandom sequence is determined by complexity-theoretic and statistical requirements. In practical applications, as complexity-theoretic and statistical requirements are in a sense independent [@Nie1], these two requirements are both important.
To assess the capability of a keystream generated by a stream cipher, one has to consider that replicating the entire keystream from a part of the keystream should be very hard. To this end, it is interesting to know how hard a pseudorandom sequence might be to replicate, which leads that many scholars investigate pseudorandom sequences from the complexity-theoretic standpoint. Several complexity measures for sequences are available in the reference therein. The most popular complexity measure is the linear complexity where only linear feedback shift registers are considered. A concise survey on the linear complexity has been provided in [@Win1] and the recent handbook article [@Meidl1]. However, a few effort has devoted to the complexity measure referring to feedback shift registers with feedback functions of higher algebraic degree, which is called the nonlinear complexity (see [@Luo; @Nie2]). As a special type of the nonlinear complexity, the maximum-order complexity has attracted some attention due to Jansen [@J1; @J2]. Basing on pattern counting, complexity measures for sequences were established, for instance, the Lempel-Ziv complexity (see [@Lem1] for the definition and [@Lem2] for cryptographic applications).
For applications that relate to parallelization, such as word-based stream ciphers and pseudorandom vector generation, multisequences over finite fields are indispensable (see [@M1; @M2]). The complexity study of multisequences has focused on the joint linear complexity and $k$-error linear complexity [@Mul1; @Mul2; @Mul3; @Mul4; @Mul5; @Mul6; @Mul7; @Meidl1; @Xing1]. Recently, Meidl and Niederreiter [@Nonlinear] introduced the definition of the joint nonlinear complexity for multisequences (see Section \[S2\]). In practice, a multisequence may have large joint linear complexity, but very small joint nonlinear complexity. Hence, we would like to construct multisequences with high joint nonlinear complexity. In fact, the design of multisequences with high joint nonlinear complexity is harder than that of multisequences with high joint linear complexity.
Algebraic function fields (or algebraic curves) over finite fields are powerful tools to construct a variety of sequences. For example, sequences with low correlations were proposed in [@Hu1; @Xing2]; sequences and multisequences with large linear complexity were present in [@Xing1; @Xing3; @Xing4]; the authors [@Nie2; @Luo] has constructed sequences with high nonlinear complexity.
The purpose of this paper is to construct multisequences with high joint nonlinear complexities. Using rational function fields and Hermitian function fields which contain automorphisms with large order, we propose three constructions of multisequences with flexible lengths and dimensions. Additionally, we give the lower bound on the joint nonlinear complexities for these multisequences. Comparing with the behavior of joint nonlinear complexities of random multisequences, these multisequences can be said to have high joint nonlinear complexity under certain conditions on their parameters.
This paper is organized as follows. Section \[S2\] devotes to some definitions and results about the joint nonlinear complexity and function fields. In Section \[S3\] and Section \[S4\], we propose three construction of multisequences and evaluate the lower bound of the joint nonlinear complexity. Section \[S5\] concludes the paper.
Preliminaries {#S2}
=============
In this section, we briefly recall some basic definitions and results about multisequences and function fields, which will be needed in our discussion. We begin with the background on the nonlinear complexity of a multisequence.
Multisequences and joint nonlinear complexity
---------------------------------------------
Throughout this paper, let $q$ be a power of an arbitrary prime $p$ and ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ stand for the finite field with $q$ elements. We write ${{\mathbb F}}_q^*={{\mathbb F}}_q\setminus\{0\}$. For any positive integer $u$, denote by ${{\mathbb F}}_q[x_1,\cdots,x_u]$ the ring of polynomials of ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ with the $u$ variables $x_1,\cdots,x_u$.
Assume that $\mathbf{s}=\{s(j)\}_{j=0}^{N-1}$ is a nonzero sequence of length $N$ over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$. We say that a polynomial $f\in{{\mathbb F}}_q[x_1,\cdots,x_u]$ generates the sequence $\mathbf{s}$ if $$s(j+u)=f(s(j),s(j+1),\cdots,s(j+u-1)),$$ for any $j=0,1,\cdots,N-u-1$.
Suppose that $r$ is a positive integer. The $r$th-order nonlinear complexity $N_r(\mathbf{s})$ of $\mathbf{s}$ is the smallest integer $u\geq1$ such that there exists a polynomial $f\in{{\mathbb F}}_q[x_1,\cdots,x_u]$ of degree at most $r$ in each variable that generates $\mathbf{s}$. Furthermore, if $\mathbf{s}$ is the zero sequence, then the nonlinear complexity $N_r(\mathbf{s})$ is equal to $0$.
For an integer $M\geq1$, let $\mathcal{S}=\{\mathbf{s}_i=\{s_i(j)\}_{j=0}^{N-1}:i=1,2,\cdots,M\}$ be a set of $M$ nonzero sequences of length $N$ over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$. Then $\mathcal{S}$ is called a multisequence of dimension $M$ over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$. The $r$th-order joint nonlinear complexity $N_r(\mathcal{S})$ of $\mathcal{S}$ is defined to be the smallest integer $u\geq1$ such that there exists a polynomial $f\in{{\mathbb F}}_q[x_1,\cdots,x_u]$ of degree at most $r$ in each variable that generates all $M$ sequences in $\mathcal{S}$ simultaneously. Moreover, $N_r(\mathcal{S})$ is set to be $0$ if $\mathbf{s}_i$ is the zero sequence for any $1\leq i \leq M$ and $N_r(\mathcal{S})$ is defined to be $N$ if there is no such polynomial generating the $N$ terms of each sequence in $\mathcal{S}$ simultaneously.
According to the definition of the joint nonlinear complexity, we always have $0\leq N_r(\mathcal{S})\leq N$. As point out in [@Nonlinear], it suffices to consider the case that $1\leq r\leq q-1$ in the definition of $N_r(\mathcal{S})$. When $r\geq q-1$, all joint nonlinear complexities of a certain $\mathcal{S}$ are equal to $N_{q-1}(\mathcal{S})$. If $r=q-1$ and the set $\mathcal{S}$ contains only one sequence, i.e., $M=1$, the nonlinear complexity $N_{q-1}(\mathcal{S})$ is equal to the maximum-order complexity introduced by Jansen [@J1; @J2]. For $M>1$ and $r=q-1$, we may term $N_{q-1}(\mathcal{S})$ the joint maximum-order complexity of $\mathcal{S}$. The definition of [@J2 Definition 1] may regard as a previous notion of the joint maximum-order complexity.
For a set $\mathcal{S}=\{\mathbf{s}_i=\{s_i(j)\}_{j=0}^{\infty}:i=1,2,\cdots,M\}$ of infinite sequences over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$, we define the joint nonlinear complexity of $\mathcal{S}$ by $N_r(\mathcal{S},n)=N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)$, where $\mathcal{S}_n=\{\mathbf{s}_i=\{s_i(j)\}_{j=0}^{n-1}:i=1,2,\cdots,M\}$ and $n$ is a positive integer.
Some background on function fields
----------------------------------
A function field $F$ over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ is an extension field of ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ such that $F$ is a finite extension of ${{\mathbb F}}_q(x)$ for some element $x\in F$ which is transcendental over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$. In the following of this subsection, we always suppose that ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ is the full constant field of $F$.
For a discrete valuation $v$ which maps $F$ to $\mathbb{Z}\cup \{\infty\}$, define a local ring of $F$ by $\mathcal{O}=\{z\in F: v(z)\geq 0\}$ and its unique maximal ideal $P$ is termed a place of $F$. Denoted by $v_P$ and $\mathcal{O}_P$ the discrete valuation and the local ring associated with $P$, respectively. The residue class field $\mathcal{O}_P/P$ is a finite extension of ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ and the extension degree is called the degree of $P$, denoted by ${\rm deg}(P)$. Furthermore, a place $P$ is said to be a rational place if ${\rm deg}(P)=1$.
Assume that $\mathbb{P}_F$ is the set of all places of $F$. Let $S$ be a finite subset of $\mathbb{P}_F$. A divisor $D$ of $F$ is a formal sum $$D=\sum_{P\in S}m_PP,$$ where $m_P$ is an integer for any $P\in S$. Define the degree of $D$ by $${\rm deg}(D):=\sum_{P\in S}m_P{\rm deg}(P).$$ Let $z$ be a nonzero function of $F$. Then the zero divisor and the pole divisor of $z$ are defined by $$(z)_0:=\sum_{P\in \mathbb{P}_F, v_P(z)>0 }v_P(z)P,$$ and $$(z)_\infty:=-\sum_{P\in \mathbb{P}_F, v_P(z)<0 }v_P(z)P,$$ respectively. Clearly, the principal divisor $(z)=(z)_0-(z)_\infty$. The degree of $(z)$ is $0$ due to the fact that ${\rm deg}((z)_0)={\rm deg}((z)_\infty)$ [@AG Threorem 1.4.11].
For a divisor $D$ of $F$, the Riemann-Roch space is formed by $$\mathcal{L}(D)=\{z\in F\setminus \{0\} : (z)+D \geq 0\}\cup\{0\}.$$ It is well known that $\mathcal{L}(D)$ is a finite dimensional space over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$. Let ${\rm dim}_{{{\mathbb F}}_q}\mathcal{L}(D)$ stand for the dimension of $\mathcal{L}(D)$. From the Riemann-Roch Theorem [@AG], we obtain $${\rm dim}_{{{\mathbb F}}_q}\mathcal{L}(D)\geq {\rm deg}(D)+1-g,$$ where $g$ is the genus of $F$. In addition, the equality holds if ${\rm deg}(D)\geq 2g-1$.
Let $\varphi$ be an automorphism of $F$ which preserves all elements of ${{\mathbb F}}_q$, namely, $\varphi(a)=a$ for any $a\in{{\mathbb F}}_q$. All such automorphisms form a group of automorphisms of $F$ over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ that is denoted by ${\rm Aut}(F/{{\mathbb F}}_q)$. The following lemma provides some basic properties on the automorphisms of $F$.
\[lem1\][@AG] Assume that $P$ is a place of $F$ and $z$ is a function of $F$. For any $\varphi\in{\rm Aut}(F/{{\mathbb F}}_q)$, we have
1\) $\varphi(P)$ is still a place of $F$ and ${\rm deg}(\varphi(P))={\rm deg}(P)$;
2\) $v_{\varphi(P)}(\varphi(z))=v_P(z)$;
3\) $\varphi(z)(\varphi(P))=z(P)$ if $v_P(z)\geq 0$.
For more details on function fields, we refer the reader to the book [@AG].
Rational function fields
------------------------
Let ${{\mathbb F}}_q(x)$ be the rational function field over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$. As is known, ${{\mathbb F}}_q(x)$ has the genus $g=0$ and $q+1$ rational places. For each $\varphi\in{\rm Aut}({{\mathbb F}}_q(x)/{{\mathbb F}}_q)$, there exist $a,b,c,d\in{{\mathbb F}}_q$ such that $\varphi(x)=\frac{ax+b}{cx+d}$ and $ad\neq bc$. It is easy to check that the order of ${\rm Aut}({{\mathbb F}}_q(x)/{{\mathbb F}}_q)$ is $q^3-q$. Let $P_\infty$ be the unique pole of $x$. For every $\omega\in{{\mathbb F}}_q$, there is a unique rational place $P_{\omega}$ of ${{\mathbb F}}_q(x)$ with $x(P_{\omega})=\omega$. Then, we have the following lemma.
\[lem2\] Let $d>0$ be an integer with $d|(q-1)$ and $\alpha$ a nonzero element of ${{\mathbb F}}_q^*$ of order $d$. Assume that $\varphi$ is an automorphism of ${\rm Aut}({{\mathbb F}}_q(x)/{{\mathbb F}}_q)$ such that $\varphi(x)=\alpha x$. Then,
1\) $G=\{\varphi^i:i=0,1,\cdots,d-1\}$ is a cyclic group of order $d$
2\) $\varphi(P_\infty)=P_\infty$ and $\varphi(P_0)=P_0$;
3\) If $P$ is a rational place of ${{\mathbb F}}_q(x)$ such that $P\neq P_\infty, P_0$, then the cardinality of the set $\{\varphi^i(P):i=0,1,\cdots,d-1\}$ is $d$. Furthermore, the action of $G$ on all rational places of ${{\mathbb F}}_q(x)$ gives rise to $2+\frac{q-1}{d}$ among which two orbits contain one element and each of the other orbits contains $d$ element.
The proof of this lemma is obvious and we omit it.
Hermitian function fields
-------------------------
The Hermitian function field over ${{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}$ is given by $$H={{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}(x,y)\ \ \ \ {\rm and}\ \ \ y^q+y=x^{q+1},$$ where $x,y$ are two variables over ${{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}$. The genus of $H$ is $g=\frac{q^2-q}{2}$. There are altogether $q^3+1$ rational places of $H$, namely the common pole $Q_{\infty}$ of $x$ and $y$ and $P_{a,b}$ with $x(P_{a,b})=a$ and $y(P_{a,b})=b$, where $a,b$ satisfy the equation $b^q+b=a^{q+1}$. The Hermitian function field is said to be a maximal function field since it meets the Hasse-Weil bound $1+q^2+2gq=q^3+1$.
The automorphism group $\mathcal{G}={\rm Aut}(H/{{\mathbb F}}_{q^2})$ has been completely determined in [@auto1; @auto2] and it is isomorphic to the projective unitary group $PGU(3,q^2)$ of order $q^3(q^2-1)(q^3+1)$. Let $P_{\infty}$ be the unique pole of $x$. Then $\mathcal{G}_{\infty}$ in which all automorphisms fix $P_{\infty}$ is a subgroup of $\mathcal{G}$. Precisely speaking, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}_{\infty}&=&\{\varphi\in\mathcal{G}:\varphi(P_{\infty})=P_{\infty}\}\\
&=&\{\varphi_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}:\alpha\in{{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}^*,\beta,\gamma\in{{\mathbb F}}_{q^2},\gamma^q+\gamma=\beta\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}$ stands for the automorphism $$\varphi_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}(x)=\alpha x+\beta,\ \ \ \varphi_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}(y)=\alpha^{q+1}x+\alpha \beta^qx+\gamma.$$ It is easy to see that the order of $\mathcal{G}_{\infty}$ is $q^3(q^2-1)$ since $\alpha$ is arbitrary in ${{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}^*$ and $\gamma$ has $q$ solutions for any $\beta\in{{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}$.
Let $\delta$ be a primitive element of ${{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}$. Then, $\sigma=\varphi_{\delta,0,0}$ is the automorphism with order $q^2-1$ and it generates a cyclic group $R$ of order $q^2-1$. Obviously, $R$ is a subgroup of $\mathcal{G}_{\infty}$. The following result plays a pushing role in the design of multisequences with high joint nonlinear complexity.
[@Xing1]\[lem3\] Let $R$ be a cyclic group defined as above. Then the action of $R$ on all rational places $\neq P_\infty$ of $H$ gives rise to $q+2$ orbits among which one orbit contains only one element, one orbit contains $q-1$ elements and each of the rest orbits contains $q^2-1$ elements.
Assume that $\theta\in{{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}$ is a nonzero element such that $\theta^q+\theta=0$. Then the automorphism $\phi=\varphi_{1,0,\theta}$ has the order $p$ and the cyclic group $G$ formed by $\phi$ is of order $p$. The last auxiliary result which will be used is the following.
[@Xing1]\[lem4\] Suppose that $G$ is a cyclic group defined as above. Then $G$ acts on all rational places $\neq P_\infty$ of $H$ giving rise to $q^3/p$ orbits and every orbit contains $p$ distinct elements.
Multisequences from rational function fields {#S3}
============================================
In this section, employing some results on rational function fields, we propose a construction of multisequences and determine the lower bound of the joint nonlinear complexity.
Let $F={{\mathbb F}}_q(x)$ be the rational function field over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$. According to Lemma \[lem2\], under the action of $G$ on all the rational places of $F$, there are $\frac{q-1}{d}$ orbits among which each orbits contains $d$ distinct rational places. Let $d>1$ and $3 \leq \frac{q-1}{d}$. Label all the elements of these $\frac{q-1}{d}$ orbits $$\begin{aligned}
&&P,\varphi(P),\cdots,\varphi^{d-1}(P);\\
&&Q_{1,1},\varphi(Q_{1,1}),\cdots,\varphi^{d-1}(Q_{1,1});\\
&&Q_{1,2},\varphi(Q_{1,2}),\cdots,\varphi^{d-1}(Q_{1,2});\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vdots\\
&&Q_{1,M},\varphi(Q_{1,M}),\cdots,\varphi^{d-1}(Q_{1,M});\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vdots\\
&&Q_{N,M},\varphi(Q_{N,M}),\cdots,\varphi^{d-1}(Q_{N,M}),\\\end{aligned}$$ where $NM=\frac{q-1}{d}-1$ and $N\geq 1$, $M\geq 1$. Assume that $z$ is a function of $F$ such that $(z)_\infty=P$. For $1\leq i\leq N$, we define a sequence of length $dM$ as $$\mathbf{s}_i=\{s_i(j)\}_{j=0}^{dM-1}=(z(Q_{i,1}),z(\varphi(Q_{i,1}))\cdots,z(\varphi^{d-1} (Q_{i,1})),\cdots,z(Q_{i,M}),\cdots,z(\varphi^{d-1} (Q_{i,M}))),$$ and then define a set by $$\label{con1}
\mathcal{S}=\{\mathbf{s}_i:i=1,2,\cdots,N\}.$$ Thus, $\mathcal{S}$ is a multisequence over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ of dimension $N$. Additionally, $\mathcal{S}$ is periodic with least period $d$ if $M=1$.
\[thm1\] Let $d$ be an integer and $q$ a prime power such that $d>1$, $d|(q-1)$ and $3 \leq \frac{q-1}{d}$. Assume that $N,M$ are positive integers with $NM=\frac{q-1}{d}-1$. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be the multisequence defined by (\[con1\]). Then, for any integer $r$ with $1\leq r\leq q-1$, we have $$N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)\geq\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{nN-1}{N+r},& \hbox{if\ $1<n\leq d$,}\\
\frac{dN\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\rfloor-1}{N\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\rfloor+r},& \hbox{if\ $d\leq n\leq dM$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
Our first goal is to show that $\mathbf{s}_i$ is not a zero sequence for $1\leq i\leq N$. By the definition of $\mathbf{s}_i$, we deduce that ${\rm deg}((z)_0)={\rm deg}((z)_\infty)=1$ since $(z)_\infty=P$ and ${\rm deg}((z)_\infty)=1$. If $\mathbf{s}_i$ is a zero sequence, then there exist at least $q-1-d$ rational places which are zeros of $z$. Due to $q-1-d>1$, we obtain ${\rm deg}((z)_0)>1$ which leads to a contradiction. Hence, for $1\leq i\leq N$, $\mathbf{s}_i$ is not a zero sequence and $N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)\geq 1$.
Let $n>1$ be an integer. Assume that $f\in{{\mathbb F}}_q[x_1,\cdots,x_u]$ with $1\leq u\leq n-1$ is a polynomial of degree at most $r$ in every variable satisfying $$\label{thme1}
s_i(j+u)=f(s_i(j),s_i(j+1),\cdots,s_i(j+u-1)),$$ for $0\leq j\leq n-u-1$ and $1\leq i\leq N$. In order to determine the lower bound of $N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)$, we divide the computation into two cases.
$Case\ 1:$ If $n\leq d$, it follows from (\[thme1\]) that $$z(\varphi^{j+u}(Q_{i,1}))-f(z(\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1})),z(\varphi^{j+1}(Q_{i,1})),\cdots,z(\varphi^{j+u-1}(Q_{i,1})))=0,$$ for $0\leq j\leq n-u-1$ and $1\leq i\leq N$. Using Lemma \[lem1\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&z(\varphi^{j+u}(Q_{i,1}))-f(z(\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1})),z(\varphi^{j+1}(Q_{i,1})),\cdots,z(\varphi^{j+u-1}(Q_{i,1})))\\
&=&\varphi^{-u}(z)(\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1}))-f(z(\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1})),\varphi^{-1}(z)(\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1})),\cdots,\varphi^{-u+1}(z)(\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1})))\\
&=&\left(\varphi^{-u}(z)-f(z,\varphi^{-1}(z),\cdots,\varphi^{-u+1}(z))\right)(\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1})),\end{aligned}$$ and so we get that $$\label{thme2}
\left(\varphi^{-u}(z)-f(z,\varphi^{-1}(z),\cdots,\varphi^{-u+1}(z))\right)(\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1}))=0,$$ for $0\leq j\leq n-u-1$ and $1\leq i\leq N$.
We write $g=\varphi^{-u}(z)-f(z,\varphi^{-1}(z),\cdots,\varphi^{-u+1}(z))$. Note that $(z)_\infty=P$. Then we obtain $v_P(z)=-1$. By Lemma \[lem1\], we deduce that $v_{\varphi^{-u}(P)}(\varphi^{-u}(z))=-1$. Clearly, for any $0\leq t\leq u-1$, $\varphi^{-u}(P)$ is not a pole of $\varphi^{-t}(z)$. Consequently, we have $$v_{\varphi^{-u}(P)}(f(z,\varphi^{-1}(z),\cdots,\varphi^{-u+1}(z)))\geq 0$$ and $$v_{\varphi^{-u}(P)}(f(z,\varphi^{-1}(z),\cdots,\varphi^{-u+1}(z)))\neq v_{\varphi^{-u}(P)}(\varphi^{-u}(z)),$$ which implies that $\varphi^{-u}(z)\neq f(z,\varphi^{-1}(z),\cdots,\varphi^{-u+1}(z))$, namely, $g\neq 0$. From the discussion above, it is easy to see that $$g\in\mathcal{L}\left(\varphi^{-u}(P)+r\sum_{i=0}^{u-1}\varphi^{-i}(P)\right).$$ By (\[thme2\]), we get that $g(\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1}))=0$ for $0\leq j\leq n-u-1$ and $1\leq i\leq N$. So we obtain $$g\in\mathcal{L}\left(\varphi^{-u}(P)+r\sum_{i=0}^{u-1}\varphi^{-i}(P)-\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=0}^{n-u-1}\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1})\right).$$ It follows from the fact $g\neq 0$ that $${\rm deg}\left(\varphi^{-u}(P)+r\sum_{i=0}^{u-1}\varphi^{-i}(P)-\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=0}^{n-u-1}\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,1})\right)\geq 0.$$ Therefore, $1+ur\geq (n-u)N$, i.e., $u\geq \frac{nN-1}{N+r}$.
$Case\ 2:$ If $d\leq n\leq dM$, then we get that $$z(\varphi^{j+u}(Q_{i,l}))-f(z(\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,l})),z(\varphi^{j+1}(Q_{i,l})),\cdots,z(\varphi^{j+u-1}(Q_{i,l})))=0,$$ for $0\leq j\leq d-u-1$, $1\leq l\leq\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\rfloor$ and $1\leq i\leq N$, where the equality follows from only part of the cases of (\[thme1\]). Using the same argument as in the computation of Case 1, we derive that there exists a nonzero function $g$ such that $$g\in\mathcal{L}\left(\varphi^{-u}(P)+r\sum_{i=0}^{u-1}\varphi^{-i}(P)-\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=0}^{d-u-1}\sum_{l=1}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\rfloor}\varphi^{j}(Q_{i,l})\right).$$ Then, we have $u\geq\frac{dN\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\rfloor-1}{N\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\rfloor+r}$, which completes the proof of the theorem.
\[r1\] In Theorem \[thm1\], the lower bound on $N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)$ is of order of magnitude $nN/(N+r)$ if $1<n\leq d$ and the lower bound on $N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)$ is of order of magnitude $nN/(N\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\rfloor+r)$ if $d\leq n\leq dM$. In the latter case, the order of magnitude of the lower bound is large when we take a large $d$. For instance, if $q\equiv1\mod 5$, we set $d=(q-1)/5$. Then the lower bound is of order of magnitude $q/r$.
Multisequences from Hermitian function fields {#S4}
=============================================
In this section, we present two constructions of multisequences arising from the Hermitian function fields and evaluate the lower bound on the joint nonlinear complexity of the multisequences.
The first construction of multisequences
----------------------------------------
Recall that $H={{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}(x,y)$ is the Hermitian function field and it genus $g=\frac{q^2-q}{2}$. There is an cyclic group $R$ of order $q^2-1$ generated by an automorphism $\sigma=\varphi_{\delta,0,0}$ of $H$. From Lemma \[lem3\], under the action of $R$ on all rational places of $H$, there exists $q$ orbits each containing $q^2-1$ distinct rational places. Let $M,N$ be positive integers with $MN=q-1$. We write all the $q$ orbits by $$\begin{aligned}
&&P,\sigma(P),\cdots,\sigma^{q^2-2}(P);\\
&&Q_{1,1},\sigma(Q_{1,1}),\cdots,\sigma^{q^2-2}(Q_{1,1});\\
&&Q_{1,2},\sigma(Q_{1,2}),\cdots,\sigma^{q^2-2}(Q_{1,2});\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vdots\\
&&Q_{1,M},\sigma(Q_{1,M}),\cdots,\sigma^{q^2-2}(Q_{1,M});\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vdots\\
&&Q_{N,M},\sigma(Q_{N,M}),\cdots,\sigma^{q^2-2}(Q_{N,M}).\\\end{aligned}$$ Assume that $P_{\infty}$ is the unique pole of $x$. It follows from the Riemann-Roch Theorem that $\mathcal{L}((2g-1)P_\infty+P)$ is a $(g+1)$-dimensional vector space over ${{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}$. Then, we can choose a function $z\in\mathcal{L}((2g-1)P_\infty+P)$ such that $(z)_\infty=kP_\infty+P$ with some $k\leq 2g-1$. Below, we state our construction of multisequences.
We define a set as $$\label{con2}
\mathcal{S}=\{\mathbf{s}_i:i=1,2,\cdots,N\},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{s}_i&=&\{s_i(j)\}_{j=0}^{M(q^2-1)-1}\\
&=&(z(Q_{i,1}),z(\sigma(Q_{i,1}))\cdots,z(\sigma^{q^2-2} (Q_{i,1})),\cdots,z(Q_{i,M}),\cdots,z(\sigma^{q^2-2} (Q_{i,M}))).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\mathcal{S}$ is a multisequence of length $M(q^2-1)$ over ${{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}$ and its dimension is $N$. In addition, $\mathbf{s}_i$ is a periodic sequence with the period $q^2-1$ if $M=1$. Next, we determine the lower bound of the joint nonlinear complexity for $\mathcal{S}$.
\[thm2\] Let $q\geq 5$ be a prime power and $N,M$ positive integers with $NM=q-1$. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be the multisequence defined by (\[con2\]). Then, $$N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)\geq\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{nN-1}{N+(q^2-q)r},& \hbox{if\ $1<n\leq q^2-1$,}\\
\frac{(q^2-1)N\left\lfloor n/(q^2-1)\right\rfloor-1}{N\left\lfloor n/(q^2-1)\right\rfloor+(q^2-q)r},& \hbox{if\ $q^2-1\leq n\leq M(q^2-1)$,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ for any integer $r$ with $1\leq r\leq q^2-1$.
Firstly, we prove that $\mathbf{s}_i$ is not a zero sequence for $1\leq i\leq N$. Notice that $(z)_\infty=kP_\infty+P$ with some $k\leq 2g-1$ which implies that $${\rm deg}((z)_\infty)=k+1\leq 2g=q^2-q.$$ For any $1\leq i\leq N$, if $\mathbf{s}_i$ is a zero sequence, then each $\sigma^j(Q_{i,l})$ is a zero of the function $z$ with $0\leq j\leq q^2-2$, $1\leq i\leq N$ and $1\leq l\leq M$. So we have $${\rm deg}((z)_0)\geq (q^2-1)MN=(q^2-1)(q-1).$$ Based on the fact that ${\rm deg}((z)_\infty)={\rm deg}((z)_0)$, we deduce that $$(q^2-1)(q-1)\leq{\rm deg}((z)_0)={\rm deg}((z)_\infty)\leq q^2-q.$$ This leads to a contradiction. Consequently, $\mathbf{s}_i$ is not a zero sequence for $1\leq i\leq N$.
Suppose that $n>1$ is an integer and $u$ is an integer with $1\leq u\leq n-1$. Let $f\in{{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}[x_1,\cdots,x_u]$ be a polynomial whose degree is at most $r$ in each variable such that $$\label{thm2e1}
s_i(j+u)=f(s_i(j),s_i(j+1),\cdots,s_i(j+u-1)),$$ for $0\leq j\leq n-u-1$ and $1\leq i\leq N$.
$Case\ 1:$ For $1<n\leq q^2-1$, By (\[thm2e1\]), we derive that $$z(\sigma^{j+u}(Q_{i,1}))-f(z(\sigma^{j}(Q_{i,1})),z(\sigma^{j+1}(Q_{i,1})),\cdots,z(\sigma^{j+u-1}(Q_{i,1})))=0,$$ for $0\leq j\leq n-u-1$ and $1\leq i\leq N$. It follows from Lemma \[lem1\] that $$\label{thm2e2}
\left(\sigma^{-u}(z)-f(z,\sigma^{-1}(z),\cdots,\sigma^{-u+1}(z))\right)(\sigma^{j}(Q_{i,1}))=0,$$ for $0\leq j\leq n-u-1$ and $1\leq i\leq N$.
Set $h=\sigma^{-u}(z)-f(z,\sigma^{-1}(z),\cdots,\sigma^{-u+1}(z))$. Since $(z)_\infty=kP_\infty+P$, we get that $$v_{\sigma^{-u}(P)}(\sigma^{-u}(z))=-1, \ \ \ v_{\sigma^{-u}(P)}(f(z,\sigma^{-1}(z),\cdots,\sigma^{-u+1}(z))\geq 0,$$ which implies that $h\neq 0$. Note that $\sigma$ preserves $P_{\infty}$. It can be easily seen that $v_{P_{\infty}}(\sigma^{-t}(z))=-k\geq-(2g-1)$ for any integer $t\geq 0$. Hence, we have $$h\in\mathcal{L}\left((2g-1)ruP_\infty+\sigma^{-u}(P)+r\sum_{i=0}^{u-1}\sigma^{-i}(P)\right).$$ According to (\[thm2e2\]), we deduce that $\sigma^{j}(Q_{i,1})$ is a zero of $h$ for $0\leq j\leq n-u-1$ and $1\leq i\leq N$, which implies that $$h\in\mathcal{L}\left((2g-1)ruP_\infty+\sigma^{-u}(P)+r\sum_{i=0}^{u-1}\sigma^{-i}(P)-\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=0}^{n-u-1}\sigma^{j}(Q_{i,1})\right).$$ Due to $h\neq 0$, we obtain $${\rm deg}\left((2g-1)ruP_\infty+\sigma^{-u}(P)+r\sum_{i=0}^{u-1}\sigma^{-i}(P)-\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=0}^{n-u-1}\sigma^{j}(Q_{i,1})\right)\geq 0,$$ namely, $$(2g-1)ru+1+ru\geq N(n-u).$$ Therefore, $u\geq\frac{nN-1}{N+(q^2-q)r}$.
$Case\ 2:$ For $q^2-1\leq n\leq M(q^2-1)$, by applying only part of the cases of (\[thm2e1\]), proceeding as in the proof of Case 1, we get that $h=\sigma^{-u}(z)-f(z,\sigma^{-1}(z),\cdots,\sigma^{-u+1}(z))$ is a nonzero function that belongs to $$\mathcal{L}\left((2g-1)ruP_\infty+\sigma^{-u}(P)+r\sum_{i=0}^{u-1}\sigma^{-i}(P)-\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=0}^{q^2-u-2}\sum_{l=1}^{\lfloor n/(q^2-1)\rfloor}\sigma^{j}(Q_{i,l})\right).$$ So the degree of the divisor $$(2g-1)ruP_\infty+\sigma^{-u}(P)+r\sum_{i=0}^{u-1}\sigma^{-i}(P)-\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=0}^{q^2-u-2}\sum_{l=1}^{\lfloor n/(q^2-1)\rfloor}\sigma^{j}(Q_{i,l})$$ is nonnegative, i.e., $2gru+1\geq N(q^2-u-1)\lfloor n/(q^2-1)\rfloor$. Hence, $u\geq\frac{(q^2-1)N\left\lfloor n/(q^2-1)\right\rfloor-1}{N\left\lfloor n/(q^2-1)\right\rfloor+(q^2-q)r}$. This completes the proof of the theorem.
\[r2\] It can be seen that the lower bound on $N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)$ in Theorem \[thm2\] is of order of magnitude $nN/(rq^2)$. By maximizing the parameter $n$, the order of magnitude of the lower bound is $q/r$.
The second construction of multisequences
-----------------------------------------
By Lemma \[lem4\], the automorphism group $G$ generated by $\phi$ divides all rational places $\neq P_\infty$ of $H$ into $q^3/p$ orbits and every orbit contains $p$ distinct elements. Label all the $q^3/p$ orbits as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&P,\phi(P),\cdots,\phi^{p-1}(P);\\
&&Q_{1,1},\phi(Q_{1,1}),\cdots,\phi^{p-1}(Q_{1,1});\\
&&Q_{1,2},\phi(Q_{1,2}),\cdots,\phi^{p-1}(Q_{1,2});\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vdots\\
&&Q_{1,M},\phi(Q_{1,M}),\cdots,\phi^{p-1}(Q_{1,M});\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \vdots\\
&&Q_{N,M},\phi(Q_{N,M}),\cdots,\phi^{p-1}(Q_{N,M}),\\\end{aligned}$$ where $N,M$ are positive integers with $NM=q^3/p-1$. Let $P_{\infty}$ be the unique pole of $x$. Clearly, $\phi(P_{\infty})=P_{\infty}$. According to the Riemann-Roch Theorem, we obtain that $\mathcal{L}((2g-1)P_\infty+P)$ is a vector space over ${{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}$ and its dimension is $g+1$. So there is a function $z\in\mathcal{L}((2g-1)P_\infty+P)$ such that $(z)_\infty=kP_\infty+P$ with some $k\leq 2g-1$. Define a set of sequences by $$\label{con3}
\mathcal{S}=\{\mathbf{s}_i:i=1,2,\cdots,N\},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{s}_i&=&\{s_i(j)\}_{j=0}^{Mp-1}\\
&=&(z(Q_{i,1}),z(\phi(Q_{i,1}))\cdots,z(\phi^{p-1} (Q_{i,1})),\cdots,z(Q_{i,M}),\cdots,z(\phi^{p-1} (Q_{i,M}))).\end{aligned}$$ Then $\mathcal{S}$ is a multisequence of dimension $N$ over ${{\mathbb F}}_{q^2}$. The length of each sequence $\mathbf{s}_i$ of $\mathcal{S}$ is $Mp$. What is more, for any $1\leq i\leq N$, $\mathbf{s}_i$ is a periodic sequence with the period $p$ if $M=1$.
\[thm3\] Suppose that $p$ is an odd prime and $q$ is a power of $p$. Let $N,M$ positive integers with $NM=q^3/p-1$. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be the multisequence defined by (\[con3\]). Then, we have $$N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)\geq\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{nN-1}{N+(q^2-q)r},& \hbox{if\ $1<n\leq p$,}\\
\frac{pN\left\lfloor n/p\right\rfloor-1}{N\left\lfloor n/p\right\rfloor+(q^2-q)r},& \hbox{if\ $p\leq n\leq Mp$,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ for any integer $r$ with $1\leq r\leq q^2-1$.
Using the same argument as in the proof of Theorem \[thm2\], the desired result follows. We omit the details.
\[r3\] For the case that $1<n\leq p$, if the order of magnitude of $N$ is higher than that of $q^2r$, then the lower bound on $N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)$ is of order of magnitude $n$. Otherwise, the lower bound is of order of magnitude $nN/q^2r$. For the case that $p\leq n\leq Mp$, the lower bound on $N_r(\mathcal{S}_n)$ is of order of magnitude $p$ if the order of magnitude of $N\left\lfloor n/p\right\rfloor$ is higher than that of $q^2r$. On the other hand, the lower bound is of order of magnitude $nN/q^2r$ if the order of magnitude of $q^2r$ is higher than that of $N\left\lfloor n/p\right\rfloor$. If we take the maximum $n=Mp$, then the order of magnitude of the lower bound is $q/r$.
Concluding remarks {#S5}
==================
Let $\mathcal{R}$ be a random multisequence over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ of length $n$ and dimension $m$. Meidl and Niederreiter [@Nonlinear] has pointed out that the expected order of magnitude of $N_r(\mathcal{R}_n)$ is ${\rm log}(mn)$ under the heuristic method. According to Remark \[r1\], Remark \[r2\] and Remark \[r3\], it is obvious that the multisequences constructed in Theorem \[thm1\], Theorem \[thm2\] and Theorem \[thm3\] can be said to have high joint nonlinear complexity in appropriate cases on the parameters of the multisequences.
[1]{}
E. Dawson and L. Simpson, “Analysis and design issues for synchronous stream ciphers,” In: Niederreiter H. (ed.) Coding Theory and Cryptology. Lecture Notes Series Institute of Mathematical Sciences at the National University of Singapore, vol. 1, pp. 49–90. World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, 2002.
F. Fu, H. Niederreiter, and M. Su, “The expectation and variance of the joint linear complexity of random periodic multisequences,” J. Complexity, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 804–822, 2005.
H. Hu, L. Hu, and D. Feng, “On a class of pseudorandom sequences from elliptic curves over finite fields,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 53, pp. 2598–2605, 2007.
H. Hu, G. Gong, and F. Guo, “New results on periodic sequences with large $k$-error linear complexity,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT 2008), Toronto, Canada, Jul. 6–11, 2008, pp. 2409–2413.
P. Hawkes and G. Rose, “Exploitingmultiples of the connection polynomial inword-oriented stream ciphers,” In: Okamoto T. (ed.) Advances in Cryptology—ASIACRYPT 2000 (Kyoto). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1976, pp. 303–316. Springer, Berlin, 2000.
C. J. A. Jansen, “Investigations on nonlinear streamcipher systems: Construction and evaluation methods,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Eng., TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands, 1989.
C. J. A. Jansen, “The maximum order complexity of sequence ensembles,” in Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), vol. 547, D. W. Davies, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. 153–159.
A. Lempel and J. Ziv, “On the complexity of finite sequences,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 75–81, Jan. 1976.
H. W. Leopoldt, “Über die automorphismengruppe des funktionenkörpers,” J. Number Theory, pp. 256–282, 1996.
Y. Luo, C. Xing and L. You, “Construction of sequences with high nonlinear complexity from function fields,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 7646–7650, 2017.
S. Mund, “Ziv-Lempel complexity for periodic sequences and its cryptographic application,” in Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), vol. 547, D.W. Davies, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. 114–126.
W. Meidl and A. Winterhof, “Linear complexity of sequences and multisequences,” in Handbook of Finite Fields, G. L. Mullen and D. Panario, Eds. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2013, pp. 324–336.
W. Meidl and H. Niederreiter, “On the expected value of the linear complexity and the $k$-error linear complexity of perodics sequences,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 48, pp. 2817–2825, 2002.
W. Meidl and H. Niederreiter, “Linear complexity $k$-error linear complexity, and the discrete Fourier transform,” J. Complexity, vol. 18, pp. 87–103, 2002.
W. Meidl and H. Niederreiter, “The expected value of the joint linear complexity of periodic multisequences,” J. Complexity, vol. 19, pp. 61–72, 2003.
W. Meidl and H. Niederreiter, “Multisequences with high joint nonlinear complexity,” Des. Codes Cryptogr, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 337–346, 2016.
W. Meidl, H. Niederreiter, and A. Venkateswarlu, “Error linear complexity measures for multisequences,” J. Complexity, vol. 23, pp. 169–192, 2007.
H. Niederreiter, “Linear complexity and related complexity measures for sequences,” in Progress in Cryptology-INDOCEYPT 2003, T. Johansson and S. Maitra, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2003, vol. 2904, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1–17.
H. Niederreiter, “The independence of two randomness properties of sequences over finite fields,” J. Complexity, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 154–161, 2012.
H. Niederreiter and C. Xing, “Sequences with high nonlinear complexity,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 6696–6701, 2014.
H. Stichtenoth, “Über die automorphismengruppe eines algebraischen funktionenkörpers von primzahlcharakteristik I, II,” Arch. Math., vol. 24, pp. 524–544, 1973.
H. Stichtenoth, Algebraic function fields and codes. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
A. R. Winterhof, “Linear complexity and related complexity measures,” in Selected Topics in Information and Coding Theory, I. Woungang, S. Misra, and S. C. Misra, Eds. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 3–40, 2010.
C. Xing and Y. Ding, “Multisequences with large linear and k-error linear complexity from Hermitian function fields,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 3858–3863, 2009.
C. Xing, P. Kumar, and C. Ding, “Low correlation, large linear span sequences from function fields,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 49, pp. 1439–1446, 2003.
C. Xing, “Multisequences with almost perfect linear complexity profile and function fields over finite fields,” J. Complexity, vol. 16, pp. 661–675, 2000.
C. Xing and K. Y. Lam, “Sequences with almost perfect linear complexity profile and curves over finite fields,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 45, pp. 1267–1270, 1999.
[^1]: Y. Yan is with the School of Information Technology and Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology and Education, Tianjin, 300387, Email: yanyangucas@126.com
[^2]: Q. Wang is with the School of Computer Science and Technology, Tianjin Polytechnic University, Tianjin, 300387, China, and with the Provincial Key Laboratory of Applied Mathematics, Putian University, Putian, Fujian 351100, China. Email: wangyan198801@163.com
[^3]: C. Wu is with the Provincial Key Laboratory of Applied Mathematics, Putian University, ptuwch@163.com
[^4]: The work was supported by National Science Foundation of China No. 61602342, Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin under grant No. 18JCQNJC70300, NFSC 11701553, the Science and Technology Development Fund of Tianjin Education Commission for Higher Education No. 2018KJ215, KYQD1817, and the China Scholarship Council (No. 201809345010 and No. 201907760008), Key Laboratory of Applied Mathematics of Fujian Province University (Putian University) (No. SX201904 and SX201804), NSFT No.16JCYBJC42300, NFSC No. 61872359, 61972456 and 61802281, the Science and Technology Development Fund of Tianjin Education Commission for Higher Education No. 2017KJ213.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We show that short-range correlations have a dramatic impact on the steady-state phase diagram of quantum driven-dissipative systems. This effect, never observed in equilibrium, follows from the fact that ordering in the steady state is of dynamical origin, and is established only at very long time, whereas in thermodynamic equilibrium it arises from the properties of the (free-)energy. To this end, by combining the cluster methods extensively used in equilibrium phase transitions to quantum trajectories and tensor-network techniques, we extend them to non-equilibrium phase transitions in dissipative many-body systems. We analyze in detail a model of spins-$1/2$ on a lattice interacting through an XYZ Hamiltonian, each of them coupled to an independent environment which induces incoherent spin flips. In the steady-state phase diagram derived from our cluster approach, the location of the phase boundaries and even its topology radically change, introducing re-entrance of the paramagnetic phase as compared to the single-site mean field where correlations are neglected. Furthermore a stability analysis of the cluster mean-field indicates a susceptibility towards a possible incommensurate ordering, not present if short-range correlations are ignored.'
author:
- Jiasen Jin
- Alberto Biella
- Oscar Viyuela
- Leonardo Mazza
- Jonathan Keeling
- Rosario Fazio
- Davide Rossini
title: |
Cluster mean-field approach to the steady-state phase diagram\
of dissipative spin systems
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
In thermodynamic equilibrium a transition to a state with a spontaneous broken symmetry can be induced by a change in the external conditions (such as temperature or pressure) or in the control parameters (such as an external applied field). The most widely studied examples are for systems at non-zero temperature, in the framework of classical phase transitions [@goldenfeld]. Here, equilibrium thermal fluctuations are responsible for the critical behavior associated with the discontinuous change of the thermodynamic properties of the system. Transitions may also occur at zero temperature, as a function of some coupling constant [@sachdev]; in that case, since there are no thermal fluctuations, quantum fluctuations play a prominent role. For many decades, the study of phase transitions and critical phenomena has attracted the attention of a multitude of scientists from the most diverse fields of investigations: Phase transitions are present at all energy scales, in cosmology and high-energy physics, as well as in condensed matter.
Moving away from the thermodynamic equilibrium, collective phenomena and ordering also appear in open systems, upon tuning the rate of transitions caused by the environment [@weiss]. For example, they emerge in most diverse situations [@Cross1993] ranging from the synchronous flashing of fireflies [@strogatz] to the evolution of financial markets [@mantegna]. The classical statistical mechanics of such driven systems (including traffic models, active matter, and flocking) has attracted an increasing attention over the years, see e.g. Refs. [@vicsek; @zia]. Such interest is in part due to the remarkable possibility of achieving ordered states that are not possible in equilibrium systems, displaying for example long-range order in two-dimensional flocking [@Toner], something forbidden by the Mermin–Wagner theorem [@Mermin] in equilibrium.
Thanks to the recent impressing experimental progresses, see e.g. Refs. [@kasprzak; @baumann; @syassen], the investigation of non-equilibrium properties of driven-dissipative systems has entered the quantum world. Rydberg atoms in optical lattices [@mueller], systems of trapped ions [@mueller], exciton-polariton condensates [@Carusotto2013], cold atoms in cavities [@ritsch], arrays of coupled QED cavities [@Houck2012; @Tomadin2010-rev], are probably the most intensively investigated experimental platforms in relation to this aim. The predicted steady-state phase diagram of these driven dissipative systems becomes incredibly rich, displaying a variety of phenomena. Just as for classical statistical mechanics, phases, which are not possible in an equilibrium phase diagram, may appear [@Lee2013]. The steady state itself needs not be time-independent and the system may end up in a limit cycle [@Lee2011; @Jin2013; @Ludwig2013; @Chan2015; @Schiro2015]. Renormalisation group (RG) calculations using the Keldysh formalism have been performed [@sieberer]; in some cases the universality class of the transitions may be modified both by the presence of the external environment and by non-equilibrium effects [@torre; @Marino2016]. A judicious engineering of the system-bath couplings can lead to non-trivial many-body states in the stationary regime [@Diehl2008; @Verstraete2009]. The field of dissipative many-body open systems embraces a much wider class of problems, ranging from transport to relaxation dynamics to quantum information processing (just to mention few examples). A more comprehensive panorama of the recent literature can be also found in Refs. [@Diehl2010; @Tomadin2010; @Nissen2012; @LeBoite2013; @Jin2014; @Lesanovsky2010; @hartmann2010; @Grujic2012; @carusotto2009; @Umucalilar; @Daley2014; @Hoening2014; @Hoening2013; @Petrosyan2013; @Biella2015; @Maghrebi2015; @Ilievski2014; @Prosen2014; @Sibalic2015; @Hafezi2016] and citations therein.
In condensed matter systems, most notably in Josephson junction arrays, the impact of an external bath on the phase diagram, and the relative critical properties was thoroughly studied over the last twenty years, see e.g. [@Chakravarty1986; @Korshunov1989; @Bobbert1992; @Refael2007]. In all those studies the system and the bath were in an overall equilibrium situation at a given (possibly zero) temperature. In quantum driven-dissipative systems, such as that considered here, non-equilibrium conditions and the flow of energy through the system play a major role.
Our work focuses on an important aspect of the physics of many-body open systems: the determination of the steady-state phase diagram. We are going to consider systems in which the coupling to the environment leads to a Markovian dynamics. In these cases the evolution of the corresponding density matrix $\rho(t)$ obeys the Lindblad equation $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -\frac{i}{\hbar} [\hat H,\rho]
+ \sum_j{\cal L}_j[\rho] \,.
\label{eq:Master_Eq}$$ The first term in the r.h.s. describes the coherent unitary time evolution (ruled by the system Hamiltonian $\hat H$). The second term, corresponding to a sum of Lindbladian superoperators ${\cal L}_j[\rho]$, takes into account the coupling to the external bath(s). The steady-state phase diagram is obtained by looking at the long-time limit ($t \rightarrow \infty$) of the solution to Eq. and computing appropriate averages $\langle {\hat O} \rangle = \mbox{Tr} \big[ {\hat O} \, \rho_{t \rightarrow \infty} \big] \equiv \mbox{Tr} \big[ {\hat O} \,
\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} \big]$ of local observables ${\hat O}$, in order to determine the (possible) existence of phases with broken symmetries (space, time, spin, …) [@topological].
Nearly all the results obtained so far on the phase diagram (with the notable exception of the works based on Keldysh RG mentioned above) rely on the (single-site) mean-field approximation, where all the correlations are ignored. Very little is known beyond that limit about the interplay between many-body correlations and dissipation, although there are some contributions in this direction [@Finazzi2015; @Degenfeld2014; @Weimer2015]. While quasi-exact numerical methods exist for open one-dimensional systems, unfortunately no true phase transitions are expected to occur in that context. Beyond one dimension, such methods are much harder to apply. However it is well known that the mean-field decoupling, while important to grasp the salient features of the system, is not at all accurate in locating the phase boundaries.
An improvement in the determination of the phase diagram can be obtained by a systematic inclusion of short-range correlations (up to a given cluster size). In equilibrium, this has been achieved within the cluster mean-field approximation [@Bethe1935; @Kikuchi1951; @Oguchi1955], and using linked cluster expansions [@Oitmaa2006]. In the cluster mean-field approach, the accuracy of the diagram is obviously related to the size of the considered cluster. Even though it is still mean-field in nature, a suitable scheme that combines it with finite-size scaling may in principle allow to extract non-classical critical exponents [@Suzuki1986]. In higher dimensions (above the lower critical one) where one expects spontaneous symmetry breaking, cluster methods lead only to quantitative corrections (a mere shift) to the mean-field predictions. These corrections become smaller on increasing the dimensionality.
For equilibrium phase transitions, the topology of the phase diagram is well captured at the mean-field level, and the short-range fluctuations considered by cluster methods only lead to shifts in the location of the transition lines/points. Normally, they do not cut an ordered phase into two separate parts, divided by a disordered region. The possibility to have a radical change of topology is however permitted out of equilibrium, where the spontaneous breaking of symmetry is of pure dynamical nature: terms which are formally irrelevant in the RG sense can nonetheless modify the flow of RG-relevant terms, so as to move a point in parameter space from one side to the other side of a phase boundary. Such a scenario is rarely, if ever, seen in equilibrium.
![A sketch of the phase diagram of the model defined by Eqs. and , for $J_z=1$. The single-site mean-field as worked out in Ref. [@Lee2013] would predict the emergence of different phases: paramagnetic (PM), ferromagnetic (FM), antiferromagnetic (AFM), and spin-density-wave (SDW) (inset to the top panel). Here we focus on the region highlighted by the red box, which displays a transition from PM to FM states (magnified in the top panel). A proper inclusion of short-range correlations (through the cluster mean-field) shrinks the ferromagnetic region to a small “island”, thus suppressing the order at large couplings and hinting to a possible incommensurate (inc) ordering (bottom panel).[]{data-label="fig:diagram"}](diagram){width="0.98\columnwidth"}
We demonstrate that the above picture is indeed verified in the open many-body context, and ordering with a non-trivial spatial pattern may emerge (see Fig. \[fig:diagram\]). The most natural way to show this is to include correlations through a cluster mean-field analysis which, to the best of our knowledge, has never been systematically applied in the open many-body context. Although the general strategy is the same as for equilibrium systems, there are several peculiarities emerging in this scenario, which need to be carefully addressed. The steady-state solution typically needs to be obtained dynamically via Eq. (and not through a solution of a self-consistent equation [@note01]). To increase the cluster size, we introduce a new approach that combines the cluster mean field with quantum trajectories [@Dalibard1992] and with matrix-product-operators [@Verstraete2004; @Zwolak2004].
We apply our technique to a spin-1/2 XYZ-model with relaxation (as previously studied by Lee [*et al.*]{} [@Lee2013]), and show that the short-range correlations captured by the cluster approach can have a dramatic effect on the phase diagram. This last point is exemplified in Fig. \[fig:diagram\] (that summarises one of our main results). A mean-field analysis predicts a transition from a paramagnet to a ferromagnet (upper panel) in the whole region of large couplings $J_y > J_y^{c}$. The lower panel sketches the outcome of the cluster analysis. The ferromagnetic regime has shrunk to a finite region disappearing in the limit of large couplings. For an equilibrium system, such behavior would be very strange: large coupling strengths increase the tendency toward ferromagnetic order, yet here we find that the ordered state is destroyed by strong couplings. Furthermore, indications from a stability analysis hint at a different type of ordering at large values of $J_y$.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we define the spin-1/2 model with nearest-neighbor XYZ interactions coupled to a local bath, which will be considered in the following. We then introduce the cluster mean-field approach to driven dissipative systems and show how to combine it with quantum trajectories (Sec. \[subsec:qt\]) and with the matrix-product-operator (Sec. \[subsec:mpo\]) formalism. We will see this method at work by looking at the steady-state phase diagram and comparing its rich features with those pointed out in Ref. [@Lee2013] at the single-site mean-field level. Specifically, in Sec. \[results\] we discuss how the location of the transition lines is qualitatively changed in the cluster approach. Our aim is to highlight the key role of short-range correlations in driven-dissipative systems. For this purpose, we will concentrate on a specific region of the diagram where a paramagnetic to ferromagnetic transition takes place. In one dimension (Sec. \[sec:1D\]) the cluster approach with appropriate scaling restores the absence of symmetry breaking. While the one-dimensional results presented here are as could be expected, we believe they are however useful as a benchmark of the numerical methods employed in the rest of this paper. Surprises appear in the two-dimensional case (Sec. \[sec:2D\]), where a ferromagnetic phase is possible. Including cluster correlations gives rise to a phase diagram radically different from what derived within single-site mean-field. The extent of the ferromagnetic region becomes finite. The nature of the such transitions is discussed in Sec. \[sec:stability\], where a stability analysis around the mean-field solution is performed. The finite extent of the ordered phase appears to persist in higher-dimensional systems (Sec. \[sec:HigherD\]), even though the mean field progressively becomes, as expected, more accurate. The underlying dynamical mechanism responsible for such dramatic modifications in the phase diagram will be discussed in Sec. \[sec:physicalorig\] where we will provide a more physical intuition of the results obtained in this work. Finally in Sec. \[sec:concl\] we conclude with a brief summary of our results.
The Model {#sec:Model}
=========
We consider a spin-$1/2$ lattice system whose coherent internal dynamics is governed by an anisotropic XYZ-Heisenberg Hamiltonian, $$\hat H = \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} h_{ij}
= \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} \left( J_x \hat \sigma_i^x \hat \sigma_j^x
+ J_y \hat \sigma_i^y \hat \sigma_j^y + J_z \hat \sigma_i^z \hat \sigma_j^z \right) \,,
\label{eq:HamSpin}$$ $\hat \sigma_j^\alpha$ ($\alpha = x,y,z$) denoting the Pauli matrices on the $j$-th site of the system. The Lindbladian for this model reads $$\sum_j {\cal L}_j [\rho]
= \gamma \sum_{j} \bigg[ \hat \sigma_j^- \rho \, \hat \sigma_j^+
- \frac{1}{2} \left\{ \hat \sigma_j^+ \hat \sigma_j^- , \rho \right\} \bigg] \,,
\label{eq:Lindblad}$$ where $\gamma$ is the rate of the dissipative processes that tend to flip all the spins down independently \[$\hat \sigma_j^\pm = \frac{1}{2} \left( \hat \sigma_j^x \pm \hat \sigma_j^y \right)$ stand for the corresponding raising and lowering operators along the $z$ axis\]. In the rest of the paper we set $\hbar = 1$ and work in units of $\gamma$. The (single-site) mean-field phase diagram of the model defined in Eqs. and has been worked out in Ref. [@Lee2013]; for orientation we summarise the main results of this analysis here.
It is important to remark that an in-plane XY anisotropy ($J_x \neq J_y$) is fundamental to counteract the dissipative spin flips along the orthogonal direction [@Lee2013]. In the case in which $J_x = J_y$, Eq. reduces to an XXZ Heisenberg model. Since this latter conserves the global magnetisation along the $z$ axis, the steady-state solution $\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}$ of Eq. would trivially coincide with the pure product state having all the spins aligned and pointing down along the $z$ direction. This corresponds to a paramagnetic state where the dissipation is dominant, and such that $\langle \hat \sigma^x_j \rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} = \langle \hat \sigma^y_j \rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} = 0$ and $\langle \hat \sigma^z_j \rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} = -1$, where $\langle {\hat O} \rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} = {\rm Tr} \big( {\hat O} \rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} \big)$ denotes the expectation value of a given observable ${\hat O}$ on the steady state.
The steady-state phase diagram presented in Ref. [@Lee2013] is particularly rich and includes, for strongly anisotropic spin-spin interactions, ferromagnetic, antiferromagnetic, spin-density-wave, and staggered-XY states. Hereafter we concentrate in the regime of parameters $J_x , J_y \ge 1$ and $J_z=1$, where the single-site mean field predicts a single ferromagnetic (FM) to paramagnetic (PM) phase transition. Indeed by changing the various coupling constants, the PM phase may become unstable and the system can acquire a finite magnetisation along the $xy$ plane ($\langle \hat \sigma^x_j \rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}, \, \langle \hat \sigma^y_j
\rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} \neq 0$), thus entering a FM phase. This fact is associated to the spontaneous breaking of the ${\mathbb Z}_2$ symmetry which is present in the model, and corresponds to a $\pi$ rotation along the $z$ axis ($\hat \sigma^x \to - \hat \sigma^x$, $\hat \sigma^y \to - \hat \sigma^y$). The picture changes dramatically when local correlations are included.
As already mentioned in the introduction, in an open system the stationary state may also break time-translational invariance (the steady state is time periodic) [@Lee2011; @Jin2013; @Ludwig2013; @Chan2015; @Schiro2015]. Our numerics suggests that a time-independent solution exists for all parameters we study, and so we will not consider this last case and concentrate on stationary time-independent solutions. This corresponds to the stationary point of Eq. , $\partial_t \rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} = 0$, irrespective of the initial condition. In the remainder of the paper, we will always implicitly refer to this occurrence.
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
Solving Eq. for a many-body system is a formidable task, even from a numerical point of view. The exponential increase of the Hilbert space makes a direct integration of the master equation unfeasible already for relatively small system sizes. Indeed one needs to manipulate a density matrix of dimensions $2^L \times 2^L$, which becomes a computationally intractable task already for quite small number of sites ($L \gtrsim 10$). In order to access systems as large as possible and to perform finite-size scaling up to reasonable sizes, we employ a combination of strategies.
In this section we discuss how to use cluster mean-field methods for driven-dissipative systems; these will be employed to determine the phase diagram of the model defined by Eqs. and . In order to keep the notation as simple as possible, we will describe the cluster approach in the spin-$1/2$ language for nearest neighbor Hamiltonians. A straightforward extension of our formalism allows to consider generic short-range Hamiltonians of the form $\hat H = \sum_{i} \hat h^{(0)}_i + \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \hat h^{(1)}_{ij}
+ \sum_{\langle \langle i,j \rangle \rangle} \hat h^{(2)}_{ij} + \dots$ (with the various terms respectively including on-site, nearest-neighbor, next nearest-neighbor, …, couplings) and a generic dissipator containing more than one Lindblad operator on each site.
Cluster mean-field {#sec:mf}
------------------
Let us isolate a given subset ${\cal C}$ of contiguous lattice sites, hereafter called [*cluster*]{}, from the rest of the lattice forming the system (which is supposed to be at the thermodynamic limit). This is pictorially shown in Fig. \[fig:CMF-sketch\]. The decoupled cluster mean-field (CMF) Hamiltonian with respect to the cluster can be written as $$\hat H_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm CMF} = \hat H_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C} + \hat H_{\scriptscriptstyle {\cal B}({\cal C})} \,,
\label{eq:H_cmf}$$ where $$\hat H_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C} = \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle \vert i,j \in \cal C} \hat h_{ij}
\label{eq:Ham_cl}$$ faithfully describes the interactions inside the cluster, while $$\hat H_{\scriptscriptstyle {\cal B}({\cal C})}
= \! \sum_{ j \in {\cal B}({\cal C})} \! {\bf B}^{\rm eff}_j \cdot \hat {\boldsymbol \sigma}_j
\label{eq:CMF}$$ effectively represents the mean-field interactions of the cluster ${\cal C}$ with its neighbors \[$\hat {\boldsymbol \sigma}_j = (\hat \sigma^x_j, \hat \sigma^y_j, \hat \sigma^z_j)$\]. The sum is restricted to the sites on the boundary ${\cal B}({\cal C})$ of the cluster. The parameter ${\bf B}^{\rm eff}_j = (B^x_j, B^y_j, B^z_j)$ in Eq. is related to the average magnetisation of the neighboring spins of $i$ belonging to the cluster ${\cal C'}$ adjacent to ${\cal C}$. The effective field needs to be computed self-consistently in time.
![Sketch of the cluster mean-field approach in a dissipative system of interacting spin-1/2 particles. The figure refers to $2 \times 2$ cluster on a two-dimensional square lattice.[]{data-label="fig:CMF-sketch"}](sketch){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
This reduced description arises from a factorized Ansatz for the global density matrix $$\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm CMF} = \bigotimes_{\cal C} \rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C} \,,
\label{eq:rho_cmf}$$ where $\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C}$ is the density matrix of the ${\cal C}$-th cluster. Inserting such Ansatz into Eq. and exploiting the translational invariance with respect to the cluster periodicity ($\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C}=\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C'}, \ \forall \ {\cal C,C'}$) we get an effective master equation of the form: $$\frac{\partial \rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C}}{\partial t} = -\frac{i}{\hbar} [\hat H_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm CMF},\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C}]
+ \sum_{j \in \cal C} {\cal L}_j[\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C}] \,.
\label{eq:Master_cluster}$$ We recall that the standard mean-field treatment derives from assuming that the cluster is formed by a single site.
The mean-field approach represents a crude approximation for a many-body interacting system, since all the correlations are effectively neglected. The decoupling on a larger structure described above partially overcomes this problem: the idea is that interactions among the sites inside a cluster are treated exactly \[see Eq. \], while those among neighboring clusters are treated at the mean-field level \[see Eq. \]. As a consequence, short-range correlations inside the cluster are safely taken into account. The full problem is eventually simplified into the evolution of the density matrix $\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C}$ of the cluster in the presence of a time-dependent effective field ${\bf B}^{\rm eff}_j(t)$.
So far what we discussed equally applies to any cluster mean-field approximation, either classical or quantum. The only non trivial modification in the present case is that one has to study the evolution of Eq. in the presence of a time-dependent field that has to be determined self-consistently. In order to improve its accuracy and to have a reliable scaling of the correlations, clusters of sufficiently large dimensions need to be considered. For small clusters a direct integration of the cluster master equation is feasible, while larger clusters can be faithfully treated by combining the above explained approach with specific techniques designed to deal with open systems. Specifically, we are going to integrate the cluster mean-field approximation together with quantum trajectories and with tensor-network approaches. The idea and procedure is straightforward, but some practical details require stating explicitly. We present such details in the next sections.
Quantum trajectories {#subsec:qt}
--------------------
There is a simple procedure that allows to avoid simulating the mixed time evolution of the full master equation \[which would need to store and evolve a $2^L \times 2^L$ matrix $\rho(t)$\]. Indeed it can be shown that one can equivalently perform a stochastic evolution protocol of a pure state vector of size $2^L$, according to the quantum-trajectory (QT) approach [@Dalibard1992] \[which requires to manipulate $N \times 2^L$ elements, $N$ being the number of trajectories (typically $N \ll 2^L$ is sufficient to get reliable results)\]. The unitary time evolution part of Eq. , together with the anti-commutator term in Eq. , can be regarded as if the evolution were performed by means of an effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $\hat H_{\rm eff} = \hat H + i \hat{K}$, with $\hat{K} = - \frac{\gamma}{2} \sum_j \hat{\sigma}^+_j \hat{\sigma}^-_j$. The remaining term in Eq. gives rise to the so-called quantum jumps. It can be shown that, if the density matrix at some reference time $t_0$ is given by the pure state $\rho(t_0) = {\left| \psi_0 \right>} {\left< \psi_0 \right|}$, after an infinitesimal amount of time $\delta t$ it will evolve into the statistical mixture of the pure states $\{ {\left| \tilde \psi_0 \right>}, {\left| \tilde \psi_j \right>} \}_{\scriptscriptstyle j = 1, \ldots, L}$ (the tilde indicates states at time $t_0 + \delta t$): $$\rho(t_0 + \delta t) \! = \! \Big( 1 - \! \sum_j {\rm d} p_j \Big) {\left| \tilde \psi_0 \right>} {\left< \tilde \psi_0 \right|}
+ \! \sum_j {\rm d} p_j {\left| \tilde \psi_j \right>} {\left< \tilde \psi_j \right|} \, ,
\label{eq:rhot_QT}$$ where ${\rm d} p_j = {{\color{red}\gamma}} {\left< \psi_0 \right|} \hat{\sigma}^+_j \hat{\sigma}^-_j {\left| \psi_0 \right>}$ and $${\left| \tilde \psi_0 \right>} = \frac{e^{-i \hat H_{\rm eff} \delta t}{\left| \psi_0 \right>}}{\sqrt{1 - \sum_j {\rm d} p_j}} \,, \quad
{\left| \tilde \psi_j \right>} = \frac{\hat{\sigma}^-_j {\left| \psi_0 \right>}}{\lVert \hat{\sigma}^-_j {\left| \psi_0 \right>} \lVert} \,.
\label{eq:Psi_QT}$$ Therefore, with probability ${\rm d}p_j$ a jump to the state ${\left| \tilde \psi_j \right>}$ occurs, while with probability $1 - \sum_j {\rm d} p_j$ there are no jumps and the system evolves according to $\hat H_{\rm eff}$. Assuming that there exists a single steady state $\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}$ for Eq. , one has [@Dalibard1992]: $${\rm Tr} (\hat{O} \rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}) =
\lim_{T \to \infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_{T_0}^{T_0+T} {\left< \psi(t) \right|} \hat{O} {\left| \psi(t) \right>} {\rm d}t\,,$$ for any observable $\hat{O}$ and [[reference time $T_0$]{}]{}. The state ${\left| \psi(t) \right>}$ is stochastically chosen among those in Eq. , according to the statistical mixture , after iterating the above algorithm for $(t-t_0)/\delta t$ times, where the time interval $\delta t$ has to be much smaller than the relevant dynamical time scales.
![Quantum trajectories combined with mean-field / cluster mean-field method. Coloured boxes along a given line stand for the time-evolved state of the $k$-th trajectory, which is stochastically chosen among the set of pure states $\{ {\left| \psi_0(t) \right>}_k, {\left| \psi_j(t) \right>}_k \}$ according to Eq. . For each of those states, one finds the corresponding mean fields on each site $j$ inside the considered cluster, $\langle \hat{\boldsymbol \sigma}_j(t) \rangle_k$. The mean field ${\bf B}^{\rm eff}_j(t)$ parametrizing the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. , to be used in the master equation for the cluster density matrix, is obtained by averaging over all the $N$ trajectories.[]{data-label="fig:QT-CMF"}](QT-CMF){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
It is possible to combine the QT method with the above described CMF approach at the cost of some moderate modifications. In order to do that, it is necessary to perform a simulation of a sufficiently large number $N$ of trajectories in parallel. For each trajectory $k$, the mean-field expectation value $\langle \hat{\boldsymbol \sigma}_j(t) \rangle_k \equiv {}_k {\left< \psi(t) \right|} \hat{\boldsymbol \sigma}_j {\left| \psi(t) \right>}_k$ on each site $j$ of the considered cluster ${\cal C}$ is computed iteratively in time. The average over all the trajectories gives the correct mean field at time $t$, $${\bf B}^{\rm eff}_j(t) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \langle \hat{\boldsymbol \sigma}_j(t) \rangle_k \,.$$ which has to be self-consistently used to describe effective interactions between adjacent clusters \[see Eq. \]. Note that this approach corresponds to performing the stochastic unravelling of the cluster mean field theory. Such an approach is different from performing a cluster mean-field decoupling of a stochastic unravelling of the original equation (i.e., each trajectory would evolve according to [*its own*]{} mean field).
Eventually one gets an effective non-Hermitian cluster mean-field Hamiltonian $$\hat H_{\rm eff, \scriptscriptstyle CMF} = \big( \hat H_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C}
+ i \hat{K}_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal C} \big) +
\hat H_{\scriptscriptstyle \cal B(C)} \,,
\label{eq:Heff_QT-CMF}$$ which, together with the possibility of having quantum jumps, governs the time evolution of each trajectory for the next time step, as in Eqs. -. The idea of this combined approach is schematically depicted in Fig. \[fig:QT-CMF\], and turns out to be effective to deal with clusters containing $L \gtrsim 10$ sites.
Matrix product operators {#subsec:mpo}
------------------------
Quantum trajectories are not the only method which can be fruitfully combined to cluster mean-field techniques. Tensor networks are also ideally suited to this aim. Below we will consider Matrix Product Operators (MPO) that work very well for one-dimensional (1D) systems. It would be highly desirable to have tensor-network approaches also in higher dimensions. We believe that in combination with cluster mean-field, this will represent a significant step forward in an accurate analysis of this class of non-equilibrium critical points.
For 1D systems, the long-time limit of Eq. can be faithfully addressed using a MPO Ansatz for the density matrix [@Verstraete2004; @Zwolak2004]. The solution $\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}$ is reached dynamically by following the time evolution according to Eq. , using an algorithm based on the time-evolving block decimation (TEBD) scheme [@VidalTEBD] adapted to open systems.
The starting point is based on the fact that a generic many-body mixed state on a $L$-site lattice, $\rho = \sum_{\vec i, \vec j} C_{i_1 \cdots i_L, \, j_1 \cdots j_L} {\left| i_1 \cdots i_L \right>} {\left< j_1 \cdots j_L \right|}$ (we defined $\vec i = \{ i_1 \ldots i_L \}$) can be written as a matrix product state in the enlarged Hilbert space of dimension $d^L \otimes d^L$, where $d$ is the dimension of the onsite Hilbert space. By means of repeated singular value decompositions of the tensor $C_{i_1 \cdots i_L, \, j_1 \cdots j_L}$, it is possible to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle MPO} \!\!\! & = \!\!\!\! & \sum_{\vec i, \vec j = 1}^d
\sum_{\vec \alpha=1}^{\chi} \ (\Gamma_{1,\alpha_1}^{[1]i_1,j_1} \, \lambda_{\alpha_1}^{[1]})
\, (\Gamma_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}^{[2]i_2,j_2} \, \lambda_{\alpha_2}^{[2]}) \dots \cr
&&\cr
&&\dots (\lambda_{\alpha_{L-1}}^{[L-1]}\Gamma_{\alpha_{L-1},1}^{[L]i_L,j_L}) || i_1 \cdots i_L , \, j_1 \cdots j_L \rangle \rangle \,,
\label{eq:mpo_2}\end{aligned}$$ where the super-ket $|| i_1 \cdots i_L , \, j_1 \cdots j_L \rangle \rangle = \bigotimes_{a=1}^{L}{\left| i_a \right>}{\left< j_a \right|}$ is used in order to deal with the super-operator formalism, i.e. with linear operators acting on vector spaces of linear operators. The bond-link dimension $\chi$ of the MPO can be kept under a given threshold by cutting the smallest singular values, and is proportional to the amount of quantum correlations between the system sites that can be encoded in $\rho_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle MPO}$. Starting from $\chi=1$ (separable state) and increasing $\chi$, quantum correlations can be taken into account at increasing distance.
The TEBD scheme can be naturally embedded in the Ansatz given in Eq. , by performing a Trotter decomposition of the Liouvillian super-operator [@VidalTEBD] which describes the master equation \[this can be easily handled for Hamiltonian and Lindbladian written as sums of local terms, as in Eqs. -\]. In the case of translationally invariant systems, it is even possible to adopt an infinite version of the TEBD (the i-TEBD), using the same approach that has been successfully applied to pure states [@Vidal_iTEBD]. Indeed this can be generalized to encompass arbitrary 1D evolution operators that can be expressed as a (translationally invariant) tensor network [@Orus2008]. The TEBD method has been proven to be very effective in many different open 1D quantum systems, as for example coupled cavity arrays [@Biella2015; @Biondi2015], Bose-Hubbard chains with bond dissipation [@Lauchli2014] and driven/dissipative spin systems [@Joshi2013]. Alternative approaches based on the variational search of the Liouvillian super-operator [@Cui2015; @Mascarenhas2015] or on the local purification of the density matrix [@Montangero2014] have been recently proposed.
![One-dimensional TEBD scheme for 1D systems with open boundaries, combined with the cluster mean-field method. Circles denote the sites of the lattice. The many-body state corresponding to the OBC cluster made up of $L$ black circles inside the orange box is written in an MPO representation, and evolved in time with the TEBD scheme. The cluster is coupled to the rest of the system (gray circles) through the mean field at the edges. At regular small time intervals, the mean fields ${\bf B}_1^{\rm eff}(t) = {\rm Tr} \big[ \hat {\boldsymbol \sigma}_L \, \rho(t) \big]$ on the leftmost site and ${\bf B}_L^{\rm eff}(t) = {\rm Tr} \big[ \hat {\boldsymbol \sigma}_1 \, \rho(t) \big]$ on the rightmost site, are self consistently evaluated and used to construct the Hamiltonian for the next TEBD iteration.[]{data-label="fig:MPO-CMF"}](MPO-CMF){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The description of 1D dissipative many-body systems in terms of MPO and the search for the steady state by time-evolving the Liouvillian super-operator can be combined with the CMF approach in a natural way (see Fig. \[fig:MPO-CMF\] for a sketch of the idea). We consider a linear cluster of $L$ sites with open boundary conditions (OBC); its master-equation dynamics can be simulated by means of the TEBD scheme. The only novel ingredient is provided by the mean fields which have to be applied only at the two edge sites of the chain (the leftmost and the rightmost site). These can be easily evaluated in a self consistent way in time, by computing the average expectation values: $${\bf B}^{\rm eff}_1(t) = {\rm Tr} \big[ \hat {\boldsymbol \sigma}_L \, \rho(t) \big] \,, \qquad
{\bf B}^{\rm eff}_L(t) = {\rm Tr} \big[ \hat {\boldsymbol \sigma}_1 \, \rho(t) \big] \,,$$ respectively on site $1$ and site $L$ of the chain, at regular time intervals, as outlined above for the other methods. Such fields are inserted in the effective Hamiltonian , which is used to build up the Liouvillian operator for the time evolution up to the next iterative step.
As mentioned at the beginning of this subsection, the extension of all these ideas to two dimensional systems would be very intriguing. For example, one could think to combine the cluster mean-field approach with MPOs using a mapping of the lattice to a one-dimensional structure with long-range interactions, through an appropriate *wiring-up* strategy. This has been already successfully employed in the context of equilibrium systems, where impressive results on wide strips have been obtained (see e.g. Ref. [@White2011]). In higher dimensions, these methods suffer of problems related to the computational cost of the tensor network contraction [@Orus2014], that is common to all planar structures. The presence of dissipation could help in reducing the amount of correlations in the steady state, so that it might be possible that relatively good accuracies will be reached even with small bond links.
Results
=======
Let us now put into practice the methods outlined above, and study the PM-FM dissipative phase transition of the interacting spin model described by Eqs. , -. As detailed in Sec. \[sec:Model\], this is associated to a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-symmetry breaking mechanism, whose location in the phase diagram we would like to accurately unveil.
The full phase diagram at the single-site MF level has been already obtained in Ref. [@Lee2013]. By writing the mean-field equations of motion for the magnetisation along the different axes, it is possible to analytically evaluate the critical point separating the PM from the FM phase. For fixed values of $J_x, J_z$, it is located at $$J_y^c = J_z - \frac{1}{16 \, z^2 \, (J_x-J_z)} \,,
\label{eq:MF_res}$$ where $z$ is the coordination number of the lattice, i.e. the number of nearest neighbors of each lattice site. As in any single-site mean field, the only effect of the system dimensionality enters through the integer $z$. From the theory of critical phenomena, we know that the role of dimensionality is crucial, particularly in low dimensions. Below we show that, under a more careful treatment of the short-range correlations, cluster mean-field produces important qualitative and quantitative changes to the phase diagram. In the different subsections, we will address the cases of increasing dimensionality. In one-dimensional systems, where we do not expect any phase transition, the cluster mean-field together with quantum trajectories and MPO allows to recover this result.
One dimension {#sec:1D}
-------------
The 1D case represents the most suitable situation to benchmark our methods. Here, due to the reduced dimensionality (the system has a coordination number $z=2$), the MF predictions are known to fail and no symmetry-breaking mechanism should occur (as already stated in Ref. [@Lee2013]). Using a combination of strategies as described in Sec. \[sec:methods\], we numerically verify the absence of symmetry breaking, thus gaining confidence on how accurate our methods can be for driven-dissipative systems.
We are able to perform a direct integration of the master equation for systems with up to $L=9$ spins, by employing a standard fourth-order Runge-Kutta (RK) method, without applying consistent MF terms at the boundaries. For larger systems, with $10 \leq L \leq 16$, we use the quantum trajectory approach (the time evolution of each trajectory is computed by means of a fourth-order RK method) obtaining reliable results already with a number of trajectories not exceeding $N = 500$, for all the values of the parameters we have probed. For even larger clusters ($L \lesssim 40$) we resort to an MPO approach combined with the cluster mean field.
In order to check for the (possible) existence of an ordered FM phase, we calculate the steady-state ferromagnetic spin-structure factor $S^{xx}_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} (k=0)$, where $$S^{xx}_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} (k) =
\frac{1}{L^2} \sum_{j,l=1}^L e^{-ik(j-l)} \langle \sigma^x_j \sigma^x_l \rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS} \,.
\label{eq:xx_Correl}$$ A non-zero value of $S^{xx}_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}(0)$ indicates the stabilization of a FM ordering in the thermodynamic limit. We do not look directly at the order parameter $\langle \sigma^x_j \rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}$, since we are studying finite-size systems and the ${\mathbb Z}_2$ symmetry may not spontaneously break [@note02].
![Ferromagnetic spin-structure factor along the $x$ direction, in a 1D setup, as a function of $J_y$. The various curves and symbols stand for different system sizes from $L=6$ to $L=16$, as indicated in the plot. The two arrows point at the positions of the two peaks ($J_y=0.4$ and $J_y=1.3$), for which we provide a finite-size scaling (Fig. \[fig:1D\_Scaling\]), and an analysis of the two-point correlation functions (Fig. \[fig:1D\_Correl-R\]). Here we have set $J_x = 0.9$ and $J_z = 1$, and work in units of $\gamma$. Note that for $J_y=0.9$ and $J_y=1$ the spin structure factor is rigorously zero.[]{data-label="fig:1D_Correl"}](1D_CorrXX_Jyvar){width="0.98\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:1D\_Correl\] we show the behavior of $S^{xx}_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}(0)$ for small systems ($L\leq 16$) with open boundary conditions, for fixed values of $J_x=0.9, \, J_z=1$ and varying $J_y$ (analogous results are obtained by taking different values of $-1 \leq J_x \leq 1$). Data have been obtained with RK and with QT approaches. According to Eq. , the MF approach predicts a critical point at $J_y^c = 37/32 \approx 1.156$ separating a PM (for $J_y < J_y^c$) from a FM region (for $J_y > J_y^c$). In striking contrast with this, our numerics displays a decrease of the $xx$ correlations with the system size. We also observe a non-monotonic behavior with $J_y$, and the fact that $S^{xx}_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}(0)$ vanishes for $J_y=0.9$ and $J_y=1$. This can be explained as follows. For $J_x = J_y$, the Hamiltonian conserves the magnetization along $z$. Since the dissipative spin-flip processes occur along the same direction, it is clear that they cannot be counteracted by the unitary dynamics and so the steady state is a pure product state, having all the spins aligned and pointing down along the $z$ direction, making the $xx$ and $yy$ correlations vanishing at any distance. On the contrary for $J_y = J_z$, the total magnetization along the $x$-axis is conserved by the Hamiltonian. In this case, due to the different privileged axis with respect to the dissipation process, the steady state is not a product state. The correlators are generally different from zero, however the spin-structure factor of Eq. at $k=0$ sums to zero. It is worth noticing that, on the contrary, $S^{yy}_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}(k=0)$ is not affected by the Hamiltonian symmetry and is different from zero (not shown).
Coming back to the data in Fig. \[fig:1D\_Correl\] on the spin-structure factor $S^{xx}_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}(k=0)$, we can pinpoint the emergence of two peaks at $J_y \approx 0.4$ and $1.3$. Before commenting on the behavior of the spin-structure factor in proximity of such peaks, let us analyze more in detail their dependence with $L$ by performing a finite-size scaling of our data. This is provided in Fig. \[fig:1D\_Scaling\]. Black data sets correspond to those in Fig. \[fig:1D\_Correl\]. We observe a systematically drop of the correlations with $L$ for both peaks, that can be nicely fitted with a power law $$S^{xx}_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}(0) \sim \kappa \, L^{-\alpha} \,,
\label{eq:Sxx_powerlaw}$$ where the exponent $\alpha$ depends on the value of $J_y$ as indicated in the various panels.
![Scaling of $S^{xx}_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}(0)$ as a function of the inverse system size $L$, for two values of $J_y$ in proximity of the peaks (see the arrows in Fig. \[fig:1D\_Correl\]). The symbols denote the numerical data, while the continuous lines are power-law fits performed for the data points to the left of the vertical dashed line. The black sets correspond to those of Fig. \[fig:1D\_Correl\], obtained simulating a small system with RK and QT approaches. The blue sets have been obtained with MPO simulations, where the CMF has been applied to the two edges. The other parameters are set as in Fig. \[fig:1D\_Correl\].[]{data-label="fig:1D_Scaling"}](1D_CorrXX_cuts){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
We were able to reach longer sizes by employing a MPO approach for considerably larger chain lengths ($L \leq 40$). We applied a cluster mean field at the edges of the chain, in order to better mimic the thermodynamic limit. The results obtained with this method are displayed in Fig. \[fig:1D\_Scaling\] by the blue sets of data, and qualitative agree with the previous results without mean field (black data). In particular, an analogous power-law behavior emerges. Notice that, in correspondence to the peak that is remnant of the ferromagnetic phase ($J_y=1.3$), a non-monotonic behavior in the combined MPO-CMF approach emerges. This has to be ascribed to the mean-field corrections that become very effective for very short clusters.
![Spatial decay of the correlation functions $\langle \sigma^x_j \sigma^x_{j+r} \rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}$ with the distance $r$. Correlators have been chosen in a symmetric way with respect to the center of the chain. In the upper panel $J_y = 0.4$ (left peak in Fig. \[fig:1D\_Correl\]), while in the lower panel $J_y = 1.3$ (right peak in Fig. \[fig:1D\_Correl\]). The various data sets correspond to different system sizes: results for $L = 12$ have been obtained for systems with PBC by means of RK integration or QT approach to the master equation; those for $L=24$ are with MPO used to simulate OBC and combined with the CMF; the thermodynamic limit $L \to \infty$ (diamonds–solid blue lines) has been addressed with a translationally invariant i-MPO method. The other parameter values are set as in Fig. \[fig:1D\_Correl\].[]{data-label="fig:1D_Correl-R"}](1D_CorrXX_r_Jy04-Jy13){width="0.98\columnwidth"}
Further evidence of the remnants of the ${\mathbb Z}_2$-symmetry breaking predicted at the mean-field level is provided by analyzing the two-point correlation functions $\langle \sigma^x_j \sigma^x_{j+r} \rangle_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}$ as a function of the distance $r$. Figure \[fig:1D\_Correl-R\] shows results for parameters corresponding to the two distinct phases predicted by the mean-field theory. In particular we observe that, in the cases where the symmetry is not broken in MF, correlations of the order parameter exhibit a clear exponential decay with the distance, as one can recognize in the upper panel ($J_y = 0.4$). This is evident already at very small sizes $L \sim 12$. A more intriguing situation occurs in the case where the MF would predict a symmetry-broken phase (see the lower panel for $J_y = 1.3$). In such case an instability of the PM phase at short lengths emerges, in the sense that a bump in the correlators clearly emerges at $r \lesssim 10$ and the exponential suppression of correlations is not immediately visible. Longer sizes are needed to observe the absence of quasi-long-range correlations.
To corroborate our analysis, we also performed simulations by directly addressing the thermodynamic limit. We employed a TEBD numerical approach based on a translationally invariant Ansatz for the MPO [@Orus2008]. Here the mean field need not to be used. The results are in perfect agreement with those obtained with the cluster mean field, thus validating our approach. In all the cases that we considered, we clearly see an emergence of exponential decay at large distances, thus signalling the absence of ferromagnetic order in any parameter range. Remarkably, the data obtained with MPO simulations (both in the finite and the infinite case), converge with a relatively small bond-link dimension ($\chi\le120$).
Two dimensions {#sec:2D}
--------------
We now proceed with the discussion of the model in a two-dimensional square lattice ($z=4$). Here there is no chance to solve Eq. exactly for any thermodynamically relevant system size, therefore we resort to approximate techniques combined with a CMF approach. In this framework we are able to highlight a number of significant modifications to the steady-state phase diagram predicted by the single-site MF. Clearly such differences must arise from taking into account the effect of short-range correlations inside the cluster. The shape of the considered clusters always respects the square-lattice geometry (i.e. they have a number of sites $L = \ell \times \ell$). With the numerical capabilities at our disposal, we are able to deal with clusters up to size $\ell = 4$. The $\ell \leq 3$ data have been computed by numerically integrating the time evolution of the cluster master equation with a standard RK method. In order to address the case $\ell = 4$, we employed the quantum trajectories approach explained in Sec. \[subsec:qt\].
![Two-dimensional cluster mean-field phase diagram in the $J_x$-$J_y$ plane (with fixed $J_z = 1$). The single-site MF ($1 \times 1$) predicts a ferromagnetic steady state in the top left region with respect to the black curve. The extent of this region appears to be very fragile to a more accurate cluster mean-field treatment. At the $2 \times 2$ level (red squares), the boundaries of the two phases are slightly deformed, while with a $3 \times 3$ analysis the FM phase shrinks down to a region of finite size (blue circles). The darkest color filling indicates the region that is PM in all simulations, while the lightest indicates that which is FM in all cases. The FM region shrinks with increasing cluster size, as indicated by the varying shades of color, but, as discussed in the text, appears to converge with increasing cluster size. The five arrows denote the cuts along different values of $J_x$ which will be analyzed in detail in Figs. \[fig:2D\_Cuts\] and \[fig:2D\_Cut09\].[]{data-label="fig:2D_PhaseDiag"}](2D_PhaseDiag_Jx-Jy){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Our main result is reported in Fig. \[fig:2D\_PhaseDiag\], which displays the phase diagram in a region of the parameter space where the MF analysis would predict the occurrence of a ${\mathbb Z}_2$-symmetry breaking mechanism. It is immediately visible that, under a CMF treatment of the system, the extent of the FM phase is drastically reduced. Specifically we shall contrast the single-site MF predictions (black line) with the results obtained using a $3 \times 3$ cluster size (blue circles). On the one side, the single-site MF analysis predicts a symmetry-broken phase in a large and extended portion of the phase space \[fixing $J_z=1$, for $-1 \lesssim J_x \lesssim 1$ the ferromagnet extends for any $J_y \gtrsim 1$ according to Eq. , and disappears only in the asymptotic limit $J_y \to \infty$\]. On the other side, the latter analysis indicates a tendency to confine the FM phase into a finite-size region in the parameter phase, which is surrounded by the PM phase, thus modifying the topology of the diagram.
Our CMF numerics shows that the disappearance of the ordered phase at large $J_y$ is accompanied by the progressive shrinkage of the Bloch vector for the single-site density matrix, with increasing the coupling strength. This effect can be already seen from the Bloch equations of the single-site MF [@Lee2013], which predict a saturation of the spins in the limit of infinite coupling—see Eqs. , and analogous for $[M^y_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}]_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle MF}$. It is however important to remark that, even though the left and upper boundaries of the FM phase shrink with the cluster size while the right and bottom ones are almost unaffected, our results support the existence of a finite region for the symmetry-broken phase even in the thermodynamic limit $\ell \to \infty$, as we will detail below. Since the calculations with large clusters are very demanding, we considered few (representative) couplings. Our analysis performed with clusters of size up to $4 \times 4$ indicates that the ferromagnet will survive in the limit $\ell \to \infty$, for fixed $J_x = 0.9$ and for $1.04 \lesssim J_y \lesssim 1.4$ (see Fig. \[fig:2D\_Cut09\]). We do expect that for other values of $J_x$ the behavior will be similar.
Before commenting on the scaling with the cluster size, let us point out the fact that the CMF data for $\ell = 2$ (red squares in Fig. \[fig:2D\_PhaseDiag\]) evidence an intermediate situation. Indeed taking into account only nearest-neighbor interactions, the extent of the FM phase is slightly reduced as compared to the single-site MF, yet it is not sufficient to confine the symmetry-broken phase into a finite-size region surrounded by the PM phase. Nonetheless, after a more careful analysis of the magnitude of the order parameter, we are able to detect a clear tendency toward a topological modification of the diagram. Specifically we fixed several values of the coupling $J_x$, while varying $J_y$, and investigated the FM-PM phase transition by looking at the steady-state on-site magnetisation along the $x$-axis: $$M^x_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS} = \frac{1}{\ell^2} \sum_{j=1}^{\ell^2} \langle \sigma^x_j \rangle_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS} \,,$$ so to explore the phase diagram of Fig. \[fig:2D\_PhaseDiag\] along certain vertical cuts. Notice that we do not need to calculate the correlators $S^{xx}_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}(0)$ of Eq. as we did in the 1D geometry, since the self-adaptive mean-field method automatically breaks the symmetry in the FM phase.
![Cluster mean field analysis of the ferromagnetic order parameter in two dimensions, for four different vertical cuts of Fig. \[fig:2D\_PhaseDiag\], at constant $J_x$ (the corresponding values of $J_x$ are indicated in the various panels). The various data sets denote different sizes of the clusters, up to $\ell = 3$.[]{data-label="fig:2D_Cuts"}](2D_CorrXX_cuts_V2){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The different panels of Fig. \[fig:2D\_Cuts\] refer to four values of $J_x$, as indicated by the first four green arrows on the left in Fig. \[fig:2D\_PhaseDiag\], and display $M^x_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}$ as a function of $J_y$, for different cluster sizes $\ell$. The $1 \times 1$ MF data (black lines) can be found by working out the steady-state limit of the MF Bloch equations for the magnetization [@Lee2013], giving the following result: $$[M^x_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}]_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle MF} =
\pm \sqrt{2 \, [M^z_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}]_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle MF} \Big( [M^z_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}]_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle MF} +1 \Big) \frac{J_y-J_z}{J_x-J_y} } \,,
\label{eq:mx_1site}$$ with $$[M^z_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}]_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle MF} =
- \frac{1}{4z} \sqrt{\frac{1}{(J_z-J_x)(J_y-J_z)}} \,.
\label{eq:mz_1site}$$ These curves exhibit a finite magnetization for all $J_y \gtrsim 1$, with a maximum at a given value of $J_y$ (dependent of $J_x$) and they eventually go to zero in the limit $J_y \to +\infty$. This vanishing order at strong coupling is similar to the absence of ordering on resonance in the Dicke model [@baumann], and the suppression of ordering in the degenerate limit of the Rabi model [@Schiro2015]. The non-monotonicity of $M^x_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}$ as a function of $J_y$ emerges also in the CMF analysis: the $2 \times 2$ data signal a strong suppression of the order parameter for $J_y \sim 2$, which however remains finite. Going further with a $3 \times 3$ cluster, we see the sharp disappearance of the FM in an intermediate extended region where $M^x_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS} = 0$ (for $1.5 \lesssim J_y \lesssim 3$, depending on the value of $J_x$, the system is not ferromagnetically ordered along $x$ or $y$). The revival of the FM phase at large values of $J_y$ ($J_y \gtrsim 3$) is outside the parameter range of Fig. \[fig:2D\_PhaseDiag\]. We will analyze this feature later in Sec. \[sec:stability\].
![Same analysis as in Fig. \[fig:2D\_Cuts\], but for $J_x$ = 0.9. In the inset we show the rescaled data close to the left phase transition; the straight dashed line denotes a square-root behavior as in Eq. , and is plotted as a guide to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:2D_Cut09"}](2D_CorrXX_cutJx09){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Let us now have a closer look at the vertical cut of Fig. \[fig:2D\_PhaseDiag\] for $J_x=0.9$; the magnetization is shown in Fig. \[fig:2D\_Cut09\] for clusters up to $\ell = 4$. Both for the $3 \times 3$ and the $4 \times 4$ CMF analysis, we do not see any reappearance of the FM ordering at large $J_y$ (we numerically checked this statement up to $J_y = 10$). The symmetry-broken phase is confined to a finite-size region which shrinks with increasing $\ell$. While the left boundary is basically unaffected by the role of correlations ($J_y^{c \, ({\rm left})} \approx 1.04 \pm 0.01$), the right boundary is strongly sensitive to $\ell$. Our simulations indicate a transition point $J_y^{c ({\rm right})} \approx 2.04 \pm 0.005, \,
1.67 \pm 0.01, \, 1.57 \pm 0.03$, for clusters respectively with $\ell = 2, 3, 4$. A scaling with $\ell$ of these data for the right boundary indicates a behavior that is compatible with $J_y^{c \, ({\rm right})} \approx 1.40 + 2.54 \, \ell^{-2}$, thus which supports the existence of the FM phase in the limit of large cluster size $\ell \to \infty$, for $1.04 \lesssim J_y \lesssim 1.40$. In the data for $\ell = 2$, a discontinuity of $M^x_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}$ seem to appear immediately before the right transition point (at $J_y \approx 2$), which requires a further analysis (a similar behavior is observed in the lower right panel of Fig. \[fig:2D\_Cuts\], for $J_y = 0.5$). We will return to this point in Sec. \[sec:stability\].
We also checked that, close to the transition, our numerics predicts a growth of the order parameter that is well approximated by $$M^x_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS} \sim m \sqrt{J_y-J_y^c} \,,
\label{eq:Mx_mf}$$ as displayed in the inset of Fig. \[fig:2D\_Cut09\], around the left critical point $J_y^{c\, ({\rm left)}}$. We repeated a similar analysis for other vertical (fixed $J_y$) and horizontal (fixed $J_x$) cuts, and obtained qualitatively analogous results. This evidences the fact that the CMF remains a mean-field analysis, and leads to the same critical exponents as those of its single-site version. In order to get the correct exponents, one would need a more careful finite-size analysis [@Suzuki1986] which requires slightly larger values of $\ell$ and is unfortunately out of reach for the present computational capabilities.
![The two-point $xx$ (left) and $yy$ (right) correlations as a function of the distance $r$ in a two-dimensional square-lattice geometry. The calculations have been performed on a square lattice of size $\ell=4$, while the point $j$ has been chosen to be at one of the corners of the squarer cluster. The three sets of data refer to different values of $J_y$ according to the legend: two inside the PM phase ($J_y= 1$ and $J_y=1.7$) and one inside the FM phase ($J_y=1.2$). We fixed $J_x = 0.9$, $J_z = 1$.[]{data-label="fig:Corr2D"}](2D_CorrXX-YY_Jy1-Jy12-Jy17){width="0.98\columnwidth"}
The stability of the symmetry-broken phase for $J_y^{c \, ({\rm left})} < J_y < J_y^{c \, ({\rm right})}$ up to $4 \times 4$ clusters is corroborated by the behavior of the correlation functions $\langle \sigma^x_j \sigma^x_{j+r} \rangle_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}$ and $\langle \sigma^y_j \sigma^y_{j+r} \rangle_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}$ with the distance $r$, as reported in Fig. \[fig:Corr2D\] for three different values of $J_y$. As discussed in Section \[sec:1D\] for the 1D case, in the parameter region where we predict a PM, the correlators decay exponentially with $r$ (black data set at $J_y = 1$). On the opposite side, the point at $J_y=1.2$ (red data) displays a marked distance-independence of correlations with the distance, thus signalling the presence of a FM phase (notice that this point lies well inside the closed region in Fig. \[fig:2D\_PhaseDiag\]). The case $J_y=1.7$ (blue data) shows a subtler behavior and corresponds to a point for which the single-site and the $2 \times 2$ mean-field analysis would predict a symmetry-broken phase, contrary to our $\ell \geq 3$ CMF calculations which display no evidence of this type. The reminiscence of a kind of quasi-ordering at short distances is indeed forecast by a slow decay of correlations. While we are not able to see a clear exponential decay with $r$, due to our limited numerical capabilities, we expect that this would be visible for clusters appreciably longer than $\ell = 4$. Nonetheless we stress that $xx$ correlations here are one order of magnitude smaller than in the FM point.
A sketch of the phase diagram summarising all our results is provided in Fig. \[fig:diagram\].
Two dimensions - stability analysis {#sec:stability}
-----------------------------------
As anticipated in the previous subsection, the $2 \times 2$ analysis reveals a discontinuity of the order parameter inside the first FM phase, very close to the transition point $J_y^{c \, {\rm (right)}}$ to the disordered phase. Such a jump, between two symmetry-broken states, is known as a metamagnetic transition. The jump is visible for certain values of $J_x$, and seems to vanish quickly with increasing the cluster size (already for $\ell = 3$ it is barely recognizable from our data). On the one hand, the latter observation suggests that this jump could be an artifact of the CMF analysis. On the other hand, a deeper investigation is required to understand its origins.
![Magnification of the $2 \times 2$ CMF analysis for $J_x=0.9$, close to $J_y=2$ (see the red data in Fig. \[fig:2D\_Cut09\]). The two sets are calculated sweeping both from upward and downward $J_y$ values, where the initial conditions for each point are based on previous one, with a small offset. This evidences the presence of a first-order jump within the ordered phase for $J_y \approx 1.985 $ (green arrow), followed by a second order transition to the normal state, for $J_y^{c\,({\rm right})} \approx 2.04$.[]{data-label="fig:2x2_jump"}](mf-order-param-detail){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
To highlight the existence of this feature, in Fig. \[fig:2x2\_jump\] we show a magnification of the relevant parameter region of Fig. \[fig:2D\_Cut09\]. We only consider the $2 \times 2$ case, since this is the situation where it is mostly relevant. We observe the presence of a first-order phase transition within the first ordered phase, where the order parameter exhibits a discontinuity. This is corroborated by a bistability effect: specifically, we calculated the magnetization $M^x_{\rm \scriptscriptstyle SS}$ starting from different initial states and we observed a slight difference in proximity to the jump, as is visible from the figure [@note03].
At this point we perform a linear stability analysis, in order to check whether and how the system becomes unstable in correspondence of the jump. We start from the CMF factorization Ansatz given in Eq. , where each cluster density matrix $\rho_{\mathcal C}$ obeys the mean-field master equation . The stability analysis is performed directly on the factorized density matrix, as detailed in Ref. [@LeBoite2013]. Let us first rewrite the equation of motion for a single cluster, say the $n$-th one, in the superoperator formalism as: $$\partial_t {|| \rho_n \rangle\rangle} = \mathcal{M}_0 {|| \rho_n \rangle\rangle}
+ \sum_j \Big( \mathcal{E}_j\cdot {|| \rho_{n+\bf{e_j}} \rangle\rangle} \Big) \, \mathcal{M}_j {|| \rho_n \rangle\rangle} \,,$$ where we omitted the index ${}_{\mathcal C}$. Here ${|| \rho_n \rangle\rangle}$ denotes a super ket, i.e.. a vectorised form of the density matrix, and $\mathcal{M}_i$ denote superoperators. In this equation $\mathcal{M}_0$ represents all the on-cluster terms, while $\mathcal{M}_j$ is the on-cluster part of an off-cluster term, and $\mathcal{E}_j$ the corresponding off-cluster expectation. For example, in the term $J_x \langle \sigma^x_N \rangle \sigma^x_1$, we have $\mathcal{M}_j = -i J_x {|| \sigma^x_1 \rangle\rangle}$, and $\mathcal{E}_j = \mathcal{E}[\sigma^x_N]$ is the superoperator form of the expectation. Moreover ${\bf e_j}$ is the direction to the neighboring cluster involved.
![Upper panel: real part of most unstable eigenvalue (negative is stable) as a function of $J_y$ and $k_x$ (for $k_y=0$). The parameters are set as in Fig. \[fig:2D\_Cut09\]. Lower panel: high resolution plot with the same range of $J_y$ as in Fig. \[fig:2x2\_jump\], corresponding to upward trace.[]{data-label="fig:unstable_ev"}](stability_10_axis "fig:"){width="3.5in"} ![Upper panel: real part of most unstable eigenvalue (negative is stable) as a function of $J_y$ and $k_x$ (for $k_y=0$). The parameters are set as in Fig. \[fig:2D\_Cut09\]. Lower panel: high resolution plot with the same range of $J_y$ as in Fig. \[fig:2x2\_jump\], corresponding to upward trace.[]{data-label="fig:unstable_ev"}](stability_high_res_10_axis "fig:"){width="3.5in"}
When performing linear stability analysis, we expand the fluctuations in terms of plane waves $${|| \rho_n \rangle\rangle} = {|| \rho_0 \rangle\rangle} + \sum_{\bf k} e^{i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf r_n}} {|| \delta \rho_{\bf k} \rangle\rangle}$$ so that the resulting equation of motion for ${|| \delta \rho_{\bf k} \rangle\rangle}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\partial_t {|| \delta\rho_{\bf k} \rangle\rangle} & = &
\bigg[ \mathcal{M}^0 + \sum_j \Big( \mathcal{E}_j \cdot {|| \rho_{0} \rangle\rangle} \Big) \, \mathcal{M}_j \bigg] {|| \delta \rho_{\bf k} \rangle\rangle} \\
& & + \sum_j e^{i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf e_j}} \mathcal{M}_j {|| \rho_0 \rangle\rangle} \Big(\mathcal{E}_j \cdot {|| \delta \rho_{\bf k} \rangle\rangle} \Big) \,.\end{aligned}$$ The last term is a sum of rank-one matrices (since $\mathcal{M}_j {|| \rho_0 \rangle\rangle}$ is a vector, like $\mathcal{E}_j$). Thus we obtain $$\partial_t {|| \delta\rho_{\bf k} \rangle\rangle} = \bigg[ \mathcal{M}^{0,\text{eff}}
+ \sum_{\bf e} e^{i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf e}} \mathcal{M}^{1,{\bf e}} \bigg] {|| \delta\rho_{\bf k} \rangle\rangle} \,,
\label{eq:stab_matr}$$ where in the second part, we have grouped terms with the same vector ${\bf e}$ together, as these all get the same ${\bf k}$ dependent factor. We then numerically compute the eigenvalues of the effective superoperator in Eq. for each value of ${\bf k}=(k_x,k_y)$. The most unstable eigenvalue is the one with the largest positive real part. Since for a $\ell \times \ell$ cluster the vectors ${\bf e_j}$ must be $\ell$ times the elementary lattice vectors, the range of lattice momenta coming from the $\ell \times \ell$ cluster stability analysis is restricted to the first Brillouin zone of the superlattice, $|k_j| < \pi/\ell$.
In Fig. \[fig:unstable\_ev\] we plot the real part of the most unstable eigenvalue as a function of the momentum $k_x$ and the coupling $J_y$ (for fixed $J_x = 0.9$). We notice that the jump inside the FM phase occurs when there is an instability at finite $k$, around $|{\bf k}| = \pi/4$. This suggests that the finite cluster size is responsible for the particular metamagnetic transition seen, and explains why the extent of the ordered phase reduces as larger clusters (capable of describing such short-range fluctuations) are used. The transition to the normal state also occurs from a finite momentum instability, at small $|{\bf k}|$. We also see an incommensurate finite-momentum instability at the rebirth of the FM phase, for large $J_y$, thus signaling that probably the reappearance of the ordered phase is an artifact of the translationally invariant CMF Ansatz. Finally we checked that the dispersion is almost isotropic in $k_x, k_y$.
Three- and four-dimensional systems {#sec:HigherD}
-----------------------------------
![Cluster mean field analysis of the ferromagnetic order parameter for a system defined on a square lattice geometry in different dimensionalities. The upper panel refers to 2D ($z=4$), the middle one to 3D ($z=6$), the lower one to 4D ($z=8$). Dashed lines denote the MF predictions, while symbols and continuous curves are the results of numerical simulations, with clusters of size $L = 2^D$ ($D$ being the system dimensionality).[]{data-label="fig:HigherDim"}](ND_cut_Jyvar){width="0.98\columnwidth"}
For completeness we consider also the case of higher dimensions. Although not relevant for direct experimental realisations it helps in completing the picture achieved so far; it may also be possible to study (finite sized) four dimensional systems by using synthetic dimensions as proposed recently by Ozawa [*et al.*]{} [@Ozawa]. Mean-field results are expected to improve their validity with increasing the coordination number $z$ in the lattice. It is therefore tempting to investigate systems in higher dimensionality by means of CMF techniques. Obviously, on increasing $d$, our ability in considering larger clusters goes drastically down. We checked the dependence on $d$ of the PM-FM transition by means of a mean-field analysis with clusters of size $L=2^d$. In these cases we looked again at the average on-site magnetisation along the $x$ axis. The results are displayed in Fig. \[fig:HigherDim\].
Naturally, the extent of the symmetry-broken phase region is increasing with the dimensionality, as it is apparent from Fig. \[fig:HigherDim\] (despite the value of the order parameter does not necessarily become larger). This supports the common wisdom of the validity of single-site mean field in high dimensions. What is surprising from Fig. \[fig:HigherDim\] is that even the four-dimensional system shows a critical value of $J_y$ beyond which the phase is paramagnetic. This is in sharp contrast with the mean-field result that does not capture this second critical point. Our limited analysis up to four-dimensions and for very small clusters does not allow to draw conclusions in determining how/if the second critical point moves in higher dimensions. It is however an interesting point to be understood.
Short-range correlations and Lindblad dynamics: Origin of the re-entrant paramagnetic phase {#sec:physicalorig}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in detail in Sec \[sec:2D\], our calculations show that, on improving the Ansatz for the steady-state density matrix by including short-range correlations, the critical points may shift from $J_y=+\infty$ to a finite value of $J_y$. This situation may appear as counterintuitive. It is indeed unlikely to occur at equilibrium, where the inclusion of short-range fluctuations may only lead to a shift of the boundary position of the order of the energy fluctuations inside the cluster \[$O(z J_y)$ in this case\]. In this section we want to explain the mechanism responsible for this behavior. This will also help us to elucidate the nature of the PM phase observed at large $J_y$ within the CMF approach and, consequently, the re-entrance to a disordered phase. To this aim it is sufficient to compare the single-site with the $2 \times 1$ (two-site) cluster cases. We consider this minimal cluster dimension for simplicity, since taking larger clusters would not add new ingredients to the understanding of the mechanism.
First, it is important to stress that, already at the single-site MF, a steady state with vanishing spontaneous magnetization in all the directions is predicted in the limit $J_y \to +\infty$. As shown in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:MagnMF\_1vs2\] (for fixed $J_x=0.9$ and $J_z=1$), two phases emerge: a PM for $J_y<J_y^c$ and a FM for $J_y>J_y^c$, with magnetization along $y$ (or equivalently along $x$) initially increasing, but then decreasing asymptotically toward zero as $J_y$ is increased. This phenomenon is related to the progressive deterioration of the purity of the steady-state density matrix, $\mathcal{P}={\rm Tr}[\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}^2]$, for $J_y> J_y^c$. This comes as a consequence of the out-of-equilibrium nature of the steady-state resulting from the interplay of driving and dissipation and cannot occur at equilibrium, where an increasing coupling typically stabilizes the ordering. A similar kind of behavior can be seen in a driven two-level system [@Tian; @Bishop] where increasing driving enhances the population, but suppresses the purity of the system, leading to a suppression of the homodyne ampltitude $|\langle \sigma^- \rangle |$ and of the purity when driven on resonance. We see that $\mathcal{P}=1$ in the PM phase and then it decreases toward its minimal value ($\mathcal{P}=1/2$ in the case of a single-site cluster) as $J_y$ is increased beyond the critical value $J_y^{c}$. This suggests the fact that the disordered phase detected for $J_y<J_y^{c}$ is different in nature compared to the one reached in the large-$J_y$ limit for the cluster mean-field simulation. The former is due to the stabilization of a fully polarized along the $z$ direction, which coincides with the single-site MF solution for any $J_y < J_y^{c}$ (while it is the exact solution to the problem only for $J_x = J_y$). The latter PM phase is a consequence of the fact that the steady-state for $J_y \to + \infty$ is fully mixed.
![Magnetization along the $x$ (solid black line), $y$ (dashed black line) directions and purity $\mathcal{P}={\rm Tr}[\rho_\mathcal{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}^2]$ (solid red line) as a function of $J_y$, for fixed $J_x=0.9$, $J_z=1$. The single-site MF ($1 \times 1$, top panel) predicts a PM phase for $J_y<J_y^c$ and a FM phase for $J_y>J_y^c$. On the contrary, according to a CMF analysis ($2 \times 1$, lower panel), the FM phase shrinks down to a finite region $J_y^c = J_y^{c {\rm (left)}} < J_y < J_y^{c {\rm (right)}}$ allowing the re-entrance of a PM phase for $J_y > J_y^{c {\rm (right)}}$. []{data-label="fig:MagnMF_1vs2"}](MagnMF_1vs2){width="\columnwidth"}
What is the effect of including short range correlations? In order to understand this point, let us consider more in detail the smallest cluster where this feature can be observed, namely a $2 \times 1$ plaquette. As shown in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:MagnMF\_1vs2\], the FM phase now shrinks to a finite region going from $J_y^{c {\rm (left)}}$ to $J_y^{c {\rm (right)}}$, so that the PM for $J_y \to +\infty$ stabilizes over an extended region $J_y > J_y^{c {\rm (right)}}$. The steady-state purity indicates a nearly pure state in the left PM region, $J_y < J_y^{c {\rm (left)}}$, that has to be contrasted with a nearly fully mixed state in the right PM region, $J_y > J_y^{c {\rm (right)}}$ (the minimal value for a two-site cluster is $\mathcal{P}=1/4$). [[ Thus, the exact inclusion of the nearest neighbor correlations allows for the reentrance of a PM phase for $J_y > J_y^{c {\rm (right)}}$. At single-site MF level, such PM phase appears only in the limiting case $J_y\to+\infty$ and then is never detectable for any finite value of the couplings. We remark that the decreasing of the purity, and the consequent reduction of the magnetizations, as $J_y$ is increased is a common nonequilibrium feature of the two Ansätze ($1 \times 1$ and $2 \times 1$). While in the $1 \times 1$ case the purity reduction is not enough to kill the FM order, in the $2 \times 1$ plaquette this reduction of purity is more prominent and the latter phenomenon (suppression of magnetization) occurs. ]{}]{}
The equations of motion in the Heisenberg picture for magnetization ${\left< \sigma^\beta_j \right>}$ ($\beta=x,y,z$) are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\partial_t {\left< \sigma^\beta_j \right>} & = &
-2 \sum_{\alpha=x,y,z} J_\alpha \epsilon_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \left[ {\left< \sigma^\gamma_j \right>}
{\left< \sigma^\alpha_{j+1} \right>} + {\left< \sigma^\gamma_j \sigma^\alpha_{j+1} \right>}\right] \\
&& \hspace*{1.5cm} -\frac\gamma2 \big[ {\left< \sigma^\beta_j \right>}
+ \delta_{\beta z}({\left< \sigma^\beta_j \right>}+2) \, \big],
\label{2x1} \end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_{\alpha \beta \gamma}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol and $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ is the Kronecker delta. The steady-state density matrix in the $2 \times 1$ plaquette for $J_y>J_y^{c {\rm (right)}}$ can be analytically computed, and is [*almost*]{} fully mixed. Therefore it can can be written as $\rho_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm SS}^{\scriptscriptstyle [2 \times 1]}
\approx \rho^{\scriptscriptstyle [1]} \otimes \rho^{\scriptscriptstyle [2]}$. The two-point spin correlator appearing in Eq. can be thus decomposed as $$\label{spin_corr}
{\left< \sigma^\gamma_j \sigma^\alpha_{j+1} \right>}
= {\left< \sigma^\gamma_j \right>} {\left< \sigma^\alpha_{j+1} \right>}+ {\left< \Sigma^{\gamma,\alpha}_{j,j+1} \right>},$$ where $|{\left< \Sigma^{\gamma,\alpha}_{j,j+1} \right>}| \ll 1$. Inserting this expression into Eq. and exploiting translational invariance we get $$\label{2x1_bis}
\partial_t {\left< \sigma^\beta_j \right>} = \mathcal{L}^\beta_{\scriptscriptstyle [1\times1]}
-2 \, \sum_{\alpha} J_\alpha \epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}{\left< \Sigma^{\gamma,\alpha}_{j,j+1} \right>},$$ where $\mathcal{L}^\beta_{\scriptscriptstyle [1\times1]}$ are the terms one would get from the single-site MF. Equation shows that spin-spin correlations correct the single-site MF equations of motion only through the small term ${\left< \Sigma^{\gamma,\alpha}_{j,j+1} \right>}$. On the other hand we know that, for $J_y > J_y^{c {\rm (right)}}$, the steady-state properties can change dramatically when considering a single site or a plaquette as a cluster: in the former case one gets a ferromagnet, while in the latter case one gets a paramagnet. Spin-spin correlations, even if very weak, cannot be neglected and drastically modify the structure of the density matrix at long times. These conspire with the dynamically induced reduction of purity at large $J_y$, already visible for the single siste mean-field, to suppress the ordering altogether. This is the key to understand the dramatic changes in the phase boundaries we presented in the previous sections.
We believe that the mechanism is generic and should be relevant for other driven-dissipative models as well.
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
In this work we introduced a cluster mean-field approach combined with quantum trajectories and tensor-network techniques to the study of the steady-state phase diagram in driven-dissipative systems. This approach allowed us to analyze the effect of short-range correlations. The result is somewhat unexpected. The whole structure of the phase diagram is radically modified in clear opposition to what typically happens in equilibrium phase transitions. In particular, we observed that the location of critical points may shift from infinite to finite values of the system parameters. The reason underlying this behavior is related to the fact that, differently from equilibrium, spontaneous symmetry breaking is of pure dynamical nature and is not determined through a free-energy analysis. It is already known that in dissipative systems, energy-minimizing ferromagnetic phases may be destabilized, and replaced by incommensurate or antiferromagnetic order. Such behaviour has been extensively studied in classical pattern forming systems [@Cross1993], including examples such as active matter and flocking [@vicsek; @zia; @Toner]. As such, short range correlations can be expected to play a much greater role in dissipative than in equilibrium systems. Accordingly, the topology of the phase diagram can significantly change. This appears clearly in Fig. \[fig:diagram\], where the results from the single-site and the cluster mean-field analysis are compared. Furthermore, the cluster method hints at ordering with a non-trivial spatial pattern, a possibility which is not detected within the single-site mean-field Ansatz.
The results that we highlighted here are amenable to an experimental verification. As discussed in Ref. [@Lee2013], the model considered in this paper can be implemented using trapped ions. Moreover, by changing external controls it is possible to explore the phase diagram, thus allowing to check the results of the present work. Besides the examined system, we think that cluster approaches may be powerful in the general context of driven-dissipative systems, ranging from Rydberg atoms in optical lattices to cavity or opto-mechanical arrays. Our findings point out the importance of the interplay between short-range fluctuations and dissipation in the physics emerging in such devices.
All the present analysis has been performed by considering a static mean field. It would be of great interest to extend these calculations so as to include also self-energy corrections as in the dynamical mean field, already extended to non-equilibrium for the single-site case [@arrigoni2013].
Finally we believe that a very interesting development, left for the future, is the determination of the non-Landau critical exponents. When successful, this will be an important step to establish the power of cluster techniques also in many-body open systems. On this perspective, the combination of our approach with the corner space renormalization method developed in Ref. [@Finazzi2015] looks promising and some encouraging results have been already obtained [@ciuti_private].
We warmly thank useful discussions with I. Carusotto, C. Ciuti, M. Fleischhauer, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. Hafezi, and T. Lee. AB, LM, JK, RF, and DR acknowledge the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara (USA) for the hospitality and support during the completion of this work. This research was supported in part by the Italian MIUR via FIRB project RBFR12NLNA, by the EU integrated projects SIQS, QUIC, by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY11-25915, and by National Research Foundation, Prime Ministers Office, Singapore under its Competitive Research Programme (CRP-QSYNC Award No. NRF- CRP14-2014-02). OV acknowledges support from the Spanish MINECO grant FIS2012-33152, the CAM research consortium QUITEMAD+, the U.S. Army Research Office through grant W911NF-14-1-0103, FPU MEC Grant and Residencia de Estudiantes. JK acknowledges support from the EPSRC program “TOPNES” (EP/I031014/1). JJ was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 11547119 and No. 11305021, by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities No. DUT15RC(3)034, and by Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province No. 2015020110. LM is supported by LabEX ENS-ICFP: ANR-10-LABX-0010/ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL\*.
[100]{}
N. Goldenfeld, [*Lectures on phase transitions and the renormalization group*]{}, (Addison Wesley, New York, 1992).
S. Sachdev, [*Quantum Phase Transitions*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
U. Weiss, [*Quantum Dissipative Systems*]{}, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2008).
M. C. Cross and P. C. Hohenberg, [*Pattern formation outside of equilibrium*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**65**]{}, 851 (1993).
S. Strogatz, [*Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order*]{} (Hyperion Press, New York, 2003).
R. N. Mantegna and H. E. Stanley, [*Introduction to Econophysics: Correlations and Complexity in Finance*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
T. Vicsek and A. Zafeiris, [*Collective motion*]{}, Phys. Rep. [**517**]{}, 71 (2012).
B. Schmittmann and R. K. P. Zia, in: C. Domb, J. L. Lebowitz (Eds.), [*Statistical Mechanics of Driven Diffusive Systems, vol. 17: Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena*]{}, (Academic Press, London, 1995).
J. Toner and Y. Tu, [*Flocks, herds, and schools: A quantitative theory of flocking*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 4828 (1998).
N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, [*Absence of Ferromagnetism or Antiferromagnetism in One- or Two-Dimensional Isotropic Heisenberg Models*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**17**]{}, 1133 (1966).
J. Kasprzak, M. Richard, S. Kundermann, A. Baas, P. Jeambrun, J. M. J. Keeling, F. M. Marchetti, M. H. Szymanska, R. André, J. L. Staehli, V. Savona, P. B. Littlewood, B. Deveaud, and Le Si Dang, [*Bose-Einstein condensation of exciton polaritons*]{}, Nature [**443**]{}, 409 (2006).
K. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, [*Dicke quantum phase transition with a superfluid gas in an optical cavity*]{}, Nature [**464**]{}, 1301 (2010).
N. Syassen, D. M. Bauer, M. Lettner, T. Volz, D. Dietze, J. J. García-Ripoll, J. I. Cirac, G. Rempe, and S. Dürr, [*Strong Dissipation Inhibits Losses and Induces Correlations in Cold Molecular Gases*]{}, Science [**320**]{}, 1329 (2008).
M. Müller, S. Diehl, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, [*Engineered Open Systems and Quantum Simulations with Atoms and Ions*]{}, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**61**]{}, 1 (2012).
I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, [*Quantum fluids of light*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**85**]{}, 299 (2013).
H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, [*Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical potentials*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**85**]{}, 553 (2013).
A. A. Houck, H. E. Türeci, and J. Koch, [*On-chip quantum simulation with superconducting circuits*]{}, Nat. Phys. [**8**]{}, 292 (2012).
A. Tomadin and R. Fazio, [*Many-body phenomena in QED-cavity arrays*]{}, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [**27**]{}, A130 (2010).
T. E. Lee, S. Gopalakrishnan, and M. D. Lukin, [*Unconventional Magnetism via Optical Pumping of Interacting Spin Systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 257204 (2013).
T. E. Lee, H. Häffner, and M. C. Cross, [*Antiferromagnetic phase transition in a nonequilibrium lattice of Rydberg atoms*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**84**]{}, 031402 (2011).
J. Jin, D. Rossini, R. Fazio, M. Leib, and M. J. Hartmann, [*Photon Solid Phases in Driven Arrays of Nonlinearly Coupled Cavities*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 163605 (2013).
M. Ludwig and F. Marquardt, [*Quantum Many-Body Dynamics in Optomechanical Arrays*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 073603 (2013).
C.-K. Chan, T. E. Lee, and S. Gopalakrishnan, [*Limit-cycle phase in driven-dissipative spin systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 051601 (2015).
M. Schiró, C. Joshi, M. Bordyuh, R. Fazio, J. Keeling, and H. E. Türeci, [*Exotic attractors of the non-equilibrium Rabi-Hubbard model*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 143603 (2016).
L. M. Sieberer, S. D. Huber, E. Altman, and S. Diehl, [*Dynamical Critical Phenomena in Driven-Dissipative Systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 195301 (2013).
E. G. Dalla Torre, E. Demler, T. Giamarchi, and E. Altman, [*Dynamics and universality in noise-driven dissipative systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 184302 (2012).
J. Marino and S. Diehl, [*Driven Markovian Quantum Criticality*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 070407 (2016).
S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, [*Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms*]{}, Nat. Phys. [**4**]{}, 878 (2008).
F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, [*Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation*]{}, Nat. Phys. [**5**]{}, 633 (2009).
S. Diehl, A. Tomadin, A. Micheli, R. Fazio, and P. Zoller, [*Dynamical Phase Transitions and Instabilities in Open Atomic Many-Body Systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 015702 (2010).
A. Tomadin, V. Giovannetti, R. Fazio, D. Gerace, I. Carusotto, H. E. Türeci, and A. Imamoglu, [*Signatures of the superfluid-insulator phase transition in laser-driven dissipative nonlinear cavity arrays*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**81**]{}, 061801 (2010).
F. Nissen, S. Schmidt, M. Biondi, G. Blatter, H. E. Türeci, and J. Keeling, [*Nonequilibrium Dynamics of Coupled Qubit-Cavity Arrays*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 233603 (2012).
A. Le Boité, G. Orso, and C. Ciuti, [*Steady-State Phases and Tunneling-Induced Instabilities in the Driven Dissipative Bose-Hubbard Model*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 233601 (2013); [*Bose-Hubbard model: Relation between driven-dissipative steady states and equilibrium quantum phases*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 063821 (2014).
J. Jin, D. Rossini, M. Leib, M. J. Hartmann, and R. Fazio, [*Steady-state phase diagram of a driven QED-cavity array with cross-Kerr nonlinearities*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 023827 (2014).
I. Lesanovsky, B. Olmos, and J. P. Garrahan, [*Thermalization in a Coherently Driven Ensemble of Two-Level Systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 100603 (2010); B. Olmos, I. Lesanovsky, and J. P. Garrahan, [*Facilitated Spin Models of Dissipative Quantum Glasses*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 020403 (2012).
M. J. Hartmann, [*Polariton Crystallization in Driven Arrays of Lossy Nonlinear Resonators*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 113601 (2010).
T. Grujic, S. R. Clark, D. Jaksch, and D. G. Angelakis, [*Non-equilibrium many-body effects in driven nonlinear resonator arrays*]{}, New J. Phys. [**14**]{}, 103025 (2012).
I. Carusotto, D. Gerace, H. E. Türeci, S. De Liberato, C. Ciuti, and A. Imamoǧlu, [*Fermionized Photons in an Array of Driven Dissipative Nonlinear Cavities*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 033601 (2009).
R. O. Umucalilar and I. Carusotto, [*Fractional Quantum Hall States of Photons in an Array of Dissipative Coupled Cavities*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 206809 (2012).
A. J. Daley, [*Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems*]{}, Adv. Phys. [**63**]{}, 77 (2014).
M. Hoening, W. Abdussalam, M. Fleischhauer, and T. Pohl, [*Antiferromagnetic long-range order in dissipative Rydberg lattices*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 021603(R) (2014).
M. Höning, D. Muth, D. Petrosyan, and M. Fleischhauer, [*Steady-state crystallization of Rydberg excitations in an optically driven lattice gas*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 023401 (2013).
D. Petrosyan, M. Höning, and M. Fleischhauer, [*Spatial correlations of Rydberg excitations in optically driven atomic ensembles*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 053414 (2013).
A. Biella, L. Mazza, I. Carusotto, D. Rossini, and R. Fazio, [*Photon transport in a dissipative chain of nonlinear cavities*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 053815 (2015).
M. F. Maghrebi and A. V. Gorshkov, [*Nonequilibrium many-body steady states via Keldysh formalism*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 014307 (2016).
E. Ilievski and T. Prosen, [*Exact steady state manifold of a boundary driven spin-1 Lai-Sutherland chain*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**882**]{}, 485 (2014).
T. Prosen, [*Exact Nonequilibrium Steady State of an Open Hubbard Chain*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 030603 (2014).
N. Šibalić, C. G. Wade, C. S. Adams, K. J. Weatherill, and T. Pohl, [*Driven-dissipative many-body systems with mixed power-law interactions: Bistabilities and temperature-driven non-equilibrium phase transitions*]{}, arXiv:1512.02123.
R. M. Wilson, K. W. Mahmud, A. Hu, A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hafezi, and M. Foss-Feig, [*Collective phases of strongly interacting cavity photons*]{}, arXiv:1601.06857.
S. Chakravarty, G.-L. Ingold, S. Kivelson, and A. Luther, [*Onset of global phase coherence in Josephson-junction arrays: a dissipative phase transition*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 2303 (1986).
S. E. Korshunov, [*Phase Diagram of a Chain of Dissipative Josephson Junctions*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**9**]{}, 107 (1989).
P.A. Bobbert, R. Fazio, G. Schön, and A. D. Zaikin, [*Phase transitions in dissipative Josephson chains: Monte Carlo results and response functions*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 2294 (1992)
G. Refael, E. Demler, Y. Oreg, and D. S. Fisher, [*Superconductor-to-normal transitions in dissipative chains of mesoscopic grains and nanowires*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 014522 (2007).
We do not take into account the possibility that the steady state is of topological nature (see, for example, M. Roncaglia, M. Rizzi, and J. I. Cirac, [*Pfaffian State Generation by Strong Three-Body Dissipation*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 096803 (2010); C.-E. Bardyn, M. A. Baranov, C. V. Kraus, E. Rico, A. Imamoǧlu, P. Zoller, and S. Diehl, [*Topology by dissipation*]{}, New J. Phys. [**15**]{}, 085001 (2013); F. Iemini, D. Rossini, R. Fazio, S. Diehl, and L. Mazza, [*Dissipative topological superconductors in number-conserving systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 115113 (2016)). The cases we analyze assume the only spontaneous symmetry breaking can occur in the steady state.
S. Finazzi, A. Le Boité, F. Storme, A. Baksic, and C. Ciuti, [*Corner-Space Renormalization Method for Driven-Dissipative Two-Dimensional Correlated Systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 080604 (2015).
P. Degenfeld-Schonburg and M. J. Hartmann, [*Self-consistent projection operator theory for quantum many-body systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 245108 (2014).
H. Weimer, [*Variational Principle for Steady States of Dissipative Quantum Many-Body Systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 040402 (2015).
H. A. Bethe, [*Statistical Theory of Superlattices*]{}, Proc. R. Soc. London A [**150**]{}, 552 (1935).
R. Kikuchi, [*A Theory of Cooperative Phenomena*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**81**]{}, 988 (1951).
T. Oguchi, [*A Theory of Antiferromagnetism, II*]{}, Progr. Theor. Phys. [**13**]{}, 148 (1955).
J. Oitmaa, C. Hamer, and W. Zheng, [*Series expansion methods for strongly interacting lattice models*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006).
M. Suzuki, [*Statistical Mechanical Theory of Cooperative Phenomena.I. General Theory of Fluctuations, Coherent Anomalies and Scaling Exponents with Simple Applications to Critical Phenomena*]{}, J. Phys. Soc. Jap. [**55**]{}, 4205 (1986).
In principle, it is even possible to proceed as for the Hamiltonian case, and determine a self-consistent solution for the dark state of the Liouvillean operator on the corresponding cluster (instead of the ground-state of the cluster Hamiltonian). The computational effort is however huge, due to the size of the Liouvillian (e.g., in a system composed of $L$ spins, it is a $4^L \times 4^L$ non-Hermitian matrix).
J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, [*Wave-function approach to dissipative processes in quantum optics*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 580 (1992); K. Mølmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, [*Monte Carlo wave-function method in quantum optics*]{}, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [**10**]{}, 524 (1993).
F. Verstraete, J. J. García-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, [*Matrix Product Density Operators: Simulation of Finite-Temperature and Dissipative Systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 207204 (2004).
M. Zwolak and G. Vidal, [*Mixed-State Dynamics in One-Dimensional Quantum Lattice Systems: A Time-Dependent Superoperator Renormalization Algorithm*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 207205 (2004).
G. Vidal, [*Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly Entangled Quantum Computations*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 147902 (2003); [*Efficient Simulation of One-Dimensional Quantum Many-Body Systems*]{}, [*ibid.*]{} [**93**]{}, 040502 (2004).
G. Vidal, [*Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in One Spatial Dimension*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 070201 (2007).
R. Orús and G. Vidal, [*Infinite time-evolving block decimation algorithm beyond unitary evolution*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 155117 (2008).
M. Biondi, E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, G. Blatter, S. D. Huber, and S. Schmidt, [*Incompressible Polaritons in a Flat Band*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 143601 (2015).
L. Bonnes, D. Charrier, and A. M. Läuchli, [*Dynamical and steady-state properties of a Bose-Hubbard chain with bond dissipation: A study based on matrix product operators*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 033612 (2014).
C. Joshi, F. Nissen, and J. Keeling, [*Quantum correlations in the one-dimensional driven dissipative XY model*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 063835 (2013).
J. Cui, J. I. Cirac, and M. C. Bañuls, [*Variational Matrix Product Operators for the Steady State of Dissipative Quantum Systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 220601 (2015).
E. Mascarenhas, H. Flayac, and V. Savona, [*Matrix-product-operator approach to the nonequilibrium steady state of driven-dissipative quantum arrays*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**92**]{}, 022116 (2015).
A. H. Werner, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi, M. Kliesch, T. Calarco, J. Eisert, and S. Montangero, [*Positive tensor network approach for simulating open quantum many-body systems*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 237201 (2016).
S. Yan, D. A. Huse, S. R. White, [*Spin-Liquid Ground State of the $S = 1/2$ Kagome Heisenberg Antiferromagnet*]{}, Science [**332**]{}, 1173 (2011).
R. Orús, [*A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states*]{}, Ann. Phys. [**349**]{}, 117 (2014).
We also tried to break the symmetry by adding a small external magnetic field along the $x$ axis, and then to extrapolate the value of the spontaneous magnetisation by calculating the zero-field susceptibility. However the results we obtained are less clean than those found by the analysis of the two-point correlations in Eq. .
Note however that our code introduces a small perturbation to the state before each new parameter value (to destabilise the normal state), thus the real bistability region will be larger than shown.
T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, N. Goldman, O. Zilberberg, and I. Carusotto, [*Synthetic dimensions in integrated photonics: From optical isolation to four-dimensional quantum Hall physics*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 043827 (2016).
L. Tian and H. J. Carmichael, [*Quantum trajectory simulations of two-state behavior in an optical cavity containing one atom*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**46**]{}, R6801 (1992).
L. S. Bishop, J. M. Chow, J. Koch, A. A. Houck, M. H. Devoret, E. Thuneberg, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, [*Nonlinear response of the vacuum Rabi resonance*]{}, Nat. Phys. [**5**]{}, 105 (2009).
E. Arrigoni, M. Knap, and W. von der Linden, [*Nonequilibrium Dynamical Mean Field Theory: an auxiliary Quantum Master Equation approach*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 086403 (2013).
R. Rota, F. Storme, and C. Ciuti, private communication.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Dániel Apai
- 'Benjamin V. Rackham'
- 'Mark S. Giampapa'
- Daniel Angerhausen
- Johanna Teske
- Joanna Barstow
- Ludmila Carone
- Heather Cegla
- 'Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman'
- Néstor Espinoza
- Helen Giles
- 'Michael Gully-Santiago'
- Raphaelle Haywood
- Renyu Hu
- Andres Jordan
- Laura Kreidberg
- Michael Line
- Joe Llama
- 'Mercedes López-Morales'
- 'Mark S. Marley'
- Julien de Wit
bibliography:
- 'pnas-sample.bib'
title: Understanding Stellar Contamination in Exoplanet Transmission Spectra as an Essential Step in Small Planet Characterization
---
{width="12.5cm"}
ver the past sixteen years our understanding of extrasolar planet atmospheres has been revolutionized by transit spectroscopy. High-precision measurements of the wavelength-dependence of the apparent sizes of transiting exoplanets reveal opacity variations and, through the presence of atmospheric features, probe the presence of key absorbers. Progress and perspectives for exoplanet transmission spectroscopy have been summarized in multiple outstanding reviews [@2017arXiv170905941K; @2009PASP..121..952D; @2015PASP..127..311C; @2016PASP..128i4401S; @2016ApJ...817...17G; @2017arXiv170507098F] and we only highlight here representative results to illustrate the breadth of knowledge gained from transit spectroscopy.
Atomic features have been reported in an increasing number of hot jupiters – examples range from the first pioneering observation of an exoplanet’s atmosphere through the Na detection in HD 209458b [@2002ApJ...568..377C] to the more recent K line in XO-2b [@2012MNRAS.426.1663S], to the simultaneous Na and K detections in HD 189733b [@2013MNRAS.432.2917P].
Molecular features have also been detected, including water in HD 209458b and XO-1b [@2013ApJ...774...95D] and TiO in WASP-19b [@2017Natur.549..238S]. Furthermore, gradually increasing apparent planet sizes at shorter wavelengths – interpreted as Rayleigh scattering slopes – were observed in the hot jupiter HD189733 b . Similar results have been found for the warm exo-neptune GJ 3470b .
The success of Kepler prime and extended missions, and wide-field ground-based transit surveys have dramatically increased the number of known transiting planets, many of which are suitable for transit transmission spectroscopic characterization with ground-based telescopes, the Hubble Space Telescope ($HST$), and with the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope ($JWST$); this sample will expand through the transiting exoplanet surveys $TESS$ and $PLATO$. In the next two decades this combination of suitable planets and powerful telescopes capable of follow-up observations promises to define our understanding of small exoplanets, including those in the habitable zone [@2014SPIE.9143E..20R; @2014ExA....38..249R; @2015ApJ...810...29H; @2015ApJ...809...77S].
The Transit Light Source Effect {#the-transit-light-source-effect .unnumbered}
===============================
[*The transit light source effect (TLSE) is the contamination of the exoplanet transit spectrum due to the difference between the stellar disk-integrated spectrum and the spectrum of the transit chord*]{} [@Rackham2018], as illustrated in Figure \[fig:TLSE\]. For realistic stars – i.e., not perfectly homogeneous – the spectrum of any chord will differ slightly from the disk-integrated spectrum. When obtaining the transmission spectrum of the transiting exoplanet, the light source is the transit chord, the spectrum of which, however, is not directly observable. In lieu of the transit chord’s spectrum the pre- and post-transit spectra are measured: these are disk-integrated spectra.
In most cases the disk-integrated spectra are very similar, but not identical, to the transit light chord’s spectrum. Occulted and unocculted starspots, faculae, plages, and flares will introduce slight spectral differences between the disk-integrated and chord-integrated spectra, resulting in the TLSE. This effect is thought to be most important for M stars due to their enhanced stellar activity.
Current Corrections are Problematic {#current-corrections-are-problematic .unnumbered}
===================================
The fact that unocculted stellar features impact transmission spectra has been recognized for well over a decade [e.g., @Pont2008]. However, essentially all published stellar contamination corrections have derived the spot (sometimes spot/faculae) areal covering fractions from the photometric variability amplitude (or analogous measurements) for the host stars. Two important and related [*assumptions*]{} underpin these corrections: [*a)*]{} A linear correlation exists between the variability amplitude and the covering fraction of stellar spots (and/or faculae). [*b)*]{} Most stars have very homogeneous ($>99\%$) photospheres/chromospheres.
While reasonable as first-order assumptions, closer inspection reveals that both assumptions are [*not*]{} correct in general and will often lead to a greatly underestimated stellar spectral contamination (see Figure \[fig:Amplitudes\] and [@Rackham2018]).
Assumption (a) is incorrect because photometric variability of an unresolved rotating sphere, in essence, measures the deviation from the rotationally symmetric brightness distribution and [*not the spot covering*]{} fraction. Independent Monte Carlo models by multiple groups (using somewhat different assumptions and model setups) reached the same conclusion [@Jackson2013; @Rackham2018]: [*stellar photometric or spectroscopy variability amplitudes are very insensitive to changes in spot covering fractions*]{}. (Instead of $\Delta v \propto f_{spot}$, simulations shows that $\Delta v \propto \sqrt{f_{spot}}$, where $\Delta v$ is variability amplitude and $f_{spot}$ is the spot covering fraction). In contrast, the stellar contamination is directly proportional to the stellar features’ surface covering fraction.
Assumption (b) is problematic because it contradicts a multitude of indirect and direct observational evidence for stellar activity being common across the stellar spectral types and because there is no physical mechanism for main sequence stars that would favor perfectly homogeneous photospheres/chromospheres.
Unfortunately, essentially all published corrections for unocculted features rely on photometric/spectroscopic variability to constrain spot/facular covering fractions: In the absence of detailed information about the host star’s spot properties, the spot properties are generally inferred from the stellar photometric variability, assuming all variability is due to a single spot rotating in and out of view (e.g., [@Pont2008; @Desert2011; @BertaThompson2011; @McCullough2014]. However, this method neglects the likely scenario that there are multiple spots, that spot temperatures may not be uniform, and the possible presence of faculae and plage.
Solar and Stellar Heterogeneity {#solar-and-stellar-heterogeneity .unnumbered}
===============================
Main-sequence, late-type stars show analogs of atmospheric inhomogeneities that we see in the Sun in the form of spots and faculae. This heterogeneous structure is a [*fundamental*]{} property of the solar atmosphere [@Golub1980] and, by extension from observational inference, late-type stellar atmospheres as well. These structures are spatially associated with localized concentrations of emergent magnetic fields. The principal manifestations of quasi-steady magnetic activity relevant to our discussion of stellar contamination of transmission spectra are photospheric faculae, their chromospheric counterparts – plages – and spots.
Faculae and plages are characterized on the Sun by magnetic field strengths less than the photospheric gas equipartition value of $\sim$1,500 G. Field strengths in sunspot umbrae generally range from $\sim$ 2,000–4,000 G and with temperatures in the broad range of $\sim$ 50–80% of the solar effective temperature. The identification of water vapor lines in sunspot umbral spectra is consistent with the occurrence of low temperatures $\sim$3,000 K [@Bernath2002]. The filling factor of the [*quiet*]{} facular network changes from 15% at solar minimum to 20% at maximum [@Foukal1991 Cycle 21]. About half of the 11-year sunspot cycle modulation of disk-integrated Ca [ii]{} K in the Sun is caused by the change in the fractional area coverage of active regions and half is due to the changing filling factor of the combined quiet and active network elements [@Criscuoli2017]. Therefore, as concluded by [@Criscuoli2017], the 5% change in cycle-modulated quiet facular area is only about one-half of the total change in this parameter. Hence, facular filling factors on the Sun roughly range from 15–30% from solar minimum to solar maximum. Facular brightenings on the Sun are typically observed on the centerward side of granules with sizes that can extend to about 0.6 arcseconds [@Keller2004]. Still today, we have very few direct observations of faculae, including measurements of their effective temperature. But from the results of simulations of near-surface convection in late-type, main sequence stars [@Beeck2015], we infer facular effective temperatures that can be $\sim$100 K hotter than the photospheric effective temperature in early G dwarfs. However, the apparent brightness of facular elements and their inferred temperatures can depend on viewing angle, magnetic field strength and wavelength, in addition to spectral type [@Norris2017].
While faculae are present at all latitudes on the solar disk and throughout a solar cycle, sunspots initially emerge at mid-latitudes of $\sim~\pm$30$^{\circ}$. This mid-latitude activity band would also include transit chords for our solar system viewed as, say, a $Kepler$ Object of Interest (KOI). As the cycle progresses, spots emerge closer and closer to the equator producing the so-called Butterfly Diagram [@Maunder1922; @Babcock1961]. Faculae are particularly concentrated near spots where these active regions can be the sources of especially intense chromospheric and coronal emission. Sunspots have filling factors of $\sim$ 0.1–0.3% of the visible hemisphere. However, during solar minimum, numerous days where no sunspots are observed can occur such as happened during the extended minimum of Cycle 23 with over 600 spotless days [@Nandy2011]. Grand Minima such as the Maunder minimum are characterized by decades of very few observed sunspots. Observable sunspots that did appear were confined to the southern hemisphere, indicative of parity interactions in the operative solar dynamo [@Tobias1997].
[lcl]{} Method & Sp. Type & Results on Covering Fractions $f$, Refs.\
\
Photometric & FGK & Lower limits only.\
Photometric & M & $\Delta i$=0.5-4%,$f_{spot}>1-8\%$ [@Jackson2013; @Newton2016; @Newton2017; @Rackham2018]\
Spectropol. & dM1 & $T_{spot}=0.8 T_{phot}$, $f_{spot}>7\%$ [@Berdyugina2011]\
\
H$\alpha$ absorption & M1-M5 & $f_{facular}>10-26\%$ [@Cram1979; @Giampapa1985]\
H$\alpha$ emission & dM & Active regions, kG fields with f $>$50%\
It remains poorly understood how the solar photospheric/chromospheric features and their evolution during the solar cycle can be extrapolated to main sequence stars, whose disks remain unresolved. [@Rackham2018] presents an up-to-date and detailed overview of the constraints available presently for late-type main sequence stars. We summarized the key points of that discussion in Table \[Methods\] and will only highlight four high-level conclusions from the body of literature reviewed in [@Rackham2018]:
1\) Fractional areal coverage of spots and faculae cannot be currently reliably derived for unresolved stars in general.
2\) Photometric variability is very common in main-sequence stars, but it can only provide a [*lower limit*]{} for spot and facular covering fractions.
3\) For M dwarfs chromospheric line formation may provide additional indirect information on covering fractions. The line formation-based studies argue for very high areal covering fractions ($>$10–50%), i.e., highly heterogeneous photosphere/chromospheres. For dM stars widely distributed kG-strength fields have been derived with active area covering fractions $f>50\%$.
4\) Spectropolarimetric studies of diatomic molecules in dM dwarfs provide an independent measure of spot temperatures which, when combined with photometric variability, provide a lower areal covering limit and argue for significant heterogeneity.
In short, no evidence supports the general assumption that spot covering fractions should in general be very close to 0%; in contrast, available evidence supports high spot/facular covering fractions for M dwarfs ($\sim$5–50%).
![The amplitude of photometric variability is often used to estimate the spot covering fraction (an essential parameter to correct for stellar contamination), but multiple realistic simulations show the assumed linear correlation between variability amplitude and spot covering fraction (dot-dashed line) is incorrect. Except for a few exceptional cases (extremely quiet stars), photometric amplitudes cannot be used to reliably determine spot covering fractions. Curves with different colors show the median photometric variability predicted by simulations in which spot coverage is gradually increased. The shaded region shows the 1$\sigma$ scatter of the variability for a given spot covering fraction. Dashed lines show the variability of TRAPPIST-1, while the gray shaded region shows the typical range of photometric variability measured for M-dwarfs by [@Newton2016]. Figure from [@Rackham2018].[]{data-label="fig:Amplitudes"}](fig_fspot_variability_faculae.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Impact on Exoplanet Characterization {#impact-on-exoplanet-characterization .unnumbered}
====================================
Biased Exoplanet Bulk Densities {#biased-exoplanet-bulk-densities .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
Transit observations provide a direct measurement of the exoplanet radius, which, combined with mass measurements, allows the exoplanet bulk density to be calculated. This parameter provides the first insights into the planetary composition and enables constraints on rocky, icy, and gaseous components [e.g., @howe2014; @zeng2016; @dorn2017]. However, radius measurements can be biased by the presence of unocculted photospheric heterogeneities, such as spots and faculae [@Rackham2018]. For example, if star spots are present in the stellar disk but not occulted by the transiting exoplanet, the observed transit depth will be deeper than the true $(R_{p}/R_{s})^2$ transit depth, leading to an overestimate of the exoplanet’s radius. This, in turn, will lead to an underestimate of the exoplanet’s density. Errors in radius measurements are amplified by a factor of 3 in density calculations, given the dependence of density on radius ($\rho \propto R^{-3}$), which prompts caution in estimates of volatile contents extrapolated from these measurements.
The effect of stellar contamination on density calculations has been studied in detail for M-dwarf host stars [@Rackham2018], which provide the only feasible option for studying small planet atmospheres in the near-term future. The TRAPPIST-1 system [@Gillon2016; @Gillon2017; @Luger2017] provides an instructive example in this respect. The small stellar radius [$R_{s}=0.1210 \pm 0.0030~R_{\odot}$; @Delrez2018] allows the seven roughly Earth-sized transiting planets to produce large transit depths, which enable atmospheric characterization studies with $HST$ [@deWit2016; @deWit2018] and, in the future, $JWST$ [@Barstow2016]. Photospheric modeling, however, suggests that the observed $\sim 1\%$ peak-to-trough variability of the host star [@Gillon2016], typical of field mid-to-late M dwarfs [@Newton2016], is consistent with spot and faculae covering fractions of $f_{\textrm{spot}}=8^{+18}_{-7} \%$ and $f_{\textrm{fac}}=54^{+16}_{-46} \%$, respectively [@Rackham2018]. These spot coverages can cause the bulk densities of the TRAPPIST-1 planets inferred from $Spitzer$ 4.5 $\mu$m radius measurements to be underestimated by $\Delta(\rho) = -3^{+3}_{-8} \%$, thus leading to overestimates of their volatile contents [@Rackham2018]. The problem would be even more severe if the densities were estimated from I-band transit depths – as are for many transiting planets – which would lead to a bias of $-8^{+7}_{-20}\%$. The large possible faculae covering fractions, by contrast, increase the likelihood that faculae may be distributed throughout the stellar disk, both within and without the transit chord, which would lessen their impact on transit observations. As with most stars, however, the spatial distribution of active regions on TRAPPIST-1 are unconstrained presently and their effect on density calculations for the TRAPPIST-1 planets remains to be seen.
Spectral Contamination {#spectral-contamination .unnumbered}
----------------------
Stellar heterogeneity impacts transmission spectra in multiple ways, which depend on both the relative temperature of the inhomogeneity and its location on the projected stellar disk. In the most straightforward case, active regions can be occulted by an exoplanet during a transit. These events can produce observable changes in transit light curves. Brightening events due to star spot crossings are routinely observed in transit observations [@Pont2008; @Carter2011; @Huitson2013; @Pont2013]. If uncorrected, star spot crossings effectively decrease estimates of transit depths, which may mask increases in transit depth due to exoplanetary atmospheric features. Conversely, faculae crossings during transit effectively increase transit depths, which can lead to spurious detections of scattering slopes [@Oshagh2014].
Active regions located outside of the transit chord also affect transmission spectra. When an exoplanet transits an immaculate photospheric chord but star spots are present in the unocculted stellar disk, the transit chord is effectively brighter per unit area than the disk-averaged brightness. This causes the transit depth to appear deeper than its true $(R_{p}/R{s})^{2}$ value and the exoplanet to appear larger [@Pont2013]. For a generalized temperature difference between the transit chord and unocculted spots, the net effect is a chromatic increase in transit depth, strengthening at shorter wavelengths, which can mimic a scattering slope due to $H_{2}$ or aerosols in the exoplanet atmosphere [@McCullough2014]. Differences in the opacity of atomic and molecular absorbers between the immaculate photosphere and spotted regions can also impart spectral features on observed transmission spectra (see Figure \[fig:contamination\_spectra\]). These features overlap wavelengths of interest for molecular features in exoplanet atmospheres and, in the case of cool M dwarfs, can even be caused by the same molecules of interest (e.g., H$_{2}$O) for the planetary atmosphere being present in the stellar atmosphere as well, which makes disentangling exoplanet atmospheric signals from stellar contamination particularly challenging [@Rackham2018]. Simulated observations and retrievals of transit spectra found that M dwarf starspots alone will lead to an overestimate of planetary water vapor by a factos of several [@Barstow2015]. To complicate matters further, in contrast to spots, faculae present outside of the transit chord can decrease transit depths, particularly at visual wavelengths [@Rackham2017]. This can result in spectral features, such as scattering slopes, being weakened or masked.
The effect of stellar heterogeneity can be particularly problematic for small exoplanets, for which planetary atmospheric signals are small. Combining multiple transit observations, $HST/WFC3$ transmission spectra can reach precisions of 30 ppm per 0.05 $\mu$m wavelength channel [@Kreidberg2014]. The same 30 ppm threshold has been suggested as a noise floor for $JWST$ transit observations [@Greene2016]. As the strength of the planetary atmospheric transmission feature scales inversely with the square of the stellar radius, these technical considerations constrain observations of terrestrial atmospheric features with these facilities to systems with small host stars, i.e. spectral types later than roughly M5V. However, for these spectral types, stellar contamination signals can be comparable to or up to an order of magnitude larger than planetary atmospheric signals [@Rackham2018]. More research is necessary to constrain the degree of stellar heterogeneity for observationally exciting mid-to-late M-dwarf host stars and to disentangle stellar and planetary contributions to exoplanet transmission spectra. (We note that [@Deming2017] pointed out an additional, independent effect introduced by the often incorrect treatment of overlapping spectral lines in the planetary and host stars).
The Contamination is Time-varying {#the-contamination-is-time-varying .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
The observed stellar disk’s temperature distribution will evolve through at least two processes: stellar rotation and starspot evolution, over the timescale of the faster of the two processes. Rotational periods for exoplanet host stars range from $<$3.5 days (e.g., TRAPPIST-1) to $>$100 days; starspot evolution timescales are poorly understood for stars different from the Sun, but may occur over timescales of $\sim$10 days (e.g., [@Giles2017; @Montet2017]).
The time-evolving stellar contamination poses two challenges: [*1)*]{} Combining transit spectra taken at multiple epochs with time differences comparable to or greater than the timescale over which the spectral contamination evolves cannot be simply combined, but have to be first individually corrected for contamination. [*2)*]{} In cases when the spectral contamination evolves rapidly (e.g., TRAPPIST-1) the contamination can change significantly even during a single transit observations (typically $\sim$3–5 hours). For a more detailed discussion of the time-variability of the stellar contamination see [@Zhang2018].
{width="10cm"}
Correction Required {#correction-required .unnumbered}
===================
[ Stellar heterogeneity represents an astrophysical noise source that can contaminate or even overwhelm planetary atmospheric features in transiting exoplanet transmission spectra (Figure \[fig:contamination\_spectra\]).]{} [**The efficient use of exoplanet transmission spectroscopy requires the development of a robust method for stellar contamination correction or, at least, a method that allows for quantifying the possible levels of contamination.**]{}
A successful stellar contamination correction requires knowledge of the spectral difference between the disk-integrated light and that of the stellar chord; which, in turn, will probably require a good understanding of the temperature distribution over the stellar disk and in the transit chord. It is possible that the disk-integrated temperature distribution can be determined for certain spectral type stars from temperature-sensitive lines. However, it is likely that for most stars predicting the disk-integrated spectrum will require the following elements: [*a)*]{} starspot-size distribution function; [*b)*]{} temperature distribution function for spots and faculae; [*c)*]{} spot/faculae covering fraction; [*d)*]{} spot covering fraction at the time of the transit observations.
Key Questions for Contamination Correction Method {#key-questions-for-contamination-correction-method .unnumbered}
=================================================
We identify the following basic questions as essential for developing a robust stellar contamination correction method:
[*Q1)*]{} How do the starspot and facula properties (size distribution, temperature distribution, spatial distribution) vary with spectral type and stellar activity level?
[*Q2)*]{} What model components are required to describe the spectral contamination due to stellar heterogeneity?
[*Q3)*]{} What observations are required by the stellar heterogeneity model to calculate/predict stellar contamination for a given epoch?
Answering these questions will likely require obtaining more constraining stellar observations, developing more realistic photospheric/chromospheric models that can make specific predictions for a range of spectral types and activity levels, and obtaining long-term and/or simultaneous activity indicator observations for each transit event.
Stellar Heterogeneity and Radial Velocity Modulations {#stellar-heterogeneity-and-radial-velocity-modulations .unnumbered}
=====================================================
Time-varying heterogeneous stellar atmospheres can also impact radial velocity (RV)-based planet mass measurements. A thorough review of the different physical and temporal timescales of such features, and current mitigation techniques, can be found in [@haywood2015], but here we stress that temperature variations in a rotating photosphere can be mistaken for planetary signals in RV data or they can influence or mask genuine RV modulations. Understanding how to distinguish stellar RV noise is one of the highest “tent poles” holding back the field from finding and measuring the masses of smaller, more Earth-like exoplanets. Thus it is mutually beneficial to both the exoplanet transit and RV communities to better characterize photo- and chromo-spheric heterogeneity.
Confronting the Problem {#confronting-the-problem .unnumbered}
=======================
Spot/faculae covering fractions have been systematically underestimated in the exoplanet literature, which has fueled false hopes that stellar contamination is only an issue in exceptional cases. It is important that the stellar contamination is recognized as a challenge, otherwise progress toward understanding its magnitude and correcting for it will be hampered, affecting the science output from HST and JWST. For example, over past cycles multiple proposals that aimed to obtain data to directly test potential transit correction methods for HST and JWST have been declined, leading to the situation where transit data continue to be collected without the small amount of additional data that may be sufficient to correct for the stellar contamination. Without the framework required for testing potential stellar contamination correction methods, otherwise powerful HST and JWST transit spectroscopic datasets will remain uncorrected for stellar contamination.
Summary {#summary .unnumbered}
=======
Transit spectroscopy is a uniquely powerful method to probe the atmospheres of small (sub-jovian) exoplanets. However, spectral contamination is introduced by the spectral difference between the disk-integrated spectrum and the transit chord’s spectrum (“transit light source effect”, e.g. [@Rackham2018]). This contamination likely represents a critically important challenge to the characterization of small extrasolar planets. The key points of this white paper are as follows:
$\bullet$ Some level of stellar contamination should be expected for most, if not all stars.
$\bullet$ The stellar contamination can impact the spectral slope of the transmission spectrum (commonly used as a proxy of clouds and atmospheric particles) and may also introduce apparent atomic and molecular features
$\bullet$ The amplitude of the contamination is a complex function of the stellar heterogeneity and can range from negligible to levels that may overwhelm intrinsic planetary features
$\bullet$ Correction methods based on stellar variability (photometric or spectroscopic) only probe the non-axisymmetric component of the heterogeneity. These methods possibly/likely underestimate stellar stellar contamination by factors of $\sim$2-10
$\bullet$ Stellar contamination is expected to change on timescales of the stellar rotation and the starspot evolution. For rapidly rotating stars (e.g., TRAPPIST-1) stellar contamination will likely change even during a single transit
$\bullet$ The current understanding of the spatial distribution of the temperature/spectra over stellar disks is insufficient to provide a robust basis for correction methods
0.1cm
We recommend the following considerations:
$\bullet$ Formal recognition of the importance of solving the challenges posed by stellar contamination
$\bullet$ Increased interactions between the stellar activity / heliophysics community to develop the physical basis for a contamination correction.
$\bullet$ The definition of the $HST$ and $JWST$ Proposal categories should be adjusted to allow “calibration proposals” for astrophysical noise, such as stellar contamination.
References {#references .unnumbered}
----------
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The study of exotic nuclei around $^{132}$Sn is a subject of current experimental and theoretical interest. Experimental information for nuclei in the vicinity of $^{132}$Sn, which have been long inaccessible to spectroscopic studies, is now available thanks to new advanced facilities and techniques. The experimental data which have been now become available for these neutron-rich nuclei may suggest a modification in the shell structure. They are, in fact, somewhat different from what one might expect by extrapolating the existing results for $N<82$, and as a possible explanation a change in the single-proton level scheme has been suggested. The latter would be caused by a more diffuse nuclear surface, and could be seen as a precursor of major effects which should show up at larger neutron excess. New data offer therefore the opportunity to test the shell model and look for a possible evolution of shell structure when going toward neutron drip line. This is stimulating shell-model studies in this region. Here, we present an overview of recent shell-model studies of $^{132}$Sn neighbors, focusing attention on those calculations employing realistic effective interactions.'
address:
- |
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Napoli,\
Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy
- |
Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Università di Napoli “Federico II”,\
Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy
- 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA'
author:
- 'L. Coraggio'
- 'A. Covello'
- 'A. Gargano'
- 'N. Itaco'
- 'T. T. S. Kuo'
title: 'Shell-model studies on exotic nuclei around $^{132}$Sn'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The region of nuclei around doubly-magic $^{132}$Sn is currently a subject of a certain theoretical and experimental interest. New advanced facilities and techniques, such as the advent of radioactive ion beams, allow to access to new data [@Radford02; @Shergur05a; @Shergur05b], that give the opportunity to test theoretical models.
In particular, it is important to study in this region, by way of microscopic approaches, the possible evolution of shell structure when going toward proton or neutron drip lines [@Otsuka04; @Otsuka05]. In fact, recent works evidence that in $N=82$ isotones the so-called “shell-quenching” phenomenon seems to play a fundamental role to reproduce the solar system $r-$process abudances ($N_{r,\odot}$) [@Dillmann03]. This is stimulating shell-model studies in this region, focusing particular attention on the two-body matrix elements (TBME) of the residual interaction.
In recent years, the derivation of the shell-model TBME from realistic nucleon-nucleon ($NN$) potentials has proved to be a reliable approach to microscopic shell-model calculations [@Kartamyshev06; @Covello07]. The success achieved by these calculations in different mass regions gives a clearcut answer to the long-standing problem of how accurate description of nuclear structure properties can be provided by realistic shell-model interactions, and opens the way to a more fundamental approach to the nuclear shell model than the traditional one, which makes use of empirical TBME with several parameters.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we give a short description of how the short-range repulsion of a realistic $NN$ potential is renormalized before to be employed in the derivation of the effective shell-model interaction. In particular, we will focus attention on a recent approach, the so-called $V_{\rm low-k}$ one [@Bogner02], that allows to derive a low-momentum $NN$ realistic potential which preserves exactly the onshell physics of the original potential. In Sec. III a summary of the derivation of the shell-model effective hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}$ is presented with some details of our calculations. In Sec. IV we present and discuss results obtained employing realistic shell-model interactions for nuclei with valence nucleons outside the doubly-magic $^{132}$Sn core. Some concluding remarks are given in Sec. V.
The renormalization of the short-range repulsion {#renorm}
================================================
Because of the strong repulsive core in the short-range region, which is a feature common to all modern $NN$ potentials, the latter cannot be used directly in the derivation of shell-model effective interaction within a perturbative approach, that is the standard procedure. So, as mentioned before, realistic potentials have to be renormalized first. The standard way to renormalize the short-range repulsion is to resort to the theory of the Brueckner reaction matrix $G$, that provides to sum up the infinite series of ladder diagrams whose interaction vertices are the $NN$ interaction itself. The $G$ matrix is defined [@Krenciglowa76] by the integral equation:
$$G(\omega) = V_{NN} + V_{NN} Q_{2p} \frac{1}{\omega-Q_{2p} T Q_{2p}} Q_{2p}
G(\omega)~~,
\label{gmat}$$
where $V_{NN}$ represents the $NN$ potential, $T$ denotes the two-nucleon kinetic energy, and $\omega$ is an energy variable (the so-called starting energy), given by the energy of the in-coming nucleons. The two-body Pauli exclusion operator $Q_{2p}$ prevents double counting, namely the intermediate states allowed for $G$ must be outside of the chosen model space. Thus the Pauli operator $Q_{2p}$ is dependent on the model space, and so is the $G$ matrix.
Inspired by the effective theory, an alternative approach based on the renormalization group (RG) has been recently introduced to renormalize the short-range repulsion introducing a cutoff momentum $\Lambda$, that decouples the fast and slow modes of the original $V_{NN}$.
Let us now outline briefly the derivation of this low-momentum potential $V_{\rm low-k}$ [@Bogner02]. The repulsive core contained in $V_{NN}$ is smoothed by integrating out the high-momentum modes of $V_{NN}$ down to $\Lambda$. This integration is carried out with the requirement that the deuteron binding energy and low-energy phase shifts of $V_{NN}$ are preserved by $V_{\rm low-k}$. This is achieved by the following $T$-matrix equivalence approach. We start from the half-on-shell $T$ matrix for $V_{NN}$ $$T(k',k,k^2) = V_{NN}(k',k) + \mathcal{P} \int _0 ^{\infty} q^2 dq
V_{NN}(k',q) \frac{1}{k^2-q^2} T(q,k,k^2 ) ~~,$$
where $\mathcal{P}$ denotes the principal value and $k,~k'$, and $q$ stand for the relative momenta. The effective low-momentum $T$ matrix is then defined by $$T_{\rm low-k }(p',p,p^2) = V_{\rm low-k }(p',p) + \mathcal{P} \int _0
^{\Lambda} q^2 dq V_{\rm low-k }(p',q) \frac{1}{p^2-q^2} T_{\rm
low-k} (q,p,p^2) ~~,$$
where the intermediate state momentum $q$ is integrated from 0 to the momentum space cutoff $\Lambda$ and $(p',p) \leq \Lambda$. The above $T$ matrices are required to satisfy the condition $$T(p',p,p^2)= T_{\rm low-k }(p',p,p^2) \, ; ~~ (p',p) \leq \Lambda \,.$$
The above equations define the effective low-momentum interaction $V_{\rm low-k}$, and it has been shown [@Bogner02] that they are satisfied by the solution: $$V_{\rm low-k} = \hat{Q} - \hat{Q}' \int \hat{Q} + \hat{Q}' \int
\hat{Q} \int \hat{Q} - \hat{Q}' \int \hat{Q} \int \hat{Q} \int \hat{Q}
+ ~...~~,
\label{vlowk}$$
which is the well known Kuo-Lee-Ratcliff (KLR) folded-diagram expansion [@Kuo71; @Kuo90], originally designed for constructing shell-model effective interactions. In Eq. (\[vlowk\]) $\hat{Q}$ is an irreducible vertex function whose intermediate states are all beyond $\Lambda$ and $\hat{Q}'$ is obtained by removing from $\hat{Q}$ its terms first order in the interaction $V_{NN}$. In addition to the preservation of the half-on-shell $T$ matrix, which implies preservation of the phase shifts, this $V_{\rm low-k}$ preserves the deuteron binding energy, since eigenvalues are preserved by the KLR effective interaction. For any value of $\Lambda$, the low-momentum potential of Eq. (\[vlowk\]) can be calculated very accurately using iteration methods. Our calculation of $V_{\rm low-k}$ is performed by employing the iteration method proposed in [@Andreozzi96], which is based on the Lee-Suzuki similarity transformation [@Suzuki80].
The main result is that $V_{\rm low-k}$ is a smooth potential which preserves exactly the onshell properties of the original $V_{NN}$, and is suitable to be used directly in nuclear structure calculations. In the past few years, $V_{\rm low-k}$ has been fruitfully employed in microscopic calculations within different perturbative frameworks such as the realistic shell model [@Coraggio02; @Coraggio04; @Coraggio05a; @Coraggio06a], the Goldstone expansion for doubly closed-shell nuclei [@Coraggio03; @Coraggio05b; @Coraggio06b], and the Hartree-Fock theory for nuclear matter calculations [@Sedrakian03; @Bogner05].
The derivation of the shell-model effective potential {#effint}
=====================================================
In the framework of the shell model, an auxiliary one-body potential $U$ is introduced in order to break up the nuclear hamiltonian as the sum of a one-body component $H_0$, which describes the independent motion of the nucleons, and a residual interaction $H_1$:
$$H=\sum_{i=1}^{A} \frac{p_i^2}{2m} + \sum_{i<j} V_{ij} = T + V =
(T+U)+(V-U)= H_{0}+H_{1}~~.
\label{smham}$$
Once $H_0$ has been introduced, a reduced model space is defined in terms of a finite subset of $H_0$’s eigenvectors. The diagonalization of the many-body hamiltonian (\[smham\]) in an infinite Hilbert space, that is obviously unfeasible, is then reduced to the solution of an eigenvalue problem for an effective hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}$ in a finite space.
The standard approach is to derive $H_{\rm eff}$ by way of the time-dependent perturbation theory [@Kuo71; @Kuo90]. Namely, $H_{\rm eff}$ is expressed through the KLR folded-diagram expansion in terms of the vertex function $\hat{Q}$-box, which is composed of irreducible valence-linked diagrams. The $\hat{Q}$-box is composed of one- and two-body Goldstone diagrams through a certain order in $V$ [@Kuo81], where $V$ is the renormalized input potential. Once the $\hat{Q}$-box has been calculated, the series of the folded diagrams is summed up to all orders using the Lee-Suzuki iteration method [@Suzuki80].
The hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}$ contains one-body contributions, which represent the effective single-particle (SP) energies. In realistic shell-model calculations it is customary to use a subtraction procedure [@Shurpin83] so that only the two-body terms of $H_{\rm eff}$ are retained - the effective interaction $V_{\rm
eff}$ - and the SP energies are taken from the experimental data. This is what has also been done in the calculations reported in the following section. The single-proton and single-neutron energies have been taken from the experimental spectra of $^{133}$Sb and $^{133}$Sn [@nndc], that can be described just as one proton and one neutron diving in the mean field generated by the $^{132}$Sn doubly-closed core. For sake of completeness, it is important to mention that experimentally the proton $2s_{1/2}$ level is missing and the neutron $0i_{13/2}$ level is unbound. The analysis of the first excited $J^{\pi}=10^+$ in $^{134}$Sb allows to estimate the SP energy of neutron $0i_{13/2}$ level to be $2.694
\pm 0.2$ MeV [@Urban99], while a study of odd $N=82$ isotones suggests that the SP proton $2s_{1/2}$ level should lie around $2.8$ MeV excitation energy [@Andreozzi97].
Realistic shell-model calculations {#results}
==================================
Here, we present some selected results employing realistic shell-model $V_{\rm eff}$s for nuclei with valence nucleons outside $^{132}$Sn core. The $V_{\rm eff}$s are derived from the CD-Bonn realistic $NN$ potential [@Machleidt01] using as renormalization approach both the $G$-matrix and the $V_{\rm low-k}$ ones. Calculations employing a $G$-matrix derived from the CD-Bonn potential have been widely performed by the Oslo group and their coworkers [@Shergur05a; @Shergur05b; @Kartamyshev06; @Shergur02; @Brown05] with a remarkable success. The $V_{\rm eff}$ is derived within the folded-diagram approach described in section \[effint\], including in the $\hat{Q}$-box diagrams up to the third order in $G$ and intermediate states with at most $2 \hbar \omega$ excitation energy [@Hjorth96].
The region of nuclei around $^{132}$Sn core has beeen studied in recent years also by the Naples-Stony Brook group within the framework of the $V_{\rm low-k}$ renormalization procedure. In such a case, the shell-model effective interaction is obtained starting from a $V_{\rm low-k}$ derived from the CD-Bonn potential, with a cutoff momentum $\Lambda=2.2$ fm$^{-1}$, that is a value able to preserve all the two-nucleon physics of the original potential up to the anelastic threshold and small enough so to give a reasonably smooth potential. Then the $\hat{Q}$-box has been calculated including diagrams up to second order in $V_{\rm low-k}$ using intermediate states composed of all possible hole states and particle states restricted to the five shells above the $^{132}$Sn Fermi surface. This guarantees the stability of the $V_{\rm eff}$ TBME when increasing the number of intermediate particle states.
In both approaches an harmonic-oscillator basis with an oscillator parameter $\hbar \omega=7.88$ MeV has been employed.
Let us now come to the results of the calculations and their comparison with experimental data.
First, it is worth to point out that a fundamental test for the reliability of the matrix elements of $V_{\rm eff}$ are the systems with two valence nucleons outside di closed-shell core. In the present case, the test is the reproduction of the spectra of $^{134}$Te - two protons outside $^{132}$Sn - $^{134}$Sn, and $^{134}$Sb, that are two neutrons and one proton and one neutron outside $^{132}$Sn, respectively.
In Tables \[134te\],\[134sn\],\[134sb\] the experimental and theoretical low-lying spectra of $^{134}$Te, $^{134}$Sn, $^{134}$Sb are reported.
$J^{\pi}$ Experiment $G$-matrix $V_{\rm low-k}$
----------- --- ------------ --- ------------ --- -----------------
$0^+_1$ 0.0 0.0 0.0
$2^+_1$ 1.28 1.21 1.33
$4^+_1$ 1.57 1.48 1.61
$6^+_1$ 1.69 1.61 1.75
$6^+_2$ 2.40 2.17 2.45
$2^+_2$ 2.46 2.45 2.67
$4^+_2$ 2.55 2.45 2.63
$1^+_1$ 2.63 2.41 2.67
$3^+_1$ 2.68 2.54 2.68
$5^+_1$ 2.73 2.54 2.68
$2^+_3$ 2.93 3.06 3.27
: Experimental energy levels up to 3 MeV [@nndc] for $^{134}$Te compared to the calculation with CD-Bonn potential through $G$-matrix [@Brown05] and $V_{\rm low-k}$ [@Covello07] renormalization procedures, respectively.
\[134te\]
$J^{\pi}$ Experiment $G$-matrix $V_{\rm low-k}$
----------- --- ------------ --- ------------ --- -----------------
$0^+_1$ 0.0 0.0 0.0
$2^+_1$ 0.726 0.775 0.733
$4^+_1$ 1.073 1.116 1.016
$6^+_1$ 1.247 1.258 1.125
$8^+_1$ 2.509 2.463 2.545
: Experimental observed energy levels [@nndc] for $^{134}$Sn compared to the calculation with CD-Bonn potential through $G$-matrix [@Kartamyshev06] and $V_{\rm low-k}$ [@Covello07] renormalization procedures, respectively.
\[134sn\]
From the inspection of Tables \[134te\],\[134sn\], it is evident that the agreement between theory and experiment is very good for the identical particle channel, both with $G$-matrix and $V_{\rm low-k}$ approach. It is worth to note that theoretical results do not differ so much when using the two different renormalization procedures.
$J^{\pi}$ Experiment $G$-matrix $V_{\rm low-k}$
----------- --- ------------ --- ------------ --- -----------------
$0^-_1$ 0.0 0.0 0.0
$1^-_1$ 0.013 0.329 0.052
$7^-_1$ 0.279 0.392 0.407
$2^-_1$ 0.330 0.406 0.385
$3^-_2$ 0.383 0.581 0.419
$5^-_1$ 0.442 0.604 0.494
$4^-_1$ 0.555 0.710 0.621
$6^-_1$ 0.617 0.849 0.727
$1^-_2$ 0.885 1.268 0.868
$2^-_2$ 0.935 1.051 0.958
: Experimental energy levels up to 1 MeV [@Shergur05a] for $^{134}$Sb compared to the calculation with CD-Bonn potential through $G$-matrix [@Shergur05a] and $V_{\rm low-k}$ [@Coraggio06a] renormalization procedures, respectively.
\[134sb\]
The study of $^{134}$Sb low-lying spectrum evidences a differ situation respect the identical-particle case. A less better agreement with experimental data is obtained employing the $V_{\rm eff}$ TBME derived with the $G$-matrix approach. This deficiency is also propagated in the theoretical spectrum of $^{135}$Sb obtained with $G$-matrix renormalization procedure, as it can be seen in Table \[135sb\]. In Ref.[@Shergur05b], in order to obtain a better agreement with experimental spectrum of $^{135}$Sb, it was pointed out that a downshift of the proton $d_{5/2}$ level with respect to the $g_{7/2}$ one by 300 keV, as a possible collective influence of a neutron skin [@Shergur02], turned out to be necessary, but did not help for $^{134}$Sb [@Shergur02; @Shergur05a].
We have verified that the differences between the results obtained with $G$-matrix and those with $V_{\rm low-k}$, that are in quite good agreement with experiment, should be traced mainly to the different dimension of the intermediate state space. In fact, it has been found that including intermediate states only up to $2 \hbar \omega$ excitation energy in the calculation of the second-order $\hat{Q}$-box, with the $V_{\rm low-k}$ as input potential, the results become similar, as in the case of the identical-particle channel.
$J^{\pi}$ Experiment $G$-matrix $V_{\rm low-k}$
------------ --- ------------ --- ------------ --- -----------------
$7/2^+_1$ 0.0 0.0 0.0
$5/2^+_1$ 0.282 0.527 0.391
$3/2^+_1$ 0.440 0.438 0.509
$11/2^+_1$ 0.707 0.662 0.750
$9/2^+_1$ 0.798 0.947 0.813
$7/2^+_2$ 1.014 1.135 0.938
$9/2^+_2$ 1.027 1.165 1.108
: Experimental energy levels up to 1 MeV [@Shergur05b] for $^{135}$Sb compared to the calculation with CD-Bonn potential through $G$-matrix [@Shergur05b] and $V_{\rm low-k}$ [@Coraggio05c] renormalization procedures, respectively.
\[135sb\]
This confirms the fact that results do not depend so much on the renormalization technique. However, it is worth to note that, because $V_{\rm low-k}$ does not depend on the Pauli-blocking operator $Q$ as the $G$-matrix, using $V_{\rm low-k}$ one can easily employ a larger number of intermediate states and obtaining consequently better results.
Concluding remarks
==================
Here, we have presented selected results of some shell-model studies of nuclei with valence-nucleons outside doubly-closed shell core $^{132}$Sn, where realistic effective shell-model interactions have been employed. In particular, we have focused the attention on few valence-nucleons nuclei which are most appropriate for a stringent test of the two-body matrix elements. The latter have been derived by means of a $\hat{Q}$-box folded-diagram method from the CD-Bonn potential, renormalized both by use of the $G$-matrix and $V_{\rm low-k}$ approaches. Results are in a good agreement with experiment and, in particular, do not depend strongly on the renormalization technique employed, except a slightly difference in the neutron-proton interaction. To conclude, ...
[99]{} D. C. Radford [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **88**]{}, 222501 (2002). J. Shergur [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [ **71**]{}, 064321 (2005). J. Shergur [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [ **72**]{}, 024305 (2005). T. Otsuka, Nucl. Phys. A [**734**]{}, 365 (2004). T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, R. Fujimoto, H. Grawe, and Y. Akaishi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 232502 (2005). I. Dillmann [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **91**]{}, 162503 (2003). M. P. Kartamyshev, T. Engeland, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and E. Osnes, arXiv:nucl-th/0610017 (2006) and references therein. A. Covello, L. Coraggio, A. Gargano, and N. Itaco, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**59**]{}, 401 (2007) and references therein. S. Bogner, T. T. S. Kuo, L. Coraggio, A. Covello, and N. Itaco, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 051301(R) (2002). E. M. Krenciglowa, C. L. Kung, and T. T. S. Kuo, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**101**]{}, 154 (1976). T. T. S. Kuo, S. Y. Lee, and K. F. Ratcliff, Nucl. Phys A [**176**]{}, 65 (1971). T. T. S. Kuo and E. Osnes [*Lecture Notes in Physics*]{} vol. [**364**]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin) (1990). F. Andreozzi Phys. Rev. C [**54**]{}, 684 (1996). K. Suzuki and S. Y. Lee, Prog. Theor. Phys. [ **64**]{}, 2091 (1980). L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, and N. Itaco, Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{}, 064311 (2002). L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, and N. Itaco, Phys. Rev. C [**70**]{}, 034310 (2004). L. Coraggio and N. Itaco, Phys. Lett. B [ **616**]{}, 43 (2005). L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, and N. Itaco, Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 031302(R) (2006). L. Coraggio, N. Itaco, A. Covello, A. Gargano, and T. T. S. Kuo, Phys. Rev. C [**68**]{}, 034320 (2003). L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, T. T. S. Kuo, and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 014307 (2005). L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, and T. T. S. Kuo, Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 014304 (2006). A. Sedrakian, T. T. S. Kuo, H. M[ü]{}ther, and P. Schuck, Phys. Lett. B [**576**]{}, 68 (2003). S. K. Bogner, A. Schwenk, R. J. Furnstahl, and A. Nogga, Nucl. Phys. A [**763**]{}, 59 (2005). T. T. S. Kuo, J. Shurpin, K. C. Tam, E. Osnes, and P. J. Ellis, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**132**]{}, 237 (1981). J. Shurpin, T. T. S. Kuo, and D. Strottman, Nucl. Phys A [**408**]{}, 310 (1983). Data extracted using the NNDC On-line Data Service from the ENSDF database, version of July 20, 2007. W. Urban [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. A [**5**]{}, 239 (1999). F. Andreozzi. L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, T. T. S. Kuo, and A. Porrino, Phys. Rev. C [**56**]{}, R16 (1997). R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C [**63**]{}, 024001 (2001). J. Shergur [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 034313 (2002) B. A. Brown, N. J. Stone, I. S. Towner, and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 044317 (2005). M. Hjorth-Jensen, H. M[ü]{}ther, and A. Polls, J. Phys. G [**22**]{}, 321 (1996). L. Coraggio, A. Covello, A. Gargano, and N. Itaco, Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{}, 057302 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we provide a construction of the so-called backbone decomposition for multitype supercritical superprocesses. While backbone decompositions are fairly well-known for both continuous-state branching processes and superprocesses in the one-type case, so far no such decompositions or even description of prolific genealogies have been given for the multitype cases.
Here we focus on superprocesses, but by turning the movement off, we get the prolific backbone decomposition for multitype continuous-state branching processes as an easy consequence of our results.
[Key words]{}: Multitype superprocesses, Multitype continuous-state branching processes, Non-local branching mechanism, Backbone, Conditioning on extinction, Prolific individuals.\
MSC 2000 subject classifications: 60J80, 60J68, 60E10.
author:
- 'D. Fekete [^1] , S. Palau , J.C. Pardo [^2] and J.L. Pérez'
title: 'Backbone decomposition of multitype superprocesses.'
---
Introduction and main results.
==============================
Motivated by the distributional decomposition of supercritical superprocesses with quadratic branching mechanism presented in Evans and O’Connell, [@EO] and the pathwise decomposition of Duquesne and Winkel [@DW] of continuous-state branching processes (CB-processes), Berestycki et al. [@BKM] provided a pathwise construction of the so-called backbone decomposition for supercritical superprocesses. The authors in [@BKM] showed that the superprocess can be written as the sum of two independent processes. The first one is an initial burst of subcritical mass, while the second one is subcritical mass immigrating continuously and discontinuously along the path of a branching particle system called the [*backbone*]{} that we explain briefly below.
In Evans and O’Connell [@EO] a distributional decomposition of supercritical superprocesses with quadratic spatially independent branching mechanism, as sum of two independent processes, was given. Later Engländer and Pinsky [@EP] provided a similar decomposition for the spatially dependent case. In both constructions, the first process is a copy of the original process conditioned on extinction. The second process is understood as the aggregate accumulation of mass that has immigrated [*continuously*]{} along the path of an auxiliary dyadic branching particle diffusion which starts with a Poisson number of particles. Such embedded branching particle system was introduced as the [*backbone*]{}.
A pathwise backbone decomposition appears in Salisbury and Verzani [@SV], who consider the case of conditioning a super-Brownian motion as it exits a given domain such that the exit measure contains at least $n$ pre-specified points in its support. There it was found that the conditioned process has the same law as the superposition of mass that immigrates in a Poissonian way along the spatial path of a branching particle motion which exits the domain with precisely $n$ particles at the pre-specified points. Another pathwise backbone decomposition for branching particle systems is given in Etheridge and Williams [@EW], which is used in combination with a limiting procedure to prove another version of Evan’s immortal particle picture.
Duquesne and Winkel [@DW], in the context of Lévy trees and with no spatial motion, considered a similar decomposition for CB-processes whose branching mechanism $\psi$ satisfies that $0\le -\psi^\prime(0+)<\infty$ and the so-called Grey’s condition $$\int^\infty \frac{{\mathrm{d}}u}{\psi(u)} <\infty.$$ In this case the [*backbone*]{} corresponds to a continuous-time Galton-Watson process, and the general nature of the branching mechanism induces three different sorts of immigration. The [*continuous immigration*]{} is described by a Poisson point process of independent processes along the backbone, and the immigration mechanism is given by the so-called excursion measure which assigns zero initial mass and finite length to the immigration processes. The [*discontinuous immigration*]{} is provided by two sources of immigration. The first one is described again by a Poisson point process of independent processes along the backbone where the immigration mechanism is given by the law of the original process conditioned on extinction, and with initial mass randomised by an infinite measure. The second source of discontinuous immigration is given by independent copies of the original process conditioned on extinction, which are added to the backbone at its branching times, with randomly distributed initial mass that depends on the number of offspring at the branch point.
In Berestycki et al. [@BKM], a similar decomposition is provided for a class of superprocesses whose branching mechanisms satisfy the same conditions as those considered by Duquesne and Winkel. It is important to note that the authors in [@BKM] also considered supercritical CB-processes that, with positive probability, may die out without this ever happening in a finite time. This also allows the inclusion of branching mechanisms which are associated to CB-processes with paths of bounded variation which were excluded in [@DW]. Kyprianou and Ren [@KR] look at the case of a CB-process with immigration for which a similar backbone decomposition to [@BKM] can be given. Finally, backbone decompositions have also been considered for superprocesses with spatially dependent branching mechanisms which are local, see Kyprianou et al. [@KPeR] and Eckhoff et al. [@EKW], and non-local, see Murillo-Salas and Pérez [@MP] and Chen et al. [@CSY].
In this paper, we offer a similar construction for multitype superprocesses whose branching mechanisms are general, but with the restriction of being spatially independent and having a finite number of types. While backbone decompositions are fairly well-known for both CB-processes and superprocesses in the one-type case, so far no such decompositions or even description of prolific genealogies (i.e. those individuals with infinite line of descent) have been given for multitype processes. Here we focus on superprocesses, but by turning the movement off, we get the prolific backbone decomposition for multitype continuous-state branching processes (MCB-processes) as an easy consequence of our results.
Multitype superprocesses were first studied by Gorostiza and Lopez-Mimbela [@GL-M] for the particular case of quadratic branching. Later Li [@L92a] extended the notion of multitype superprocesses to more general branching mechanisms (see also Section 6.2 in the monograph of Li [@Z]). Roughly speaking, the dynamics of the superprocesses introduced by Li are as follows. The movement of mass of a given type is a Borel process, the death and birth of mass of each type are associated with a spectrally positive Lévy process. From a given type, the creation of mass of other types is given by the law of a subordinator, and is distributed according to a discrete distribution that depends on the type. We are interested in a slightly more general superprocess where the discrete distributions are randomly chosen by a probability kernel that depends on the type. Thus the locations of non-locally displaced offspring involve two sources of randomness. One of the advantages of taking this general branching mechanism is that if there is no spatial motion, we recover the MCB-process studied by Kyprianou et al. [@KPR], which was properly defined by Li in Example 2.2 in [@Z].
Kyprianou et al. [@KPR] studied the almost sure growth of supercritical MCB-processes and implicitly described a spine decomposition. In [@KPR], the authors show that a MCB-process conditioned to never get extinct is equal in law to the sum of an independent copy of the original process and three different sources of immigration along a spine (continuous, discontinuous and in the times when the spine jumps). More precisely, the spine is given by a Markov chain, the continuous and discontinuous immigrations are described by a Poisson point process along the spine, where MCB-processes with the original branching mechanism are immigrating with zero initial mass and with randomised initial mass, respectively. Due to the non-local nature of the branching mechanism, an additional phenomenon occurs; a positive random amount of mass immigrates off the spine each time it jumps from one state to another. Moreover, the distribution of the immigrating mass depends on where the spine jumped from and where it jumped to.
The backbone and spine decompositions are quite different. In the backbone decomposition, the object that we dress is a multitype branching diffusion while in the spine decomposition, this object is a Markov chain which does not branch. Another difference is related to the immigration processes. In the spine decomposition, these are independent copies of the original process while in the backbone decomposition they are independent copies of the process conditioned to become extinct. In other words, we can think of the backbone as all the particles that have an infinite genealogical line of descent, and of the spine as just one infinite line of descent.
Multitype superprocesses.
-------------------------
Before we introduce multitype superprocesses and some of their properties, we first recall some basic notation. Let $\ell\in\mathbb{N}$ be a natural number, and set $S=\{1,2,\cdots, \ell\}$. We denote by $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\mathcal{B}^+(\mathbb{R}^d)$ the respective spaces of finite Borel measures, bounded Borel functions and positive bounded Borel functions on $\mathbb{R}^d$. The space $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ is endowed with the topology of weak convergence.
For $\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{v}\in\mathbb{R}^\ell$, we introduce $[\boldsymbol{u},\boldsymbol{v}]=\sum_{j=1}^\ell u_j v_j$, and $\boldsymbol{u}\cdot \boldsymbol{v}$ as the vector with entries $(\boldsymbol{u}\cdot \boldsymbol{v})_j = u_j v_j$. For a matrix $A$, we denote by $A^{{\tt {t}}}$ its transpose. For any $\boldsymbol{f}=(f_1,\dots,f_\ell)^{{\tt {t}}}\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)^{\ell}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_\ell)^{{\tt {t}}}\in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, we define $$\big\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\mu}\big\rangle := \sum_{i=1}^\ell\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} f_i(x)\mu_i({\mathrm{d}}x).$$ Furthermore, we also use $| \boldsymbol{u}|:= [\boldsymbol{u}, \boldsymbol{u}]^{1/2}$ for the Euclidian norm of any $\boldsymbol{u}\in\mathbb{R}^\ell$, and $\|\boldsymbol{ \mu} \|:=\langle \boldsymbol{1},\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle$ for the total mass of the measure $\boldsymbol{\mu}$.
Suppose that for any $i\in S$, the process $\xi^{(i)}=(\xi^{(i)}_t,t\geq 0)$ is a conservative diffusion with transition semigroup $(\mathtt{P}^{(i)}_t ,t\geq 0)$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$. We also introduce a vectorial function $\boldsymbol{\psi}:S\times \mathbb{R}^{\ell}_+\to \mathbb{R}^{\ell}$ such that $$\label{branching mechanism}
\psi(i,\boldsymbol{\theta}):=- [\boldsymbol{\theta},{\boldsymbol{B}} \boldsymbol{e}_i ]+ \beta_i\theta_i^2 +\int_{\mathbb{R}^\ell_+}\left( \mathrm{e}^{- [\boldsymbol{\theta}, \boldsymbol{y}] }-1+\theta_i y_i \right)\Pi(i,{\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{y}),\qquad \qquad \boldsymbol{\theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{\ell}_+, i \in S,$$ where ${\boldsymbol{B}}$ is an $\ell\times \ell$ real valued matrix such that ${B}_{ij}\boldsymbol{1}_{\{i\neq j\}}\in {\mathbb{R}}_+$, $\{\boldsymbol{e}_1,\dots, \boldsymbol{e}_\ell\}$ is the natural basis in $\mathbb{R}^\ell$, $\beta_i\in\mathbb{R}_+$, and $\Pi$ is a measure satisfying the following integrability condition $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^\ell_+\setminus\{\boldsymbol{0}\}}\left((|\boldsymbol{y}|\wedge |\boldsymbol{y}|^2)+\underset{j\in S}{\sum}{\boldsymbol{1}_{\{j\neq i\}}}y_j\right)\Pi(i,{\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{y})<\infty, \qquad \textrm{for} \quad\ i\in S.$$ We call the vectorial function $\boldsymbol{\psi}$ the branching mechanism and we also refer to $\Pi$ as its associated Lévy measure.
The first result that we present here says that multitype superprocesses associated to the branching mechanism $\boldsymbol{\psi}$ and the diffusions $\{\xi^{(i)}, i\in S\}$ are well-defined. Its proof is based on similar arguments as those used to prove Theorem 6.4 in Li [@Z], for completeness we present its proof in Section \[proofs\].
\[Proposition1\] There is a strong Markov process $\boldsymbol{X}=(\boldsymbol{X}_t, (\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\ge 0},\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}})$ with state space $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$ and transition probabilities defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{laplace}
\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right]=\exp\Big\{-\langle \boldsymbol{V}_t\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle\Big\},\qquad \boldsymbol{\mu}\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{f}\in\mathcal{B}^+(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$ and $\boldsymbol{V}_t\boldsymbol{f}(x)=({V}^{(1)}_t\boldsymbol{f}(x),\cdots,{V}^{(\ell)}_t\boldsymbol{f}(x))^{{\tt {t}}}:{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_+^\ell$ is the unique locally bounded solution to the vectorial integral equation $$\label{inteq_u}
{V}^{(i)}_t\boldsymbol{f}(x)=\mathtt{P}^{(i)}_t f_i(x)-\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}s\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\psi(i,\boldsymbol{V}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(y))\mathtt{P}^{(i)}_s(x,{\mathrm{d}}y),\qquad i\in S.$$
The process $\boldsymbol{X}$ is called a $(\boldsymbol{\mathtt{P}},\boldsymbol{\psi})$-mutitype superprocess with $\ell$ types and with law given by $\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}$ for each initial configuration $\boldsymbol{\mu}\in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$.
Our definition is consistent with the multitype superprocesses that appear in the literature. Indeed, we observe that the multitype superprocesses considered by Gorostiza and Lopez-Mimbela [@GL-M] are associated with the branching mechanism $$\psi(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})=- d_i[\boldsymbol{\theta},
\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(i)}]+ \beta_i\theta_i^2,$$ where $d_i,\beta_i\in{\mathbb{R}}_+$, $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(i)}=\{\pi^{(i)}_j, j\in S\}$ is a probability distribution on $S$, and the spatial movement is driven by the family $\{\xi^{(i)}, i\in S\}$ of symmetric stable processes. Li [@L92a] (see also Section 6.2 in [@Z]) introduced multitype superprocesses with spatial movement driven by Borel right processes and whose branching mechanism is of the form $$\begin{split}
\psi(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})&=b_{i}\theta_i+\beta_i\theta_i^2-d_{i}[\boldsymbol{\theta}, \boldsymbol{\pi}^{(i)}]+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+}\left( \mathrm{e}^{- u\theta_i }-1+\theta_i u \right)l(i,{\mathrm{d}}u)+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+}\left( \mathrm{e}^{- u[\boldsymbol{\theta}, \boldsymbol{\pi}^{(i)}] }-1 \right)n(i,{\mathrm{d}}u),
\end{split}$$ where $b_i,d_i,\beta_i\in{\mathbb{R}}_+$, $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(i)}=\{\pi^{(i)}_j, j\in S\}$ is a probability distribution on $S$, and $l(i,{\mathrm{d}}u)$, $ n(i,{\mathrm{d}}u)$ are measures on ${\mathbb{R}}_+$ satisfying $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+}(u\wedge u^2)l(i,{\mathrm{d}}u)<\infty\qquad \textrm{and}\qquad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+}u \,n(i,{\mathrm{d}}u)<\infty,$$ that represent the local and non-local kernels, respectively. The latter branching mechanism can be rewritten in the form of by taking $B_{ji}:=-b_i{\boldsymbol{1}_{\{i=j\}}}+d_i\pi^{(i)}_j$, and $$\Pi(i,{\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{y})={\boldsymbol{1}_{\{\boldsymbol{y}=u\boldsymbol{e}_i\}}}l(i,{\mathrm{d}}u)+{\boldsymbol{1}_{\{\boldsymbol{y}=u\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(i)}\}}}n(i,{\mathrm{d}}u).$$
It is important to note that if the branching mechanism is given as in and there is no spatial movement, then the associated total mass of a superprocess is a MCB-process, see for instance Example 2.2 in [@Z]. Indeed, it is not difficult to see that the total mass vector of a multitype superprocess is a MCB-process. Recall that an $\ell$-type MCB-process $\boldsymbol{Y}=(\boldsymbol{Y}_t,t\geq 0)$ with branching mechanism $\boldsymbol{\psi}$ can be characterised through its Laplace transform. If we denote by $\mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{y}}$ the law of such a process with initial state $\boldsymbol{y}\in\mathbb{R}_+^\ell$, then $$\label{ec mcsb}
\mathbf{E}_{\boldsymbol{y}}\left[ \mathrm{e}^{-[\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{Y}_t]}\right]=\exp\big\{- [\boldsymbol{y},\boldsymbol{v}_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})]\big\},\qquad \textrm{for }\quad\boldsymbol{\theta}\in\mathbb{R}_+^\ell, t\ge 0,$$ where $$t\mapsto\boldsymbol{v}_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})=(\boldsymbol{v}_t(1,\boldsymbol{\theta})\dots,\boldsymbol{v}_t(\ell, \boldsymbol{\theta}))^{{\tt {t}}}$$ is the unique locally bounded solution, with non-negative entries, to the system of integral equations $$\label{ec v for mcsb}
\boldsymbol{v}_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})=\theta_i-\int_0^t \psi(i, \boldsymbol{v}_{t-s}(\boldsymbol{\theta}))\mathrm{d}s, \quad i\in S.$$ Suppose that $(\boldsymbol{X}_t,{\Bbb{P}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}})_{t\geq 0}$ is a $(\boldsymbol{\mathtt{P}},\boldsymbol{\psi})$-multitype superprocess and define the total mass vector as $\boldsymbol{Y}=(\boldsymbol{Y}_t,t\geq 0)$ with entries $$Y_t(i)=X_t(i,{\mathbb{R}}^d)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} X_t(i,{\mathrm{d}}x), \qquad t\geq 0,$$ and initial vector $\boldsymbol{\mu}=(\mu_1({\mathbb{R}}^d),\cdots,\mu_{\ell}({\mathbb{R}}^d))^{{\tt {t}}}$. Let $\boldsymbol{\theta}\in \mathbb{R}_+^{\ell}$, and take $f_i(x)=\theta_i$ for each $i\in S, x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$. Since the branching mechanism and the vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ are spatially independent, the system of functions $\boldsymbol{V}_t\boldsymbol{\theta}$ that satisfies does not depend on $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$. In other words $$\begin{split}
{V}_t^{(i)}\boldsymbol{\theta}&=\mathtt{P}^{(i)}_t\theta_i-\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}s\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\psi(i,\boldsymbol{V}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{\theta})\mathtt{P}^{(i)}_s(x,{\mathrm{d}}y)\\
&=\theta_i-\int_0^t\psi(i,\boldsymbol{V}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{\theta}){\mathrm{d}}s, \quad i\in S.
\end{split}$$ Recall that the previous system of equations has a unique solution, therefore $\boldsymbol{V}_t\boldsymbol{\theta}=\boldsymbol{v}_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$. By and the relationship between $\boldsymbol{X}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y}$, the total mass vector is indeed a MCB-process.
Since the total mass vector of a multitype superprocess is a MCB-process, we can determine its asymptotic behaviour through its first moment, similarly to the one-type case. More precisely, denote by $\boldsymbol{M}(t)$ the $\ell\times \ell$ matrix with elements $${M}(t)_{ij}=\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i \delta_x}\Big[\langle \boldsymbol{e}_j, \boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle\Big], \quad i,j\in S,$$ where $\boldsymbol{e}_i\delta_x$ denotes a measure valued vector that has unit mass at position $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$, in the $i$-th coordinate, and zero mass everywhere else.
Barczy et al. [@BLP] (see Lemma 3.4) proved that the mean matrix $\boldsymbol{M}(t)$ can be written in terms of the branching mechanism $\boldsymbol{\psi}$. In other words, for all $t>0$ $$\boldsymbol{M}(t)=\mathrm{e}^{-t\widetilde{\boldsymbol{B}}^{{\tt {t}}} },$$ where the matrix $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{B}}$ is given by $$\widetilde{B}_{i,j}={B}_{i,j}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^\ell_+}(y_i-\delta_{i,j})^+\Pi(j,{\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{y}),$$ where $(a)^+=a\lor 0$, denotes the positive part of $a$. Moreover, after straightforward computations (see for instance the computations after identity (2.15) in [@BLP]) we observe that the branching mechanism $\boldsymbol{\psi}$ can be rewritten as follows $$\label{psiBtilde}
\psi(i,\boldsymbol{\theta}):=- [\boldsymbol{\theta},\widetilde{\boldsymbol{B}} \boldsymbol{e}_i ]+ \beta_i\theta_i^2 +\int_{\mathbb{R}^\ell_+}\left( \mathrm{e}^{- [\boldsymbol{\theta}, \boldsymbol{y}] }-1+[\boldsymbol{\theta}, \boldsymbol{y}] \right)\Pi(i,{\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{y}),\qquad \qquad \boldsymbol{\theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{\ell}_+, i \in S.$$ In the sequel, we assume that the matrix $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{B}}^{{\tt {t}}}$ is irreducible, and therefore the mean matrix $\boldsymbol{M}$ is irreducible as well. Then classical Perron-Frobenius theory guarantees that there exists a unique leading eigenvalue $\Gamma$, and right and left eigenvectors ${\tt u}, {\tt v}\in{\mathbb{R}}_+^\ell$, whose coordinates are strictly positive such that, for $t\ge 0,$ $$\boldsymbol{M}(t){\tt u}=\mathrm{e}^{\Gamma t}{\tt u}, \qquad \widetilde{\boldsymbol{B}}^{{\tt {t}}}{\tt u}=\Gamma{\tt u}, \qquad {\tt v}^{{\tt {t}}}\boldsymbol{M}(t)=\mathrm{e}^{\Gamma t}{\tt v}^{{\tt {t}}}, \qquad \textrm{and}\qquad {\tt v}^{{\tt {t}}}\widetilde{\boldsymbol{B}}^{{\tt {t}}}=\Gamma {\tt v}^{{\tt {t}}}.$$ It is important to note, that since the branching mechanism is spatially independent, the value of $\Gamma$ does not depend on the spatial variable.
Moreover, $\Gamma$ determines the long term behaviour of $\boldsymbol{X}$. Indeed, employing the same terminology as in the one-type case, we call the process supercritical, critical or subcritical accordingly as $\Gamma$ is strictly positive, equal to zero or strictly negative. In Kyprianou and Palau [@KP], the authors show that when $\Gamma\leq 0$ the total mass goes to zero almost surely. Barczy and Pap [@BP] show that if $\Gamma>0$, then the total mass process satisfies $$\underset{t\rightarrow\infty}{\lim} \mathrm{e}^{-\Gamma t}\ \mathbf{E}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i}\left[ \boldsymbol{Y}_t\right]=\boldsymbol{e}_i^{{\tt {t}}} {\tt u}{\tt v}^{{\tt {t}}},\qquad \mbox{for } i\in S,$$ which is a non-zero vector. In particular, we deduce that $$\label{absortionle1}
\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i\delta_{x}}\Big(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\|\boldsymbol{X}_t\|=0\Big)<1, \qquad \mbox{for } i\in S,\quad x\in \mathbb{R}^d.$$
Here, we are also interested in the case that extinction occurs in finite time. More precisely, let us define $\mathcal{E}:=\{\|\boldsymbol{X}_t\|=0 \mbox{ for some } t>0 \}$, the event of [*extinction*]{} and take $w_i:\mathbb{R}^d\mapsto \mathbb{R}_+$ be the function such that $$\label{w}
w_i(x):=-\log \mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i\delta_x}(\mathcal{E}),\quad i\in S.$$ Since the branching mechanism is spatially independent, and the total mass vector of $\boldsymbol{X}$ is a MCB-process, we get that $w_i(x)=w_i$, for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$, for some constant $w_i$.
In what follows, we assume $$\label{extinction assumption}
0<w_i<\infty, \qquad \mbox{ for all } i\in S.$$ Assumption or similar assumptions have been used in most of the cases where backbones have been constructed. For instance in [@BKM] and [@DW], the authors assume Grey’s condition which is equivalent to $w_i$ being finite. In [@CSY; @EKW; @KPR; @MP] a very similar condition appears for the spatially dependent case. Assumption is not only necessary for the construction of the multitype superprocess conditioned on extinction but also for the construction of the so-called Dynkin-Kuznetsov measure, as we will see below.
On the other hand, assumption is not very restrictive. For instance, it is satisfied if $\Gamma> 0$ and $\beta:=\inf_{i\in S}\beta_i>0$. Indeed from , we see that $$\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i\delta_x}(\mathcal{E})\leq\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i\delta_x}\Big(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\|\boldsymbol{X}_t\|=0\Big)<1.$$ From and the fact that the total mass is a MCB-process, it is clear that $$\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i\delta_x}\Big(\|\boldsymbol{X}_t\|=0\Big)=\exp\left\{-\lim_{\boldsymbol{\theta}\hookrightarrow\infty} v_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})\right\},$$ where $\boldsymbol{v}_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is given by and $\boldsymbol{\theta}\hookrightarrow\infty$ means that each coordinate of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ goes to $\infty$. In other words, if we show that $$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{\boldsymbol{\theta}\hookrightarrow\infty} v_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})<\infty \qquad \mbox{ for all } i\in S,$$ then we have that holds. In order to prove that the above limit is finite, we introduce $$A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta}):=\sup_{i\in S}\frac{v_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})}{{\tt u}_i},$$ where ${\tt u}_{i}$ denotes the $i$-th coordinate of the right eigenvector associated to $\Gamma$. Since the supremum of finitely many continuously differentiable functions is differentiable except at most countably many isolated points, we may fix $t\geq 0$ such that $A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is differentiable at $t$ and select $i$ in such a way that $A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta}){\tt u}_{i}=v_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})$. Then by using and we can deduce that $$\begin{split}
{\tt u}_{i}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})=&\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}v_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})=\underset{j\in S}{\sum}\widetilde
{B}_{ji}{\tt u}_j\frac{\boldsymbol{v}_t(j,\boldsymbol{\theta})}{{\tt u}_j}- \beta_i(\boldsymbol{v}_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta}))^2 -\int_{\mathbb{R}^\ell_+}\left( \mathrm{e}^{- [\boldsymbol{v}_t(\boldsymbol{\theta}), \boldsymbol{y}] }-1+[\boldsymbol{v}_t(\boldsymbol{\theta}), \boldsymbol{y}] \right)\Pi(i,{\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{y}).
\end{split}$$ Since $1-x-\mathrm{e}^{-x}\leq 0$, for all $x>0$, $\widetilde{B}_{i,j}{\boldsymbol{1}_{\{i\neq j\}}}>0$ and $A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta}){\tt u}_i=v_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})$, we have $${\tt u}_{i}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})\leq A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})\underset{j\in S}{\sum}\widetilde
{B}_{ji}{\tt u}_{j}- \beta_i(A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta}){\tt u}_{i})^2 =A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{B}}^{{\tt {t}}}{\tt u})_i- \beta_i(A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta}){\tt u}_{i})^2.$$ Next, we use that ${\tt u}$ is an eigenvector of $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{B}}^{{\tt {t}}}$ to get $${\tt u}_{i}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})\leq A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})\Gamma {\tt u}_{i}- \beta_i(A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta}){\tt u}_{i})^2.$$ By defining $\underline{{\tt u}}:=\inf_{i\in S}{\tt u}_{i}$ and recalling the definition of $\beta$, the previous identity implies $$\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})\leq A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})\Gamma- \beta\underline{{\tt u}}(A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta}))^2.$$ Since, $\Gamma, \beta$ and $\underline{{\tt u}}$ are strictly positive, an integration by parts allow us to deduce that $$A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})\leq \frac{\Gamma\mathrm{e}^{\Gamma t}}{\frac{\Gamma}{A_0(\boldsymbol{\theta})}+\beta\underline{{\tt u}}(\mathrm{e}^{\Gamma t}-1)}.$$ Finally, if we define $\overline{\tt u}:=\sup_{i\in S}{\tt u}_i$, the previous computations lead to $$w_i=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{\boldsymbol{\theta}\hookrightarrow\infty} v_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})\leq \overline{\tt u}\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{\boldsymbol{\theta}\hookrightarrow\infty}A_t(\boldsymbol{\theta})\leq \frac{\overline{\tt u}\Gamma}{\beta\underline{\tt u}}<\infty.$$
The following result is also needed for constructing the associated Dynkin-Kuznetsov measures which provide a way to dress the backbone.
\[finite extinction\] Suppose that condition holds, then $\boldsymbol{\psi}(\boldsymbol{w})=\boldsymbol{0}$. Moreover, for $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d,\ i\in S $ and $t>0$, we have that $$\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i\delta_x}(\|\boldsymbol{X}_t\|=0 )>0.$$
For simplicity of exposition, the proof of this result is presented in Section \[proofs\].
As we said before, our aim is to describe the backbone decomposition of $\boldsymbol{X}$. According to Berestycki et al. [@BKM] a one-type supercritical superprocess can be decomposed into an initial burst of subcritical mass and three types of immigration processes along the backbone, which are two types of Poissonian immigrations and branch point immigrations. In order to use the same idea in the multitype case, we need to determine the components of this decomposition. These are the multitype branching diffusion process, that gives the prolific genealogies, and copies of the original multitype superprocess conditioned on extinction.
The multitype supercritical superdiffusion conditioned on extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well known that under some conditions a supercritical CB-process can be conditioned to become extinct by conditioning the associated spectrally positive Lévy process to drift to $-\infty$. Such a conditioning appears as an Esscher transform on the underlying Lévy process in the Lamperti transform, where the shift parameter is given by the largest root of the branching mechanism. Here we show that a similar result still holds in the multitype case. In particular we have the following result.
\[proposition2\] For each $\boldsymbol{\mu}\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, define the law of $\boldsymbol{X}$ with initial configuration $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ conditioned on becoming extinct by $\mathbb{P}^\dag_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}$, and let $\mathcal{F}_t:=\sigma(X_s,s\leq t)$. Specifically, for all events $A$, measurable with respect to $\mathcal{F}$, $$\mathbb{P}^\dag_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(A)=\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left(A\left|\mathcal{E}\right.\right).$$ Then, for all $\boldsymbol{f}\in\mathcal{B}^+(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$ $$\mathbb{E}^\dag_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right]=\exp\Big\{-\langle \boldsymbol{V}^\dag_t\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle\Big\},$$ where $${V}^{\dag,(i)}_t \boldsymbol{f}(x):={V}^{(i)}_t (\boldsymbol{f}+\boldsymbol{w})(x)-w_i, \qquad i\in S,$$ is the unique locally bounded solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{semi-cond}
{V}^{\dag,(i)}_t \boldsymbol{f}(x)=\mathtt{P}^{(i)}_t f_i(x)-\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}s\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\psi^\dag(i,\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(y))\mathtt{P}^{(i)}_s(x,{\mathrm{d}}y), \qquad i\in S,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\psi}^\dag(\boldsymbol{\lambda}):=\boldsymbol{\psi}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}+\boldsymbol{w})$ and $\boldsymbol{w}$ is given by . In other words, $(\boldsymbol{X},\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}^\dag)$ is a $(\boldsymbol{\mathtt{P}},\boldsymbol{\psi}^\dag)$-multitype superprocess.
For simplicity of exposition, the proof of this result is presented in Section \[proofs\].
Dynkin-Kuznetsov measure.
-------------------------
As we mentioned before, a key ingredient in the construction of the backbone, or even the spine decomposition for superprocesses, is the so-called Dynkin-Kuznetsov measure. It is important to note that the existence of such measures was taken for granted in most of the references that appear in the literature, in particular in [@BKM; @EKW; @KPR; @MP]. Fortunately, from the assumptions and the way the dressing processes are constructed this omission does not play an important role on the validity of their results. Here, we provide a rigorous argument for their existence. See also Chen et al. [@CSY] for the study of Dynkin-Kutznetsov measures for one-type superprocesses with non-local branching mechanism.
Let us denote by $\mathcal{X}$ the space of càdlàg paths from $[0,\infty)$ to $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$.
\[Dyn-Kuz\] Let $\boldsymbol{X}$ be a $(\boldsymbol{\mathtt{P}},\boldsymbol{\psi})$-multitype superprocess satisfying . For $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$, there exists a measure $\mathbb{N}_{x\boldsymbol{e}_i}$ on the space $\mathcal{X}$ satisfying $$\label{NmeasureLaplace}
\mathbb{N}_{x\boldsymbol{e}_i}\left(1-\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right)=-\log\mathbb{E}_{\delta_x\boldsymbol{e}_{i}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right],$$ for all $\boldsymbol{f}\in \mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)^\ell$ and $t\geq0$.
Again, for simplicity of exposition we provide the proof of this Proposition in Section \[proofs\].
Following the same terminology as in the literature, we call $\{(\mathbb{N}_{x\boldsymbol{e}_i}, x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d), i\in S\}$ the Dynkin-Kuznetsov measures. We denote by $\mathbb{N}^\dag$ the Dynkin-Kuznetsov measures associated to the multitype superprocess conditioned on extinction, which are also well defined (see the discussion after the proof of Proposition \[Dyn-Kuz\]).
Prolific individuals.
---------------------
Here, we consider those individuals of the superprocess who are responsible for the infinite growth of the process. In our case, we have that the so-called prolific individuals, i.e. those with an infinite genealogical line of descent, form a branching particle diffusion where the particles move according to the same motion semigroup as the superprocess itself, and their branching generator can be expressed in terms of the branching mechanism of the superprocess. Let $\boldsymbol{Z}=(\boldsymbol{Z}_t, t\geq 0)$ be a multitype branching diffusion process (MBDP) with $\ell$ types, where the movement of each particle of type $i\in S$ is given by the semigroup $\mathtt{P}^{(i)}$. The branching rate $\boldsymbol{q}\in\mathbb{R}^\ell_+$ takes the form $$\label{brate}
q_i=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\psi(i, \boldsymbol{w}), \qquad\text{$i\in S$},$$ where $\boldsymbol{w}$ was defined in .
The offspring distribution $(p^{(i)}_{j_1,\dots, j_\ell})_{(j_1,\dots, j_\ell)\in\mathbb{N}^\ell}$ satisfies $$\label{p^i definition}
\begin{split}
p^{(i)}_{j_1,\dots,j_\ell}&=\frac{1}{w_iq_i}\left( \beta_i w_i^2\boldsymbol{1}_{\{\boldsymbol{j}=2\boldsymbol{e}_i\}}+\left( B_{ki} w_k+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}w_k y_k \mathrm{e}^{-[\boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\right)\boldsymbol{1}_{\{\boldsymbol{j}=\boldsymbol{e}_k\}}\boldsymbol{1}_{\{i\neq k\}}\right. \\
&\hspace{4cm}\left.+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\frac{(w_1 y_1)^{j_1}\dots(w_\ell y_\ell)^{j_\ell}}{j_1!\dots j_\ell !}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y}) \boldsymbol{1}_{\{j_1+\dots+j_\ell\geq 2\}}\right),
\end{split}$$ where $\boldsymbol{j}=(j_1,\cdots, j_\ell)$. Note that $p^{(i)}_{j_1,\dots,j_\ell}$ is a probability distribution. Indeed, since $\boldsymbol{ \psi}(\boldsymbol{w})=\boldsymbol{ 0}$, for each $i\in S$ we get that $$\begin{split}
w_iq_i&=w_iq_i-\psi(i,\boldsymbol{w})\\
&=w_i\left(-B_{ii}+2\beta_i w_i+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\left( 1-\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\right)y_i\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\right)\\
&\hspace{6cm}+[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{B}\boldsymbol{e}_i] -\beta_i w_i^2-\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\left( \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}-1+w_i y_i\right)\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\\
&=\sum_{j\neq i}B_{ji} w_j+\beta_i w_i^2+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\left( \mathrm{e}^{[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y} ]}-1-w_iy_i \right)\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\\
&=\sum_{j\neq i}\left(B_{ji} w_j+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}w_j y_j \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\right)+\beta_i w_i^2+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\left( \mathrm{e}^{[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}-1-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]\right)\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\\
&=\sum_{j\neq i}\left(B_{ji} w_j+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}w_j y_j \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\right)+\beta_i w_i^2\\
&\hspace{7cm}+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\sum_{j_1+\dots+j_\ell\geq 2}\frac{(w_1 y_1)^{j_1}\dots(w_\ell y_\ell)^{j_\ell}}{j_1! \dots j_\ell !}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y}),
\end{split}$$ where in the last row we have used the multinomial theorem, i.e. $$\label{eq:binom}
\begin{split}
\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{[\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{y}]^n}{n!}&=\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{1}{n!} \sum_{j_1+\dots+j_\ell=n}\binom{n}{j_1,\dots,j_\ell}\prod_{k=1}^\ell(x_k y_k)^{j_k}=\sum_{j_1+\dots+j_\ell\geq 2}\frac{(x_1 y_1)^{j_1}\dots(x_\ell y_\ell)^{j_\ell}}{j_1! \dots j_\ell!}.
\end{split}$$ Let $\boldsymbol{F}(\boldsymbol{s})=(F_1(\boldsymbol{s}),\dots,F_\ell(\boldsymbol{s}))^{{\tt {t}}}$, $\boldsymbol{s}\in [0,1]^\ell$, be the branching mechanism of $\boldsymbol{Z}$, which is given by $$\label{Fi}
F_i(\boldsymbol{s})=q_i\sum_{\boldsymbol{j}\in\mathbb{N}^\ell}(s_1^{j_1}\dots s_\ell^{j_\ell}-s_i)p_{j_1,\dots,j_\ell}^{(i)}=\frac{1}{w_i}\psi(i,\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\boldsymbol{s})),\qquad i\in S,$$ where we recall that $\boldsymbol{1}$ denotes the vector with value 1 in each coordinate and $\boldsymbol{u}\cdot \boldsymbol{v}$ is the element-wise multiplication of the vectors $\boldsymbol{u}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}$. The intuition behind the process $\boldsymbol{Z}$ is as follows. A particle of type $i$ from its birth executes a $\mathtt{P}^{(i)}$ motion, and after an independent and exponentially distributed random time with parameter $q_i$ dies and gives birth at its death position to an independent number of offspring with distribution $\{ p_{\boldsymbol{j}}^{(i)},\boldsymbol{j}\in\mathbb{N}^\ell \}$. We call $\boldsymbol{Z}$ the [*backbone*]{} of the multitype superprocess $\boldsymbol{X}$, and denote its initial distribution by $\boldsymbol{\nu}\in\mathcal{M}_a(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, where $\mathcal{M}_a(\mathbb{R}^d)$ denotes the space of atomic measures on $\mathbb{R}^d$. Comparing the form of the offspring distribution between the one-type case and the multitype case, the main difference is that now we are allowed to have one offspring at a branching event. However in this case, that offspring has to have a different type from its parent.
The backbone decomposition.
---------------------------
Our primary aim is to give a decomposition of the $(\boldsymbol{\mathtt{P}},\boldsymbol{\psi})$-multitype superprocess along its embedded backbone $\boldsymbol{Z}$. The main idea is to dress the process $\boldsymbol{Z}$ with immigration, where the processes we immigrate are copies of the $(\boldsymbol{\mathtt{P}},\boldsymbol{\psi}^\dag)$-multitype superprocess. The dressing relies on three different types of immigration mechanisms. These are two types of Poissonian immigrations along the life span of each prolific individual, and an additional creation of mass at the branch points of the embedded particle system. In the first case, we immigrate independent copies of the $(\boldsymbol{\mathtt{P}},\boldsymbol{\psi}^\dag)$-multitype superprocess, where the immigration rate along a particle of type $i\in S$ is related to a subordinator in $\mathbb{R}^\ell_+$, whose Laplace exponent is given by $$\phi(i,\boldsymbol{\lambda})=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\psi^\dag (i,\boldsymbol{\lambda})-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\psi^\dag (i,\boldsymbol{0})=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\psi(i,\boldsymbol{\lambda}+\boldsymbol{w})-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\psi(i,\boldsymbol{w}),$$ which can be rewritten as $$\label{phi}
\phi(i,\boldsymbol{\lambda})=2\beta_i\lambda_i+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\left(1-\mathrm{e}^{-[\boldsymbol{\lambda},\boldsymbol{y}]} \right)y_i\mathrm{e}^{-[\boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y}).$$ When an individual of type $i\in S$ has branched and its offspring is given by $\boldsymbol{j}=(j_1,\dots,j_\ell)\in\mathbb{N}^\ell$, we immigrate an independent copy of the $(\boldsymbol{\mathtt{P}},\boldsymbol{\psi}^\dag)$-multitype superprocess where the initial mass has distribution $$\label{eq:eta}
\begin{split}
\eta^{(i)}_{\boldsymbol{j}}(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})=\frac{1}{w_iq_i p^{(i)}_{\boldsymbol{j}}}&\bigg( \beta_i w_i^2\boldsymbol{1}_{\{\boldsymbol{j}=2\boldsymbol{e}_i\}}\delta_{\boldsymbol{0}}(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})+\left( B_{ki} w_k\delta_{\boldsymbol{0}}(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})+w_k y_k \mathrm{e}^{-[\boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\right)\boldsymbol{1}_{\{\boldsymbol{j}=\boldsymbol{e}_k\}}\boldsymbol{1}_{\{i\neq k\}} \\
&\hspace{4cm}+\frac{(w_1 y_1)^{j_1}\dots(w_\ell y_\ell)^{j_\ell}}{j_1!\dots j_\ell !}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y}) \boldsymbol{1}_{\{j_1+\dots+j_\ell\geq 2\}}\bigg).
\end{split}$$
Before we state our main results, we recall and introduce some notation. Recall that $\mathcal{X}$ denotes the space of càdlàg paths. Similarly to the one-type case, we use an Ulam-Harris labelling to reference the particles, and we denote the obtained tree by $\mathcal{T}$. For a particle $u\in\mathcal{T}$ let $\gamma_u$ denote the type of the particle, $\tau_u$ its birth time, $\sigma_u$ its death time, and $z_u(t)$ its spatial position at time $t$ (whenever $\tau_u\leq t<\sigma_u$).
For $\boldsymbol{\nu}\in \mathcal{M}_a(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, let $\boldsymbol{Z}$ be a MBDP with initial configuration $\boldsymbol{\nu}$, and let $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{X}}$ be an independent copy of $\boldsymbol{X}$ under $\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}^\dag$. We define the stochastic process $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}=(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t,t\geq0)$ on $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$ by $$\boldsymbol{\Lambda}=\widetilde{\boldsymbol{X}}+\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}+\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}+\boldsymbol{I}^{\eta},$$ where the processes $\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}=(\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}_t,t\geq0)$, $\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}=(\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}_t,t\geq0)$, and $\boldsymbol{I}^{\eta}=(\boldsymbol{I}^{\eta}_t,t\geq0)$ are independent of $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{X}}$ and, conditionally on $\boldsymbol{Z}$, are mutually independent. Moreover, these three processes are described pathwise as follows.
- **Continuous immigration.** The process $\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}$ is $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$-valued such that $$\boldsymbol{I}_t^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}=\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T}}\sum_{t\wedge\tau_u\leq r< t\wedge\sigma_u}\boldsymbol{X}_{t-r}^{(1,u,r)},\notag$$ where, given $\boldsymbol{Z}$, independently for each $u\in\mathcal{T}$ such that $\tau_u<t$, the processes $\boldsymbol{X}^{(1,u,r)}$ are countable in number and correspond to $\mathcal{X}$-valued Poissonian immigration along the space-time trajectory $\{(z_u(r),r),r\in[\tau_u,t\wedge\sigma_u)\}$ with rate $2\beta_{\gamma_u} \mathrm{d}r\times \mathrm{d}\mathbb{N}^\dag_{z_u(r)\boldsymbol{e}_{\gamma_u}}$.
- **Discontinuous immigration.** The process $\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}$ is $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$-valued such that $$\boldsymbol{I}_t^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}=\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T}}\sum_{t\wedge \tau_u\leq r< t\wedge\sigma_u}\boldsymbol{X}_{t-r}^{(2,u,r)}\notag$$ where, given $\boldsymbol{Z}$, independently for each $u\in\mathcal{T}$ such that $\tau_u\leq t$, the processes $\boldsymbol{X}_{\cdot}^{(2,u,r)}$ are countable in number and correspond to $\mathcal{X}$-valued, Poissonian immigration along the space-time trajectory $\{(z_u(r),r),r\in[\tau_u,t\wedge\sigma_u)\}$ with rate $$\mathrm{d}r\times\int_{\boldsymbol{y}\in\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}y_{\gamma_u}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}] }\Pi({\gamma_u}, \mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\times \mathrm{d}\mathbb{P}^\dag_{\boldsymbol{y}\delta_{z_u(r)}}.$$
- **Branch point based immigration.** The process $\boldsymbol{I}^{\eta}$ is $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$-valued such that $$\boldsymbol{I}_t^{\eta}=\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T}}\boldsymbol{1}_{\{\sigma_u\leq t\}}\boldsymbol{X}_{t-\sigma_u}^{(3,u)}\notag$$ where, given $\boldsymbol{Z}$, independently for each $u\in\mathcal{T}$ such that $\sigma_u\leq t$, the process $\boldsymbol{X}_{\cdot}^{(3,u)}$ is an independent copy of $\boldsymbol{X}$ issued at time $\sigma_u$ with law $\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{Y}_u\delta_{z_u(\sigma_u)}}$ where $\boldsymbol{Y}_u$ is an independent random variable with distribution $\eta^{(\gamma_u)}_{\mathcal{N}_1^u,\dots,\mathcal{N}_\ell^u}(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})$. Here $(\mathcal{N}_1^u,\dots,\mathcal{N}_\ell^u)$ is the offspring of $u$, i.e. $\mathcal{N}_i^u$ is the number of offspring of type $i$.
Moreover, we denote the law of the pair $(\boldsymbol{\Lambda},\boldsymbol{Z})$ by $\widehat{\mathbb{P}}_{(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu})}$.
Since $\boldsymbol{Z}$ is a MBDP and, given $\boldsymbol{Z}$, immigrating mass occurs independently according to a Poisson point process or at the splitting times of $\boldsymbol{Z}$, we can deduce that the process $((\boldsymbol{\Lambda},\boldsymbol{Z}),\widehat{\mathbb{P}}_{(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu})})$ is Markovian. It is important to note that the mass which has immigrated up to a fixed time evolves in a Markovian way thanks to the branching property.
Now we are ready to state the main results of the paper. Our first result determines the law of the couple $(\boldsymbol{\Lambda},\boldsymbol{Z})$, and in particular shows that $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}$ is conservative.
\[thm1\] For $\boldsymbol{\mu}\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, $\boldsymbol{\nu}\in\mathcal{M}_a(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, $\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{h}\in \mathcal{B}^+(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, and $t\geq 0$ we have $$\label{laplceexpjoint}
\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu})}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t\rangle-\langle \boldsymbol{h},\boldsymbol{Z}_t\rangle}\right]=\exp\left\{-\langle \boldsymbol{V}_t^\dag\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle-\langle \boldsymbol{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f})}_t\boldsymbol{h},\boldsymbol{\nu}\rangle \right\},$$ where $\boldsymbol{V}^\dag$ is defined in , and $\exp\{-\boldsymbol{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f})}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)\}=(\exp\{-{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f}, 1)}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)\},\cdots,\exp\{-{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f}, \ell)}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)\})^{{\tt {t}}}: {\mathbb{R}}^d\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_+^\ell$ is the unique $[0,1]^\ell$-valued solution to the system of integral equations $$\label{cthm1}
\mathrm{e}^{-{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f},i)}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)}=\mathtt{P}^{(i)}_t\mathrm{e}^{-h_i(x)}+\frac{1}{w_i}\int_0^t \mathrm{d}s \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \left[\psi^\dag\left(i, -\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f})}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{h}(y)}
+\boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(y)\right)-\psi^\dag(i,\boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(y))\right] \mathtt{P}^{(i)}_s(x,{\mathrm{d}}y)$$ for $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$, and $t\geq 0$. In particular, for each $t\ge 0$, $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t$ has almost surely finite mass.
Finally, we state the main result of this paper which, actually, is a consequence of Theorem \[thm1\]. To be more precise, we consider a randomised version of the law $\mathbb{P}_{(\boldsymbol{\nu},\boldsymbol{\mu})}$ by replacing the deterministic choice of $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ in such a way that for each $i\in S$, $\nu_i$ is a Poisson random measure in $\mathbb{R}^d$ having intensity $w_i\mu_i$. The resulting law is denoted by $\widehat{\mathbb{P}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}$.
\[mainthm\] For any $\boldsymbol{\mu}\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$ the process $(\boldsymbol{\Lambda},\widehat{\mathbb{P}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}})$ is Markovian and has the same law as $(\boldsymbol{X}, \mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}})$.
The remainder of this paper is devoted to the proofs of all the results presented in the Introduction.
Proofs
======
We first present the proofs of Propositions \[Proposition1\],\[finite extinction\] and \[Dyn-Kuz\] which are devoted to the construction of the multitype superprocess $\boldsymbol{X}$ and its associated Dynkin-Kuznetsov measures.
Recall that $(\mathtt{P}_t^{(i)}, t\geq 0)$ denotes the semigroup of the diffusion $(\xi^{(i)}_t, t\geq 0)$. We introduce $\Xi=(\Xi_t, t\ge 0)$ a Markov process in the product space ${\mathbb{R}}^d\times S$ whose transition semigroup $(\mathtt{T}_t,t\geq 0)$ is given by $$\label{ttdefinition}
{\mathtt{T}}_tf(x,i)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(y,i)\mathtt{P}_t^{(i)}(x,{\mathrm{d}}y) \qquad \textrm{for}\quad x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d,$$ where $f$ is a bounded Borel function on ${\mathbb{R}}^d\times S$. We denote the aforementioned set of functions by $\mathcal{B}( {\mathbb{R}}^d\times S)$ and we use $\mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^d\times S)$ for the space of finite Borel measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^d\times S$, endowed with the topology of weak convergence.
For each ${f}\in \mathcal{B}( {\mathbb{R}}^d\times S)$, we introduce the operator $${\Psi}(x,i,f)=\psi(i,(f(x,1),\cdots,f(x,\ell))).$$ Recall that for a measure $\mu\in \mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^d\times S)$, we use the notation $$\langle f,\mu\rangle=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d\times S}f(x,i)\mu({\mathrm{d}}(x,i)).$$ Following the theory developed in the monograph of Li [@Z], we observe that the operator $\Psi$ satisfies equation (2.26) in [@Z], and that the assumptions of Theorems 2.21 and 5.6, in the same monograph, are fulfilled. Therefore there exits a strong Markov superprocess $\mathcal{Z}=(\mathcal{Z}_t,\mathcal{G}_t, \mathbb{Q}_{\mu})$ with state space $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)$, and transition probabilities determined by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{Q}_{\mu}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle f,\mathcal{Z}_t\rangle}\right]=\exp\Big\{- \langle \mathtt{V}_tf,\mu\rangle\Big\},\qquad t\geq 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $ f\in \mathcal{B}( {\mathbb{R}}^d\times S)$ and $t\mapsto \mathtt{V}_tf$ is the unique locally bounded positive solution to
$$\mathtt{V}_tf(x, i)=\mathtt{T}_t f(x,i)-\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}s\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d\times S}\Psi(y,j,\mathtt{V}_{t-s}{f})\mathtt{T}_s(x,i,{\mathrm{d}}(y,j)).$$
For $i\in S$ and $\mu\in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)$, we define ${\tt U}_i\mu\in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ by ${\tt U}_i\mu(B)=\mu(B\times\{i\})$ for $B\in \mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, the Borel sets in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Observe that $\mu\mapsto ({\tt U}_i\mu)_{i\in S}$ is a homeomorphism between $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)$ and $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^{\ell}$. In other words, we can define a strong Markov process $\boldsymbol{X}\in \mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^d)^\ell$ associated with $\mathcal{Z}$ and $(U_i)_{i\in S}$ as follows. For each $i\in S$, we define $X_t(i,{\mathrm{d}}x):={\tt U}_i\mathcal{Z}_t({\mathrm{d}}x)=\mathcal{Z}_t({\mathrm{d}}x\times \{i\})$ with probabilities $\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{ \mu}}:=\mathbb{Q}_{\mu}$, where $\boldsymbol{\mu}=(\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_{\ell})\in\mathcal{M}({\mathbb{R}}^d)^\ell$, and each $\mu_i={\tt U}_i\mu$. In a similar way, there is a homeomorphism between $\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)^\ell$ and $\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d\times S)$; that is to say for $\boldsymbol{f}\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)^\ell$ we define $f(x,i)=f_i(x)$. By applying the aforementioned homeomorphisms, we deduce that $(\boldsymbol{X}_t,\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{ \mu}})$ satisfies , and has a unique locally bounded solution.
We now prove Proposition \[finite extinction\], which will be very useful for the existence of Dynkin-Kutznetsov measures.
By and the branching property of $\boldsymbol{X}$ we have $$\label{extinction branching}
\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}(\mathcal{E})=\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle}.$$ Furthermore by conditioning the event $\mathcal{E}$ on $\mathcal{F}_t$ and using the Markov property, we obtain that $$\begin{split}
\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle}&=\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\Big[\mathbb{E}[\boldsymbol{1}_\mathcal{E}|\mathcal{F}_t]\Big]=\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\Big[\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{X}_t}[\boldsymbol{1}_\mathcal{E}]\Big]=\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[ \mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right].
\end{split}$$ Thus from and the assumption we also get that $\boldsymbol{\psi}(\boldsymbol{w})=\boldsymbol{0}$.
For the second part of the statement, we recall the definition of the total mass vector $\boldsymbol{Y}=(\boldsymbol{Y}_t,t\geq 0)$ whose entries satisfy $Y_t(i)=X_t(i,{\mathbb{R}}^d)$. From identity and assumption , we know that for each $i\in S$, there exists a positive deterministic time $T_i$ such that $$\mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i}(\|\boldsymbol{Y}_t\|=0 )=\mathrm{e}^{-\lim_{\boldsymbol{\theta}\hookrightarrow\infty} v_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
=0 & \textrm{ for } t< T_i,\\
>0 &\textrm{ for } t>T_i,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\boldsymbol{v}_t(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is given by , and we recall that $\boldsymbol{\theta}\hookrightarrow\infty$ means that each coordinate of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ goes to $\infty$.
Next, we define the sets $S_1:=\{i\in S: T_i=0\}$ and $S_2:=\{i\in S: T_i>0\}$. For a vector $\boldsymbol{y}=(y_1,\cdots,y_\ell)$, we denote its support by $\textrm{supp}(\boldsymbol{y}):=\{i\in S: y_i\neq 0\}$. Thus, the proof will be completed if we show that $S_2=\emptyset.$ We proceed by contradiction.
Let us assume that $S_2\neq\emptyset$ and define $T:=\inf\{T_i: i\in S_2\}$ which is strictly positive by definition. Take $i\in S_2$ and observe from the Markov property that $$\begin{split}
0&=\mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i}\Big(\|\boldsymbol{Y}_{3T/4}\|=0 \Big)\\
&\geq \mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i}\Big(\|\boldsymbol{Y}_{3T/4}\|=0, \textrm{supp}(\boldsymbol{Y}_{T/2}) \subset S_1\Big)\\
&=\mathbf{E}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i}\left[\mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{Y}_{T/2}}\Big(\|\boldsymbol{Y}_{T/4}\|=0\Big), \textrm{supp}(\boldsymbol{Y}_{T/2}) \subset S_1 \right].
\end{split}$$ By the branching property, if $\boldsymbol{y}$ is a vector such that $\textrm{supp}(\boldsymbol{y})\subset S_1$ then $\mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{y}}(\|\boldsymbol{Y}_t\|=0 )>0$, for all $t>0$. Therefore, we necessarily have $$0=\mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i}\Big( \textrm{supp}(\boldsymbol{Y}_{T/2})\subset S_1\Big),$$ and implicitly $$1=\mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i}\Big(\textrm{supp}(\boldsymbol{Y}_{T/2}) \cap S_2\neq \emptyset \Big)=\mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i}\Big(\|\boldsymbol{Y}_{T/2}\|>0 \Big), \qquad \mbox{for all } i\in S_2.$$ Hence, using the branching property again, if $\boldsymbol{y}$ is a vector such that $\textrm{supp}(\boldsymbol{y})\cap S_2\neq \emptyset$, we have $$1=\mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{y}}\Big(\|\boldsymbol{Y}_{T/2}\|>0 \Big)=\mathbf{P}_{y}\Big(\textrm{supp}(\boldsymbol{Y}_{T/2}) \cap S_2\neq \emptyset \Big).$$ Finally, we use the Markov property recursively and the previous equality, to deduce that for all $k\ge 1$, $$\mathbf{P}_{\boldsymbol{y}}\Big(\|\boldsymbol{Y}_{kT/2}\|>0 \Big)=1 \qquad \mbox{for all } i\in S_2,$$ which is inconsistent with the definitions of $T$ and $T_i$. In other words, $S_2=\emptyset$. This completes the proof.
We now prove the existence of the Dynkin-Kuznetsov measures.
Let us denote by $\mathcal{M}^0(\mathbb{R}^d\times S):=\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)\setminus \{ 0\}$, where $0$ is the null measure. Consider the Markov superprocess $\mathcal{Z}$ introduced in the previous proof. Let $({\tt Q}_t, t\geq 0)$ and $({\tt V}_t, t\geq 0)$ be the transition and cumulant semigroups associated with $\mathcal{Z}$. By Theorem 1.36 in [@Z], $\mathtt{V}_t$ has the following representation $$\mathtt{V}_t f(x,i)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d\times S} f(y,j)\Lambda_t(x,i,\mathrm{d}(y,j))+\int_{\mathcal{M}^0(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)}\left( 1-\mathrm{e}^{-\langle f,\nu\rangle}\right)L_t(x,i,\mathrm{d}\nu), \quad t\geq 0,$$ where $f$ is a positive Borel function on $\mathbb{R}^d\times S$, $\Lambda_t(x,i,\mathrm{d}(y,j))$ is a bounded kernel on $\mathbb{R}^d\times S$, and $(1\wedge \langle 1,\nu\rangle)L_t(x,i,\mathrm{d}\nu)$ is a bounded kernel from $\mathbb{R}^d\times S$ to $\mathcal{M}^0(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)$.
Let $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}^+$ be the space of càdlàg paths $t\rightarrow \widetilde{w}_t$ from $[0,\infty)$ to $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)$ having the null measure as a trap. Let $({\tt Q}_t^0, t\ge 0)$ be the restriction of $({\tt Q}_t, t\ge 0)$ to $\mathcal{M}^0(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)$ and $$E_0:=\Big\{ (x,i)\in \mathbb{R}^d\times S:\Lambda_t(x,i,\mathbb{R}^d\times S)=0,\; \textrm{ for all }\,\, t>0\Big\}.$$ By Proposition 2.8 in [@Z], for all $(x,i)\in E_0$ the family of measures $(L_t(x,i,\cdot), t\geq 0)$ on $\mathcal{M}^0(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)$ constitutes an entrance law for $({\tt Q}_t^0, t\geq 0)$. Therefore, by Theorem A.40 of [@Z] for all $(x,i)\in E_0$ there exists a unique $\sigma$-finite measure $\widetilde{\mathbb{N}}_{(x,i)}$ on $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}^+$ such that $\widetilde{\mathbb{N}}_{(x,i)}(\{ 0\})=0$, and for any $0<t_1<\cdots<t_n<\infty$ $$\widetilde{\mathbb{N}}_{(x,i)}(\mathcal{Z}_{t_1}\in\mathrm{d}\nu_1,\mathcal{Z}_{t_2}\in\mathrm{d}\nu_2,\dots,\mathcal{Z}_{t_n}\in\mathrm{d}\nu_n)=L_{t_1}(x,i,\mathrm{d}\nu_1){\tt Q}_{t_2-t_1}^0(\nu_1,\mathrm{d}\nu_2)\dots {\tt Q}_{t_n-t_{n-1}}^0 (\nu_{n-1},\mathrm{d}\nu_n).$$ It follows that for all $t>0$, $(x,i)\in E_0$, and $f \in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)$ positive, we have $$\widetilde{\mathbb{N}}_{(x,i)}\left( 1-\mathrm{e}^{-\langle f,\mathcal{Z}_t\rangle}\right)=\int_{\mathcal{M}^0(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)}\left( 1-\mathrm{e}^{-\langle f,\nu\rangle}\right)L_t(x,i,\mathrm{d}\nu)=\mathtt{V}_tf(x,i).$$
Recall the homeomorphism $\mu\mapsto (U_i\mu)_{i\in S}$ and the definition of the superprocess $\boldsymbol{X}$ from the proof of Proposition \[Proposition1\]. By taking the constant function $f(x,i)=\lambda\in {\mathbb{R}}$, and using the definitions of $\mathtt{V}_t, {\tt Q}_t$, we deduce that $$-\log\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i \delta_x}\Big[\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda\langle \boldsymbol{1},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\Big]=\lambda \Lambda_t(x,i,\mathbb{R}^d\times S)+\int_{\mathcal{M}^0(\mathbb{R}^d\times S)}\left( 1-\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda\langle 1 ,\nu\rangle}\right)L_t(x,i,\mathrm{d}\nu).$$ If we take $\lambda$ goes to infinity, the left hand side of the above identity converges to $-\log \mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i \delta_x}(\|\boldsymbol{X}_t\|=0)$ which is finite by Proposition . Henceforth, $\Lambda_t(x,i,\mathbb{R}^d\times S)=0$ and $(x,i)\in E_0$.
Next, recall that $\mathcal{X}$ denotes the space of càdlàg paths from $[0,\infty)$ to $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$. Then $({\tt U}_i)_{i\in S}$ induces an homeomorphism between $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}$ and $\mathcal{X}$. More precisely, the homeomorphism $\mathcal{U}:\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}\rightarrow\mathcal{X}$ is given by $\widetilde{w}_t\rightarrow \boldsymbol{w}_t=(w_t(1),\cdots, w_t(\ell))$ where for all $i\in S$ the measure in the $i$th coordinate is given by $w_t(i,B)=\widetilde{w}_t(B\times\{i\})$. This implies that for all $(x,i)\in \mathbb{R}^d\times S$ we can define the measures $\mathbb{N}_{x\boldsymbol{e}_i}$ on $\mathcal{X}$ given by $\mathbb{N}_{x\boldsymbol{e}_i}(B):= \widetilde{\mathbb{N}}_{(x,i)}(\mathcal{U}^{-1}(B))$. In other words, we obtain $$\mathbb{N}_{x\boldsymbol{e}_i}\left(1-\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right)=-\log\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{e}_i \delta_x}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right],$$ for all $\boldsymbol{f}\in \mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)^\ell$ and $t\geq0$.
It is important to note that the Dynkin-Kuznetsov measures $\mathbb{N}^\dag$ associated to the multitype superprocess conditioned on extinction are also well defined since $|\log \mathbb{P}^{\dag}_{\delta_x\boldsymbol{e}_i}(\mathcal{E})|<\infty$.
We now prove Proposition \[proposition2\].
Using , and the Markov property, we have for $\boldsymbol{f}\in\mathcal{B}^+(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}^\dag\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right]&
=\mathrm{e}^{\langle \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle}\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\boldsymbol{1}_{\mathcal{E}}\right]\\
&=\mathrm{e}^{\langle \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle}\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol{X}_t}(\mathcal{E})\right]\\
&=\mathrm{e}^{\langle \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle}\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right]\\
&=\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{V}_t (\boldsymbol{f}+\boldsymbol{w})-\boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \boldsymbol{V}_t (\boldsymbol{f}+\boldsymbol{w})$ satisfies , using the definitions of $\boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_t \boldsymbol{f}$ and $\boldsymbol{\psi}^\dag$ we obtain that $\boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_t \boldsymbol{f}$ satisfies . Recalling that $\boldsymbol{\psi}(\boldsymbol{w})=\boldsymbol{0}$ and computing $\boldsymbol{\psi}(\boldsymbol{\theta}+\boldsymbol{w})-\boldsymbol{\psi}(\boldsymbol{w})$, we deduce that $$\label{psistar}
\psi^{\dag}(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})=-[ \boldsymbol{\theta},{\boldsymbol{B}}^\dag\boldsymbol{e}_i]+\beta_i \theta_i^2+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\left( \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{y}]}-1+\theta_i y_i\right)\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,{\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{y}),$$ where $$\label{Bdag}
{B}_{ij}^\dag=B_{ij}-\left(2\beta_i w_i +\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\left( 1-\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{y},\boldsymbol{w}]} \right)y_i\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\right)\boldsymbol{1}_{\{j=i\}}.$$ This implies that $\boldsymbol{\psi}^\dag$ is a branching mechanism and therefore the solution of is unique. In other words, $\boldsymbol{X}$ under $\mathbb{P}^\dag_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}$ is a multitype superprocess with branching mechanism given by $\boldsymbol{\psi}^\dag(\boldsymbol{\theta})$.
In order to proceed with the proof of Theorem \[thm1\], the following two lemmas are necessary.
\[lemma1\] For each $\boldsymbol{f}\in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, $\boldsymbol{\nu}\in\mathcal{M}_a(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, $\boldsymbol{\mu}\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, and $t\geq0$ we have $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu})}\left[\left.\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f}, \boldsymbol{I}_t^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}+\boldsymbol{I}_t^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}\rangle} \right| (\boldsymbol{Z}_s,s\leq t)\right]=\exp\left\{-\int_0^t \langle \boldsymbol{\phi}(\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_{t-r}\boldsymbol{f}), \boldsymbol{Z}_r\rangle \mathrm{d}r\right\},$$ where $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ is given by and $\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_{t}\boldsymbol{f}$ satisfies .
As the different immigration mechanisms are independent given the backbone, we may look at the Laplace functional of the continuous and discontinuous immigrations separately. For the continuous immigration, we can condition on $\boldsymbol{Z}$, use Campbell’s formula, then equation (\[NmeasureLaplace\]) for $\mathbb{N}^\dag$, and finally the definition of $\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_{t}\boldsymbol{f}(x)=({V}_{t}^{\dag,(1)}\boldsymbol{f}(x),\cdots,{V}_{t}^{\dag, (\ell)}\boldsymbol{f}(x))^{\tt t}$ to obtain $$\begin{split}
\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu})}\left[ \exp\{-\left.\langle\boldsymbol{ f}, \boldsymbol{I}_t^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}\rangle\}\right| (\boldsymbol{Z}_{s},s\leq t)\right]&=\exp\left\lbrace -\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T}} 2\beta_{\gamma_u}\int_{t\wedge \tau_u}^{t\wedge\sigma_u}\mathrm{d}r \mathbb{N}_{z_u(r)\boldsymbol{e}_{\gamma_u}}^\dag \Big(1-\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f}, \boldsymbol{X}_{t-r}\rangle}\Big)\right\rbrace\\
&=\exp\left\lbrace -\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T}}2\beta_{\gamma_u}\int_{t\wedge \tau_u}^{t\wedge \sigma_u}\mathrm{d}r V_{t-r}^{\dag, (\gamma_u)} \boldsymbol{f}(z_u(r)) \right\rbrace.
\end{split}$$ In a similar way, for the discontinuous immigration, by conditioning on $\boldsymbol{Z}$, using Campbell’s formula and the definition of $\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_{t}\boldsymbol{f}$ we get $$\begin{split}
\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu})}&\left[ \left.\exp\{-\langle \boldsymbol{f}, \boldsymbol{I}_t^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}\rangle\}\right| (\boldsymbol{Z}_{s},s\leq t)\right]\\
&=
\exp\left\lbrace -\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T}}\int_{t\wedge\tau_u}^{t\wedge \sigma_u}\mathrm{d}r \int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell} y_{\gamma_u} \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]} \mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{y}\delta_{z_u(r)}}^\dag \left[ 1-\mathrm{e}^{-\langle\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_{t-r}\rangle}\right]\Pi(\gamma_u,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\right\rbrace\\
&=\exp\left\lbrace -\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T}}\int_{t\wedge\tau_u}^{t\wedge\sigma_u} \mathrm{d}r \int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell} y_{\gamma_u} \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]} \left( 1-\mathrm{e}^{-[\boldsymbol{V}_{t-r}^\dag\boldsymbol{f}(z_u(r)),\boldsymbol{y}]}\right)\Pi(\gamma_u,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y}) \right\rbrace.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, by putting the pieces together we obtain the following $$\label{eq:contdiscont}
\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu})}\left[ \left.\exp\left\lbrace -\langle \boldsymbol{f}, \boldsymbol{I}_t^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}+\boldsymbol{I}_t^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}\rangle \right\rbrace \right| (\boldsymbol{Z}_s,s\leq t)\right]=\exp\left\lbrace -\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T}}\int_{t\wedge\tau_u}^{t\wedge \sigma_u}\phi(\gamma_u,
\boldsymbol{V}_{t-r}^\dag\boldsymbol{f}(z_u(r)))\mathrm{d}r\right\rbrace,$$ where $\phi(i,\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ is given by formula . The previous equation is in terms of the tree $\mathcal{T}$. We want to rewrite it in terms of the multitype branching diffusion, thus $$\begin{split}
\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T}}\int_{t\wedge\tau_u}^{t\wedge \sigma_u}\phi(\gamma_u,
\boldsymbol{V}_{t-r}^\dag\boldsymbol{f}(z_u(r))) \mathrm{d}r=&\sum_{i\in S}\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T},\gamma_u=i}\int_{t\wedge\tau_u}^{t\wedge \sigma_u}\phi(i,
\boldsymbol{V}_{t-r}^\dag\boldsymbol{f}(z_u(r))) \mathrm{d}r\\
=&\int_0^t \sum_{i\in S}\sum_{u\in\mathcal{T},z_u=i}\phi(i,
\boldsymbol{V}_{t-r}^\dag\boldsymbol{f}(z_u(r))) \boldsymbol{1}_{\{r\in [t\wedge \tau_u,t\wedge \sigma_u)\}}\mathrm{d}r\\
=& \int_0^t \left\langle \boldsymbol{\phi}(\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_{t-r}), \boldsymbol{Z}_r\right\rangle \mathrm{d}r.
\end{split}$$
Observe that the processes $\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}= (\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}_t,t\geq0)$, $\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}=(\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}_t,t\geq0)$ and $\boldsymbol{I}^{\eta}=(\boldsymbol{I}^{\eta}_t,t\geq0)$ are initially zero-valued $\widehat{\mathbb{P}}_{(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu})}$-a.s. In order to study the rest of the immigration along the backbone we have the following result.
\[lemma2\] Suppose that $\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{h}\in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$ and $\boldsymbol{g}_s(x)\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}\times\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$. Define the vectorial function $\mathrm{e}^{- \boldsymbol{W}_t(x)}=(\mathrm{e}^{- {W}^{(1)}_t(x)},\cdots,\mathrm{e}^{- {W}^{(\ell)}_t(x)})$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{e}^{- {W}^{(i)}_t(x)}:= \widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{e}_i \delta_x)}\left[ \exp \left\lbrace -\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{I}_t^\eta\rangle-\langle \boldsymbol{h},\boldsymbol{Z}_t\rangle -\int_{0}^{t}\langle \boldsymbol{g}_{t-s},\boldsymbol{Z}_s\rangle \mathrm{d}s\right\rbrace\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Then, $\mathrm{e}^{- \boldsymbol{W}_t(x)}$ is a locally bounded solution to the integral system
$$\label{eq:inteq}
\mathrm{e}^{-W^{(i)}_t(x)}=\mathtt{P}^{(i)}_t\mathrm{e}^{-h_i(x)}+\frac{1}{w_i}\int_0^t \mathrm{d}s \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \left[H^{(i)}_{t-s}\left( y, \boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{W}_{t-s}(y)}\right)-w_ig_{t-s}^i(y) \mathrm{e}^{-W^{(i)}_{t-s}(y)}\right] \mathtt{P}^{(i)}_s(x,{\mathrm{d}}y),$$
where $$\label{H}
\begin{split}
H_{s}^{(i)}&(x,\boldsymbol{ \theta}) = [ \boldsymbol{\theta},{\boldsymbol{B}^{\dag}}\boldsymbol{e}_i]+\beta_i\theta_i^2+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\left( \mathrm{e}^{[ \boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{y}]}-1-\theta_iy_i\right)\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w}+\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_s\boldsymbol{f}(x),\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y}).
\end{split}$$ In the latter formula $\boldsymbol{B}^\dag$ is given by and $\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_t\boldsymbol{f}$ is the unique solution to .
It is important to note that $\boldsymbol{W}$ depends on the functions $\boldsymbol{f}, \boldsymbol{h}$ and $\boldsymbol{g}$ but for simplicity on exposition we suppress this dependency.
Recall that $\boldsymbol{Z}$ is a multitype branching diffusion, where the motion of each particle with type $i\in S$ is given by the semigroup $\mathtt{P}^{(i)}$ and its branching generator is given by . For simplicity, we denote by $\mathtt{P}^{(i)}_x$ the law of the diffusion $\xi^{(i)}$ starting at $x$. By conditioning on the time of the first branching event of $\boldsymbol{Z}$ we get $$\begin{split}
\mathrm{e}^{- {W}^{(i)}_t(x)}&=\mathtt{E}^{(i)}_x\left[\mathrm{e}^{-q_i t}\mathrm{e}^{-\int_0^tg^i_{t-r}(\xi^{(i)}_r)\mathrm{d}r}\mathrm{e}^{-h_i(\xi^{(i)}_t)} \right]\\
&+\mathtt{E}^{(i)}_x\left[\int_0^tq_i \mathrm{e}^{-q_i s}\mathrm{e}^{-\int_0^sg^i_{s-r}(\xi^{(i)}_r)\mathrm{d}r}\sum_{\boldsymbol{j}\in\mathbb{N}^\ell}p_{\boldsymbol{j}}^{(i)} \mathrm{e}^{-\sum_{k\in S}j_k W_{t-s}^{(k)}(\xi^{(i)}_s)}\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\eta_{\boldsymbol{j}}^{(i)}(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(\xi^{(i)}_t),\boldsymbol{y}]}\mathrm{d}s\right],
\end{split}$$ where $\boldsymbol{j}=(j_1,\dots,j_\ell)$. On the other hand, by Proposition 2.9 in [@Z], we see that $\mathrm{e}^{- {W}^{(i)}_t(x)}$ also satisfies $$\begin{split}
\mathrm{e}^{- {W}^{(i)}_t(x)}=&\mathtt{E}^{(i)}_x\left[\mathrm{e}^{-h_i(\xi^{(i)}_t)} \right]-\mathtt{E}^{(i)}_x\left[\int_0^tq_i\mathrm{e}^{-{W}^{(i)}_{t-s}(x)} {\mathrm{d}}s \right]-\mathtt{E}^{(i)}_x\left[\int_0^tg_{t-s}^i(\xi_s^{(i)})\mathrm{e}^{-{W}^{(i)}_{t-s}(x)} {\mathrm{d}}s \right]\\
&\hspace{2cm}+\mathtt{E}^{(i)}_x\left[\int_0^tq_i \sum_{\boldsymbol{j}\in\mathbb{N}^\ell}p_{\boldsymbol{j}}^{(i)} \mathrm{e}^{-\sum_{k\in S}j_k W_{t-s}^{(k)}(\xi^{(i)}_s)}\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\eta_{\boldsymbol{j}}^{(i)}(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(\xi^{(i)}_t),\boldsymbol{y}]}\mathrm{d}s\right].
\end{split}$$ By substituting the definitions of $p^{(i)}_{\boldsymbol{j}}$ and $\eta^{(i)}_{\boldsymbol{j}}$ (see and ), we get that for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ $$\begin{split}
R(x)&:=\sum_{\boldsymbol{j}\in\mathbb{N}^\ell}p_{\boldsymbol{j}}^{(i)} \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{j},\boldsymbol{W}_{t-s}(x)]}\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\eta_{\boldsymbol{j}}^i(\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})
\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(x) ,\boldsymbol{y}]} \\
&=
\frac{1}{w_iq_i}\sum_{\boldsymbol{j}\in\mathbb{N}^\ell}\Bigg[ \beta_i w_i^2 \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{j},\boldsymbol{W}_{t-s}(x)]}\boldsymbol{1}_{\{\boldsymbol{j}=2\boldsymbol{e}_i\}} \Bigg.\\
&\hspace{.5cm}+\left(B_{ki} w_k \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{j},\boldsymbol{W}_{t-s}(x)]}
+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}w_k y_k \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{j},\boldsymbol{W}_{t-s}(x)]}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(x),\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\right)\boldsymbol{1}_{\{\boldsymbol{j}=\boldsymbol{e}_k\}}{\boldsymbol{1}_{\{ k\neq i\}}} \\
&\hspace{2.5cm}\left.+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\frac{(w_1 y_1)^{j_1}\dots(w_\ell y_\ell)^{j_\ell}}{j_1!\dots j_\ell!}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]} \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{j},\boldsymbol{W}_{t-s}(x)]}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(x),\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\boldsymbol{1}_{\{j_1+\dots+j_\ell\geq 2\}} \right]\\
=& \frac{1}{w_iq_i}\left[ \beta_i \left(w_i \mathrm{e}^{-W^{(i)}_{t-s}(x)}\right)^2+\sum_{k\in S,k\neq i} \mathrm{e}^{-W^{(k)}_{t-s}(x)}\left(B_{ki} w_k + \int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}w_k y_k \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(x),\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})\right)
\right.\\
&\hspace{6.5cm}\left.+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\sum_{n\geq 2}\frac{[\boldsymbol{w}\cdot\mathrm{e}^{- \boldsymbol{W}_t(x)}, \boldsymbol{y}]^n}{n!}\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w},\boldsymbol{y}]} \mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(x),\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})
\right],
\end{split}$$ where in the last row we have used (\[eq:binom\]). By merging the two integrals, we get $$\begin{split}
R(x)=& \frac{1}{w_iq_i}\left[ \beta_i \left(w_i \mathrm{e}^{-W^{(i)}_{t-s}(x)}\right)^2+\sum_{k\in S,k\neq i} B_{ki} w_k \mathrm{e}^{-W^{(k)}_{t-s}(x)}
\right.\\
&\hspace{3cm}\left.+\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^\ell}\left( \mathrm{e}^{[\boldsymbol{w}\cdot\mathrm{e}^{- \boldsymbol{W}_t(x)}, \boldsymbol{y}]}-1-w_i\mathrm{e}^{-W^{(k)}_{t-s}(x)}y_i\right)\mathrm{e}^{-[ \boldsymbol{w}+ \boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(x),\boldsymbol{y}]}\Pi(i,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{y})
\right].
\end{split}$$ So, putting the pieces together and using the definitions of $q_i$, $\boldsymbol{B}^\dag$ and $H^{(i)}$, (see identities , and ) we deduce that $$\begin{split}
\mathrm{e}^{- {W}^{(i)}_t(x)}=\mathtt{E}^{(i)}_x\left[\mathrm{e}^{-h_i(\xi^{(i)}_t)} -\int_0^tg_{t-s}^i(\xi_s^{(i)})\mathrm{e}^{-{W}^{(i)}_{t-s}(\xi_s^{(i)})} {\mathrm{d}}s +\frac{1}{w_i}\int_0^t H_{t-s}^{(i)}(\xi^{(i)}_s,\boldsymbol{w}\cdot\mathrm{e}^{- \boldsymbol{W}_t(\xi^{(i)}_s)})\mathrm{d}s\right],
\end{split}$$ as stated. Therefore, $\mathrm{e}^{- \boldsymbol{W}_t(x)}$ satisfies .
Since $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{X}}$ is an independent copy of $\boldsymbol{X}$ under ${\Bbb{P}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}^\dag$, it is enough to show that for $\boldsymbol{\mu}\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, $\boldsymbol{\nu}\in\mathcal{M}_a(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, $\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{h}\in \mathcal{B}^+(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, the vectorial function $\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f})}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)}$ defined by $$\mathrm{e}^{-{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f},i)}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)}:=\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{e}_i \delta_x}\left[ \mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{N}^\dag}+\boldsymbol{I}^{\mathbb{P}^\dag}+\boldsymbol{I}^{\eta}_t\rangle-\langle \boldsymbol{h},\boldsymbol{Z}_t\rangle}\right],$$ is a solution to and that this solution is unique. By its definition, it is clear that $\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f})}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)}\in[0,1]^\ell$ for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $t\geq 0$. On the other hand from Lemma \[lemma1\], we observe that $$\mathrm{e}^{-{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f},i)}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)}=\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{e}_i \delta_x}\left[ \exp\left\{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{I}^{\eta}_t\rangle-\langle \boldsymbol{h},\boldsymbol{Z}_t\rangle -\int_0^t \langle \boldsymbol{\phi}(\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_{t-r}\boldsymbol{f}), \boldsymbol{Z}_r\rangle \mathrm{d}r\right\}\right].$$
Therefore Lemma \[lemma2\] implies that the vectorial function $\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f})}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)}$ satisfies $$\begin{split}
\mathrm{e}^{-{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f},i)}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)}=\mathtt{E}^{(i)}_x\left[\mathrm{e}^{-h_i(\xi^{(i)}_t)} +\frac{1}{w_i}\int_0^t \Bigg(H_{t-s}^{(i)}(\xi^{(i)}_s,\boldsymbol{w}\cdot\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f},i)}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{h}(\xi^{(i)}_s)})-\phi(i,
\boldsymbol{V}_{t-r}^\dag\boldsymbol{f}(\xi_s^{(i)}))w_i\mathrm{e}^{-{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f},i)}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{h}(\xi^{(i)}_s)}\Bigg) {\mathrm{d}}s \right],
\end{split}$$ where $H^{(i)}$ is given as in . Using the definitions of $\boldsymbol{\psi}^{\dag},\ \boldsymbol{\phi} $ and $H$ (see identities and ), we observe for all $i\in S$, $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}\in {\mathbb{R}}^l_+$, that $$\begin{split}
H^{(i)}_{t}(x,\boldsymbol{\theta})-\phi(i,\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_{t}\boldsymbol{f}(x))\theta_i =\psi^{\dag}\left(i, -\boldsymbol{\theta}+\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_{t}\boldsymbol{f}(x)\right)-\psi^{\dag}(i,\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_{t}\boldsymbol{f}(x)).
\end{split}$$ Therefore, $\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f})}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)}$ is a solution to .
In order to finish the proof, we show that the solution to is unique. Our arguments use Gronwall’s lemma and similar ideas to those used in the monograph of Li [@Z] and in Proposition \[Proposition1\]. With this purpose in mind, we first deduce some additional inequalities. Recall that the function $\psi^\dag(i,\boldsymbol{\theta})$ defined in is a branching mechanism. Using similar notation as in Proposition \[Proposition1\], we introduce the operator $${\Psi}^\dag(x,i,f)=\psi^\dag(i,(f(x,1),\cdots,f(x,\ell))),$$ for ${f}\in \mathcal{B}( {\mathbb{R}}^d\times S)$, and observe that it satisfies identity (2.26) in [@Z]. Therefore, following line by line the arguments in the proof of Proposition 2.20 in [@Z], we may deduce that ${\Psi}^\dag$ satisfies Condition 2.11 in [@Z]. In other words, for all $a\geq 0$, there exists $L_a>0$ such that $$\label{condition 2.10}
\sup_{(x,i)\in {\mathbb{R}}^d\times S}|{\Psi}^\dag(x,i,f)-{\Psi}^\dag(x,i,g)|\leq L_a \|f-g\|,\qquad \textrm{for }\quad f,g\in \mathcal{B}_a({\mathbb{R}}^d\times S),$$ where $\|f\|:=\sup_{(x,i)\in {\mathbb{R}}^d\times S}|f(x,i)|$ and $\mathcal{B}_a({\mathbb{R}}^d\times S):=\{f\in \mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d\times S):\|f\|\leq a\}$.
On the other hand by Proposition 2.21 in [@Z], for all $ f\in \mathcal{B}( {\mathbb{R}}^d\times S)$, there exists $t\mapsto \mathtt{V}^\dag_tf$ a unique locally bounded positive solution to $$\mathtt{V}^\dag_tf(x, i)=\mathtt{T}_t f(x,i)-\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}s\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d\times S}\Psi^\dag(y,j,\mathtt{V}^\dag_{t-s}{f})\mathtt{T}_s(x,i,{\mathrm{d}}(y,j)),$$ where the semigroup $\mathtt{T}_t$ is given as in . Moreover, by Proposition 2.14 in [@Z], for all $T>0$ there exists $C(T)$ such that $$\sup_{0\leq s\leq T}\sup_{(x,i)\in {\mathbb{R}}^d\times S}|\mathtt{V}^\dag_sf(x, i)
|\leq C(T)\|f\|.$$ Hence using the homeomorphism between $\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)^\ell$ and $\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d\times S)$ which was defined in the proof of Proposition \[Proposition1\] (i.e. for $\boldsymbol{f}\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)^\ell$, we define $f(x,i)=f_i(x)$) and the previous inequality, we deduce that $$\label{bounded Vdag}
\sup_{0\leq s\leq T}\sup_{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d}\sup_{i\in S}\Big|V^{\dag,(i)}_s\boldsymbol{f}(x)
\Big|\leq C(T)\|\boldsymbol{f}\|\qquad \qquad\textrm{for }\quad \boldsymbol{f}\in\mathcal{B}^+(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell,$$ where $\|\boldsymbol{f}\|=\sup_{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d}\sup_{i\in S}|f_i(x)|$ and $\boldsymbol{V}^\dag\boldsymbol{f}$ is given by .
Next, we take $\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{W}_t(x)}$ and $\mathrm{e}^{-\widetilde{\boldsymbol{W}}_t(x)}$, two solutions of , and observe that for all $i\in S$
$$\begin{split}
w_i\mathrm{e}^{-{W}^{(i)}_t(x)}-w_i\mathrm{e}^{-\widetilde{W}^{(i)}_t(x)}=\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}s\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} & \left[\psi^\dag\left(i, -\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{W}_{t-s}(y)}
+\boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(y)\right)\right.\\
&\hspace{1.5cm}\left.-\psi^\dag\left(i,-\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\widetilde{\boldsymbol{W}}_{t-s}(y)}+\boldsymbol{V}^{\dag}_{t-s}\boldsymbol{f}(y)\right)\right] \mathtt{P}^{(i)}_s(x,{\mathrm{d}}y).
\end{split}$$
Since $\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{W}_t(x)}\in [0,1]^\ell$ and $\boldsymbol{V}^\dag f$ satisfies , we have, for all $s\leq T$, that $$\Big\|-\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{W}_s(x)}+\boldsymbol{V}^\dag_s f(x)\Big\|\leq \|\boldsymbol{w}\|+C(T)\|f\|:=a(T),$$ and the same inequality holds for $\mathrm{e}^{-\widetilde{\boldsymbol{W}}_t(x)}$. Therefore, by the definition of $\Psi^\dag$ and , there exists $L_T>0$ such that we obtain, for all $t\leq T$, the following inequality $$\begin{split}
\Big|w_i\mathrm{e}^{-{W}^{(i)}_t(x)}-w_i\mathrm{e}^{-\widetilde{W}^{(i)}_t(x)}\Big|\leq\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}s\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} L_T \Big\|\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{W}_{t-s}(x)}-\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\widetilde{\boldsymbol{W}}_{t-s}(x)}\Big\| \mathtt{P}^{(i)}_s(x,{\mathrm{d}}y).
\end{split}$$ The latter implies the following inequality $$\Big\|\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{W}_{t}(x)}-\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\widetilde{\boldsymbol{W}}_{t}(x)}\Big\| \leq L_T \int_0^t \Big\|\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{W}_{s}(x)}-\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\widetilde{\boldsymbol{W}}_{s}(x)}\Big\|{\mathrm{d}}s, \qquad \mbox{ for all } t\leq T.$$ Thus by Gronwall’s inequality, we deduce that $$\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{W}_{s}(x)}=\boldsymbol{w}\cdot \mathrm{e}^{-\widetilde{\boldsymbol{W}}_{s}(x)} \qquad \mbox{ for all }\quad s\leq T.$$ Finally, because $T>0$ was arbitrary, we get the uniqueness of the solution to .
Recall that $((\boldsymbol{\Lambda},\boldsymbol{Z}),\widehat{\mathbb{P}}_{(\boldsymbol{\nu},\boldsymbol{\mu})})$ is a Markov process and that $\widehat{\mathbb{P}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}$ is defined as $\widehat{\mathbb{P}}_{(\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\nu}},\boldsymbol{\mu})}$, where $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ is such that $\widetilde{\nu}_i$ is a Poisson random measure with intensity $w_i\mu_i$, for all $i\in S$. Therefore, for $s, t\ge 0$, we see that $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\Big[f(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{t+s}) \Big|(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_u, u\leq s)\Big]=\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\nu}},\boldsymbol{\mu}}\Big[f(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{t+s}) \Big|(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_u, u\leq s)\Big]=\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{(\boldsymbol{Z}_{s},\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{s})}\Big[f(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{t})\Big].$$ Then, in order to deduce that $(\boldsymbol{\Lambda},\widehat{\mathbb{P}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}})$ is Markovian, we need to show that each coordinate of $\boldsymbol{Z}_t=(Z_t^1,\dots,Z_t^\ell)$ given $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t=(\Lambda_t^1,\dots,\Lambda_t^\ell)$ is a Poisson random measure with intensity $w_i\Lambda_t^i$. From Campbell’s formula for Poisson random measures (see for instance Section 3.2 of [@kingman]), the latter is equivalent to showing that for all $\boldsymbol{h}\in \mathcal{B}^+(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$ $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\left.\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{h}, \boldsymbol{Z}_t\rangle}\right|\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t\right]=\exp\left\{-\langle \boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{\boldsymbol{h}}),\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t\rangle \right\},$$ or equivalently, that for all $\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{h}\in \mathcal{B}^+(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$ $$\label{cond}
\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t\rangle-\langle \boldsymbol{h},\boldsymbol{Z}_t\rangle}\right]=\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}})+\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t\rangle}\right].$$ Using with $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, we find $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t\rangle-\langle \boldsymbol{h},\boldsymbol{Z}_t\rangle}\right]=\exp\left\{-\langle \boldsymbol{V}^\dag_t\boldsymbol{f}+\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f})}_t\boldsymbol{h}}),\boldsymbol{\mu}\rangle\right\}.$$ Similarly, considering again with $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\nu}}$, $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{f}}=\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}})+\boldsymbol{f}$ and $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{h}}=\boldsymbol{0}$, we get that $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}})+\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t\rangle}\right]=\exp\left\{-\left\langle \boldsymbol{V}^\dag_t(\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}})+\boldsymbol{f})+\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{U}^{(\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}})+\boldsymbol{f})}_t\boldsymbol{0}}),
\boldsymbol{\mu}\right\rangle\right\}.$$ Hence, if we prove that for any $\boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{h}\in \mathcal{B}^+(\mathbb{R}^d)^\ell$, $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$, and $i\in S$, the following identity holds $$\label{cond2}
V_t^{\dag(i)}\boldsymbol{ f}(x)+w_i(1-\mathrm{e}^{-{U}^{(\boldsymbol{f},i)}_t\boldsymbol{h}(x)})=V_t^{\dag(i)} (\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}})+\boldsymbol{f})(x)+w_i\left(1-\mathrm{e}^{-{U}^{((\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}})+\boldsymbol{f}),i)}_t\boldsymbol{0}(x)}\right),$$ we can deduce .
In order to obtain , we first observe that identities and together with the definition of $ \boldsymbol{\psi}^\dag$ allow us to see that both left and right hand sides of solve with initial condition $\boldsymbol{f}+\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}})$. Since has a unique solution, namely $\boldsymbol{V}_t(\boldsymbol{f}+\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}}))$, we conclude that holds and it is equal to $V^{(i)}_t(\boldsymbol{f}+\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}}))(x)$. Hence, we can finally deduce that $(\boldsymbol{\Lambda}, \widehat{\mathbb{P}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}})$ is a Markov process. Moreover, we have $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t\rangle-\langle \boldsymbol{h},\boldsymbol{Z}_t\rangle}\right]=\mathrm{e}^{-\left\langle \boldsymbol{V}_t(\boldsymbol{f}+\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}})),\boldsymbol{\mu}\right\rangle}=\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f}+\boldsymbol{w}\cdot(\boldsymbol{1}-\mathrm{e}^{-\boldsymbol{h}}),\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right],$$ and if, in particular, we take $\boldsymbol{h}=\boldsymbol{0}$ the above identity is reduced to $$\widehat{\mathbb{E}}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_t\rangle}\right]=\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\langle \boldsymbol{f},\boldsymbol{X}_t\rangle}\right].$$ This completes the proof.
**Acknowledgements.** This project began while the authors were attending a Bath, UNAM, and CIMAT (BUC) workshop in Guanajuato, Mexico in May, 2016. The authors thank Andreas Kyprianou and Victor Rivero for their roles in organising this workshop. This research was supported by the Royal Society and CONACyT-MEXICO. DF is supported by a scholarship from the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training, SAMBa.
[99]{} Barczy, M., Li, Z., and Pap, G. (2015). Stochastic differential equation with jumps for multi-type continuous state and continuous time branching processes with immigration. [*ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat.*]{} [**12**]{}(1), 129 – 169.
Barczy, M. and Pap, G. (2016). Asymptotic behavior of critical, irreducible multi-type continuous state and continuous time branching processes with immigration. [*Stochastics and Dynamics*]{}. [**16**]{}(4).
Berestycki, J., Kyprianou, A.E., Murillo-Salas, A. (2011). The prolific backbone for supercritical superdiffusions. [*Stoch. Proc. Appl.*]{} [**121**]{}, 1315 – 1331.
Chen, Z-Q, Ren, Y-X, . and Yang T. Skeleton decomposition and law of large numbers for supercritical superprocesses. Preprint 2017.
Duquesne, T., Winkel, M. (2007).Growth of Lévy trees. [*Probab. Theory Related Fields*]{}. [**139**]{}, 313 – 371.
Dynkin, E.B. (2002). Diffusions, Superdiffusion and Partial Differential Equations. [*American Mathematical Society, Colloquium Publications.*]{} [**50**]{}.
Eckhoff, M., Kyprianou, A.E., Winkel, M. (2015). Spines, skeletons and the strong law of large numbers for superdiffusions. [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**43**]{}, no. 5, 2545–2610.
, [**27**]{}, 684-730.
Etheridge, A., Williams, D.R.E. (2003). A decomposition of the $(1+\beta)$-superprocess conditioned on survival. [*Proc. Royal. Soc. Edin.*]{} [**133A**]{}, 829–847.
Evans, S.N., O’Connell, N. (1994). Weighted occupation time for branching particle systems and a representation for the supercritical superprocess. [*Canad. Math. Bull.*]{} [**37**]{}, 187 – 196.
Gorostiza, L., López-Mimbela, J.A. (1990) The multitype measure branching process. [*Adv. in Appl. Probab.*]{} [**22**]{}(1), 49 – 67.
Kingman, J. (1993). [*Poisson Processes.*]{} Oxford University Press.
Kyprianou, A.E., Palau, S. (2017). Extinction properties of multi-type continuous-state branching processes. To appear in [*Stochastic Process. Appl.*]{}
Kyprianou, A.E., Palau, S., Ren, Y. (2018).Almost sure growth of supercritical multi-type continuous-state branching process. To appear in [*ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat.*]{}
Kyprianou, A.E., Pérez, J.L., S., Ren, Y. (2015). The backbone decomposition for spatially dependent supercritical superprocesses. [*Séminaire de Probabilités XLVI,*]{} 33–60.
Kyprianou, A.E., Ren, Y-X. (2012) Backbone decomposition for continuous-state branching processes with immigration. [*Statist. Probab. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{}, 139–144.
Li, Z. (1992). A note on the multitype measure branching process. [*Adv. in Appl. Probab.*]{} [**24**]{}(2), 496 – 498
Murillo-Salas, A., Pérez, J.L. (2015). The backbone decomposition for superprocesses with non-local branching. [*XI Symposium on Probability and Stochastic Processes, Progr. Probab.*]{}, [**69**]{}, 199–216, Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham.
Li, Z. (2011). [*Measure-Valued Branching Markov Processes*]{}, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Ren, Y-X, Song R. and Yang T. Spine decomposition and L log L criterion for superprocesses with non-local branching mechanisms. Preprint 2016.
Salisbury, T., Verzani, J. (1999). On the conditioned exit measures of super Brownian motion. [*Probab. Theory Relat. Fields*]{} [**115**]{}, 237–285.
[^1]: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, [Bath, BA2 7AY, United Kingdom]{}. Email: d.fekete@bath.ac.uk, sp2236@bath.ac.uk
[^2]: [Centro de Investigación en Matemáticas A.C. Calle Jalisco s/n. 36240 Guanajuato, México.]{} E-mail: jcpardo@cimat.mx, jl.garmendia@cimat.mx.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The tangent number $T_{2n+1}$ is equal to the number of increasing labelled complete binary trees with $2n+1$ vertices. This combinatorial interpretation immediately proves that $T_{2n+1}$ is divisible by $2^n$. However, a stronger divisibility property is known in the studies of Bernoulli and Genocchi numbers, namely, the divisibility of $(n+1)T_{2n+1}$ by $2^{2n}$. The traditional proofs of this fact need significant calculations. In the present paper, we provide a combinatorial proof of the latter divisibility by using the hook length formula for trees. Furthermore, our method is extended to $k$-ary trees, leading to a new generalization of the Genocchi numbers.'
address:
- 'I.R.M.A., UMR 7501, Université de Strasbourg et CNRS, 7 rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg, France'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China'
author:
- 'Guo-Niu HAN'
- 'Jing-Yi Liu$^*$'
date: 'February 26, 2018'
title: Combinatorial proofs of some properties of tangent and Genocchi numbers
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The [*tangent numbers*]{} [^1] $(T_{2n+1})_{n\geq 0}$ appear in the Taylor expansion of $\tan(x)$: $$\tan x = \sum_{n\geq 0} T_{2n+1} \frac {x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}.$$ It is known that the tangent number $T_{2n+1}$ is equal to the number of all [*alternating permutations*]{} of length $2n+1$ (see [@Andre1879; @Euler1755; @KnuthBuckholtz1967; @Nielsen1923]). Also, $T_{2n+1}$ counts the number of [*increasing labelled complete binary trees*]{} with $2n+1$ vertices. This combinatorial interpretation immediately implies that $T_{2n+1}$ is divisible by $2^n$. However, a stronger divisibility property is known related to the study of Bernoulli and Genocchi numbers [@Carlitz1960; @Carlitz1971; @RiordanStein1973], as stated in the following theorem.
\[th:tan\] The number $(n+1)T_{2n+1}$ is divisible by $2^{2n}$, and the quotient is an odd number.
The quotient is called [*Genocchi number*]{} and denoted by $$\label{eq:genocchi}
G_{2n+2}:=(n+1)T_{2n+1}/2^{2n}.$$ Let $$g(x):=\displaystyle\sum_{n\ge 0}G_{2n+2}\frac{x^{2n+2}}{(2n+2)!}$$ be the exponential generating function for the Genocchi numbers. Then, is equivalent to $$\label{eq:gx}
g(x)=x\tan{\frac x2}.$$
The initial values of the tangent and Genocchi numbers are listed below: $$
$n$ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
------------ --- --- ---- ----- ------ -------- ----------
$T_{2n+1}$ 1 2 16 272 7936 353792 22368256
$G_{2n+2}$ 1 1 3 17 155 2073 38227
$$
The fact that the Genocchi numbers are odd integers is traditionally proved by using the von Staudt-Clausen theorem on Bernoulli numbers and the little Fermat theorem [@Carlitz1960; @Carlitz1971; @RiordanStein1973]. Barsky [@Barsky1980; @FoataHan2008] gave a different proof by using the Laplace transform. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no simple combinatorial proof has been derived yet and it is the purpose of this paper to provide one. Our approach is based on the geometry of the so-called [*leaf-labelled tree*]{} and the fact that the hook length $h_v$ of such a tree is always an odd integer (see Sections \[sec:BT\] and \[sec:tan\]).
In Section \[sec:kary\] we consider the $k$-ary trees instead of the binary trees and obtain a new generalization of the Genocchi numbers. For each integer $k\geq 2$, let $L_{kn+1}^{(k)}$ be the number of increasing labelled complete $k$-ary trees with $kn+1$ vertices. Thus, $L^{(k)}_{kn+1}$ will appear to be a natural generalization of the tangent number. The general result is stated next.
\[th:kary\] (a) For each integer $k\geq 2$, the integer $$\frac{(k^2 n-kn+k)!\,L^{(k)}_{kn+1}}{ (kn+1)!}$$ is divisible by $(k!)^{kn+1}$.
\(b) Moreover, the quotient $$\begin{aligned}
M^{(k)}_{k^2 n-kn+k}:=
\frac{(k^2 n-kn+k)!\, L^{(k)}_{kn+1}}{(k!)^{kn+1}(kn+1)!}\equiv
\begin{cases}
1\pmod {k}, &k=p, \\
1\pmod {p^2}, &k=p^t,\ t\ge 2, \\
0\pmod {k}, &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $n\ge 1$ and $p$ is a prime number.
We can realize that Theorem \[th:kary\] is a direct generalization of Theorem \[th:tan\], if we restate the problem in terms of generating functions. Let $\phi^{(k)}(x)$ and $\psi^{(k)}(x)$ denote the exponential generating functions for $L^{(k)}_{kn+1}$ and $M^{(k)}_{k^2n-kn+k}$, respectively, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^{(k)}(x)&=\sum_{n\ge 0}L^{(k)}_{kn+1}\frac{x^{kn+1}}{(kn+1)!}; \\
\psi^{(k)}(x)&=\sum_{n\ge 0}M^{(k)}_{k^2n-kn+k}\frac{x^{k^2n-kn+k}}{(k^2n-kn+k)!}.\end{aligned}$$ If $k$ is clear from the context, the superscript $(k)$ will be omitted. Thus, we will write $L_{kn+1}:=L^{(k)}_{kn+1},\,
M_{k^2 n-kn+k} := M^{(k)}_{k^2 n-kn+k},\,
\phi(x):=\phi^{(k)}(x),\,
\psi(x):=\phi^{(k)}(x)$. From Theorem \[th:kary\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi'(x)=1+\phi^k(x);\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\psi(x)}=x \cdot \phi\left(\displaystyle \frac{x^{k-1}}{k!}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The last relation becomes the well-known formula when $k=2$.
Several generalizations of the Genocchi numbers have been studied in recent decades. They are based on the Gandhi polynomials [@Domaratzki2004; @Carlitz1971; @RiordanStein1973], Seidel triangles [@DumontRand1994; @ZengZhou2006], continued fractions [@Viennot1982; @HanZeng1999den], combinatorial models [@HanZeng1999den], etc. Our generalization seems to be the first extension dealing with the divisibility of $(n+1)T_{2n+1}$ by $2^{2n}$. It also raises the following open problems.
[**Problem 1**]{}. Find a proof of Theorem \[th:kary\] à la Carlitz, or à la Barsky.
[**Problem 2**]{}. Find the Gandhi polynomials, Seidel triangles, continued fractions and a combinatorial model for the new generalization of Genocchi numbers $M_{k^2n-kn+k}$ à la Dumont.
[**Problem 3**]{}. Evaluate $m_n:=M_{k^2n-kn+k} \pmod k$ for $k=p^t$, where $p$ is a prime number and $t\geq 3$. It seems that the sequence $(m_n)_{n\geq 0}$ is always periodic for any $p$ and $t$. Computer calculation has provided the initial values: $$\begin{aligned}
(m_n)_{n\geq 0} &= (1,1,5,5,1,1,5,5,\cdots) \qquad \text{for } k=2^3,\\
(m_n)_{n\geq 0} &= (1,1,10,1,1,10,1,1,10\cdots) \qquad \text{for } k=3^3,\\
(m_n)_{n\geq 0} &= (1,1,126,376,126,1,1,126,376,126,\cdots) \qquad \text{for } k=5^4, \\
(m_n)_{n\geq 0} &= (1,1,13,5,9,9,5,13,1,1,13,5,9,9,5,13,\cdots) \qquad \text{for } k=2^4. \end{aligned}$$
Increasing labelled binary trees {#sec:BT}
================================
In this section we recall some basic notions on increasing labelled binary trees. Consider the set $\mathcal{T}(n)$ of all (unlabelled) binary trees with $n$ vertices. For each $t\in \mathcal{T}(n)$ let $\mathcal{L}(t)$ denote the set of all [*increasing labelled binary trees*]{} of shape $t$, obtained from $t$ by labeling its $n$ vertices with $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ in such a way that the label of each vertex is less than that of its descendants. For each vertex $v$ of $t$, the [*hook length*]{} of $v$, denoted by $h_v(t)$ or $h_v$, is the number of descendants of $v$ (including $v$). The [*hook length formula*]{} ([@Knuth1998Vol3 §5.1.4. Ex. 20]) claims that the number of increasing labelled binary trees of shape $t$ is equal to $n!$ divided by the product of the $h_v$’s ($v\in t$) $$\label{eq:hooklength}
\#\mathcal{L}(t)=\frac{n!}{\prod_{v\in t} h_v}.$$
Let $\mathcal{S}(2n+1)$ denote the set of all [*complete binary trees*]{} $s$ with $2n+1$ vertices, which are defined to be the binary trees such that the two subtrees of each vertex are, either both empty, or both non-empty. For example, there are five complete binary trees with $2n+1=7$ vertices, labelled by their hook lengths in Fig. 1.
beginfig(1, “1.5mm”); setLegoUnit(\[3,3\]) \#showgrid(\[0,0\], \[20,14\]) \# show grid r=0.15 rtext=r+0.5 \# distance between text and the point
def ShowPoint(ptL, labelL, dir, fill=True): \[circle(p\[z-1\], r, fill=fill) for z in ptL\] \[label(p\[ptL\[z\]-1\], labelL\[z\], dist=\[rtext, rtext\], dist\_direction=dir) for z in range(len(ptL))\]
dist=\[1,1,1,1\] p=btree(\[6,4,7,2,5,1,3\], \[4,8\], dist=dist, dot=“fill”, dotradius=r) ShowPoint(\[6,7,5,3\], \[1,1,1,1\], 270) ShowPoint(\[4,2,1\], \[3,5,7\],135) label(addpt(p\[0\],\[0,1.6\]), “$s_1$”)
p=btree(\[4,2,6,5,7,1,3\], \[8.2,8\], dist=dist, dot=“fill”, dotradius=r) ShowPoint(\[4,6,7\], \[1,1,1\], 270) ShowPoint(\[2,1\], \[5,7\],135) ShowPoint(\[5,3\], \[3,1\],45) label(addpt(p\[0\],\[0,1.6\]), “$s_2$”)
p=btree(\[2,1,6,4,7,3,5\], \[12.4,8\], dist=dist, dot=“fill”, dotradius=r) ShowPoint(\[5,6,7\], \[1,1,1\], 270) ShowPoint(\[4,2,1\], \[3,1,7\],135) ShowPoint(\[3\], \[5\],45) label(addpt(p\[0\],\[0,1.6\]), “$s_3$”)
p=btree(\[2,1,4,3,6,5,7\], \[16.6,8\], dist=dist, dot=“fill”, dotradius=r) ShowPoint(\[2,4,6,7\], \[1,1,1,1\], 270) ShowPoint(\[5,3,1\], \[3,5,7\],45) label(addpt(p\[0\],\[0,1.6\]), “$s_4$”)
p=btree(\[4,2,5,1,6,3,7\], \[22.8,8\], dist=\[1.2, 0.8\], dot=“fill”, dotradius=r) ShowPoint(\[5,4,6,7\], \[1,1,1,1\], 270) ShowPoint(\[1,2\], \[7,3\],135) ShowPoint(\[3\], \[3\],45) label(addpt(p\[0\],\[0,1.6\]), “$s_5$”)
endfig();
[{width="80.00000%"}]{}
[Fig. 1. Complete binary trees with 7 vertices]{}
We now define an equivalence relation on $\mathcal{S}(2n+1)$, called [*pivoting*]{}. A [*basic pivoting*]{} is an exchange of the two subtrees of a non-leaf vertex $v$. For $s_1, s_2\in \mathcal{S}(2n+1)$, if $s_1$ can be changed to $s_2$ by a finite sequence of basic pivotings, we write $s_1\sim s_2$. It’s routine to check that $\sim$ is an equivalence relation. Let $\mathcal{\bar S}(2n+1) = \mathcal{S}(2n+1)/\!\!\sim$. Since $s_1\sim s_2$ implies that $\#\mathcal{L}(s_1)=\#\mathcal{L}(s_2)$, we define $\#\mathcal{L}(\bar s)=\#\mathcal{L}(s)$ for $s\in \bar s$. Then $$\label{eq:normaltree}
T_{2n+1} = \sum_{\bar s\in\mathcal{\bar S}(2n+1)} T(\bar s),$$ where $$\label{eq:Ts}
T(\bar s)=\sum_{s \in \bar s} \# \mathcal{L}(s) =
\#\bar s \times \#\mathcal{L}(\bar s).$$ For example, consider $\mathcal{S}(7)$ (see Fig. 1), we have $$\begin{array}{cccccc}
\text{shape} & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & s_5 \\
\prod_v h_v & 3\cdot 5\cdot 7 & 3\cdot 5\cdot 7 & 3\cdot 5\cdot 7 & 3\cdot 5\cdot 7 & 3\cdot 3\cdot 7 \\
n!/\prod_v h_v & 48 & 48 & 48 & 48 & 80 \end{array}$$ Trees $s_1, s_2, s_3$ and $s_4$ belong to the same equivalence class $\overline {s_1}$, while $s_5$ is in another equivalence class $\overline {s_5}$. Thus $T(\overline{s_1})=4\times 48=192$, $T(\overline{s_5})=80$ and $T_7=T(\overline{s_1})+T(\overline{s_5})=272$.
The pivoting can also be viewed as an equivalence relation on the set $\cup_{s\in \bar s} \mathcal{L}(s)$, that is, all increasing labelled trees of shape $s$ with $s\in \bar s$. Since the number of non-leaf vertices is $n$ in $s$, there are exactly $2^n$ labelled trees in each equivalence class. Hence, $T(\bar s)$ is divisible by $2^n$. Take again the example above, $T(\overline{s_1})/2^3=24$, $T(\overline{s_5})/2^3=10$, and $T_7/2^3 = 24+10=34$.
This is not enough to derive that $2^{2n}\mid (n+1)T_{2n+1}$. However, the above process leads us to reconsider the question in each equivalence class. We can show that the divisibility actually holds in each $\bar s$, as stated below.
\[th:divisibilitybar\] For each $\bar s\in \mathcal{S}(2n+1)$, the integer $(n+1)T(\bar s)$ is divisible by $2^{2n}$.
Let $G(\bar s):= (n+1)T(\bar s)/2^{2n}$. Proposition \[th:divisibilitybar\] implies that $G(\bar s)$ is an integer. By and , $$\label{eq:Genocchi}
G_{2n+2} = \sum_{\bar s\in\mathcal{\bar S}(2n+1)} G(\bar s).$$ We give an example here and present the proof in the next section.
For $n=4$, there are three equivalence classes.
beginfig(2, “1.6mm”); setLegoUnit(\[3,3\]) \#showgrid(\[0,0\], \[20,14\]) \# show grid r=0.15 rtext=r+0.5 \# distance between text and the point
def ShowPoint(ptL, labelL, dir, fill=True): \[circle(p\[z-1\], r, fill=fill) for z in ptL\] \[label(p\[ptL\[z\]-1\], labelL\[z\], dist=\[rtext, rtext\], dist\_direction=dir) for z in range(len(ptL))\]
dist=\[1,1,1,1\] p=btree(\[8,6,9,4,7,2,5,1,3\], \[4,8\], dist=dist, dot=“fill”, dotradius=r) ShowPoint(\[8,9,7,5,3\], \[1,1,1,1,1\], 270) ShowPoint(\[6,4,2,1\], \[3,5,7,9\],135) label(addpt(p\[0\],\[0,1.6\]), “$s_1\in\overline{s_1}$”)
dist=\[1.6,1.6,1,1\] p=btree(\[6,4,7,2,8,5,9,1,3\], \[11,8\], dist=dist, dot=“fill”, dotradius=r) ShowPoint(\[8,9,7,6,3\], \[1,1,1,1,1\], 270) ShowPoint(\[4,2,1\], \[3,7,9\],135) ShowPoint(\[5\], \[3\],45) label(addpt(p\[0\],\[0,1.6\]), “$s_2\in\overline{s_2}$”)
dist=\[1.6,1,1,1\] p=btree(\[6,4,7,2,5,1, 8,3,9\], \[18,8\], dist=dist, dot=“fill”, dotradius=r) ShowPoint(\[8,9,7,6,5\], \[1,1,1,1,1\], 270) ShowPoint(\[4,2,1\], \[3,5,9\],135) ShowPoint(\[3\], \[3\],45) label(addpt(p\[0\],\[0,1.6\]), “$s_3\in\overline{s_3}$”)
endfig();
[{width="80.00000%"}]{}
[Fig. 2. Three equivalence classes for $n=4$]{}
In this case, Proposition \[th:divisibilitybar\] and relation can be verified by the following table.
$\bar s$ $\#\bar s$ $\prod h_v$ $\#\mathcal{L}(\bar s)$ $T(\bar s)$ $G(\bar s)$
------------------ ------------ -------------------------- ------------------------- ------------- -------------
$\overline{s_1}$ 8 $3\cdot 5\cdot 7\cdot 9$ 384 3072 60
$\overline{s_2}$ 2 $3\cdot 3\cdot 7\cdot 9$ 640 1280 25
$\overline{s_3}$ 4 $3\cdot 3\cdot 5\cdot 9$ 896 3584 70
sum 14 7936 155
Combinatorial proof of Theorem \[th:tan\] {#sec:tan}
=========================================
Let $n$ be a nonnegative integer and $\bar s\in \mathcal{\bar S}(2n+1)$ be an equivalence class in the set of increasing labelled complete binary trees. The key of the proof is the fact that the hook length $h_v$ is always an odd integer. For each complete binary tree $s$, we denote the product of all hook lengths by $H(s)=\prod_{v\in s} h_v$. Also, let $H(\bar s)=H(s)$ for $s\in \bar s$, since all trees in the equivalence class $\bar s$ share the same product of all hook lengths.
\[lem:hooklength\] For each complete binary tree $s$, the product of all hook lengths $H(s)$ is an odd integer.
By Lemma \[lem:hooklength\], Proposition \[th:divisibilitybar\] has the following equivalent form.
\[th:divisibilitybarh\] For each $\bar s\in \mathcal{\bar S}(2n+1)$, the integer $(2n+2)H(\bar s)T(\bar s)$ is divisible by $2^{2n}$.
By identities and we have $$\begin{aligned}
(2n+2)H(\bar s)T(\bar s)&=(2n+2)H(\bar s)\times \#\bar s \times \#\mathcal{L}(\bar s) \nonumber\\
&=(2n+2)\times \#\bar s\times (2n+1)! \nonumber \\
&=(2n+2)!\times \#\bar s.\label{eq:combinatorialinterpretation}\end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $s$ is a complete binary tree with $2n+1$ vertices, then $s$ has $n+1$ leaves. Let $s^+$ be the complete binary tree with $4n+3$ vertices obtained from $s$ by replacing each leaf of $s$ by the complete binary tree with 3 vertices. So $s^+$ has $2n+2$ leaves. Let $\mathcal{L}^+(s^+)$ be the set of all leaf-labelled trees of shape $s^+$, obtained from $s^+$ by labeling its $2n+2$ leaves with $\{1,2,\ldots, 2n+2\}$. It is clear that $\#\mathcal{L}^+(s^+)=(2n+2)!$. By (\[eq:combinatorialinterpretation\]) we have the following combinatorial interpretation:
This time we take the pivoting for an equivalence equation on the set of leaf-labelled trees $\cup_{s\in \bar s}\mathcal{L}^+(s^+)$. Since a leaf-labelled tree $s^+$ has $2n+1$ non-leaf vertices, and each non-trivial sequence of pivotings will make a difference on the labels of leaves, every equivalence class contains $2^{2n+1}$ elements. Hence, we can conclude that $(2n+2)H(\bar s)T(\bar s)$ is divisible by $2^{2n+1}$.
For example, in Fig. 3, we reproduce a labelled tree with $9$ vertices and a leaf-labelled tree with $19$ vertices. There are $4$ non-leaf vertices in the labelled tree and the $9$ non-leaf vertices in the leaf-labelled tree, as indicated by the fat dot symbol “$\bullet$”. Comparing with the traditional combinatorial model, our method increases the number of non-leaf vertices. Consequently, we establish a stronger divisibility property.
beginfig(3, “1.6mm”); setLegoUnit(\[3,3\]) \#showgrid(\[0,0\], \[20,14\]) \# show grid dist=\[1.6, 1.6, 1\] r=0.15 rtext=r+0.5 \# distance between text and the point
def ShowPoint(ptL, labelL, dir, fill=True): \[circle(p\[z-1\], r, fill=fill) for z in ptL\] \[label(p\[ptL\[z\]-1\], labelL\[z\], dist=\[rtext, rtext\], dist\_direction=dir) for z in range(len(ptL))\]
p=btree(\[6,4,7,2,8,5,9,1,3\],pt=\[7,0\], dist=dist, dot=“frame”, dotradius=r, labeled=False) ShowPoint(\[1,2,4\], \[1,2,4\], 135, fill=True) ShowPoint(\[6,7,8,9,3\], \[8,5,7,9,3\], 270, fill=False) ShowPoint(\[5\], \[6\], 60, fill=True) label(addpt(p\[0\],\[0,2.2\]), “Labeled tree”) label(addpt(p\[0\],\[0,1.4\]), “$n=4$ non-leaf vertices”)
\# third tree is composed by 2 trees, because dist is not equal: (9–4) small dist=\[2.2, 2, 1, 0.5\] pa=\[19,0\] p=btree(\[10,6,11,4,12,7,13,2,14,8,15,5,16,9,17,1,3\],pt=pa, dist=dist, dot=“frame”, dotradius=r) \[circle(p\[z-1\], r, fill=True) for z in \[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9\]\] ShowPoint(\[10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17\], \[5,8,2,6,1,7,10,3\], 270, fill=False)
p=btree(\[2,1,3\], pt=p\[2\], dist=\[dist\[3\]\], dot=“frame”, dotradius=r) ShowPoint(\[2,3\], \[9,4\], 270, fill=False) label(addpt(pa,\[-0.8,2.2\]), “Leaf-labelled tree”) label(addpt(pa,\[-0.8,1.4\]), “$2n+1=9$ non-leaf vertices”)
endfig();
[{width="80.00000%"}]{}
[Fig. 3. Trees, non-leaf vertices and divisibilities]{}
For proving Theorem \[th:tan\], it remains to show that $G_{2n+2}=\sum G(\bar s)$ is an odd number. Since $H(\bar s)$ is odd, we need only to prove that the [*weighted Genocchi number*]{} $$\label{def:fn}
f(n)=\sum_{\bar s\in \mathcal{\bar S}(2n+1)} H(\bar s)G(\bar s)$$ is odd. For example, in Fig. 2., $G_{10}=G(\overline{s_1})+G(\overline{s_2})+G(\overline{s_3})=60+25+70=155$, and $$\begin{aligned}
f(4)&= H(\overline{s_1})G(\overline{s_1})+H(\overline{s_2})G(\overline{s_2})+H(\overline{s_3})G(\overline{s_3}) \cr
&=3\cdot5\cdot7\cdot9\cdot60
+3\cdot3\cdot7\cdot9\cdot25+3\cdot3\cdot5\cdot9\cdot70\cr
&=(3\cdot5\cdot7)^2\cdot 9.\end{aligned}$$ The weighted Genocchi number $f(n)$ is more convenient for us to study, since it has an explicit simple expression.
\[th:fn\] Let $f(n)$ be the weighted Genocchi number defined in . Then, $$f(n)=(1\cdot 3 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 \cdots (2n-1))^2 \cdot (2n+1)=(2n-1)!!\cdot (2n+1)!!.$$
We successively have $$\begin{aligned}
f(n)&= \displaystyle\sum_{\bar s} H(\bar s)G(\bar s) \\
&= \displaystyle\sum_{\bar s} \displaystyle\frac{H(\bar s) (n+1) T(\bar s)}{2^{2n}} \\
&= \displaystyle\sum_{\bar s} \displaystyle\frac{(2n+2)! \times \#\bar s}{2^{2n+1}} \\
&= \displaystyle\frac{(2n+2)!}{2^{2n+1}} \sum_{\bar s} \#\bar s \\
&= \displaystyle\frac{(2n+2)!}{2^{2n+1}}\cdot \#\mathcal{S}(2n+1).\end{aligned}$$
While $\#\mathcal{S}(2n+1)$ equals to the Catalan number $C_n$, we can calculate that $$\begin{aligned}
f(n)&= \frac{(2n+2)!}{2^{2n+1}}\cdot C_n \\
&= \frac{(2n+2)!}{2^{2n+1}}\cdot \frac{1}{n+1}
\binom{2n}{n} \\
&= (2n-1)!!\cdot (2n+1)!!.\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
From Theorem \[th:fn\], the weighted Genocchi number $f(n)$ is an odd number. Therefore, the normal Genocchi number $G_{2n+2}$ is also odd. This achieves the proof of Theorem \[th:tan\].
Generalizations to $k$-ary trees {#sec:kary}
================================
In this section we assume that $k\geq 2$ is an integer.
Recall the [*hook length formula*]{} for binary trees described in Section 2. For general rooted trees $t$ (see [@Knuth1998Vol3 §5.1.4, Ex. 20]), we also have
$$\#\mathcal{L}(t)=\frac{n!}{\prod_{v\in t} h_v},$$
where $\mathcal{L}(t)$ denote the set of all [*increasing labelled trees*]{} of shape $t$.
Let $L_{kn+1}$ be the number of increasing labelled complete $k$-ary trees with $kn+1$ vertices. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
L_{kn+1}=\sum_{n_1+\cdots+n_k=n-1}\binom{kn}{kn_1+1, \cdots, kn_k+1}L_{kn_1+1}\cdots L_{kn_k+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Equivalently, the exponential generating function $\phi(x)$ for $L_{kn+1}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(x)=\sum_{n\ge 0}L_{kn+1}\frac{x^{kn+1}}{(kn+1)!}\end{aligned}$$ is the solution of the differential equation $$\label{eq:phi}
\phi'(x)=1+\phi^k(x)$$ such that $\phi(0)=0$.
Let $\psi(x)$ be the exponential generating function for $M_{k^2 n-kn+k}$ which is defined in Theorem \[th:kary\], $$\psi(x):=
\sum_{n\ge 0}M_{k^2 n-kn+k}\frac{x^{k^2n-kn+k}}{(k^2n-kn+k)!}.$$ Then $$\label{eq:psi}
{\psi(x)}=x \cdot \phi\left(\displaystyle \frac{x^{k-1}}{k!}\right).$$
From identities and , Theorem \[th:kary\] can be restated in the form of power series and differential equations:
Let $\psi(x)$ be a power series satisfying the following differential equation $$x\psi'(x)-\psi(x)=\frac{k-1}{k!}\Bigl(x^k+\psi^k(x)\Bigr),$$ with $\psi(0)=0$. Then, for each $n\geq 1$, the coefficient of $\displaystyle\frac{x^{k^2n-kn+k}}{(k^2n-kn+k)!}$ in $\psi(x)$ is an integer. Moreover, it is congruent to
$(i)$ $1 \pmod k$, if $k=p$;
$(ii)$ $1 \pmod {p^2}$, if $k=p^t$ with $t\geq 2$;
$(iii)$ $0 \pmod k$, otherwise.
When $k=2$, $L_{2n+1}$ is just the tangent number $T_{2n+1}$ and $M_{2n+2}$ is the Genocchi number $G_{2n+2}$. For $k=3$ and $4$, the initial values of $L_{kn+1}$ and $M_{k^2 n-kn+k}$ are reproduced below:
$$\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
$n$ & $L_{3n+1}$ & $M_{6n+3}$ \\
\hline
0 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 6 & 70 \\
2 & 540 & 500500 \\
3 & 184680 & 43001959000\\
4 & 157600080 & 21100495466050000 \\
5 & 270419925600 & 39781831724228093500000
\end{tabular}$$
Table for $k=3$
$$\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
$n$ & $L_{4n+1}$ & $M_{12n+4}$ \\
\hline
0 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 24 & 525525 \\
2 & 32256 & 10258577044340625 \\
3 & 285272064 & 42645955937142729593062265625 \\
4 & 8967114326016 & 6992644904557760596067178252404694486328125 \\
\end{tabular}$$
Table for $k=4$
Now we define an equivalence relation ([*$k$-pivoting*]{}) on the set of all (unlabelled) complete $k$-ary trees $\mathcal{R}(kn+1)$. A [*basic $k$-pivoting*]{} is a rearrangement of the $k$ subtrees of a non-leaf vertex $v$. Let $r_1$, $r_2$ be two complete $k$-ary trees, if $r_1$ can be changed to $r_2$ by a finite sequence of basic $k$-pivotings, we write $r_1\sim r_2$. Hence the set of all complete $k$-ary trees can be partitioned into several equivalence classes. Let $\mathcal{\bar R}(kn+1) = \mathcal{R}(kn+1)/\!\!\sim$, define $\#\mathcal{L}(\bar r) = \#{\mathcal{L}}(r)$ for $r \in\bar r$, then we have $$\label{eq:knormaltree}
\sum_{\bar r\in\mathcal{\bar R}(kn+1)} L(\bar r)= L_{kn+1},$$ where $$L(\bar r)=\sum_{r\in \bar r} \# \mathcal{L}(r) = \#\bar r\times \#\mathcal{L}(\bar r).$$
Similar to the case of the tangent numbers, this equivalence relation implies that $L(\bar r)$ is divisible by $(k!)^n$. There is still a stronger divisibility, stated as below:
\[lem:kdivisibility\] For each $\bar r\in \mathcal{\bar R}(kn+1)$, the number $(k^2 n-kn+k)!L(\bar r)/(kn+1)!$ is divisible by $(k!)^{kn+1}$.
First, we show that the coefficient $(k^2 n-kn+k)!/(kn+1)!$ is divisible by $(k-1)!^{kn+1}$. In fact, $$\label{eq:divk-1}
\displaystyle\frac{(k^2 n-kn+k)!}{(kn+1)!\cdot (k-1)!^{kn+1}}
= (k^2n-kn+k)\cdot \displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{kn+1}\binom{i(k-1)-1}{k-2}.$$ It remains to prove $$\label{eq:kdivisibility}
k^{kn+1}\mid \frac{(k^2 n-kn+k)!\ L(\bar r)}{(kn+1)!\cdot (k-1)!^{kn+1}}.$$
For each vertex $v$ in a complete $k$-ary tree $r$, we observe that the hook length $h_v$ satisfies $h_v\equiv 1\pmod k$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
H(\bar r)=\prod_{v\in r}h_v\equiv 1\pmod k.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, relation (\[eq:kdivisibility\]) is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
k^{kn+1}\mid \frac {(k^2 n-kn+k)!\ L(\bar r)H(\bar r)}{(kn+1)!\cdot (k-1)!^{kn+1}},\end{aligned}$$ which can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:divk!}
(k!)^{kn+1}\mid (k^2 n-kn+k)! \times \frac{L(\bar r)H(\bar r)} {(kn+1)!}.\end{aligned}$$
We will prove this divisibility using the following combinatorial model. Let $r$ be a complete $k$-ary tree with $kn+1$ vertices. It is easy to show that $r$ has $(k-1)n+1$ leaves. Replacing all leaves of $r$ by the complete $k$-ary tree with $k+1$ vertices, we get a new tree with $k^2 n-kn+k$ leaves, denoted by $r^+$. Let $\mathcal{L}^+(r^+)$ be the set of all leaf-labelled tree of shape $r^+$, obtained from $r^+$ by labeling all the leaves with ${1,2,\ldots, k^2 n-kn+k}$. It is clear that $\#\mathcal{L}^+(r^+)=(k^2 n-kn+k)!$. On the other hand, by the hook length formula we have $$\displaystyle\frac{L(\bar r)H(\bar r)}{(kn+1)!}
= \displaystyle\frac{H(\bar r)\times\#\bar r\times \#\mathcal{L}(r)}{(kn+1)!}
= \#\bar r.$$ Thus, the right-hand side of is equal to $(k^2 n-kn+k)! \times \#\bar r $, that is, the number of all leaf-labelled trees of shape $r^+$ such that $r\in\bar r$.
Translate the $k$-pivoting to the set of all leaf-labelled trees of shape $r^+$ such that $r\in\bar r$. It is easy to check that the $k$-pivoting is still an equivalence relation. Since a leaf-labelled tree has $kn+1$ non-leaf vertices, there are $(k!)^{kn+1}$ leaf-labelled trees in each equivalence class, which implies that the right-hand side of is divisible by $(k!)^{kn+1}$.
The following two lemmas will be used for proving Theorem \[th:kary\].
\[th:Legendre\] Suppose that $p$ is prime number. For each positive integer $k$, let $\alpha(k)$ be the highest power of $p$ dividing $k!$ and $\beta(k)$ be the sum of all digits of $k$ in base $p$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Legendre}
\alpha(k)=\sum_{i\ge 1}\left\lfloor\frac{k}{p^i}\right\rfloor
=\frac {k-\beta(k)}{p-1}.\end{aligned}$$
For the proof of Lemma \[th:Legendre\], see [@Dickson1919 p. 263].
\[th:p2\] Let $p\ge 3$ be a prime number, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p2}
(pk+1)(pk+2)\cdots(pk+p-1)\equiv (p-1)! \pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$
The left-hand side of is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
(pk)^{p-1}e_0+\cdots+(pk)^2e_{p-3}+(pk)e_{p-2}+e_{p-1}\equiv (pk)e_{p-2}+(p-1)!\pmod{p^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $e_j:=e_j(1, 2, \cdots, p-1)$ are the elementary symmetric functions. See [@Macdonald1995]. Since $$\begin{aligned}
e_{p-2}=(p-1)!\displaystyle\sum_{i}i^{-1}\equiv (p-1)!\sum_{i}i\equiv(p-1)!\frac{p(p-1)}2\equiv 0\pmod p,\end{aligned}$$ equality is true.
We are ready to prove Theorem \[th:kary\].
The first part (a) is an immediate consequence of Lemma \[lem:kdivisibility\] and (\[eq:knormaltree\]). Let $n\ge 1$, we construct the following weighted function $$f(n)=\sum_{\bar r\in\mathcal{\bar R}(kn+1)}H(\bar r)M(\bar r),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
M(\bar r)=\displaystyle\frac{(k^2 n-kn+k)!\, L(\bar r)}{(k!)^{kn+1}\, (kn+1)!}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $H(\bar r)\equiv 1\pmod k$, we have $$\label{eq:modfn}
f(n)\equiv \sum_{\bar r\in\mathcal{\bar R}(kn+1)}M(\bar r) = M_{k^2 n-kn+k}
\pmod k.$$ Thus, we only need to calculate $f(n)$. $$\begin{aligned}
f(n)&= \displaystyle\sum_{\bar r} H(\bar r)M(\bar r) \\
&= \displaystyle\sum_{\bar r} \displaystyle\frac{H(\bar r) \times (k^2 n-kn+k)!\, L(\bar r)}{(k!)^{kn+1}\, (kn+1)!} \\
&= \displaystyle\sum_{\bar r} \displaystyle\frac{(k^2 n-kn+k)! \times \#\bar r}{(k!)^{kn+1}} \\
&= \displaystyle\frac{(k^2 n-kn+k)!}{(k!)^{kn+1}} C_k(n),\end{aligned}$$ where $C_k(n)$ is the number of all (unlabelled) complete $k$-ary trees, that is equal to the Fuss-Catalan number [@Aval2008] $$\begin{aligned}
C_k(n)=\displaystyle\frac{(kn)!}{n!(kn-n+1)!}.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
f(n)
&= \displaystyle\frac{(k^2 n-kn+k)!}{(k!)^{kn-n+1}(kn-n+1)!}\cdot\frac{(kn)!}{(k!)^nn!} \label{eq:fn1} \\
&= \displaystyle\prod_{i=0}^{kn-n}\binom{ik+k-1}{k-1}\times \displaystyle \prod_{j=0}^{n-1}\binom{jk+k-1}{k-1}.\label{eq:fn2}\end{aligned}$$
For proving the second part (b), there are three cases to be considered depending on the value of $k$.
(b1) $k=p$ is a prime integer. We have $$\binom{ip+p-1}{p-1}
=\frac{(ip+1)(ip+2)\cdots(ip+p-1)}{1\times 2\times \cdots \times (p-1)} \equiv 1\pmod{p}.$$ Thus $f(n)\equiv 1 \pmod p$ by identity .
(b2) $k=p^t \ (t\ge 2)$ where $p$ is a prime integer. If $p\ge 3$, by Lemma \[th:p2\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\binom{ip^t+p^t-1}{p^t-1} &=\prod_{s=0}^{p^{t-1}-1}\frac{(ip^t+sp+1)\cdots(ip^t+sp+p-1)}{(sp+1)\cdots(sp+p-1)}\cdot \prod_{s=1}^{p^{t-1}-1}\frac{ip^t+sp}{sp} \\
& \equiv \left[\frac{(p-1)!}{(p-1)!}\right]^{p^{t-1}}\cdot \binom{ip^{t-1}+p^{t-1}-1}{p^{t-1}-1} \pmod{p^2} \\
& \equiv \binom{ip^{t-1}+p^{t-1}-1}{p^{t-1}-1} \pmod{p^2}\\
& \equiv \cdots\\
& \equiv \binom{ip+p-1}{p-1} \pmod{p^2}\\
& = \frac{(ip+1)(ip+2)\cdots(ip+p-1)}{1\times 2\times \cdots \times (p-1)} \\
& \equiv 1\pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$
Thus $f(n)\equiv 1\pmod {p^2}$ for $k=p^t$ with $p\geq 3$ and $t\geq 2$.
Now suppose $p=2$ and $k=2^t$ ($t\geq 2$). We have $$\begin{aligned}
\binom{i2^t+2^t-1}{2^t-1} &=\prod_{s=0}^{2^{t-1}-1}\frac{i\cdot 2^t+2s+1}{2s+1}\cdot \prod_{s=1}^{2^{t-1}-1}\frac{i\cdot 2^t+2s}{2s} \\
& = \prod_{s=0}^{2^{t-2}-1}\frac{(i\cdot 2^t+4s+1)(i\cdot 2^t +4s+3)}{(4s+1)(4s+3)}\cdot \prod_{s=1}^{2^{t-1}-1}\frac{i\cdot 2^{t-1}+s}{s} \\
& \equiv \left(\frac{-1}{-1}\right)^{2^{t-2}}\cdot \binom{i\cdot 2^{t-1}+2^{t-1}-1}{2^{t-1}-1} \pmod{4}\\
& \equiv\binom{i\cdot 2^{t-1}+2^{t-1}-1}{2^{t-1}-1}\pmod{4}\\
& \equiv \cdots \\
& \equiv\binom{i\cdot 2+2-1}{2-1}\pmod{4}\\
& = 2i+1.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by identity , we can check that $$\begin{aligned}
f(n)\equiv \prod_{i=0}^{(2^t-1)n}(2i+1)\times \prod_{j=0}^{n-1}(2j+1) \equiv 1 \pmod 4.\end{aligned}$$
(b3) Suppose that $k$ has more than one prime factors. We want to prove $f(n)\equiv 0\pmod k$. Let $p$ be a prime factor of $k$, and write $k=b p^m$ with $b\geq 2$ and $p\nmid b$. Notice that $f(n)\mid f(n+1)$ by identity . Thus, it suffices to show that $$\label{eq:f1}
f(1)= \frac{(k^2)!}{(k!)^{k+1}} \equiv 0\pmod {p^m},$$ which is equivalent to $$\label{eq:f1'}
\alpha(b^2 p^{2m}) - (bp^m+1)\, \alpha(b p^m) \geq m.$$ By Legendre’s formula , the left-hand side of is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta
&= \frac 1{p-1} \Bigl( b^2 p^{2m} - \beta(b^2) -(b p^m+1) (bp^m -\beta(b)) \Bigr) \\
&= \frac 1{p-1} \Bigl( \beta(b) - \beta(b^2) +b p^m \beta(b) -b p^m \Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\beta(b^2) \leq b \beta(b)$ and $\beta(b)\geq 2,\, b\geq 2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta
&\geq \frac 1{p-1} \Bigl( (bp^m -b +1)\beta(b) -b p^m \Bigr)\nonumber\\
&\geq \frac 1{p-1} \Bigl( b(p^m -2) +2 \Bigr)\nonumber\\
&\geq \frac 1{p-1} \Bigl( 2p^m -2 \Bigr)\nonumber\\
&\geq m.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}. The first author would like to thank Zhi-Ying Wen for inviting me to Tsinghua University where the paper was finalized.
[10]{}
D. André. Développement de $\sec x$ and $\tan x$. , 88:965–979, 1879.
Jean-Christophe Aval. Multivariate [F]{}uss-[C]{}atalan numbers. , 308(20):4660–4669, 2008.
D. Barsky. Congruences pour les nombres de [G]{}enocchi de deuxième espèce. , 34:1–13, 1980-81.
L. Carlitz. The [S]{}taudt-[C]{}lausen theorem. , 34:131–146, 1960/1961.
L. Carlitz. A conjecture concerning [G]{}enocchi numbers. , (9):4, 1971.
Leonard Eugene Dickson. . Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1966.
Michael Domaratzki. Combinatorial interpretations of a generalization of the [G]{}enocchi numbers. , 7(3):Article 04.3.6, 11, 2004.
Dominique Dumont and Arthur Randrianarivony. Dérangements et nombres de [G]{}enocchi. , 132(1-3):37–49, 1994.
Leonhard Euler. , volume 10 of [*Opera Mathematica 1, 1913*]{}. 1755.
Dominique Foata and Guo-Niu Han. . (on line), 2008. (Cours et exercices corrigés). Niveau master de mathématiques.
Guo-Niu Han and Jiang Zeng. -polynômes de [G]{}andhi et statistique de [D]{}enert. , 205(1-3):119–143, 1999.
Donald E. Knuth. . Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1998. Sorting and searching, Second edition.
Donald E. Knuth and Thomas J. Buckholtz. Computation of tangent, [E]{}uler, and [B]{}ernoulli numbers. , 21:663–688, 1967.
I. G. Macdonald. . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, second edition, 1995. With contributions by A. Zelevinsky, Oxford Science Publications.
Niels Nielsen. . Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1923.
John Riordan and Paul R. Stein. Proof of a conjecture on [G]{}enocchi numbers. , 5:381–388, 1973.
Gérard Viennot. Interprétations combinatoires des nombres d’[E]{}uler et de [G]{}enocchi. In [*Seminar on [N]{}umber [T]{}heory, 1981/1982*]{}, pages 94, Exp. No. 11. Univ. Bordeaux I, Talence, 1982.
Jiang Zeng and Jin Zhou. A [$q$]{}-analog of the [S]{}eidel generation of [G]{}enocchi numbers. , 27(3):364–381, 2006.
[^1]: Some mathematical literature uses a slightly different notation where $\tan x$ is written $T_1 x + T_2 x^3/3! + T_3 x^5/5! + \cdots$ (See [@KnuthBuckholtz1967])
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The present paper suggests a new approach for geometric representation of 3D spatial models and provides a new compression algorithm for 3D meshes, which is based on mathematical theory of convex geometry. In our approach we represent a 3D convex polyhedron by means of planes, containing only its faces. This allows not to consider topological aspects of the problem (connectivity information among vertices and edges) since by means of the planes we construct the polyhedron uniquely. Due to the fact that the topological data is ignored this representation provides high degree of compression. Also planes based representation provides a compression of geometrical data because most of the faces of the polyhedron are not triangles but polygons with more than three vertices.'
title: Coding and Compression of Three Dimensional Meshes by Planes
---
[Rafik Aramyan \*, Gagik Mkrtchyan \*\*, Arman Karapetyan \*\*\*]{}
1. [ *Institute of mathematics of NAS of Armenia;\
[e-mail: rafikaramyan@yahoo.com]{}*]{}
2. [*ixibit;\
[e-mail: mkrtchyan\_gagik@yahoo.com ]{}*]{}
3. [*ixibit;\
[e-mail: arman.karapetyan@ixibit.com]{}*]{}
Introduction
============
In recent years more and more three dimensional (shortly 3D) spatial models become increasingly popular and available for advertising, World Wide Web, 3D laser scanning systems and etc. Highly detailed models are also commonly adopted in design of computer graphics. Mostly 3D graphical models are represented as complex polyhedral meshes, composed of topological and geometrical data. Topological data provides connectivity information among vertices (e.g., adjacency of vertices and edges), while geometrical attributes describe the position for each individual vertex. In terms of implementation, most of 3D graphical file formats consist of list of polygons, each of which is specified by its vertices indexes and their attributes. Generally speaking, real world 3D models are expensive to render, awkward to edit, and costly to transmit through networks since they contain tremendous number of vertices and polygons. For reduction of storage requirements and transmission bandwidth, it is desirable to compress these models with lossless and/or loss compression methods, which keep distortion within a tolerable level. This demands that meshes would be approximated with different resolutions and would be reduced by the coarse approximation through sequences of graphic simplifications. Simplification and compression of 3D meshes data have been studied by many researchers. Most of the early works were focused on the simplification of graphical models.
Schroeder [@S] proposed a decimation algorithm that significantly reduced the number of polygons required to represent an object. Turk [@Tu] presented an automatic method of creating surface models at several levels of detail from an original polyhedral description of a given object. Hoppe [@Ho] address the mesh optimization problem of approximating a given point set by using smaller number of vertices under certain topological constraints. Deering [@De] discuses the concept of generalized triangle mesh which compresses a triangle mesh structure. Taubin [@Ta] presented a topological surgery algorithm which utilized two interleaving vertex and triangle trees to compress a model. Hoppe [@H] proposed a progressive mesh compression algorithm that is applicable to arbitrary meshes.
The present paper suggests a new approach for geometric representation of 3D spatial models and provides a new compression algorithm for 3D meshes. In contrast to conventional representations here we suggest plane surface based representation for 3D meshes, which is based on mathematical theory of convex geometry. In our approach we represent a 3D convex polyhedron by means of planes, containing only its faces. This allows not to consider topological aspects of the problem (connectivity information among vertices and edges) since by means of the planes we construct the polyhedron uniquely. Due to the fact that the topological data is ignored this representation provides high degree of compression. Also planes based representation provides a compression of geometrical data because most of the faces of the polyhedron are not triangles but polygons with more than three vertices. For non convex 3D meshes we initially divide them into the groups of convex polyhedrons, and then each convex polyhedron is separately represented by its set of planes. Here we suggest an algorithms for division of non-convex 3D meshes, which divides into the convex parts by separation of convex and concave surface elements.
The features and advantages of our result will be more fully understood and appreciated upon consideration of its detailed description. First we need to describe a plane in 3D space.
Representation of a plane
=========================
We consider only oriented planes since 3D models can be represented by single sided surface. By definition, an oriented plane is a plane with specified normal direction. An oriented plane will be denoted by $e$. Each oriented plane divides space into two hemispaces: $e_-$ and $e_+$. By $e_+$ we denote the hemispace on direction of the $e$ plane’s normal, and by $e_-$ we denote the hemispace on its inverse direction (see Fig. 1). We consider the hemispace $e_-$ with its boundary, so it is closed. An oriented plane $e$ can be represented by means of the following pair $(\omega, h)$. Where $\omega$ is the spatial direction of its normal, which means that $\omega\in \mathbf
S^{2}$, where $\mathbf S^2$ is the unit sphere in the three dimensional Euclidian space $\mathbb{R}^3$. And $h$ is the distance of $e$ from the origin O including its sign, which means that $h\in(-\infty,+\infty)$, and $h \geq 0$ if the origin O belongs to $e_-$ and $h < 0$ if the origin O belongs to $e_+$ (see Fig. 2).
Representation of a spatial direction. Let $\omega\in \mathbf
S^{2}$ be a spatial direction, then by using spherical coordinates it can be represented as $\omega=(\nu,\varphi)$, where $\nu$ is the angle between z-axis and $\omega$, and $\varphi$ is the angle between x-axis and the projection of the $\omega$ onto the $ xy$ plane. Note that the variable $\nu$ changes in the interval $[0, \pi]$, while $\varphi$ changes in the interval $[0, 2\pi]$. Since spatial direction is represented by two numbers, and a plane is a pair of a spatial direction and distance $h$. Thus any plane can be represented by three numbers.
Representation of a convex polyhedron
=====================================
Let $\mathbf{P}$ be a convex polyhedron, its faces can be numbered by $i=1,2,...,n$. Let $e_i$ be an oriented plane containing $i$ -th face of the polyhedron ($i = 1, 2,..., n$), which has outside directed normal and $\omega_i \in\mathbf
S^{2}$ be the normal of $e_i$ ($\mathbf
S^{2}$ is the unit sphere in 3D space) and $h_i$ be the distance (including sign) of the plane containing $i$ -th face of the polyhedron from the origin O, ($h_i\in (-\infty,+\infty)$).
For a convex polyhedron $\mathbf{P}$ we will have a collection of oriented planes $\{e_i\}$, $i=1,2,...,n$ or the collection of pairs $\{\omega_i,h_i\}$, $i=1,2,...,n$. This procedure allows representation of any convex polyhedron by a collection of planes (see Fig. 3).
As a result any convex polyhedron can be represented by a collection of triplets, since any plane can be represent by means of three numbers $$\label{1}
\mathbf{P}\longrightarrow \{e_i\} \Longleftrightarrow \{\omega_i,h_i\} \Longleftrightarrow \{\nu_i,\varphi_i,h_i\}.$$
The following theorem proves the uniqueness of this representation.
Let $\mathbf{P}$ be a convex polyhedron and $\{e_i\}$ be the collection of its oriented planes. We have $$\label{1.1}
\mathbf{P}= \cap_{i=1}^n \{e_i\}_- .$$ Hence P is uniquely determined by its collection of oriented planes.
Let $\mathbf{P}$ be a convex polyhedron and $e_i$ be the oriented plane containing $i$ -th face of the polyhedron ($i = 1, 2,..., n$), which has outside directed normal. It follows from the convexity that the polyhedron P belongs to hemi space $\{e_i\}_-$ for each $i=1,2,…,n$. Hence the polyhedron P belongs to the intersection of that hemi spaces $\mathbf{P}\subset \cap_{i=1}^n \{e_i\}_-$. Now we have to conform, that $\mathbf{P}=\cap_{i=1}^n \{e_i\}_-$. Indeed, If a point $x$ does not belong to $\mathbf{P}$, then exists a number $i$ for which $x$ does not belong to hemi space $\{e_i\}_-$, hence it also does not belong to intersection $ \cap_{i=1}^n \{e_i\}_-$. The proof is complete.
It follows from the above theorem that any convex polyhedron can be uniquely represented by means of oriented planes containing its faces, i.e. by means of the system $ \{\omega_i,h_i\}$. Note that in cases of rotation and/or translation of a polyhedron its new representation can be recalculated very easily. Let a polyhedron $\mathbf{P}$, with corresponding system $ \{\omega_i,h_i\}$, is translated by a vector $\overrightarrow{a}$. We denote by $ \{\omega_i^a,h_i^a\}$ the new system of representation a $\overrightarrow{a}\mathbf{P}$.
Let $\mathbf{P}$ be a convex polyhedron and $ \{\omega_i,h_i\}$ be the collection of its oriented planes. Let $\overrightarrow{a}\mathbf{P}$ be the translation of $\mathbf{P}$ by a vector $\overrightarrow{a}$. We have $$\label{1.1}
\{\omega_i^a,h_i^a\}= \{\omega_i,h_i+\langle \omega_i, \overrightarrow{a} \rangle\},$$ where $\langle \omega_i, \overrightarrow{a} \rangle$ is the scalar product of the vectors $\omega_i$ and $\overrightarrow{a}$.
It is easy to understand that after translation, the normal direction of $i$-th face does not change, and $h_i^a$ can be given by the following simple relations: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3}
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\omega_i^t= \omega_i\\
h_i^t = h_i+ \langle \omega_i, \overrightarrow{a} \rangle,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\end{gathered}$$
Let a polyhedron $\mathbf{P}$, with corresponding system $ \{\omega_i,h_i\}$, is rotated with respect to the origin O. We denote by $ \{\omega_i^r,h_i^r\}$ the system of representation of $rot\mathbf{P}$ .
Let $\mathbf{P}$ be a convex polyhedron and $ \{\omega_i,h_i\}$ be the collection of its oriented planes. Let $rot\mathbf{P}$ be the rotation of $\mathbf{P}$ with respect to the origin O.. We have $$\label{1.2}
\{\omega_i^r,h_i^r\}= \{rot\omega_i,h_i\},$$ where $rot\,\omega_i$ is the rotation of the direction $\omega_i$ by the same rotation.
It is easy to understand that after rotation, the distance of the plane containing $i$-th face does not changes, and $rot\omega_i$ can be given by the following simple relations: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3}
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\omega_i^r= rot\,\omega_i\\
h_i^r = h_i\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,.\end{gathered}$$
An example plane based representation of 3D polyhedron
=======================================================
Plane based representation for cube. Let $\mathbf{P}$ be a cube, which six faces are numerated as shown in Fig. 4. We denote by $\omega_i$ the normal of $i$-th face, and the corresponding system of planes will be $\{ (\omega_1,1), (\omega_2,1), (\omega_3,0), (\omega_4,0), (\omega_5,1), (\omega_6,0)\}$. Now by using spherical coordinates the cube can be represented by the following system: $$(90, 0,1), (90,90,1), (90,180,0), (90,270,0), (0,0,1), (180,0,0).$$ By using this representation the cube can be coded by means of $6\cdot3 = 18$ number, which will require only $18\cdot4 = 72$ bytes for its storage. For comparison with conventional coding, we represent the cube as an indexed triangular mesh. At first step we should numerate (create indexes) the vertices of the cube. We do it as shown in the Fig. 5 (note that each vertex is coded by three numbers, which are its x, y, z coordinates), and for storing it would be required $8\cdot 3\cdot 4 = 96$ bytes. Additionally should be stored the code for connectivity information among vertices as follows: $$(1,4,2), (2,4,3), (1,2,5), (2,6,5), (2,7,6), (2,3,7),$$ $$(3,8,7), (3,4,8), (1,4,8), (1,8,5), (5,6,8), (6,7,8),$$ which requires $12\cdot3\cdot·4 = 144 $ bytes. Thus by means of triangular mesh is needed
$96 + 144 = 240$ bites, which is three times more than the plane based storage requirement.
Lossless versus loss compressions
=================================
Lossless compression Pure plane based representation of 3D meshes provides lossless compression, since we can exactly restore the initial mesh. As lossless compression its compression ratio depends from polyhedron’s shape, and for some polyhedrons it can provide big value of compression.
In general case the required storage can be calculated for both types of coding as following: Let P be a convex polyhedron for which the number of faces are $F$ and vertices are $V$. For coding the polyhedron $\mathbf{P}$ by means of plane based approach will be required $4\cdot3\cdot F = 12F$ bytes. For coding the polyhedron $\mathbf{P}$ by triangular mesh will be required $4\cdot 3 \cdot V + 4\cdot3\cdot T = (12V + 12T)$ bytes, where $T$ is number of triangles on the faces. At worst case, when there is only one triangle on each face we would require to store $(12V + 12
F)$ bytes.
Loss compression The plane base coding approach additionally allows lossy compression of 3D meshes. The plane based coding is not very sensitive to the removal of some planes from the system of polyhedrons representation, while in contrast to that triangular meshes are quite sensitive to the vertices removal. If a single plane is removed from the plane base representation of a polyhedron it does not change other planes since there is no need of separate topological information. We suggest the following two algorithms for lossy compression: A plane can be removed from the system of representation of a polyhedron if its corresponding face has much smaller surface than other faces. Thus for a given triangle if its area is smaller than certain value $\delta >0$ we can remove its corresponding plane from the representation. For two neighbor triangles we can replace their corresponding planes by a single plane if the angle between those planes is quite small (are nearly parallel). Thus for two given neighbor triangles if the angle between their normals is smaller than certain number $\tau >0$, their corresponding planes can be combined into one plane.
Representation of a non-convex polyhedron
=========================================
We suggest two algorithms for a non-convex polyhedron representation.
1\. The first algorithm is the following: we divide a non-convex polyhedron into convex polyhedrons and each of them is represented by its collection of planes.
2\. The second algorithm is the following: we divide the surface of a non-convex polyhedron into pseudo-convex and pseudo-concave parts and each of them is represented by its collection of planes. We denote vertices of an initial triangle as $P_1, P_2, P_3$ and by $e_{ P_1P_2P_3}$ the oriented plane containing that triangle with outside directed normal. We numerate $P_1, P_2, P_3$ in such a way that in the plane $e_{ P_1P_2P_3}$ the insider space of the triangle would be on the left side of the vectors $\overrightarrow{P_1 P_2}$, $\overrightarrow{P_2 P_3}$, $\overrightarrow{P_3P_1}$ when we look from the positive hemispace bounded by $e_{ P_1P_2P_3}$.
Let $P_1 P_2 P_3$ and $Q_1 Q_2 Q_3$ are two triangles. We call them positively oriented to each other if the triangle $P_1 P_2 P_3$ belongs to the negative hemispace bounded by $e_{ Q_1Q_2Q_3}$ and the triangle $Q_1 Q_2 Q_3$ belongs to the negative hemispace bounded by $e_{ P_1P_2P_3}$ (see Fig. 5).
Let $P_1 P_2 P_3$ and $Q_1 Q_2 Q_3$ are two triangles. We call them negatively oriented to each other if the triangle $P_1 P_2 P_3$ belongs to the positive hemi space bounded by $e_{ Q_1Q_2Q_3}$ and the triangle $Q_1 Q_2 Q_3$ belongs to the positive hemi space bounded by $e_{ P_1P_2P_3}$ (see Fig. 6).
***Definition 1.** We say that a collection of triangles is pseudo-convex if each two of them are positively oriented to each other .*
***Definition 2.** We say that a collection of triangles is pseudo-concave if each two of them are negatively oriented to each other .*
We suggest the following algorithm for division of the given non-convex triangular mesh into pseudo-convex and pseudo-concave parts.
We choose a triangle, which with its neighbor can organize a pseudo-convex collection. Then we verify one by one their neighbor triangles are they positively oriented with all other triangles of the pseudo-convex collection or not, if yes then we add that triangle into the collection and take next neighbor triangle. We end this process if all the neighbors that are not included yet into the pseudo-convex collection are negatively oriented. Thus we get one of the pseudo-convex parts and can remove it from the originally given non-convex mesh. Then by using same procedure we try to organize another pseudo-convex collection, and after “filling” it with all positively oriented triangles, remove it from the non-convex mesh. We continue this until it becomes impossible to organize any pseudo-convex collection.
When all pseudo-convex parts are removed from the original non-convex mesh we start to organize pseudo-concave collections. We choose a triangle, which with its neighbor can organize a pseudo-concave collection. Then we verify one by one their neighbor triangles are they negatively oriented with all other triangles of the pseudo-concave collection or not, if yes then we add that triangle into the collection and take next neighbor triangle. We end this process if all the neighbors that are not included yet into the pseudo-concave collection are positively oriented. Thus we get one of the pseudo-concave parts and can remove it from the originally given non-convex mesh. Then by using same procedure we try to organize another pseudo-concave collection, and after “filling” it with all negatively oriented triangles, remove it from the non-convex mesh. We continue this until it becomes impossible to organize any pseudo-concave collection.
Using above presented algorithms we divide the given non-convex mesh into pseudo-convex and pseudo-concave parts. If occasionally some triangles remain after the above mention procedures of division into pseudo- convex and pseudo-concave parts they can be separately or inside some groups be assumed as pseudo-convex or pseudo-concave parts.
When the given non-convex mesh is fully divided into pseudo-convex and pseudo-concave parts we start the process of their polygonization, under which is assumed the unification of all neighbor triangles into polygons if their corresponding oriented planes coincide. After polygonization of which we denote by $ \{\omega_i,h_i\}_k$, also to each collection we need to include additional planes which will create (cut) the boundaries of the pseudo-convex and pseudo-concave parts since their shapes are not always closed surfaces. Because each of the pseudo-convex and pseudo-concave parts represents the part of the surface of originally given non-convex mesh, after their combination the whole surface can be reconstructed uniquely. As a result of this procedures the original non-convex polyhedral mesh will be coded by the groups of the planes $ \{\omega_i,h_i\}_k$, where each of the group will represent the certain piece of the whole surface.
Here we compare the storage requirements of proposed plane based and conventional coding methods.
Let $\mathbf{P}$ be a non-convex polyhedron shown in Fig. 7. For its coding by means of plane based approach we divide its surface into pseudo-convex and pseudo-concave parts. As shown in figure, the pseudo-convex part contains 9 polygons, and additionally we need to include 4 planes for limitation of its bounding borders. So for its storage by means of the planes based approach will be required $3\cdot4\cdot 13 = 156$ bytes. As shown in figure, the pseudo-concave part contains 5 polygons, and additionally we need to include 4 planes for limitation of its bounding borders. So for its storage by means of the planes based approach will be required $3\cdot 4\cdot 9 = 108$ bytes. Thus for coding the non-convex whole polyhedron P by means of the plane based approach will be required to store $156 + 108 =264$ bytes. If the polyhedron $\mathbf{P}$ would be stored by means of conventional quadrangular mesh based approach then we would need to store the following. For storing the data of the 16 vertices would be required $3\cdot4\cdot16 = 192$ bytes. Additionally should be stored the connectivity information among the vertices, which requires the storage of 14 quadrangles such as $4\cdot3\cdot4\cdot14 = 672$ bytes. Thus for coding the non-convex whole polyhedron P by means of the quadrangular mesh will be required $192 + 672 = 864$ bytes, which is more than three times more than for the plane based storage is required.
Conversion formulas
===================
In this section we present mathematical formulas for conversion of a triangular 3D mesh into planes based representation. Let $P_1 P_2 P_3$ be a triangle of a triangular polyhedral mesh, and we should convert it into the plane base representation $(\omega, h) = ( \nu,\varphi, h)$ with outside directed normals. It is easy to mention that $\omega$ is the normalized vector product of the vectors $\overrightarrow{P_1 P_2}$, $\overrightarrow{P_2 P_3}$ : $$\omega = \frac{\overrightarrow{P_1 P_2}\times\overrightarrow{P_2 P_3}}{|\overrightarrow{P_1 P_2}\times\overrightarrow{P_2 P_3}|}$$ where $|\cdot |$ denotes the length of the vector. When vertices are given by Euclidean coordinates $P_i = (x_i, y_i, z_i)$, $ i = 1, 2, 3$ by means of well known formulas they can be found by the corresponding coordinates $\omega = (\omega_x, \omega_y, \omega_z)$. It easy to see that $h$ is the scalar product of the vectors $\omega$ and $\overrightarrow{OP_1}$, where $O$ is the origin. $$h =\omega\cdot \overrightarrow{OP_1}= \omega_x x_1 + \omega_y y_1 + \omega_z z_1.$$
The spherical coordinates $\nu$, $\varphi$ of the $\omega$ can be calculated by the following formulas:
$$\cos\nu = \omega_z$$
$$\cos\varphi = \frac{\omega_x}{\sqrt{1-\omega_z^2}}$$
W. J. Schroeder, “Decimation of Triangle Meshes”, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, pp. 65-70, ACM SIGGRAPH, 1992.
Turk, “Re-tiling Polygon Surfaces”, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, pp.55-64, ACM SIGGRAPH, July, 1992.
Hoppe et al., “Mesh Optimization”, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, pp.19-26, ACM SIGGRAPH, august, 1992.
Deering, “Geometry Compression”, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, pp.13-20, ACM SIGGRAPH, august, 1995.
Taubin, “Geometric Compression Through Topological Surgery”, Tech. Rep. Rc-20340, IBM Watson Research Center, January, 1996.
Hoppe, “Progressive Meshes”, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, pp.99-108, ACM SIGGRAPH, august 1996.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Sustainability of the global environment is dependent on the accurate land cover information over large areas. Even with the increased number of satellite systems and sensors acquiring data with improved spectral, spatial, radiometric and temporal characteristics and the new data distribution policy, most existing land cover datasets were derived from a pixel-based single-date multi-spectral remotely sensed image with low accuracy. To improve the accuracy, the bottleneck is how to develop an accurate and effective image classification technique. By incorporating and utilizing the complete multi-spectral, multi-temporal and spatial information in remote sensing images and considering their inherit spatial and sequential interdependence, we propose a new patch-based RNN (PB-RNN) system tailored for multi-temporal remote sensing data. The system is designed by incorporating distinctive characteristics in multi-temporal remote sensing data. In particular, it uses multi-temporal-spectral-spatial samples and deals with pixels contaminated by clouds/shadow present in the multi-temporal data series. Using a Florida Everglades ecosystem study site covering an area of 771 square kilometers, the proposed PB-RNN system has achieved a significant improvement in the classification accuracy over pixel-based RNN system, pixel-based single-imagery NN system, pixel-based multi-images NN system, patch-based single-imagery NN system and patch-based multi-images NN system. For example, the proposed system achieves 97.21% classification accuracy while a pixel-based single-imagery NN system achieves 64.74%. By utilizing methods like the proposed PB-RNN one, we believe that much more accurate land cover datasets can be produced over large areas efficiently.'
author:
- |
\
\
\
bibliography:
- 'myreference.bib'
title: '**Land Cover Classification from Multi-temporal, Multi-spectral Remotely Sensed Imagery using Patch-Based Recurrent Neural Networks**'
---
Recurrent neural networks (RNNs), long short term memory networks (LSTMs), deep learning, remote sensing imagery, multi-temporal, cloud/shadow pixels, spatial context, patch-based recurrent neural networks, land cover classification.
Introduction
==============
Land cover refers to the pattern of ecological resources and human activities dominating different areas of Earth’s surface. It is a critical type of information supporting various environmental science and land management applications at global, regional, and local scales [@meyer1994changes; @Foley2005]. Given the importance of land cover information in global change and environmental sustainability research, there have been numerous efforts aiming to derive accurate land cover datasets at various scales (e.g, [@Bartholome2005; @Fry2011; @Homer2007; @Jin2013; @Vogelmann2001; @Gong2013]), mostly by using the remote sensing technology. However, even with the increased number of satellite systems and sensors acquiring data with improved spectral, spatial, radiometric and temporal characteristics and the new data distribution policy, most existing land cover datasets were derived from a pixel-based single-date multi-spectral remotely sensed imagery using conventional or advanced pattern recognition techniques such as random forests (RF) [@shi2016assessment], neural networks (NNs) [@Mas2008; @Kavzoglu2003] and support vector machines (SVM) [@yang2011parameterizing]. The real bottleneck is an accurate and effective image classification technique which can incorporate and utilize the complete multi-spectral, multi-temporal and spatial information available to provide land cover datasets for remote sensing images.\
The remote sensing community has been well aware of the relevance of multi-temporal information in land cover mapping, but only limited exploitations have been attempted in actually utilizing such information, mostly from images with much coarse spatial resolutions such as MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) time series (e.g., [@carrao2008contribution; @vintrou2012crop; @nitze2015temporal]). With the recently free availability of several major satellite remotely sensed datasets with much higher spatial resolutions acquired by the Landsat systems, ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer), and Sentinels, exploiting multi-temporal information in land cover mapping is becoming more affordable and feasible. However, working with higher-resolution multi-temporal, multi-spectral imagery datasets is facing some crucial challenges mainly caused by the frequent occurrences of pixels contaminated by clouds or shadows [@Zhu2012] and the incompetency of some conventional pattern recognition methods [@Gong2013]. Some pixel-based classification efforts attempted to use multiple cloud/shadow-free images acquired at different dates [@bruzzone1999neural; @bargiel2011multi]; but they failed to utilize the information of the inherit dependency of multi-temporal remotely sensed data and the invaluable spectral patterns associated with specific classes over time.\
This work focuses on exploiting multi-temporal, multi-spectral and spatial information together for improving land cover mapping through the use of RNNs. Recently, RNNs have been demonstrated to achieve significant results on sequential data and have been applied in different fields like natural language processing [@mikolov2010recurrent; @hinton2012deep; @kalchbrenner2013recurrent], computer vision [@pinheiro2014recurrent; @gregor2015draw; @srivastava2015unsupervised], multi-modal [@karpathy2015deep; @donahue2015long; @graves2014neural] and robotics [@mei2015listen]. RNNs have been applied on various applications such as language modeling, speech recognition, machine translation, question answering, object recognition, visual tracking, video analysis, image generation, image captioning, video captioning, self driving car, fraud detection, prediction models, sentimental classification, among others. Due to the inherit sequential nature of multi-temporal remote sensing data, such an effective technique could have significant impacts on multi-temporal remote sensing image classification. The remote sensing community has also attempted to utilize RNNs, but most of the existing efforts have been focused on the pixel-based change detection tasks [@sauter2010spatio; @qu2016deep; @lyu2016learning], with little on multi-temporal remote sensing image classification. Considering the inherit sequential interdependence of multi-temporal remote sensing data and the spatial relation of a pixel to its neighbourhood, we have developed a patch-based RNN (PB-RNN) system for land cover classification from a Landsat-8 OLI (Operational Land Imager) time series that are freely available from USGS [@Data_Access2016]. We targeted medium-resolution Landsat imagery because of their overwhelming use as the primary data for land cover classification and environmental sustainability research. Our proposed method also includes a component to deal with pixels contaminated by clouds/shadow present in the multi-temporal data series. Using a test site in a complicated tropical area in Florida, our proposed PB-RNN system has achieved a significant improvement in the classification accuracy over pixel-based RNN system, pixel-based single-imagery NN system, pixel-based multi-images NN system, patch-based single-imagery NN system and patch-based multi-images NN system.\
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec2\], we describe RNNs customized for remote sensing applications. In Section \[sec3\], we describe our proposed PB-RNN system to map land cover types from multi-temporal, multi-spectral remotely sensed images. In Section \[sec4\], we present our experimental results and also compare them with the outcomes from pixel-based RNN system, pixel-based single-imagery NN system, pixel-based multi-images NN system, patch-based single-imagery NN system and patch-based multi-images NN system. Finally, Section \[sec5\] summarizes the major findings and discusses some issues for further research.
Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) {#sec2}
================================
In conventional multilayer NNs, all the inputs belonging to a particular sequence or time series are considered independent to each other and are associated with different parameters present in the network. Due to the above properties, the standard multilayer NNs are limited when dealing with sequential data because these networks are impotent to utilize the inherit dependency between the sequential inputs. On the other hand, RNNs can deal with sequential data efficiently [@Goodfellowetal]. RNNs consider the dependency between the sequential inputs; and use the same function and same set of parameters at every time step. Using RNN, a sequence of vector x can be processed by applying a recurrence formula at every time step. $$\label{eq:1}
h_{t} = f( h_{t-1},x_{t};\Theta )$$ In Equation \[eq:1\], $h_{t}$ represents the new state which can be obtain using some non-linear function f with old state $h_{t-1}$, input vector $x_{t}$ and set of parameters $\Theta$ as the inputs. In case of simple RNN, the recurrent equations are as follows: $$\label{eq:2}
h_{t} = f_{h}( W_{x}x_{t} +W_{h}h_{t-1} + b_{h} )$$ $$\label{eq:3}
y_{t} = f_{y}( W_{y}h_{t} + b_{y} )$$ where input, hidden state and output vector of RNN at time t are represented by $x_{t}$, $h_{t}$ and $y_{t}$, respectively, and $W_{x}$, $W_{h}$, $W_{y}$, and $b_{h}$, $b_{y}$ are learnable parameters.\
An RNN architecture can be designed in various ways based on their input/output. One-to-sequence, in which a single input is used to generate a sequence as an output for example image captioning [@karpathy2015deep]. Sequence-to-sequence, where a sequence of data is used to generate a sequence as an output (e.g., machine translation and video classification on frame level) [@kalchbrenner2013recurrent; @srivastava2015unsupervised]. Sequence-to-one architecture, which takes sequential data as an input to produce a single output (e.g., sentimental classification, automatic movie review) [@tang2015document]. Land cover classification using our proposed approach to remote sensing imagery bears similar property to the sequence-to-one architecture, where multi-temporal data sequence can be used as an input to classify the desired location into one of the defined classes. Each sample defines a sequence of patches of size $X \times Y \times Z$ labeled using the center pixel, over the time interval of the sequence length; where each datum point in the sequence represents a flatten p-dimensional vector of length p, whose size is $X \times Y \times Z$ at a specific time. However, with the small sequence length, the standard RNN version with non-linear function like sigmoid or hyperbolic tangent works pretty well but the standard version is not capable of dealing with long-term dependencies because of the gradient vanishing and exploding problem while backpropagating in the training stage of RNN. Fortunately, a special kind of RNN named, long short term memory networks (LSTMs) can overcome the gradient vanishing and exploding problem and are capable of dealing with long-term dependencies. The proposed system has also used LSTM to avoid gradient vanishing and exploding problem.\
![ LSTM Architecture[]{data-label="lstm"}](lstm3.png){width="6.0in"}
Basically, LSTMs (see Figure \[lstm\]) work using a gating mechanism with a memory cell. Hidden state is represented as a vector and is calculated using three gates named as input $i$, forget $f$ and output $o$ gates. All of these gates use sigmoid function, which restrict the value of these vectors between 0 and 1. By element-wise multiplying these gates with another vector, these gates define the proportion of other vector they allow to let through. The input gate defines the proportion of newly computed state for the current input it allows to let through. The forget gate controls how much of the previous state it allows to be considered. The output gate decides the proportion of the internal state it passes to the external network. Memory cell $c$ defines the combination of previous memory and the new input. Memory cell $c$ at time $t$ is calculated by combining the element-wise multiplication of the memory cell at previous time point with the forget gate, and the element-wise multiplication of newly computed state with input gate. Finally, LSTM calculates hidden state $h_{t}$ at time $t$ by multiplying the memory cell with the output gate element-wise. The whole architecture can be defined using following equations: $$i_{t} =sigmoid( W_{x1}x_{t} + W_{h1}h_{t-1} )$$ $$f_{t} = sigmoid( W_{x2}x_{t} + W_{h2}h_{t-1} )$$ $$o_{t} = sigmoid( W_{x3}x_{t} + W_{h3}h_{t-1} )$$ $$g_{t} = tanh( W_{x4}x_{t} + W_{h4}h_{t-1} )$$ $$c_{t} = f_{t} \odot c_{t-1} + i_{t} \odot g_{t}$$ $$h_{t} =o_{t} \odot tanh( c_{t} )$$ where input, forget and output gates at time $t$ are represented by $i_{t}$, $f_{t}$ and $o_{t}$, respectively; $c_{t}$ represents the cell $c$ at time $t$. Both, current input vector $x_{t}$ at time $t$ and previous hidden state $h_{t-1}$ are used as the inputs in the LSTMs. $W_{x1}$, $W_{x2}$, $W_{x3}$, $W_{x4}$, and $W_{h1}$, $W_{h2}$, $W_{h3}$, $W_{h4}$ are learnable parameters; The element-wise multiplication is denoted by $\odot$ symbol.\
These gates with memory cell allow LSTMs to analyze the long dependencies by going deep in time without facing gradient vanishing and exploding problem. Using the input gate, LSTMS are also capable of avoiding cloud/shadow points present in the sequence.
Proposed Patch-Based RNN System (PB-RNN) for Land Cover Classification {#sec3}
=======================================================================
The proposed system is adapted for the land cover classification using complete multi-temporal, multi-spectral and spatial information together for remotely sensed imagery. While the proposed method is generic and should work for all the multi-temporal-spectral remote sensing imagery, we have tested the new method on Landsat images. Below, we define the features used and the architecture adopted.
Multi-Temporal-Spectral Data
------------------------------
Multi-temporal-spectral data are generated in two phases; firstly, we extracted multi-spectral layer stacks out of Landsat images and then a series of layer stacks are combined together to get the final product. In order to convert a Landsat 8 imagery into a multi-spectral layer stack, we have calculated the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) reflectance values associated with the pixels from the scaled digital numbers (DN) belonging to all the OLI bands (except the panchromatic band). TOA reflectance values can be obtained by rescaling and correcting the default 16-bit unsigned integer format DN values using radiometric (reflectance) rescaling coefficients and Sun angle provided in the MTL file present with Landsat 8 product [@Product2016]. In the multi-spectral layer stack, each pixel is represented as a vector of length $Z$ consisting TOA reflectance values belonging to $Z$ OLI bands. Landsat 8 program images the entire earth every 16 days; so, if we consider a time series of $N$ images belonging to the desired location then the time interval between any two consecutive images in the series is equal to 16 days. Before generating multi-temporal-spectral data, all the $N$ images in the series are converted into multi-spectral layer stacks explained above, individually. Finally, we club these $N$ multi-spectral layer stacks belonging to a series of $N$ images together.
Multi-Temporal-Spectral-Spatial Samples
-----------------------------------------
In the above mentioned multi-temporal-spectral data, both temporal and spectral information is automatically fused together. However, our proposed system is trying to use the complete multi-spectral, multi-temporal and spatial information available for land cover classification. Therefore, in order to include the spatial information in our samples, we have to extract each sample as a sequence of patches from the above mentioned multi-temporal-spectral data instead of a sequence of $N$ vectors of length $Z$ representing TOA reflectance associated to $Z$ OLI bands belonging to a single pixel. So, each sample is extracted as a sequence of $N$ patches of size $X \times Y \times Z$ labeled using the center pixel where $N$ specifies the sequence length, $X$ the width, $Y$ the height and $Z$ the number of bands, respectively. In this representation, values of the sequence length $N$ and consisting patches of size $X \times Y \times Z$ vary according to the problem and imagery type but the structure of the multi-temporal-spectral-spatial sample remains the same. For the implementation purpose, patches are flattened into vectors of length $X \times Y \times Z$. In the proposed architecture, a series of 23 images are considered and patches of size $3 \times 3 \times 8$ representing TOA reflectance values of 8 OLI bands (except the panchromatic band) of $3 \times 3$ window labeled using the center pixel are flattened into vectors of length 72 (3\*3\*8). Each sample defines a sequence of 72-dimensional TOA reflectance vectors which consist of spectral and spatial information belonging to the center pixel location of a distinct $3 \times 3$ window over the whole year. Each datum point in the sequence represents a TOA reflectance vector at a specific time and there is a time interval of 16 days between any two consecutive points in the sequence; in order to cover the whole year, there are 23 datum points present in the sequence.
Cloud/Shadow Datum Points
---------------------------
In order to deal with cloud/shadow datum points in the sequence, cloud/shadow masks are generated for all the 23 Landsat images using the Fmask Algorithm [@Zhu2012], individually. These masks are then used to locate all the cloud/shadow points present in the multi-spectral layer stacks corresponding to the Landsat images. TOA reflectance vectors of the cloud/shadow locations are set to zero vector. Input gate in the LSTM cell helps to deal cloud/shadow datum vectors by restricting these zero vectors to let through; so that, these cloud/shadow datum points won’t effect the information from the clear datum points.
Training Samples
------------------
In order to be consistent with all the other pixel-based and patch-based neural networks used in this paper, image acquired on March 30, 2014 with less than two percent cloud/shadow cover on our test site is used to extract training samples location. In addition, we impose two constraints. First, there should be no cloud/shadow pixel present in the patch at this date. Second, all the boundary patches should be avoided. Eighty percent samples which satisfy the above constraints are extracted separately from all the distinct classes.
Architecture
--------------
![ Architecture of the proposed patch-based RNN (PB-RNN) system for land cover classification []{data-label="lstm_arch"}](lstm_patch1.png){width="6.0in"}
Figure \[lstm\_arch\] illustrates the general overall architecture of the proposed PB-RNN system for land cover classification. Sample X is shown in red; represents a sequence of n vectors ( X(1) to X(n) ) of equal length obtained from time point t(1) to point t(n), respectively. In our experiment, each vector of length 72 (3\*3\*8) in the sequence is extracted by flattening a patch of size $3 \times 3 \times 8$ representing TOA reflectance values associated to 8 OLI bands of $3 \times 3$ window labeled using the center pixel at a particular time point in the time series and the length of the sequence is 23 to cover the whole year. The softmax layer generates a probability distribution over the eight classes, using the output from the LSTM cell at the 23rd time step as its input.\
The proposed system has sequence-to-one architecture, where flattened patch vectors sequence is used as an input to classify the desired location into one of the defined classes. In order to implement this network, we have used Google’s tensorflow (an open source software library for machine intelligence) [@tensorflow2015-whitepaper] and Quadro K5200 GPU. The proposed network minimizes the cross entropy using the ADAM optimizer [@kingma2014adam] with a learning rate of 0.0001. The ADAM optimizer is a first-order gradient-based optimization algorithm of stochastic objective functions, stochastic gradient descent proves to be a very efficient and effective optimization method in recent deep learning networks (e.g. [@Krizhevsky2012; @deng2013recent; @hinton2006reducing; @hinton2012deep]).\
Using LSTM cell recurrent network, a sequence of vectors X(1:n) can be processed by applying a recurrence formula at every time step. In order to calculate the current hidden state h(t) at time $t$, LSTM cell takes current input vector X(t) from the input sequence and previous hidden state h(t-1) as inputs. Initial hidden state h(0) is initiated as a zero state. Current state depends on all the relevant previous states and input vectors in the sequence; the irrelevant information is controlled by the gate mechanism by resisting it to let through. The proposed system has a fixed length of 23 for the input sequence; so, h(23) is the final hidden state here, and $W_{x}$ and $W_{h}$ are the learnable weight matrices, which remain the same at every time step.
Experimental Results and Comparisons {#sec4}
=====================================
Test Site
---------
We chose to implement the proposed method on a test site within the Florida Everglades ecosystem; this ecosystem has attracted international attention for the ecological uniqueness and fragility. It is comprised of a wide variety of sub-ecosystems such as freshwater marshes, tropical hardwood hammocks, cypress swamps, and mangrove swamps [@davis1994everglades]. Such diverse ecological types make the Everglades an ideal site to test the reliability and robustness of this new system. A series of 23 Landsat8 images was used in our study, where the time interval between any two consecutive images in the series is 16 days. The first image of the series was acquired on February 10, 2014 and the last image on January 28, 2015 (Path 16; Row 42); we extract a subset with a size equivalent to 771 square kilometers ($864\times 991$ pixels) from the whole image as our test site. In order to do single imagery classification, we have used the image acquired on March 30, 2014 with less than two percent cloud/shadow cover on our test site. For multi-images based classification, we have used 4 images acquired on February 10, 2014; March 14, 2014; March 30, 2014; and January 28, 2015 with less than four percent cloud/shadow cover for all of them on our test site.
In order to create a reference map for our research area, we obtained ancillary data from the Florida Cooperative Land Cover Map first and performed correction by comparing it with GPS-guided field observations and the high-resolution images from Google Earth. We have used this reference map to generate training samples and perform accuracy assessments [@lo1998influence]. Using the ancillary data, we adopt a mixed Anderson Level 1/2 land-use/land-cover classification scheme [@anderson1976land] with eight classes (see Table \[scheme\]). Based on our training sample extraction constraints, we are able to generate training samples of size $23\times 72$ for the eight classes, where 23 is the sequence length and 72 (3\*3\*8) is the flattened patch vector size; the details are shown in Table \[scheme\].
Experimental Results/Comparisons
--------------------------------
In this section, we present the experimental results of the proposed PB-RNN system and compare them from those from pixel-based RNN system, pixel-based single-imagery NN system, pixel-based multi-images NN system, patch-based single-imagery NN system and patch-based multi-images NN system. By comparing pixels directly in each of the classification maps from the six different networks for the whole area to the reference map, pixel-based single-imagery NN system achieves accuracy of 62.82%, pixel-based multi-images NN system 63.57%, patch-based single-imagery NN system 73.07%, patch-based multi-images NN system 73.95%, pixel-based RNN system 84.09% and PB-RNN system 96.92%. However, in order to perform quantitative evaluation of the classification results generated by six different neural networks to determine overall and individual category classification accuracy, we have done accuracy assessment using the method described by Congalton [@congalton1991review]. Specifically for each method, an error matrix is generated using the weighted random stratified sampling and then the overall accuracy (OA), Overall kappa (KAPPA), Producer’s accuracy (PA), User’s accuracy (UA) and conditional kappa are calculated based on the error matrix [@Jensen2015].\
The proposed PB-RNN system uses samples, which are in the form of time series of 72-dimensional (3\*3\*8) flattened TOA reflectance patch vectors of size $23 \times 72$. In case of pixel-based RNN system instead of a patch of size $3 \times 3 \times 8$, each vector in the sequence is representing only the center pixel vector of each patch and this pixel vector is of length 8, containing the TOA reflectance values of 8 OLI bands at that location; so, samples are of size $23 \times 8$. Patch-based single-imagery NN system uses 72-dimensional (3\*3\*8) flattened TOA reflectance patch vectors belonging to patches of size $3 \times 3 \times 8$ acquired from a single date (March 30, 2014) as samples. On the other hand, pixel-based single-imagery NN system uses only 8-dimensional TOA reflectance center pixel vectors belonging to patches extracted for patch-based single-imagery NN system. In both patch-based and pixel-based multi-images NN system, 72-dimensional (3\*3\*8) flattened TOA reflectance patch vectors and 8-dimensional TOA reflectance center pixel vectors acquired from four different dates (February 10, 2014; March 14, 2014; March 30, 2014; and January 28, 2015) as samples. The proposed PB-RNN system achieves 97.21% in the overall accuracy and 0.967 in Kappa index. For the individual categories, this new system achieves PA and UA values more than 94% for all classes and the mean of conditional kappa values belonging to 8 different classes (Mean-Kappa) is 0.97 with minimum 0.94 conditional kappa index. In some classes, the system achieves significant improvements. For example barren land, cropland, high intensity urban and woody wetland have (98.04%, 100%, 1.00), (98.1%, 98.1%, 0.98), (97.47%, 97.47%, 0.97) and (97.99%, 96.53%, 0.96) as PA, UA and conditional kappa index values, respectively. The proposed system is able to achieve good results for several spectrally complex classes, such as the low intensity urban and cropland. Table \[matrix\_rnn\] shows the complete error matrix of system with calculated OA, KAPPA of the overall system and PA, UA, conditional kappa for all individual classes separately.\
The proposed PB-RNN system achieves better results than pixel-based RNN system, pixel-based single-imagery NN system, pixel-based multi-images NN system, patch-based single-imagery NN system and patch-based multi-images NN system. Comparative results are summarized in Table \[comparison\]. Figure \[refer\_comp\] shows the comparison to reference map from the classification results of six different systems. The proposed system gets 97.21% OA, 0.97 KAPPA, 0.97 Mean-Kappa; which achieves (9.56%, 0.11, 0.13), (19.58%, 0.23, 0.24), (21.76%, 0.26, 0.27), (30.81%, 0.37, 0.36) and (32.47%, 0.39, 0.39) improvements over pixel-based RNN system, patch-based multi-images NN system, patch-based single-imagery NN system, pixel-based multi-images NN system and pixel-based single-imagery NN system, respectively. Table \[comparison\] also shows that there are significant enhancements not only in the overall but also in all the individual categories. Table \[comparison\] shows that the proposed PB-RNN system achieves a minimum 0.15 increase in conditional kappa values for five classes with the maximum 0.19 when comparing with the pixel-based RNN system. In comparison to the patch-based multi-images and single-imagery NN system, the proposed system achieves a minimum 0.20 and 0.22 increase in conditional kappa values for six classes with maximum 0.42 and 0.46 respectively. In case of pixel-based multi-images and single-imagery NN system, the proposed system achieves a minimum 0.31 and 0.37 increase in conditional kappa values for all the classes except water with maximum improvements of 0.45 and 0.50 respectively. The proposed PB-RNN system shows substantial improvements in the conditional kappa results for hard-to-classify classes also. For example, in case of low intensity urban and cropland, there are (0.16, 0.03), (0.27, 0.20), (0.28, 0.20), (0.40, 0.41) and (0.40, 0.41) improvements in conditional kappa values over pixel-based RNN system, patch-based multi-images NN system, patch-based single-imagery NN system, pixel-based multi-images NN system and pixel-based single-imagery NN system, respectively.\
Several previous studies have suggested single hidden layer neural networks perform better for classification of remote sensing images [@kanellopoulos1997strategies; @shupe2004cover]. Therefore, we have used only one fully connected hidden layer between input and softmax (outer) layer for both pixel and patch single-imagery NN system; the hidden layer consists of 200 neurons. Patch-based single-imagery NN system uses 72-dimensional (3\*3\*8) flattened TOA reflectance patch vectors as inputs and pixel-based single-imagery NN system uses only 8-dimensional TOA reflectance center pixel vectors. In case of both multi-images NN systems, we have fused four single-imagery neural network classifiers belonging to different dates together by using joint probabilities of classes at the four dates [@bruzzone1999neural]. Similar to the proposed PB-RNN system, we have used Google’s tensorflow [@tensorflow2015-whitepaper] and Quadro K5200 GPU to implement all the other networks also. As shown in Table \[comparison\] and Figure \[refer\_comp\], both patch and pixel multi-images NN systems show only slight improvement over their respective single-imagery NN systems in OA, KAPPA, Mean-Kappa of the overall systems and PA, UA, conditional kappa for all individual classes. Unlike the RNN systems, the multi-images NN systems consider each imagery independent to each other and is unable to utilize inherit dependency of multi-temporal remote sensing data. In patch-based multi-images NN system, there is 2.18% improvement in OA, 0.03 improvement in KAPPA, and 0.03 improvement in Mean-Kappa, over patch-based single-imagery NN system. In pixel-based multi-images NN system, there is 1.66% improvement in OA, 0.02 improvement in KAPPA, and 0.03 improvement in Mean-Kappa, comparing to pixel-based single-imagery NN system. Considering spatial information, patch-based single-imagery NN system improves significantly over both pixel-based single-imagery NN system and multi-images NN system. In the patch-based single-imagery NN system, there are 10.71% and 9.05% improvement in OA, 0.13 and 0.11 improvement in KAPPA, and 0.12 and 0.09 improvement in Mean-Kappa, comparing to pixel-based single-imagery NN system and multi-images NN system, respectively. However, without any spatial information the pixel-based RNN system is able to utilize the information of the inherit dependency of multi-temporal remotely sensed data and the invaluable spectral patterns associated with specific classes over time improves significantly over both patch-based NN systems. In pixel-based RNN system, there is 10.02% improvement in OA, 0.12 improvement in KAPPA, and 0.11 improvement in Mean-Kappa, over patch-based multi-images NN system. The same weighted stratified sampling is used for accuracy assessments in all these networks too. The details of the error matrices, OA, KAPPA, PA, UA and and conditional kappa are given in Table \[matrix\_rnn\_pixel\] for pixel-based RNN system, in Table \[matrix\_pixel\_single\] for pixel-based single-imagery NN system, in Table \[matrix\_pixel\_multi\] for pixel-based multi-images NN system, in Table \[matrix\_patch\_single\] for patch-based single-imagery NN system and in Table \[matrix\_patch\_multi\] for patch-based multi-images NN system, respectively. The substantial improvements will lead to more accurate land cover data that are essential for many applications (e.g., agriculture monitoring, energy development and resource exploration).
Conclusion and future work {#sec5}
===========================
In this paper, we have proposed a new patch-based RNN system tailored for land cover classification. The proposed system uses new features to exploit the complete multi-temporal, multi-spectral and spatial information together for land cover mapping. Specifically for Landsat data, we have computed multi-temporal-spectral-spatial samples representing sequence of 23 patches of size $3 \times 3 \times 8$ belonging to the center pixel location of a distinct $3 \times 3$ window over the whole year from multi-temporal-spectral remote sensing imagery. The proposed system is capable of utilizing the spatial information of the inherit dependency of multi-temporal remotely sensed data and the invaluable spectral patterns associated with specific classes over time; by using input gate in the LSTM cell, we are able to deal cloud/shadow pixels by restricting these pixel vectors to let through the input gate. The proposed system is compared to pixel-based RNN system, pixel-based single-imagery NN system, pixel-based multi-images NN system, patch-based single-imagery NN system and patch-based multi-images NN system.. The classification results show that the proposed system achieves significant improvements in both the overall and categorical classification accuracies.\
There are further changes that could lead to further improvements. For example, classification accuracy could improve further by creating hierarchical structure classification on the top of the proposed system using different sizes of patches for the same center pixel. Convolution neural network (CNN) can be incorporated with this PB-RNN system to improve the performance even more. We believe that we can develop season-based classifier using the same technique. These and other parameter choices are being investigated further.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We prove that the modified Benjamin-Ono equation is globally wellposed in $H^s$ for $s\ge 1/2$. The exponent $H^{1/2}$ seems to be optimal in the sense that the solution map is not $C^3$ in $H^s$ for $s<1/2$ [@MR1]. We perform a gauge transformation as in T. Tao [@Ta2], but we combine it with a Littlewood-Paley decomposition. We also use a space-time $L^2$-estimate that it is able to handle solutions in $H^{1/2}$ instead of solutions in the Besov space $B_{2,1}^{1/2}$ [@MR1].'
author:
- 'Carlos E. Kenig and Hideo Takaoka'
title: 'Global wellposedness of the modified Benjamin-Ono equation with initial data in $H^{1/2}$'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we consider the initial value problem for the modified Benjamin-Ono equation of the form[^1] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gBO}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
u_t+{\cal H}u_{xx}+u^2u_x=0,\quad (x,t)\in\Bbb R^2,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x),
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $u:\Bbb R^2\to\Bbb R$ is a real-valued function and ${\cal H}$ is the Hilbert transform $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}u(x)=\frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{p.v.}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{u(y)}{x-y}\,dy.\end{aligned}$$ For the equation with quadratic nonlinearity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BO}
u_t+{\cal H}u_{xx}+(u^2)_x=0\end{aligned}$$ Benjamin [@Be] and Ono [@O] derived this as a model for one-dimensional waves in deep water. On the other hand, the cubic nonlinearity, found in a manner analogous to the relation between the KdV equation and the modified KdV equation, is also of much interest for long wave models, [@ABFS; @KPV1].
Recall that the conservation laws provide a priori bounds on the solution; namely there are at least the following three conservation laws preserved under the flow[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Bbb R}u(x,t)\,dx=0\nonumber\\
& & \frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Bbb R}u^2(x,t)\,dx=0\quad\mbox{($L^2$-mass)},\label{eq:con1}\\
& & \frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Bbb R}\frac{1}{2}u{\cal H}u_x-\frac{1}{12}u^{4}\,dx=0\quad\mbox{(Hamiltonian)}.\label{eq:con2}\end{aligned}$$ Then establishing a global solution on the Hilbert space $H^{1/2}$ is of interest by the preservation of the Hamiltonian and the $L^2$-mass. The purpose of this paper is in particular to prove the global wellposedness for data $u_0\in H^s$, for $s\ge 1/2$.
\[thm:k=2\] Let $s\ge 1/2$. For any $u_0\in H^{s}$, there exist $T=T(\|u_0\|_{H^{1/2}})$ and a unique solution $u$ of the equation (\[eq:gBO\]) satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
u\in C([-T,T]:H^s)\cap X_{T}^s,\end{aligned}$$ where we shall define later the function space $X_{T}^s$ (see the end of this section). Moreover, for any $R>0$ the solution operator $u_0\mapsto u$ is Lipschitz continuous from $\{u_0\in H^{s}:\|u_0\|_{H^s}<R\}$ to $C([-T,T]:H^{s})$.
We make some remarks about Theorem \[thm:k=2\].
\[rem:ill-posedness\] (i) Recall that heuristically the scaling argument $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:scaling}
u(x,t)\mapsto u_{\lambda}=\frac{1}{\lambda^{1/2}}u(\frac{x}{\lambda},\frac{t}{\lambda^2})\end{aligned}$$ leads the constraint $s\ge 0$ on the wellposedness for (\[eq:gBO\]). The result in Theorem \[thm:k=2\] is far from those given by scaling. (ii) It is worth noting that when $s<1/2$, the solution map $u_0\mapsto u$ as mapping from $H^s$ to $C([-T,T]:H^s)$ is no longer of class $C^3$ [@MR1]. Note that this illposedness result is true not only for $H^s$ but also for $B_{2,1}^s$. Thus the value of $s=1/2$ in Theorem \[thm:k=2\] may relate to the lower threshold of the result on local wellposedness. (It is not clear whether the solution map, given by Theorem \[thm:k=2\], is of $C^3$-class or not.)
From the conservation laws (\[eq:con1\])-(\[eq:con2\]), and iterating Theorem \[thm:k=2\] we obtain the following corollary.
The Cauchy problem (\[eq:gBO\]) is globally wellposed in $H^s$ for $s\ge 1/2$.
The initial value problem for the equation (\[eq:gBO\]) and for the Benjamin-Ono equation (\[eq:BO\]) have been extensively studied [@BL; @CKS; @GV1; @GV2; @GV3; @I; @KPV3; @KK; @KT; @MR1; @MR2; @P; @Ta2]; for instance the energy method provides the wellposedness on the Sobolev space $H^s$ for $s>3/2$ (see [@I]). For the Benjamin-Ono equation (\[eq:BO\]), it has been known that this is locally wellposed for $s>9/8$ [@KK; @KT] by the refinement of the energy method and dispersive estimates. T. Tao [@Ta2] extended this result to the energy space $s\ge 1$. More precisely, the global wellposedness was obtained from the conservation law $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Bbb R}\frac12u_x^2+\frac32u^2{\cal H}u_x-\frac14u^4\,dx=0\end{aligned}$$ and the use of a “gauge transformation”, where the solution map $u_0\mapsto u(t)$ persists in the $H^s$, but the Lipschitz continuity holds only in the $L^2$-space. Very recently, the $H^1$-result was improved by A. D. Ionescu and C. E. Kenig [@IK] which obtained global wellposedness for $s\ge 0$, and also by N. Burq and F. Planchon [@BP] which obtained local wellposedness for $s>1/4$.
For the modified Benjamin equation (\[eq:gBO\]), L. Molinet and F. Ribaud [@MR2] have shown the local wellposedness in the Sobolev space $H^s$ for $s>1/2$. (Results for the generalized Benjamin-Ono equation with higher nonlinearities, are also found in [@MR2]). Their proof is based on Tao’s gauge transformation. Also, the result for $s=1/2$, but with the Sobolev space $H^s$ replaced by the Besov space $B_{2,1}^s$, has been obtained in [@MR1]; more precisely, they have proved local wellposedness in $B_{2,1}^s$ for $s\ge 1/2$. In this result, however the smallness condition on the data is required.
Our method relies on a refinement of the gauge transformation (using a Littlewood-Paley decomposition), introduced initially for the Benjamin-Ono equation [@Ta2] and modified for the generalized Benjamin-Ono equation [@MR2], as well as the use of estimates for the Schrödinger equation. The point is that we shall transform the equation (\[eq:gBO\]) into a derivative nonlinear Schrödinger equation, where the nonlinearity $u^2u_x$ in (\[eq:gBO\]) has been placed relatively close to the form $\sum_{N_{high}}\partial_x(\sum_{N_{low}\ll N_{high}}P_{N_{low}}u)^2P_{N_{high}}u$, in other words, the derivative in the nonlinearity does not appear in the highest frequency terms. We will describe this reduction of the equation in the next section.
\[lem:DNLS\] A very similar equation to (\[eq:gBO\]) is the derivative nonlinear Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DNLS}
u_t-iu_{xx}+|u|^2u_x=0,~(x,t)\in\Bbb R^2,\end{aligned}$$ and local wellposedness was known for the equation in $H^s$ for $s\ge 1/2$ [@Tak], where a fixed point argument is performed in an adapted Bourgain’s $X_{s,b}$ space which yields a $C^{\infty}$-solution map. Our method also gives the result for the equation (\[eq:DNLS\]), without Bourgain’s space, in $H^s$ for $s\ge 1/2$, but only shows the solution map to be Lipshitz.
One difficulty in proving the “endpoint” case $s=1/2$ for solutions in $H^s$, is that using the inhomogeneous smoothing effect estimate (see c.f. (\[eq:rsmoothing-2\]) below) $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\partial_x\int_0^te^{-t(t-t'){\cal H}\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}\lesssim\|f\|_{L_x^1L_T^2},\end{aligned}$$ one loses the $L_x^1L_T^2$ control for the nonlinearity $u^2u_x$. This is because one needs to use the $L_x^2L_T^{\infty}$-maximal function estimate for two $u$’ and the $L_x^{\infty}L_T^2$-smoothing effect estimate for the term $u_x$, and in principle the maximal function estimate may fail at the endpoint $s=1/2$, although the estimate is valid at the endpoint provided that the data are dyadically localized in frequency space. In fact, we use the $l^2$-type maximal function estimate in order to invoke the endpoint maximal function estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\sum_N\|e^{-t{\cal H}\partial_x^2}P_Nu_0\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}^2\right)^{1/2}\lesssim \|u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ We then estimate the $L_x^1L_T^2$-type norm for the nonlinearity. To summarize, we suppose the nonlinearity to be $\sum_{N_{high}}\partial_x(\sum_{N_{low}\ll N_{high}}P_{N_{low}}u)^2P_{N_{high}}u$ as mentioned before. Applying the Littlewood-Paley projection operator $P_N$ to the equation, for each $N$, we estimate this by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left\|P_N\left(\sum_{N_{high}}\partial_x(\sum_{N_{low}\ll N_{high}}P_{N_{low}}u)^2P_{N_{high}}u\right)\right\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}\\
& \lesssim & \sum_{N_{high}\sim N}\left\|\partial_x(\sum_{N_{low}\ll N_{high}}P_{N_{low}}u)^2\right\|_{L_{xT}^2}\|P_{N_{high}}u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we prove the following space-time $L^2$ estimate which is crucial to our proof of Theorem \[thm:k=2\] (see section \[sec:L\^2-spacetime\] for the proof of this proposition).
\[prop:L\^2-spacetime\] Let $u$ be a $H^{\infty}$-solution to (\[eq:gBO\]). Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:L^2-spacetime}
\|(u^2)_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}\lesssim \|P_{\ge 1}u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}^2+T^{\frac12}\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^2+(1+\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}})\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}\|P_{\ge 1}u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$
We close this section by introducing some notation. Let $\psi$ be a fixed even $C^{\infty}$ function of compact support, with $\mbox{supp}\psi\subset\{|\xi|<2\}$, and $\psi(\xi)=1$ for $|\xi|\le 1$. Define $\varphi(\xi)=\psi(\xi)-\psi(2\xi)$. Let $N$ be a dyadic number of the form $N=2^j,~j\in\Bbb N\cup\{0\}$ or $N=0$. Writing $\varphi_N(\xi)=\varphi(\xi/N)$ for $N\ge 1$, we define the convolution operator $P_N$ by $P_Nu=u*\check{\varphi}_N$, where $\check{\cdot}$ denotes spatial Fourier inverse transform (while $\hat{\cdot}$ denotes a spatial Fourier transform). Then we have a spatial Littlewood-Paley decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{N}P_N=I\end{aligned}$$ where we define the function $\varphi_0$ by $\varphi_0(\xi)=1-\sum_{N}\varphi_N(\xi)$ to denote $P_0u=u*\check{\varphi}_0$. Note that if $u$ is real-valued function, then $P_Nu$ is also real-valued. We define the projection operators $P_{\pm}$ to the frequency $\pm[0,\infty)$. We will recall the Littlewood-Paley theorem [@S] $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\left(\sum_N|P_N\phi|^2\right)^{1/2}\right\|_{L^p}\sim \|\phi\|_{L^p}\end{aligned}$$ for $1<p<\infty$.
For nonnegative quantities $A,B$, we use $A\lesssim B$ to denote the estimate $A\le CB$ for some $C>0$, and $A\sim B$ to denote $A\lesssim B\lesssim A$, and $A\ll B$ to denote $A\le CB$ for some small $C>0$.
We also define more general projection $P_{\ll N}$ and $P_{\lesssim N}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\ll N}=\sum_{M\ll N}P_M,~P_{\lesssim N}=\sum_{M\lesssim N}P_M.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly define $P_{\gg N},~P_{\gtrsim N}$ and also define $P_{\sim N}$, etc. We remark that the projection operators $P_{\ll N},P_{\lesssim N},P_{\gg N},P_{\gtrsim N}$ are bounded on $L^p,L_T^qL_x^p,L_x^pL_T^q$, for $1<p,q<\infty$. Moreover, $P_N$ and ${\cal H}P_N$ are bounded operators on $L^p,L_T^qL_x^p,L_x^pL_T^q$ for $1\le p,q\le\infty$.
We define the Lebesgue spaces $L_T^qL_x^p$ and $L_x^pL_T^q$ by the norms $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|_{L_T^qL_x^p}=\|\|f\|_{L_x^p(\Bbb R)}\|_{L_t^q([0,T])},\quad
\|f\|_{L_x^pL_T^q}=\|\|f\|_{L_t^q([0,T])}\|_{L_x^p(\Bbb R)}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, when $p=q$, we abbreviate $L_T^qL_x^p$ or $L_x^pL_T^q$ as $L_{xT}^p$.
Let $\langle\cdot\rangle=(1+|\cdot|^2)^{1/2}$. We use the fractional differential operators $D_x^s$ and $\langle D_x\rangle^s$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{D_x^s f}(\xi)=|\xi|^s\widehat{f}(\xi),~\widehat{\langle D_x\rangle^s f}(\xi)=\langle \xi\rangle^s\widehat{f}(\xi).\end{aligned}$$
We are now ready to define the function space $X_{T}^s$. For $s\ge 1/2,~T>0$, we introduce $$\begin{aligned}
X_{T}^s=\{u\in\mathrsfs{D}'(\Bbb R\times (-T,T)):\|u\|_{X_T^s}<\infty\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{X_{T}^s}& = & \|u\|_{L_T^{\infty}H^s}+\left(\sum_{k=1}^{[s+1/2]}\sum_{N}\|D_x^{s+\frac12-k}\partial_x^{k}P_Nu\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& & +\left(\sum_{k=0}^{[s]}\sum_{N}\|\langle D_x\rangle^{s-k-\frac12}\partial_x^{k}P_Nu\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}^2\right)^{1/2}+\left(\sum_{k=0}^{[s]}\sum_{N}\|\langle D_x\rangle^{s-k-\frac14}\partial_x^{k}P_Nu\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$
Acknowledgments. This research was performed while the second author (H.T.) visited Carlos E. Kenig at the University of Chicago under the J.S.P.S. Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad. He would like to thank the University of Chicago for its hospitality.
Gauge transformation
====================
We transform the equation (\[eq:gBO\]) as stated in the introduction. Let $u(x,t)$ be an $H^{\infty}$-solution to (\[eq:gBO\]). We introduce the complex-valued functions $v_N:\Bbb R^2\to\Bbb C$ for a dyadic number $N$ by[^3] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gauge}
v_N(x,t)=e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int_{-\infty}^x(P_{\ll N}u(y,t))^2\,dy}P_+P_Nu(x,t).\end{aligned}$$ It will be convenient to abbreviate by writing $e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}$ for $e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int_{-\infty}^x(P_{\ll N}u(y,t))^2\,dy}$. From the Leibniz rule and ${\cal H}P_+=-i$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t-i\partial_x^2)v_N &=& e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}(\partial_t+{\cal H}\partial_x^2)P_+P_Nu\\
& & -e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}\partial_xP_+P_Nu\partial_x\int_{-\infty}^x(P_{\ll N}u(y,t))^2\,dy\\
& & +P_+P_Nu(\partial_t-i\partial_x^2)e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}\\
&=& e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}(P_+P_N(u^2u_x)-(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+P_Nu_x)\\
& & -\frac{i}{2}e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}P_+P_Nu(\partial_t-i\partial_x^2)\int_{-\infty}^x(P_{\ll N}u(y,t))^2\,dy\\
& & +\frac{i}{4}e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}P_+P_Nu(P_{\ll N}u)^{4}.\end{aligned}$$ In carrying out the computation for the second term, we use the equation (\[eq:gBO\]) and integrate by parts. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
& &(\partial_t-i\partial_x^2)\int_{-\infty}^x(P_{\ll N}u(y,t))^2\,dy\\
&=& 2\int_{-\infty}^xP_{\ll N}u\partial_tP_{\ll N}u\,dy-2iP_{\ll N}uP_{\ll N}u_x\\
&=& -2\int_{-\infty}^xP_{\ll N}uP_{\ll N}({\cal H}u_{xx}+u^2u_x)\,dy-2iP_{\ll N}uP_{\ll N}u_x\\
&=& 2i(i{\cal H}-1)P_{\ll N}u_xP_{\ll N}u+2\int_{-\infty}^x{\cal H}P_{\ll N}u_xP_{\ll N}u_x\,dy\\
& & -2\int_{-\infty}^xP_{\ll N}uP_{\ll N}(u^2u_x)\,dy.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $v_N$ finally obeys the following differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t-i\partial_x^2)v_N & = & e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}(P_+P_N(u^2u_x)-(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+P_Nu_x)\nonumber\\& & +e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}P_{\ll N}(i{\cal H}-1)u_xP_{\ll N}uP_+P_Nu\nonumber\\& & -ie^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}P_+P_Nu\int_{-\infty}^x{\cal H}P_{\ll N}u_xP_{\ll N}u_x\,dy\nonumber\\& & +ie^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}P_+P_Nu\int_{-\infty}^xP_{\ll N}(u^2u_x)P_{\ll N}u\,dy\nonumber\\& & +\frac{i}{4}e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}(P_{\ll N}u)^4P_+P_Nu\nonumber\\
& \equiv &A_{1,N}(t)+A_{2,N}(t)+A_{3,N}(t)+A_{4,N}(t)+A_{5,N}(t).
\label{eq:mmBO5}\end{aligned}$$ The desired a priori estimate for $u$ in (\[eq:gBO\]) can be proven from the solutions $v_N$ in (\[eq:mmBO5\]). We prove this in section \[sec:apriori\].
As opposed to (\[eq:gBO\]), for (\[eq:mmBO5\]), the very worst type of nonlinearity as $(P_{N_{low}}u)^2P_{N_{high}}u_x$ with $|N_{low}|\ll |N_{high}|$, in which the derivative on one of three $u$’s can not be shared with the other two $u$’s, is almost absent. This is a consequence of the formula; for instance we expand $$\begin{aligned}
& & P_+P_N(u^2u_x)-(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+P_Nu_x\nonumber\\
&=& P_N((P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x)-(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+P_N\widetilde{P}_Nu_x\nonumber\\
& & +P_+P_N((u^2-(P_{\ll N}u)^2)u_x)\label{eq:absent}\end{aligned}$$ for $N\gg 1$, where $\widetilde{P}_N=P_{N/2}+P_N+P_{2N}$. One can think in particular of the first term in (\[eq:absent\]) as $c(P_{\ll N}u)^2_xP_+\widetilde{P}_Nu$ (see section \[sec:nonlinear\]).
Preliminaries
=============
In order to prove the a priori estimate for the equation of $v_N$, we need the linear estimates associated with the one-dimensional Schrödinger equation. We first recall the Strichartz estimates, smoothing effects and maximal function estimates (for the proof, see e.g. [@KPV2]).
\[lem:freeestimate\] For all $\phi\in\mathrsfs{S}(\Bbb R),~\theta\in[0,1]$ and $T\in(0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:strichartz}
\|e^{it\partial_x^2}\phi\|_{L_T^{\frac{4}{\theta}}L_x^{\frac{2}{1-\theta}}}\lesssim\|\phi\|_{L^2},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:smoothing}
\|e^{it\partial_x^2}P_N\phi\|_{L_x^{\frac{2}{1-\theta}}L_T^{\frac{2}{\theta}}}\lesssim \langle N\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-\theta}\|\phi\|_{L^2},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:maximal}
\|e^{it\partial_x^2}\phi\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}\lesssim \|\phi\|_{\dot{H}^{1/4}}.\end{aligned}$$
We say that a pair $(q,p)$ is admissible if $\frac{2}{q}=\frac12-\frac{1}{p}$. Then the above pair $(\frac{4}{\theta},\frac{2}{1-\theta})$ is admissible.
[*Proof.*]{} The inequalities (\[eq:strichartz\]) and (\[eq:maximal\]) are due to the standard Strichartz and maximal function estimates, respectively [@KPV2].
To show (\[eq:smoothing\]) we need the following inequalities [@KPV2] $$\begin{aligned}
& & \|\langle D_x\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+i\alpha}e^{it\partial_x^2}\phi\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}\lesssim\|\phi\|_{L^2}\label{eq:smoothing-1},\\
& & \|\langle D_x\rangle^{i\alpha}e^{it\partial_x^2}P_N\phi\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}\lesssim \langle N\rangle^{1/2}\|\phi\|_{L^2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Applying complex interpolation argument to these inequalities, we obtain (\[eq:smoothing\]) (if necessary, we use the trivial inequality $\|e^{it\partial_x^2}P_0\phi\|_{L_{xT}^{\infty}}\lesssim\|\phi\|_{L^2}$ to justify (\[eq:smoothing-1\])). [$\Box$]{}
We next state the $L_T^qL_x^p$ and $L_x^pL_T^q$ estimates for the linear operator $f\mapsto\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'$.
\[lem:retard\] For $f\in\mathrsfs{S}(\Bbb R^2),\theta\in[0,1]$ and $T\in(0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rstrichartz-1}
\left\|\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt\right\|_{L_T^{4/\theta}L_x^{2/(1-\theta)}}\lesssim \|f\|_{L_T^{(4/\theta)'}L_x^{(2/(1-\theta))'}}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rstrichartz-2}
\left\|\langle D_x\rangle^{\frac{\theta}{2}}\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_T^{\infty}L_x^2}\lesssim \|f\|_{L_x^{p(\theta)}L_T^{q(\theta)}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rsmoothing}
\left\|D_x^{\frac{1+\theta}{2}}\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^{2}}\lesssim\|f\|_{L_x^{p(\theta)}L_T^{q(\theta)}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rmaximal-1}
\left\|\langle D_x\rangle^{\frac{\theta}{2}}\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}P_Nf(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^{2}L_T^{\infty}}\lesssim \langle N\rangle^{1/2}\|f\|_{L_x^{p(\theta)}L_T^{q(\theta)}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rmaximal-2}
\left\|\langle D_x\rangle^{\frac{\theta}{2}-\frac14}\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_T^{4}L_x^{\infty}}\lesssim\|f\|_{L_x^{p(\theta)}L_T^{q(\theta)}},\end{aligned}$$ where $p'$ of number is conjugate of $p\in[1,\infty]$ given by $1/p+1/p'=1$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{p(\theta)}=\frac{3+\theta}{4},~
\frac{1}{q(\theta)}=\frac{3-\theta}{4}.\end{aligned}$$
We shall need the lemma of Christ-Kiselev [@CK], which permits us to obtain Lemma \[lem:retard\] from the corresponding “non-retarded estimates” (see also [@MR1; @MR2; @SS; @Ta3]).
\[lem:ChristKiselev\] Let $T$ be a linear operator of the form $$\begin{aligned}
Tf(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}K(t,t')f(t')\,dt'\end{aligned}$$ where $K:\mathrsfs{S}(\Bbb R^2)\to C(\Bbb R^3)$. Assume that $\|Tf\|_{L_x^{p_1}L_T^{q_1}}\lesssim\|f\|_{L_x^{p_2}L_T^{q_2}}$ for $p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2\in[1,\infty]$ with $\min\{p_1,q_1\}>\max\{p_2,q_2\}$ or $p_2,q_2<\infty,q_1=\infty$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\int_0^tK(t,t')f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^{p_1}L_T^{q_1}}\lesssim\|f\|_{L_x^{p_2}L_T^{q_2}}.\end{aligned}$$
\[rem:ChristKiselev\] The $L_T^{q_1}L_x^{p_1},L_x^{p_2}L_T^{q_2}$ (instead of $L_T^{q_2}L_x^{p_2}$) version of Lemma \[lem:ChristKiselev\] holds with the condition $q_1>\max\{p_2,q_2\}$ [@MR1; @MR2].
[*Proof of Lemma \[lem:retard\].*]{} The inequality (\[eq:rstrichartz-1\]) is due to the inhomogeneous Strichartz estimate [@KPV2].
The inequality (\[eq:rstrichartz-2\]) follows from a $TT^*$ argument, (\[eq:smoothing-1\]) and (\[eq:rstrichartz-1\]). Indeed, applying a $TT^*$ argument to (\[eq:smoothing-1\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_T^{\infty}L_x^2}\lesssim \|f\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Also by (\[eq:rstrichartz-1\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\int_{0}^{t}e^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_T^{\infty}L_x^2} & \lesssim & \min\{\|f\|_{L_T^1L_x^2},\|f\|_{L_T^{4/3}L_x^1}\}\\
& \lesssim & \min\{\|f\|_{L_{T}^{4/3}L_x^2},\|f\|_{L_{T}^{4/3}L_x^1}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore by Remark \[rem:ChristKiselev\] and the complex interpolation argument, we obtain (\[eq:rstrichartz-2\]).
For (\[eq:rsmoothing\]), in analogy with (\[eq:rstrichartz-2\]) we begin with the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:TT}
\left\|D_x^{\frac{\theta}{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^2}\lesssim\|f\|_{L_x^{p(\theta)}L_T^{q(\theta)}}.\end{aligned}$$ This follows easily from the argument as before. Then we use again $TT^*$ argument, (\[eq:smoothing-1\]) and (\[eq:TT\]) to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|D_x^{\frac{1+\theta}{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^{2}} & \lesssim & \left\|D_x^{\frac{\theta}{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-it'\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^2}\\
& \lesssim & \|f\|_{L_x^{p(\theta)}L_T^{q(\theta)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus Lemma \[lem:ChristKiselev\] implies (\[eq:rsmoothing\]).
The proofs for (\[eq:rmaximal-1\]) and (\[eq:rmaximal-2\]) are the same as that for (\[eq:rsmoothing\]) by using (\[eq:smoothing\]) and (\[eq:maximal\]). [$\Box$]{}
\[rem:sretard\] (i) A straightforward application of Lemma \[lem:ChristKiselev\] to (\[eq:smoothing\]), (\[eq:maximal\]), (\[eq:smoothing-1\]) shows that for $\theta\in[0,1]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:srsmoothing}
\left\|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/2}\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}\lesssim\|f\|_{L_T^1L_x^2},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:srmaximal-1}
\left\|\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}P_Nf(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^{\frac{2}{\theta}}L_T^{\frac{2}{1-\theta}}}\lesssim\langle N\rangle^{1/2-\theta}\|f\|_{L_T^1L_x^2},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:srmaximal-2}
\left\|\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^{4}L_T^{\infty}}\lesssim\|f\|_{L_T^1\dot{H}_x^{1/4}}.\end{aligned}$$ (ii) The estimate (\[eq:rsmoothing\]) with $\theta=1$, but with the $D_x$-derivative replaced by $\partial_x$, still holds [@KPV2] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rsmoothing-2}
\left\|\partial_x\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}f(t')\,dt'\right\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}\lesssim\|f\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof of the estimates with the regularity $s$ for $s\in[1/2,1)$ requires that we use the Leibniz’ type rule with the fractional-order differentiation. The first lemma will provide the Leibniz’ rule for the bilinear form $fg$.
\[lem:Leibnitz1\] Let $\alpha\in(0,1),\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in[0,\alpha],~p,p_1,p_2,q,q_1,q_2\in(1,\infty)$ with $\alpha=\alpha_1+\alpha_2,~\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2},~\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_2}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|D_x^{\alpha}(fg)-D_x^{\alpha}fg-fD_x^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^pL_T^q}\lesssim\|D_x^{\alpha_1}f\|_{L_x^{p_1}L_T^{q_1}}\|D_x^{\alpha_2}g\|_{L_x^{p_2}L_T^{q_2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the case $q_1=\infty$ is allowed if $\alpha_1=0$. Added to this, the case $(p,q)=(1,2)$ is also allowed.
[*Proof.*]{} See [@KPV1 Theorems A.8 and A.13].
Next, we shall have the Leibniz’ rule for a product of the form $e^{iF}g$ where $F$ is the spatial primitive of some function $f$.
\[lem:Leibnitz2\] Let $\alpha\in(0,1),~p,p_1,p_2,q,q_1\in(1,\infty),q_2\in(0,\infty]$ with $\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2},~\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_2}$, and let $F(x,t)=\int_{-\infty}^xf(y,t)\,dy$, with real-valued function $f$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|D_x^{\alpha}(e^{iF}g)\|_{L_x^pL_T^q}\lesssim\|f\|_{L_x^{p_1}L_T^{q_1}}\|g\|_{L_x^{p_2}L_T^{q_2}}+\|\langle D_x\rangle^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^pL_T^q}.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{} We write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Lebnitz2d}
e^{iF}=P_{0}e^{iF}+P_{\ge 1}e^{iF}.\end{aligned}$$ For the first term in (\[eq:Lebnitz2d\]), we easily obtain the bound by $\lesssim \|P_0e^{iF}\langle D_x\rangle^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^pL_T^q}\le \|\langle D_x\rangle^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^pL_T^q}$. To estimate the second term in (\[eq:Lebnitz2d\]), we apply Lemma \[lem:Leibnitz1\] to obtain the bound $$\begin{aligned}
& \le & \|D_x^{\alpha}(P_{\ge 1}e^{iF})g\|_{L_x^pL_T^q}+\|P_{\ge 1}e^{iF}D_x^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^pL_T^q}+c\|D_x^{\alpha}P_{\ge 1}e^{iF}\|_{L_x^{p_1}L_T^{q_1}}\|g\|_{L_x^{p_2}L_T^{q_2}}\\
& \lesssim & \|f\|_{L_x^{p_1}L_T^{q_1}}\|g\|_{L_x^{p_2}L_T^{q_2}}+\|D_x^{\alpha}g\|_{L_x^pL_T^q}.\end{aligned}$$ The estimate on the term $\|D_x^{\alpha}P_{\ge 1}e^{iF}\|_{L_x^{p_1}L_T^{q_1}}$ is clear, by adding an extra derivative $D_x^{1-\alpha}$, and the fact that the Hilbert transform operator ${\cal H}$ is bounded on $L_x^pL_T^q$ to itself, for $1<p,q<\infty$. [$\Box$]{}
In order to control the integral type nonlinearity in (\[eq:mmBO5\]), we need the following lemma.
\[lem:Leibnitz3\] Let $\alpha,\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in[0,1],~p,p_1,p_2,q,q_1,q_2\in(1,\infty)$ with $\alpha+1=\alpha_1+\alpha_2,~\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2},~\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_2}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|D_x^{\alpha}\int_{-\infty}^x{\cal H}f_xf_x\,dy\|_{L_x^pL_T^q}\lesssim\|D_x^{\alpha_1}f\|_{L_x^{p_1}L_T^{q_1}}\|D_x^{\alpha_2}f\|_{L_x^{p_2}L_T^{q_2}}.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{} See [@MR2 Lemma 6.1].
Proof of Proposition \[prop:L\^2-spacetime\] {#sec:L^2-spacetime}
============================================
In this section we prove Proposition \[prop:L\^2-spacetime\]. Throughout the section, we will use $\xi_{ij}$ to denote $\xi_i+\xi_j$, and also use $\xi_{ijk}$ etc.
Using a Littlewood-Paley decomposition, we write $$\begin{aligned}
u^2=\sum_{N_1,N_2}P_{N_1}uP_{N_2}u.\end{aligned}$$ We split the sum into three parts $N_1\sim N_2,~N_1\gg N_2,~N_1\ll N_2$.
In the treatment of the case $N_1\sim N_2$, we can share a derivative between $P_{N_1}u$ and $P_{N_2}u$. In fact, by Plancherel’s theorem and the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\sum_N\|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/2}P_Nu\|_{L_{xT}^4}^2\right)^{1/2}\lesssim
T^{1/4}\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}+\|P_{\ge 1}u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}\end{aligned}$$ (which follows by interpolation), we have the bound for this contribution to the left-hand side of (\[eq:L\^2-spacetime\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim \sum_{N_1\sim N_2}\|\langle D_x\rangle^{\frac12}P_{N_1}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}\|\langle D_x\rangle^{\frac12}P_{N_2}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}
\lesssim T^{\frac12}\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^2+\|P_{\ge 1}u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^2.\end{aligned}$$
Next consider the case $N_1\gg N_2$ or $N_1\ll N_2$. By symmetry, it will suffice to consider the case $N_1\ll N_2$. If $N_1=O(1)$, the proof is easy. In fact, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{N_1=O(1)\ll N_2}P_{N_1}uP_{N_2}u_x=\sum_{N_1=O(1)\ll N_2}\widetilde{P}_{N_2}(P_{N_1}uP_{N_2}u_x).\end{aligned}$$ With this and the Littlewood-Paley theorem, we have the bound for this contribution to the left-hand side of (\[eq:L\^2-spacetime\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim\sum_{N_1=O(1)}\|P_{N_1}u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}\left(\sum_{N_2\gg 1}\|P_{N_2}u_x\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}^2\right)^{\frac12}\lesssim \|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}\|P_{\ge 1}u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ For $N_2=O(1)$ we have the bound by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim\sum_{N_1,N_2=O(1)}\|P_{N_1}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}\|P_{N_2}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}\lesssim T^{\frac12}\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^2,\end{aligned}$$ and the claim is proved.
It will thus suffice to show $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sum_{N_2\gg 1}(P_{1\ll \cdot\ll N_2}uP_{N_2}u_x)\right\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\lesssim \|P_{\ge 1}u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}^4+(\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^2+\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^4)\|P_{\ge 1}u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ (we take the square of $\|(u^2)_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}$.) From the Littlewood-Paley theorem, we deduce the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sum_{N_2\gg 1}(P_{1\ll\cdot\ll N_2}uP_{N_2}u_x)\right\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\sim \sum_{N_2\gg 1}\|P_{1\ll\cdot\ll N_2}uP_{N_2}u_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\end{aligned}$$ which is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:quard}
=\int_0^T\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{1\ll N_1,N_1^*\ll N_2}P_{N_1}uP_{N_1^*}uP_{N_2}u_xP_{N_2}u_x\,dxdt.\end{aligned}$$ We split the sum in $N_1,N_1^*$ as $\sum_{N_1\sim N_1^*}+\sum_{N_1\not\sim N_1^*}$. The treatment for $N_1\sim N_1^*$ is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim\sum_{1\ll N_1\sim N_1^*\ll N_2}\|P_{N_1}u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}\|P_{N_1^*}u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}\|P_{N_2}u_x\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}^2,\end{aligned}$$ which is acceptable. In order to study the contribution of $N_1\not\sim N_1^*$ for (\[eq:quard\]), we use the equation (\[eq:gBO\]) to see that $$\begin{aligned}
(e^{it|\xi|\xi}\widehat{P_Nu}(\xi))_t=-e^{it|\xi|\xi}\widehat{P_N(u^2u_x)}(\xi).\end{aligned}$$ Then by Plancherel’ theorem we can reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
=& & \sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2}\int_0^T\int_*e^{-it(|\xi_1|\xi_1+|\xi_2|\xi_2\pm\xi_3^2\mp\xi_4^2)}\\
& & (e^{it|\xi_1|\xi_1}\widehat{P_{N_1}u}(\xi_1))(e^{it|\xi_2|\xi_2}\widehat{P_{N_1^*}u}(\xi_2))(e^{\pm it\xi_3^2}\widehat{P_{\pm}P_{N_2}u_x}(\xi_3))(e^{\mp it\xi_4^2}\widehat{P_{\mp}P_{N_2}u_x}(\xi_4)),\end{aligned}$$ where we denote by $\int_*$ the integral over the hyper plane $\xi_{1234}=0$ (by symmetry we take $N_1^*\ll N_1$). (Note that under the restriction $\xi_{1234}=0$, the terms of equal signs on $\xi_3,\xi_4$ vanish for $N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2$.) Integrating by parts, we write this as $$\begin{aligned}
& & i\sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2}\int_*\frac{[\widehat{P_{N_1}u}(\xi_1,t)\widehat{P_{N_1^*}u}(\xi_2,t)\widehat{P_{\pm}P_{N_2}u_x}(\xi_3,t)\widehat{P_{\mp}P_{N_2}u_x}(\xi_4,t)]_{t=0}^{t=T}}{|\xi_1|\xi_1+|\xi_2|\xi_2\pm\xi_3^2\mp\xi_4^2}\label{eq:quard-1}\\
& & -i\sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2}\int_0^T\int_*\frac{1}{|\xi_1|\xi_1+|\xi_2|\xi_2\pm\xi_3^2\mp\xi_4^2}
\label{eq:quard-2}
\\
& & \left(\widehat{P_{N_1}(u^2u_x)}(\xi_1)\widehat{P_{N_1^*}u}(\xi_2)+\widehat{P_{N_1}u}(\xi_1)\widehat{P_{N_1^*}(u^2u_x)}(\xi_2)\right)\widehat{P_{\pm}P_{N_2}u_x}(\xi_3)\widehat{P_{\mp}P_{N_2}u_x}(\xi_4)
\nonumber
\\
& & -i\sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2}\int_0^T\int_*\frac{1}{|\xi_1|\xi_1+|\xi_2|\xi_2\pm\xi_3^2\mp\xi_4^2}\widehat{P_{N_1}u}(\xi_1)\widehat{P_{N_1^*}u}(\xi_2)
\label{eq:quard-3}
\\
& & \left(\widehat{P_{\pm}P_{N_2}(u^2u_x)_x}(\xi_3)\widehat{P_{\mp}P_{N_2}u_x}(\xi_4)+\widehat{P_{\pm}P_{N_2}u_x}(\xi_3)\widehat{P_{\mp}P_{N_2}(u^2u_x)_x}(\xi_4)\right),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we omit the time variable $t$ for the sake of simplicity.
Observe that since $|\xi_2|\ll |\xi_1|\sim|\xi_{12}|\ll |\xi_3|\sim|\xi_4|$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:deno}
\left|\frac{1}{|\xi_1|\xi_1+|\xi_2|\xi_2\pm\xi_3^2\mp\xi_4^2}+\frac{1}{\pm 2\xi_{12}\xi_3}\right|
\lesssim\frac{1}{\xi_3^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Then by Coifman-Meyer’s multilinear theorem [@CMS] (also in [@S]), the first term of the above integral (\[eq:quard-1\]) is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lesssim \sum_{t=0,T}\sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2}\\
& & (\|P_{N_1}u(t)\|_{L_x^4}\|P_{N_1^*}u(t)\|_{L_x^4}\|P_{N_2}u(t)\|_{L_x^4}^2+\|D_x^{-1}(P_{N_1}uP_{N_1^*}u)(t)\|_{L_x^{\infty}}\|D_x^{\frac12}P_{N_2}u(t)\|_{L_x^2}^2)\\
& & \lesssim \|P_{\ge 1}u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}^4+\|P_{\ge 1}u(T)\|_{H^{1/2}}^4\end{aligned}$$ which is acceptable.
The second term (\[eq:quard-2\]) is treated in the same way as above. We bound this contribution by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim\sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2}(\|P_{N_1}(u^3)\|_{L_{xT}^4}\|P_{N_1^*}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}+\|P_{N_1}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}\|P_{N_1^*}(u^3)\|_{L_{xT}^4})\|D_x^{\frac12}P_{N_2}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}^2\end{aligned}$$ which is easily acceptable.
To estimate the last term (\[eq:quard-3\]), by (\[eq:deno\]) we may replace the denominator in the integral term by $\pm 2i\xi_{12}\xi_3$. This is because that if the denominator was $\xi_3^2$, we would have a bound by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim\sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2}\|P_{N_1}u\|_{L_{xT}^8}\|P_{N_1^*}u\|_{L_{xT}^8}\|D_x^{\frac12}P_{N_2}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}\|D_x^{\frac12}P_{N_2}(u^3)\|_{L_{xT}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the last term $\|D_x^{\frac12}P_{N_2}(u^3)\|_{L_{xT}^2}$, we use the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality in $N_2$ to handle this by using that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\sum_{N_2}\|D_x^{1/2}P_{N_2}(u^3)\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\lesssim\|D_x^{\frac12}(u^3)\|_{L_{xT}^2}\lesssim \|D_x^{\frac12}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}\|u\|_{L_{xT}^8}^2\lesssim \|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^3.\end{aligned}$$ We can use symmetry in (\[eq:quard-3\]) because $-\xi_3=\xi_4+\xi_{12}$, and thus we are reduced to the following integral $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2}\int_0^T\int_{*}\left(2\frac{\xi_3\xi_4}{\xi_{12}}+\xi_3\right)\widehat{P_{N_1}u}(\xi_1)\widehat{P_{N_1^*}u}(\xi_2)\widehat{P_{\pm}P_{N_2}(u^3)}(\xi_3)\widehat{P_{\mp}P_{N_2}u}(\xi_4).\end{aligned}$$ For the Fourier multiplier $\xi_3$, by Hölder’s inequality we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim\sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2}\|P_{N_1}u\|_{L_{xT}^8}\|P_{N_1^*}u\|_{L_{xT}^8}\|D_x^{\frac12}P_{N_2}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}\|D_x^{\frac12}P_{N_2}(u^3)\|_{L_{xT}^2},\end{aligned}$$ which can be treated as before. On the other hand, for the Fourier multiplier $2\frac{\xi_3\xi_4}{\xi_{12}}$, we deduce from Hölder’s inequality that the expression is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim\sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1\ll N_2}\|D_x^{-1}(P_{N_1}uP_{N_1^*}u)\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}\|\partial_xP_{N_2}u\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}\|\partial_xP_{N_2}(u^3)\|_{L_{xT}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ (We may of course decompose $P_{N_1}u=P_+P_{N_1}u+P_-P_{N_1}u$ in order to obtain the $D_x^{-1}$-derivative.) By Young’s inequality, we see that the first term is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1}\|D_x^{-1}(P_{N_1}uP_{N_1^*}u)\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}\\
&\lesssim & \sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1}\|[D_x^{-1}\widetilde{P_{N_1}}]\check{~}\|_{L_x^2}\|P_{N_1}uP_{N_1^*}u\|_{L_x^1L_T^{\infty}}\\
&\lesssim & \sum_{1\ll N_1^*\ll N_1}\|\langle D_x\rangle^{-\frac14}P_{N_1}u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}\|\langle D_x\rangle^{-\frac14}P_{N_1^*}u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}\\
& \lesssim &\|P_{\ge 1}u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ The second term $\|\partial_xP_{N_2}u\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}$ yields an acceptable term after Cauchy-Schwarz. Also for the last term $\|\partial_xP_{N_2}(u^3)\|_{L_{xT}^2}$, after Cauchy-Schwartz, we control this by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim\left(\sum_{N_2}\|\partial_xP_{N_2}(u^3)\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{\frac12}\sim\|(u^3)_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ We use a Littlewood-Paley decomposition to expand $$\begin{aligned}
u^3 & = & \sum_{N\ge 1}\left((P_{\le 2N}u)^3-(P_{\le N}u)^3\right)+P_0(u)^3\\
& =& \sum_{N\ge 1}(P_{\le 2N}-P_{\le N})uA_N(u)+P_0(u)^3\\
& =& \sum_{N\ge 1}P_{2N}uA_N(u)+P_0(u)^3,\end{aligned}$$ where $A_N(u)=(P_{\le 2N}u)^2+P_{\le 2N}uP_{\le N}u+(P_{\le N}u)^2$. The term $P_0(u)^3$ can be estimated by using a Littlewood-Paley theorem to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\|\partial_xP_0(u)^3\|_{L_{xT}^2}\lesssim\|P_0(u)\|_{L_{xT}^6}^3\lesssim\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^3.\end{aligned}$$ For the first term, suppose $A_N(u)=(P_{\le N}u)^2$, because other two terms are handled similarly. Then it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\partial_x\sum_{N\ge 1}P_{2N}u(P_{\le N}u)^2\right\|_{L_{xT}^2}\lesssim \|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^3.\end{aligned}$$ Now we write $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_x\sum_{N\ge 1}P_{2N}u(P_{\le N}u)^2
=\left(\sum_{M\lesssim 1}+\sum_{M\gg 1}\right)\partial_xP_M\sum_{N\ge 1}P_{2N}u(P_{\le N}u)^2.\end{aligned}$$
The low frequency part $\sum_{M\lesssim 1}$ can be estimated by using a Littlewood-Paley theorem to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\partial_xP_{\lesssim 1}\sum_{N\ge 1}P_{2N}u(P_{\le N}u)^2\right\|_{L_{xT}^2}& \lesssim &\left\|P_{\lesssim 1}\sum_{N\ge 1}P_{2N}u(P_{\le N}u)^2\right\|_{L_{xT}^2}\\
& \lesssim & \sum_{N\ge 1}\|P_{2N}u(P_{\le N}u)^2\|_{L_{xT}^2}\lesssim \sum_{N\ge 1}\|P_{2N}u\|_{L_{xT}^6}\|u\|_{L_{xT}^6}^2.\end{aligned}$$ But by $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{N\ge 1}\|P_{2N}u\|_{L_{xT}^6}\le\left(\sum_{N\ge 1}\|P_Nu\|_{L_T^6W_x^{1/2,6}}^2\right)^{1/2}\lesssim \|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}},\end{aligned}$$ we can bound the left-hand side by $\lesssim \|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^3$.
We now look at the contribution of the sum $\sum_{M\gg 1}$. We begin by using a Littlewood-Paley theorem to write $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sum_{M\gg 1}\partial_xP_M\sum_{N\ge 1}P_{2N}u(P_{\le N}u)^2\right\|_{L_{xT}^2} & \sim & \left(\sum_{M\gg 1}M^2\|P_M\sum_{N\ge 1}P_{2N}u(P_{\le N}u)^2\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& \lesssim & \left(\sum_{M\gg 1}M^2\|P_M\sum_{N\gtrsim M}P_{2N}u(P_{\le N}u)^2\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Using Hölder and Littlewood-Paley theorem, this is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lesssim \left(\sum_{M\gg 1}\left(\sum_{N\gtrsim M}\frac{M}{N}\|P_{2N}u_x\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}\|P_{\le N}u\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}^2\right)^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_N\|P_{\le N}u\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}\lesssim\sup_N\sum_{M\le N}\|P_Mu\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}\lesssim \|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\sum_{M\gg 1}\left(\sum_{N\gtrsim M}\frac{M}{N}\|P_{2N}u_x\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}\|P_{\le N}u\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}^2\right)^2\right)^{1/2}
\lesssim\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^2\left(\sum_{M\gg 1}\left(\sum_{N\gtrsim N}\frac{M}{N}\|P_{N}u_x\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ But using Young’s inequality $\|f*g\|_{l^2}\le\|f\|_{l^1}\|g\|_{l^2}$, we bound the left-hand side by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim \|u\|_{X_{T}^{1/2}}^2\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_Nu_x\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\le\|u\|_{X_T^{1/2}}^3. \end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of Proposition \[prop:L\^2-spacetime\]. [$\Box$]{}
Nonlinear estimates {#sec:nonlinear}
===================
We shall now deal with the problem of estimating the nonlinearity arising in the equation (\[eq:mmBO5\]). Throughout this section, we always assume $T\in (0,1)$ and $N\gg 1$. For brevity’s sake, we only consider the endpoint case $s=1/2$, and abbreviate $X_T^{1/2}$ to $X$. Recall that the equation (\[eq:mmBO5\]) has the following equivalent integral equation $$\begin{aligned}
v_N(t) & = & e^{it\partial_x^2}(e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u_0)^2}P_+P_Nu_0)\label{eq:I-BO1}\\
& & +\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}(A_{1,N}+A_{2,N}+A_{3,N}+A_{4,N}+A_{5,N})(t')\,dt',
$$ where $A_{j,N}(t)$ are defined in (\[eq:mmBO5\]).
Because of Lemmas \[lem:freeestimate\] and \[lem:retard\], we need to define the function space $Y$, equipped with the following norm, which will only be used in this section and next section (Lemmas \[lem:low-u\] and \[lem:u-v\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_Y=\|u\|_{L_T^{\infty}H_x^{1/2}}+\|\partial_xu\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}+\|u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}+\|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/4}u\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}.\end{aligned}$$ We handle the $Y$-norm for the nonlinearities $A_j$.
\[prop:I-BO7\] Let $u$ be a $H^{\infty}$-solution to (\[eq:gBO\]). Then $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left\|\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}\sum_{j=1}^5A_{j,N}(t')\,dt'
\right\|_Y^2\right)^{1/2}
\nonumber\\
& & \lesssim T^{1/4}(1+\|u\|_X^4)\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X+\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}^2\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X+(1+\|u\|_X^2)\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X^2.
\label{eq:nI-BO2}\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof of Proposition \[prop:I-BO7\].*]{} We consider each contribution separately.
The contribution of $A_{1,N}$.
------------------------------
We begin with the identity $$\begin{aligned}
u^2u_x=(P_{\ll N}u)^2\widetilde{P}_Nu_x+(P_{\ll N}u)^2(1-\widetilde{P}_N)u_x+(u^2-(P_{\ll N}u)^2)u_x.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the term $(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x$ has Fourier support in $|\xi|\sim N$, also the second term $(P_{\ll N}u)^2(1-\widetilde{P}_N)u_x$ will cancel when the projection operator $P_N$ is applied since $P_N((P_{\ll N}u)^2u_x)=P_N((P_{\ll N}u)^2\widetilde{P}_Nu_x)$ for large frequency $\sim N$. On the other hand, $P_+((P_{\ll N}u)^2\widetilde{P}_Nu_x)=(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x$ for large frequency $\sim N$. We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
& & P_+P_N(u^2u_x)-(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+P_Nu_x
\nonumber\\
& = & P_N((P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x)-(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_NP_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x
\label{eq:D1}\\
& & +P_+P_N((u^2-(P_{\ll N}u)^2)u_x),
\label{eq:D2}\end{aligned}$$ where we may freely add $\widetilde{P}_N$ to $P_N$. We exploit the projection operator $P_N$ to expand the second term (\[eq:D2\]) as follows: for each $N\gg 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
P_+P_N((u^2-(P_{\ll N}u)^2)u_x)=P_+P_N\sum_{k=1}^5\sum_{I_k}P_{N_1}uP_{N_2}uP_{N_3}u_x,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& & I_1:~N_1\sim N_2\gtrsim N,N_3,\label{eq:I_1}\\
& & I_2:~N_1\sim N\gg N_2,N_3,\label{eq:I_2}\\
& & I_3:~N_1\sim N_3\sim N\gg N_2,\label{eq:I_3}\\
& & I_4:~N_1\sim N_3\gg N_2\gtrsim N,\label{eq:I_4}\\
& & I_5:~N_1\sim N_3\gg N\gg N_2.\label{eq:I_5}\end{aligned}$$ (By symmetry, we may assume $N_1\gtrsim N_2,N_3,N$.)
We now give the following lemma.
\[lem:L\^2\] Let $u$ be a solution of (\[eq:gBO\]). Then $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_N((P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x)-(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_NP_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}
\label{eq:L^2-1}\\
& & +\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\sum_{k=2,3,5}\|P_N\sum_{I_k}P_{N_1}uP_{N_2}uP_{N_3}u_x\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}
\label{eq:L^2-2}\\
& \lesssim & T^{1/4}\|u\|_X^2\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X+\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}^2\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_{X}+(1+\|u\|_X^2)\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X^2.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof of Lemma \[lem:L\^2\].*]{} We first consider (\[eq:L\^2-1\]). To shift a derivative from the high-frequency function $P_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x$ to the low-frequency function $(P_{\ll N}u)^2$, we require the following Leibniz rule for $P_N$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:P_Leibniz}
\widehat{(P_N(fg)-fP_Ng)}(\xi)&=&i\int(\varphi_N(\xi)-\varphi_N(\xi_1))\hat{f}(\xi-\xi_1)\hat{g}(\xi_1)\,d\xi_1\\
&=& i\int\left(\int_0^1\varphi_N'((1-\eta)\xi_1+\eta\xi)\,d\eta\right)(\xi-\xi_1)\hat{f}(\xi-\xi_1)\hat{g}(\xi_1)\,d\xi_1,\end{aligned}$$ and its Fourier inverse formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:I_P}
(P_N(fg)-fP_Ng)(x)=\int_0^1\,d\eta\left(\int\check{\varphi}_N(y)yf_x(x-\eta y)g(x-y)\,dy\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\|y\check{\varphi}_N\|_{L_y^1}=cN^{-1}\|y\check{\varphi}_1\|_{L_y^1}$, we may bound the contribution of (\[eq:L\^2-1\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
& \lesssim & (\sum_{N\gg 1}\|(P_{\ll N}u)^2_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2N^{-2}\|P_+P_Nu_x\|_{L_x^{2}L_T^{\infty}}^2)^{1/2}\\
& \lesssim & (\sum_{N\gg 1}\|(P_{\ll N}u)^2_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\|P_Nu\|_{L_x^{2}L_T^{\infty}}^2)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Split $P_{\ll N}u=P_{\le 1}u+P_{1<\cdot\ll N}u$, and write $(P_{\ll N}u)^2=(P_{\le 1}u)^2+2P_{\le 1}uP_{1<\cdot\ll N}u+(P_{1<\cdot\ll N}u)^2$. For $(P_{\le 1}u)^2$, we can discard the $\partial_x$-derivative, and estimate this contribution by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim T^{\frac12}\|u\|_X^2\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X.\end{aligned}$$ For the contributions of the other two terms, we use Proposition \[prop:L\^2-spacetime\][^4] to obtain the desired bound.
Turning to the estimate (\[eq:L\^2-2\]), we shall consider separately the contributions of (\[eq:I\_2\]), (\[eq:I\_3\]) and (\[eq:I\_5\]). For (\[eq:I\_2\]), we bound this contribution to (\[eq:L\^2-2\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lesssim\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|\sum_{N_1\sim N}P_{N_1}uP_{\ll N}uP_{\ll N}u_x\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& & \lesssim\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_Nu\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}^2\|P_{\ll N}uP_{\ll N}u_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ which is acceptable, since the proof is along the same lines as that for (\[eq:L\^2-1\]). For (\[eq:I\_3\]), a similar argument shows that this contribution to (\[eq:L\^2-2\]) is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
& \lesssim & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|\sum_{N_1\sim N}(P_{N_1}u\sum_{N_3\sim N_1}P_{\ll N}uP_{N_3}u_x)\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& \lesssim & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_{N_1\sim N}\|P_{N_1}u\sum_{N_3\sim N_1}P_{\ll N}uP_{N_3}u_x\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& \lesssim & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\sum_{N_1\sim N}\|P_{N_1}u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}^2\sum_{N_1\sim N}\|\sum_{N_3\sim N_1}P_{\ll N}uP_{N_3}u_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ This is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_{N}u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}^2\|P_{\ll N}uP_{\sim N}u_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ which is acceptable as before. Finally, for (\[eq:I\_5\]), we observe that by symmetry $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{N_1\sim N_3}P_{N_1}uP_{N_3}u_x=\sum_{N_1\sim N_3}(P_{N_1}uP_{N_3}u)_x.\end{aligned}$$ Then we bound this contribution to (\[eq:L\^2-2\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lesssim\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|\widetilde{P}_N(P_{\gg N}uP_{\gg N})_xP_{\ll N}u\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& & \lesssim\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}N^{2}\sum_{N_1\gg N}\|P_{N_1}u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}^2\sum_{N_1\gg N}\|\sum_{N_3\sim N_1}P_{N_3}uP_{\ll N}u\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& & \lesssim\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_{X}\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}N^{2}\sum_{N_3\gg N}N_3^{-2}\|P_{N_3}u_xP_{\ll N}u\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ We rearrange the sum as follows $$\begin{aligned}
& \lesssim & \|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_{X}\left(\sum_{N_3\gg N\gg 1}(N/N_3)^{2}\|P_{N_3}u_xP_{\ll N}u\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
& \lesssim & \|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_{X}\left(\sum_{N_3\gg 1}\sum_{N:N\ll N_3}(N/N_3)^{2}\sup_{N:N\ll N_3}\|P_{N_3}u_xP_{\ll N}u\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2}.\label{eq:mL^2}\end{aligned}$$ One can then observe the following variant of (\[eq:L\^2-spacetime\]) that entered in the proof of Proposition \[prop:L\^2-spacetime\][^5]: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left(\sum_{N_2\gg 1}\sup_{N_1:N_1\ll N_2}\|P_{N_2}u_xP_{\ll N_1}u\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2}
\nonumber\\
&\lesssim & \|P_{\gg 1}u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}^2+(1+\|u\|_X)\|u\|_X\|P_{\gg 1}u\|_X+T^{1/2}\|u\|_X^2.
\label{eq:rrL^2}\end{aligned}$$ The idea is that the contribution of the term $P_{\ll N_1}u$ can be essentially estimated by the squared-type norm $(\sum_{M\ll N_1}\|P_{M}u\|_X^2)^{1/2}\lesssim \|u\|_{X}$, which is independent of the size of $N_1$. We first sum in $N$, then in $N_3$ for (\[eq:mL\^2\]), and use the inequality (\[eq:rrL\^2\]).
This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem:L\^2\]. [$\Box$]{}
We now turn to the proof of Proposition \[prop:I-BO7\], and estimate the contribution of $A_{1,N}$. With the aid of this lemma, we can prove the estimate for the terms (\[eq:D1\]), (\[eq:I\_1\]), (\[eq:I\_2\]), (\[eq:I\_3\]), (\[eq:I\_4\]) and (\[eq:I\_5\]). We shall consider separately each contribution.
### The contribution of (\[eq:D1\]).
By (\[eq:rstrichartz-2\]), (\[eq:rsmoothing-2\]), (\[eq:rmaximal-1\]), (\[eq:rmaximal-2\]), we bound the contribution of (\[eq:D1\]) to the left of (\[eq:nI-BO2\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lesssim \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|B_N(u)\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}
\label{eq:D1-1}\\
& & +\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_M\|P_M(e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}B_N(u))\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}\right)^2\right)^{1/2},
\label{eq:D1-2}\end{aligned}$$ where $B_N(u)=P_N((P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x)-(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_NP_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x$. From Lemma \[lem:L\^2\], the first term (\[eq:D1-1\]) is acceptable.
On the other hand, for the second term (\[eq:D1-2\]), we split the sum $\sum_M$ into three parts $\sum_{M\sim N}+\sum_{M\ll N}+\sum_{M\gg N}$. The contribution of $M\sim N$ is of type (\[eq:D1-1\]) by summing in $M$ such that $M\sim N$. Next we study the contribution of $M\ll N$ to (\[eq:D1-2\]). Since the expression $P_N((P_{\ll N}u)^2P_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x)-(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_NP_+\widetilde{P}_Nu_x$ has Fourier support in $|\xi|\sim N$, we may add the projection operator $P_{\sim N}$ to $e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int_{-\infty}^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2\,dy}$. By Hölder inequality, we can bound this contribution to (\[eq:D1-2\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lesssim \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_{M\ll N}\|P_{\sim N}e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}B_N(u)\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& & \lesssim \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}(\log N)^2\|P_{\sim N}e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}\|_{L_{xT}^{1/\varepsilon}}^2\|B_N(u)\|_{L_x^{\frac{1}{1-\varepsilon}}L_T^{\frac{2}{1-2\varepsilon}}}^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ We easily see that by Sobolev inequality $$\begin{aligned}
N\|P_{\sim N}e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}\|_{L_{xT}^{1/\varepsilon}}& \lesssim & \|\partial_xP_{\sim N}e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2\,dy}\|_{L_{xT}^{1/\varepsilon}}\\
&\lesssim&\|P_{\ll N}u\|_{L_{xT}^{\frac{2}{\varepsilon}}}^2\lesssim\|u\|_X^2,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{N\gg 1}N^{-2+2\varepsilon}\|B_N(u)\|_{L_x^{\frac{1}{1-\varepsilon}}L_T^{\frac{2}{1-2\varepsilon}}}^2
&\lesssim & \sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_{\ll N}u\|_{L_x^{4}L_T^{\infty}}^4\|D_x^{\varepsilon}P_Nu\|_{L_{xT}^{\frac{2}{1-2\varepsilon}}}^2\\
&\lesssim & T^{1-2\varepsilon}\|u\|_X^4\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X^2.\end{aligned}$$ From these, the previous is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim T^{\frac12-\varepsilon}\|u\|_X^4\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X.\end{aligned}$$
For the contribution of $M\gg N$ to (\[eq:D1-2\]), we now add the projection operator $P_M$ to $e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int_{-\infty}^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2\,dy}$. Then we have the bound by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_{M\gg N}\|P_{M}e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}\|_{L_{xT}^{1/\varepsilon}}\|B_N(u)\|_{L_x^{\frac{1}{1-\varepsilon}}L_T^{\frac{2}{1-2\varepsilon}}}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ and this follows from the same line of proof as the contribution of the case $M\ll N$. This completes the proof for (\[eq:D1\]).
### The contribution of (\[eq:I\_1\]).
We use (\[eq:rstrichartz-1\]), (\[eq:srsmoothing\]), (\[eq:srmaximal-1\]), (\[eq:srmaximal-2\]), and estimate this by $$\begin{aligned}
& \lesssim & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}C_N(u)\|_{L_T^1H_x^{\frac12}}^2\right)^{1/2}
\label{eq:D2-1-1}\\
& & +\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_M\|P_M(e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}C_N(u))\|_{L_T^1H_x^{\frac12}}\right)^2\right)^{1/2},
\label{eq:D2-1-2}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_N(u)=P_+P_N\sum_{I_1}P_{N_1}uP_{N_2}uP_{N_3}u_x$. By Lemma \[lem:Leibnitz2\], the first term (\[eq:D2-1-1\]) is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
& \lesssim & T^{\frac12}\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_{\ll N}u\|_{L_{xT}^{\frac{4}{\varepsilon}}}^4\|P_N\sum_{I_1}P_{N_1}uP_{N_2}uP_{N_3}u_x\|_{L_{xT}^{\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon}}}^2\right)^{1/2}\label{eq:D2-1-3}\\
& & +T^{\frac12}\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|D_x^{\frac12}P_N\sum_{I_1}P_{N_1}uP_{N_2}uP_{N_3}u_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}^2\right)^{1/2}.\label{eq:D2-1-4}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that by Sobolev inequality the term (\[eq:D2-1-3\]) is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim T^{1/2}\|u\|_X^4\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X.\end{aligned}$$ For the term (\[eq:D2-1-4\]), we may drop the assumption on $N$ for (\[eq:I\_1\]), namely $I_1:N_1\sim N_2\gtrsim N_3$. In fact, add $$\begin{aligned}
P_N\sum_{N\gg N_1\sim N_2\gtrsim N_3}P_{N_1}uP_{N_2}uP_{N_3}u_x=0.\end{aligned}$$ We therefore bound (\[eq:D2-1-4\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lesssim T^{1/2}\|D_x^{1/2}\sum_{N_1\sim N_2\gtrsim N_3}P_{N_1}uP_{N_2}uP_{N_3}u_x\|_{L_{xT}^2}\\
& & \lesssim \sum_{N_1\sim N_2}\|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/2}P_{N_1}u\|_{L_{xT}^6}\|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/2}P_{N_2}u\|_{L_{xT}^6}\|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/2}P_{\lesssim N_1}u\|_{L_{xT}^6},\end{aligned}$$ so that summing on $N_1\sim N_2(\gtrsim N\gg 1)$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim T^{1/2}\|u\|_X^2\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X.\end{aligned}$$ For (\[eq:D2-1-2\]), we split the sum $\sum_M$ into two parts $\sum_{M\lesssim N}+\sum_{M\gg N}$, which gives the bound by $$\begin{aligned}
& \lesssim & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_{M\lesssim N}\langle M\rangle^{\frac12}\|C_N(u)\|_{L_T^1L_x^2}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& & +\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_{M\gg N}\|P_M\langle D_x\rangle^{\frac12}e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}C_N(u)\|_{L_T^1L_x^2}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\sum_{M\lesssim N}\langle M\rangle^{1/2}\lesssim N^{1/2}$, the estimate for the first term follows from the same argument as that for (\[eq:D2-1-4\]). The second term is treated by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim T^{\frac12}\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_{M\gg N}M^{-\varepsilon}\right)^{1/2}\|\partial_xe^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}\|_{L_{xT}^{\frac{2}{\varepsilon}}}^2\|C_N(u)\|_{L_{xT}^{\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon}}}^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ By the same argument as in (\[eq:D2-1-3\]), this is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim T^{\frac12}\|u\|_X^4\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X.\end{aligned}$$ Then this gives the proof for the contribution of (\[eq:I\_1\]).
### The contribution of (\[eq:I\_2\]).
It is useful to recall the proof for the contribution of (\[eq:D1\]). We use (\[eq:rstrichartz-2\]), (\[eq:rsmoothing-2\]), (\[eq:rmaximal-1\]), (\[eq:rmaximal-2\]) to obtain the bound by $$\begin{aligned}
&\lesssim & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|\sum_{N_1\sim N}P_{N_1}uP_{\ll N}uP_{\ll N}u_x\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& & +\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_M\|P_M(e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}P_+P_N\sum_{N_1\sim N}P_{N_1}uP_{\ll N}uP_{\ll N}u_x)\|_{L_T^1L_x^2}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ The proof for (\[eq:L\^2-1\]) in Lemma \[lem:L\^2\] leads to that for the first term. The proof for the second term follows the corresponding argument for the contribution of (\[eq:D1\]).
### The contribution of (\[eq:I\_3\]).
This follows from the same argument as that for (\[eq:I\_2\]).
### The contribution of (\[eq:I\_4\]).
We invoke the proof used for the contribution of (\[eq:I\_1\]) to prove the estimate. We can share the derivative with three $P_{N_1}u,P_{N_2}u$ and $P_{N_3}u$, and also the derivative in $P_{N_3}u_x$ can be shifted to that for $P_{N_1}u$, in view of the support property $N_1\sim N_3\gg N_2\gtrsim N\gg 1$. Hence the same proof as that for the case (\[eq:I\_1\]) gives us the desired conclusion.
### The contribution of (\[eq:I\_5\]).
In order to verify the proof of (\[eq:I\_5\]), we reprise the proof of (\[eq:D1\]), using Lemma \[lem:L\^2\]. It thus remains only to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_M\|P_M(e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}P_+P_N\sum_{N_1\sim N_3\gg N}P_{N_1}uP_{\ll N}uP_{N_3}u_x)\|_{L_T^1L_x^2}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ We again exploit the projection operator $P_N$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum_{N\gg 1}N^{-2+2\varepsilon}\|\widetilde{P}_N(P_{\gg N}uP_{\gg N}u)_xP_{\ll N}u\|_{L_x^{\frac{1}{1-\varepsilon}}L_T^{\frac{2}{1-2\varepsilon}}}^2\\
&\lesssim & \sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_{\ll N}u\|_{L_x^2L_T^{\infty}}^2\|D_x^{\varepsilon}(P_{\gg N}u)^2\|_{L_{xT}^{\frac{2}{1-2\varepsilon}}}^2\\
&\lesssim &T^{1-2\varepsilon}\|u\|_X^4\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X^2.\end{aligned}$$ We repeat the argument of (\[eq:D1\]), and the proof for (\[eq:I\_5\]) is established.
This concludes the estimate for the contribution of $A_{1,N}$.
The contribution of $A_{2,N}$.
------------------------------
Here the proof is a simple variant of the argument giving (\[eq:D1\]). Indeed, the term $P_{\ll N}(i{\cal H}-1)u_xP_{\ll N}uP_+P_Nu$ is quite close to that used for $A_{1,N}$. Moreover, the proof of Proposition \[prop:L\^2-spacetime\] continues to hold for $i{\cal H}P_{\ll N}u_xP_{\ll N}u$. (Note that for each dyadic number $N\gg 1$, the projection operator ${\cal H}P_N$ is bounded on $L_x^p$ and also on $L_x^pL_T^q$, for $1\le p,q\le \infty$.)
The contribution of $A_{3,N}$.
------------------------------
The proof is a reprise of the argument given in the estimate for $A_{1,N}$. Note that the integral term $\int_{-\infty}^x{\cal H}P_{\ll N}u_xP_{\ll N}u_x\,dy$ has Fourier support in $|\xi|\ll N$. In virtue of (\[eq:rstrichartz-2\]), (\[eq:rsmoothing-2\]), (\[eq:rmaximal-1\]), (\[eq:rmaximal-2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left\|\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}A_{3,N}(t')\,dt'\right\|_Y^2\right)^{1/2}
\nonumber\\
& \lesssim & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left\|P_+P_NuD_N(u)\right\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}
\label{eq:I-BO4-1}\\
& & +\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_M\left\|P_M(e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}P_+P_NuD_N(u))\right\|_{L_x^1L_T^2}\right)^2\right)^{1/2},
\label{eq:I-BO4-2}\end{aligned}$$ where $D_N(u)=\int_{-\infty}^x{\cal H}P_{\ll N}u_xP_{\ll N}u_x\,dy$. For the first term (\[eq:I-BO4-1\]), we split $P_{\ll N}=P_{\lesssim 1}+P_{1\lesssim\cdot\ll N}$ to repeat the argument following the proof of Lemma \[lem:L\^2\]. In fact, by Lemma \[lem:Leibnitz3\] and Hölder inequality together with this decomposition, the proof for (\[eq:I-BO4-1\]) can be reduced to the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\|D_N(u)\|_{L_{xT}^2} & \lesssim & \|D_x^{1/2}P_{\ll N}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}^2\\
&\lesssim & T^{1/2}\|P_{\lesssim 1 }u\|_{L_T^{\infty}L_x^4}^2+\|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/2}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}\|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/2}P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_{L_{xT}^4},\end{aligned}$$ which is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim T^{1/2}\|u\|_{X}^2+\|u\|_{X}\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_{X}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the proof for the second term (\[eq:I-BO4-2\]) follows from combining the above argument with the proof for (\[eq:I\_1\]), which completes the estimate for $A_{3,N}$.
The contribution of $A_{4,N}$.
------------------------------
We may estimate the left-hand side by (\[eq:rstrichartz-1\]), (\[eq:srsmoothing\]), (\[eq:srmaximal-1\]), (\[eq:srmaximal-2\]). Therefore it is sufficient to show that $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left\|P_+P_NuE_N(u)\right\|_{L_{T}^2H_x^{1/2}}^2\right)^{1/2}\label{eq:I-BO5-1}\\
& & +\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_M\left\|P_M(e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}P_+P_NuE_N(u))\right\|_{L_T^2H_x^{1/2}}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}
\label{eq:I-BO5-2}\\
&\lesssim & (\|u\|_X^4+\|u\|_X^6)\|P_{\gtrsim 1}u\|_X,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $E_N(u)=\int_{-\infty}^xP_{\ll N}(u^2u_x)P_{\ll N}u\,dy$. We deal with the first term (\[eq:I-BO5-1\]). By integrating by parts, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
E_N(u) & = & \int_{-\infty}^x\sum_{N_1\sim N_2\ll N}P_{N_1}\partial_xu^3P_{N_2}u\,dy+\int_{-\infty}^x\sum_{N_2\ll N_1\ll N}P_{N_1}\partial_xu^3P_{N_2}u\,dy\\
& & -\int_{-\infty}^x\sum_{N_1\ll N_2\ll N}P_{N_1}u^3P_{N_2}\partial_xu\,dy+\sum_{N_1\ll N_2\ll N}P_{N_1}u^3P_{N_2}u\\.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to bound the contribution of the first term to (\[eq:I-BO5-1\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lesssim \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_+P_Nu\|_{L_T^{\infty}H_x^{\frac12}}^2\left\|\sum_{N_1\sim N_2\ll N}\|D_x^{\frac12}P_{N_1}u^3\|_{L_x^2}\|D_x^{\frac12}P_{N_2}u\|_{L_x^2}\right\|_{L_T^2}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& & \lesssim \|P_{\gg 1}u\|_{X}\|u^3\|_{L_T^{2}H_x^{1/2}}\|u\|_{L_T^{\infty}H_x^{1/2}},\end{aligned}$$ which is acceptable since $\|u^3\|_{L_T^2W_x^{1/2,2}}\lesssim\|u\|_{L_{xT}^6}^2\|u\|_{L_T^6W_x^{1/2,6}}\lesssim \|u\|_{X}^3$ (by interpolation). For the second term , from the Fourier transform, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\left(\int_{-\infty}^x\sum_{N_2\ll N_1\ll N}P_{N_1}\partial_xu^3P_{N_2}u\,dy\right)}(\xi)=c\sum_{N_2\ll N_1\ll N}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\xi_1}{\xi}\widehat{P_{N_1}u^3}(\xi_1)\widehat{P_{N_2}u}(\xi-\xi_1)\,d\xi_1,\end{aligned}$$ so we use the multilinear Fourier multiplier theorem to bound this contribution to (\[eq:I-BO5-2\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_Nu\|_{L_T^4W_x^{1/2,4}}^2\left(\sum_{N_2\ll N_1\ll N}\|P_{N_1}u^3P_{N_2}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}\right)^2\right)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ which is easy acceptable. For the third term, the proof is the same as that for the second term.
For the fourth term, we deduce from Hölder inequality that it is $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_Nu\|_{L_T^{\infty}W_x^{1/2,4}}^2\left(\sum_{N_1\ll N_2\ll N}\|P_{N_1}u^3P_{N_2}u\|_{L_{xT}^4}\right)^2\right)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ which is acceptable as before.
The proof for (\[eq:I-BO5-2\]) can be reproduced by combining the above argument with that for (\[eq:I\_1\]).
The contribution of $A_{5,N}$.
------------------------------
The estimate for this contribution is similar but simpler than that for $A_{4,N}$. This completes the proof for $A_{5,N}$, and hence Proposition \[prop:I-BO7\]. [$\Box$]{}
\[rem:s>1/2\] We now comment on the case $s>1/2$. The proof of the above propositions already contains the nonlinear estimates for $s>1/2$. In particular when $s>1/2$, we require Lemma \[lem:retard\] with $\theta<1$, in order to use the Leibniz rule on $L_x^pL_T^q$ for $1<p,q<\infty$ (c.f. Lemma \[lem:Leibnitz2\]).
Proof of Theorem \[thm:k=2\] {#sec:apriori}
============================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[thm:k=2\]. We shall be concerned with the “endpoint” case $s=1/2$. (c.f. [@MR1] or Remark \[rem:s>1/2\] for the result for $s>1/2$.) To begin with, we re-normalize the data a bit via scaling. By the scaling argument (\[eq:scaling\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
& & \|u_{0,\lambda}\|_{L^2}=\|u_0\|_{L^2},\\
& & \|u_{0,\lambda}\|_{\dot{H}^{\frac12}}=\frac{1}{\lambda^{1/2}}\|u_0\|_{\dot{H}^{\frac12}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we may rescale $$\begin{aligned}
& & \|P_{\lesssim 1}u_{0,\lambda}\|_{L^2}\le\|u_0\|_{L^2}=C_{low},\\
& & \|(I-P_{\lesssim 1})u_{0,\lambda}\|_{H^{\frac12}}\le\frac{1}{\lambda^{1/2}}\|u_0\|_{H^{\frac12}}<C_{high}\ll 1.\end{aligned}$$ Here we choose $\lambda=\lambda(\|u_0\|_{H^{1/2}})\gg 1$, and take the time interval $T$ depending on $\lambda$ later. We now drop the writing of the scaling parameter $\lambda$ and assume $$\begin{aligned}
& & \|P_{\lesssim 1}u_0\|_{L^2}\le C_{low},\\
& & \|(I-P_{\lesssim 1})u_0\|_{H^{\frac12}}\le C_{high}\ll 1.\end{aligned}$$ We now apply this to the norms $X$ and $H^{1/2}$, and define new version of the norms of $X$ and $H^{1/2}$, given by with decomposition $I=P_{\lesssim 1}+(I-P_{\lesssim 1})$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}}=\frac{1}{C_{low}}\|P_{\lesssim 1}u\|_X+\frac{1}{C_{high}}\|(I-P_{\lesssim 1})u\|_X, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi\|_{\widetilde{H^{1/2}}}=\frac{1}{C_{low}}\|P_{\lesssim 1}\phi\|_{L^2}+\frac{1}{C_{high}}\|(I-P_{\lesssim 1})\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}}.\end{aligned}$$ We remark that $\|u_0\|_{\widetilde{H}^{1/2}}\le 2$.
A priori estimate for solutions of (\[eq:gBO\])
-----------------------------------------------
The purpose of this section is to prove the main a priori estimate for a solution of (\[eq:gBO\]). In fact, as a consequence of this estimate, we have the proof of existence, uniqueness and the continuous dependence upon data for the initial value problem (\[eq:gBO\]).
\[prop:apriori\] Let $u$ be a smooth solution to (\[eq:gBO\]) and $0<T<1$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:apriori}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}}\le C(C_{low})+C(C_{low}+\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}})(T^{\alpha}+C_{high})\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}},\end{aligned}$$ for some positive $\alpha$. Here $C(a)\lesssim \langle a\rangle^{100}$.
This proposition immediately leads to an a priori estimate for (\[eq:gBO\]).
\[cor:apriori\] Let $u$ be a smooth solution to (\[eq:gBO\]). For $T$ small, $C_{high}$ small, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}}\le C(C_{high}+C_{low}).\end{aligned}$$
Before proceeding to the proof of Proposition \[prop:apriori\], we establish the following lemmas.
\[lem:low-u\] Let $u$ be a solution to (\[eq:gBO\]). Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|P_{\lesssim 1}u\|_{X}\lesssim C_{low}+T^{1/2}\|u\|_{X}^3.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof of Lemma \[lem:low-u\].*]{} Applying $P_+$ to (\[eq:gBO\]), we obtain the equation $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t-i\partial_x^2)P_+u=P_+(u^2u_x).\end{aligned}$$ Using the integral equation $$\begin{aligned}
P_+u(t)=e^{it\partial_x^2}P_+u_0-\int_0^te^{i(t-t')\partial_x^2}P_+(u^2u_x)(t')\,dt',\end{aligned}$$ and by (\[eq:strichartz\]), (\[eq:smoothing\]), (\[eq:maximal\]), (\[eq:smoothing-1\]), (\[eq:rstrichartz-1\]), (\[eq:srsmoothing\]), (\[eq:srmaximal-1\]), (\[eq:srmaximal-2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|P_{\lesssim 1}P_+u\|_{X} & \lesssim & \|P_{\lesssim 1}P_+u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}+\|P_{\lesssim 1}P_+(u^3)_x\|_{L_T^1H_x^{1/2}}\\
& \lesssim & C_{low}+T^{1/2}\|u\|_{L_{xT}^6}^2\|u\|_{L_T^6W_x^{1/2,6}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $u$ is real-valued, this proves Lemma \[lem:low-u\]. [$\Box$]{}
\[lem:u-v\] Let $u$ and $v_N$ be given in (\[eq:gauge\]). Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|P_{\gg 1}u\|_{X} \lesssim (1+\|u\|_{L_T^{\infty}H^{1/2}}^4)\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|v_N\|_{Y}^2\right)^{\frac12},\end{aligned}$$ where the space $Y$ is defined in section \[sec:nonlinear\].
[*Proof of Lemma \[lem:u-v\].*]{} We will consider separately each of contribution of $L_T^{\infty}H^{1/2}$, $L_x^{\infty}L_T^2$, $L_x^2L_T^{\infty}$ and $L_x^4L_T^{\infty}$-norms.
To bound the contribution of the $L_T^{\infty}H^{1/2}$-norm, since $u$ is real, we use Leibniz’ rule (c.f. Lemma \[lem:Leibnitz2\]) to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\|D_x^{\frac12}P_N(e^{\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}v_N)\|_{L^2}\lesssim (1+\|P_{\ll N}u\|_{H^{\frac12}}^2)\|v_N\|_{H^{\frac12}},\end{aligned}$$ which gives the estimate, summing on $l_N^2$.
For the contribution of the $L_x^{\infty}L_T^2$-norm, observe first that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_xP_+P_Nu=e^{\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}\left(\partial_xv_N+\frac{i}{2}(P_{\ll N}u)^2v_N\right),\end{aligned}$$ then by Littlewood-Paley decomposition, we bound the $L_x^{\infty}L_T^2$- norm of $\partial_xP_Nu$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:smo}
\|\partial_xP_Nu\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}\lesssim \|\partial_xv_N\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}+\left\|\widetilde{P}_{N}\left(\sum_{N_1}P_{N_1}(e^{\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2})(P_{\ll N}u)^2\sum_{N_2}P_{N_2}v_N\right)\right\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}.\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the second term, we first split $\sum_{N_2}=\sum_{N_2\sim N}+\sum_{N_2\not\sim N}$. For $N_2\sim N$, we bound this contribution to the second term of (\[eq:smo\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
c\|(P_{\ll N}u)^2\sum_{N_2\sim N}P_{N_2}v_N\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}& \lesssim & \|P_{\ll N}u\|_{L_{xT}^{\infty}}^2\sum_{N_2\sim N}\|P_{N_2}v_N\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2}\\
& \lesssim & \|u\|_{L_T^{\infty}H^{1/2}}^2\sum_{N_2\sim N}\|P_{N_2}\partial_xv_N\|_{L_x^{\infty}L_T^2},\end{aligned}$$ which is acceptable.
In $N_2\not\sim N$, we split again $\sum_{N_2\not\sim N}=\sum_{N_2\ll N}+\sum_{N_2\gg N}$. For $N_2\ll N$, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{P}_N(\sum_{N_1}P_{N_1}e^{\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_{\ll N}v_N)=\widetilde{P}_N(P_{\sim N}e^{\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_{\ll N}v_N),\end{aligned}$$ while for $N_2\gg N$, we see that the left hand side $$\begin{aligned}
=\widetilde{P}_N(\sum_{N_1\sim N_2\gg N}P_{N_1}e^{\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_{N_2}v_N).\end{aligned}$$ Then we have the bound of this contribution to the second term of (\[eq:smo\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lesssim \|P_{\sim N}e^{\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}\|_{L_{xT}^{\infty}}\|P_{\ll N}u\|_{L_{xT}^{\infty}}^2\|P_{\ll N}v_N\|_{L_{xT}^{\infty}}\\
& & +\sum_{N_1\sim N_2\gg N}\|P_{N_1}e^{\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}\|_{L_{xT}^{\infty}}\|P_{\ll N}u\|_{L_{xT}^{\infty}}^2\|P_{N_2}v_N\|_{L_{xT}^{\infty}}\\
& & \lesssim \|u\|_{L_T^{\infty}H^{\frac12}}^4\|v_N\|_{L_T^{\infty}H^{\frac12}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore summing also on $l_N^2$, we complete the proof for the contribution of the $L_x^{\infty}L_T^2$-norm.
The estimate for the contribution of the $L_x^2L_T^{\infty}$-norm is easy, since $|P_+P_Nu|=|v_N|$.
The proof for the contribution of the $L_x^4L_T^{\infty}$-norm is in the same style as that for the $L_x^{\infty}L_T^2$-norm, because $\|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/4}P_Nu\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}\sim N^{1/4}\|P_Nu\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}$. We reprise the argument following the proof for the contribution of the $L_x^{\infty}L_T^2$-norm, to obtain the bound $$\begin{aligned}
& & \|\langle D_x\rangle^{1/4}P_Nu\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}\\
&\lesssim & N^{\frac14}\sum_{N_2\sim N}\|P_{N_2}v_N\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}+N^{1/4}\|P_{\sim N}e^{\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_{\ll N}v_N\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}\\
& & +\sum_{N_1\sim N_2\gg N}N^{1/4}\|P_{N_1}e^{\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}u)^2}(P_{\ll N}u)^2P_{N_2}v_N\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}\\
& \lesssim & (1+\|u\|_{L_T^{\infty}H^{1/2}}^4)\|\langle D_x\rangle^{\frac14}v_N\|_{L_x^4L_T^{\infty}}.\end{aligned}$$ We apply $l_N^2$-sum and thus prove the estimate for the contribution of the $L_x^4L_T^{\infty}$-norm.
This concludes the proof of Lemma \[lem:u-v\]. [$\Box$]{}
For the proof of Proposition \[prop:apriori\], we will use the following estimate concerning (\[eq:I-BO1\]).
\[lem:linear-v\] For $\phi\in H^{1/2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|e^{it\partial_x^2}(e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}\phi)^2}P_+P_N\phi)\|_{Y}^2\right)^{1/2}\lesssim (1+\|\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}}^2)\|P_{\gg 1}\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}}.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof of Lemma \[lem:linear-v\].*]{} Applying (\[eq:strichartz\]), (\[eq:smoothing\]), (\[eq:maximal\]) and (\[eq:smoothing-1\]) shows that it is sufficient to prove $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}\phi)^2}P_+P_N\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}}^2\right)^{\frac12}+\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_M\|P_M(e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}\phi)^2}P_+P_N\phi)\|_{H^{\frac12}}\right)^2\right)^{\frac12}
\nonumber\\
& & \lesssim (1+\|\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}}^2)\|P_{\gg 1}\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}}.
\label{eq:li}\end{aligned}$$
By Leibniz’ rule (c.f. Lemma \[lem:Leibnitz2\]), the first term of the left hand side of (\[eq:li\]) is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\lesssim (1+\|\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}}^2)\|P_{\gg 1}\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}},\end{aligned}$$ which leads to a desired estimate.
Next, we deal with the second term. Like the argument in the proof in section \[sec:L\^2-spacetime\], we split $\sum_M=\sum_{M\lesssim N}+\sum_{M\gg N}$. Hence we bound this contribution to the left-hand side of (\[eq:li\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lesssim \left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\|P_N\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}}^2\right)^{1/2}+\left(\sum_{N\gg 1}\left(\sum_{M\gg N}\|\widetilde{P}_Me^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x(P_{\ll N}\phi)^2}\|_{H^{\frac12}}\right)^2\|P_N\phi\|_{L^{\infty}}^2\right)^{\frac12}\\
& \lesssim & (1+\|\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}}^2)\|P_{\gg 1}\phi\|_{H^{\frac12}},\end{aligned}$$ which is also acceptable. [$\Box$]{}
Turning to the proof of Proposition \[prop:apriori\], with the above lemmas, we show the a priori estimate for solutions of (\[eq:gBO\]).
In light of Lemma \[lem:u-v\], it is reasonable to pass from the a priori estimate for $u$ to that of $v_N$. We deduce from Proposition \[prop:I-BO7\] together with Lemmas \[lem:low-u\], \[lem:u-v\] and \[lem:linear-v\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}} & \le & C(C_{low})+C(C_{low})T^{\frac12}\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}}^3\\
& & +C(C_{low})(1+\|u\|_{L_T^{\infty}H_x^{1/2}}^4)\left(1+T^{\frac14}(1+\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}}^6)\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}}+C_{high}^2\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}}+C_{high}(1+\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}}^2)\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}}^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ Observe that by renormalization of $\|\cdot\|_{H^{1/2}}$-norm we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\|u(t)\|_{H^{1/2}}\lesssim \|P_{\lesssim 1}u(t)\|_{L^2}
+C_{high}\|(I-P_{\lesssim 1})u(t)\|_{\widetilde{H}^{1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The high frequency part $C_{high}\|(I-P_{\lesssim 1})u\|_{\widetilde{H}_x^{1/2}}$ can be absorbed into the $\widetilde{X}$-norm. Then substituting Lemma \[lem:low-u\] again in estimating the low frequency part of the norm $\|P_{\lesssim 1}u\|_{L_T^{\infty}H_x^{1/2}}$, we obtain (\[eq:apriori\]) and complete the proof of Proposition \[prop:apriori\]. [$\Box$]{}
Proof of Theorem \[thm:k=2\].
-----------------------------
We come now to the proof of Theorem \[thm:k=2\], and describe the key points when we follow the compactness argument with the a priori estimate. We refer to the papers [@MR1; @MR2; @KT; @P; @Ta1] for the details.
Let $\{u_{0n}\}$ be a sequence in $H^{\infty}$ such that $u_{0n}\to u_0$ in $H^{1/2}$ as $n\to\infty$ and, $\|u_{0n}\|_{H^{1/2}}\le 2\|u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}$. We see that if $u_n$ is a $H^{\infty}$-solution to (\[eq:gBO\]) with data $u_n(0)=u_{0n}$, then we have the a priori estimate (\[eq:apriori\]): with Corollary \[cor:apriori\], for small $T>0$ (we take $C_{high}$ small), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:n1-apriori}
\|u_n\|_{\widetilde{X}}\lesssim C(\|u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, noting that $|e^{i\int^xf_1}-e^{i\int^xf_2}|\lesssim \|f_1-f_2\|_{L^1}$ for real functions $f_1,f_2$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:n2-apriori}
\|u_n-u_{n'}\|_{\widetilde{X}}\lesssim C(\|u_0\|_{H^{1/2}})\|u_{0n}-u_{0n'}\|_{\widetilde{H}^{1/2}}\end{aligned}$$ (by using estimates similar to (\[eq:apriori\]) for differences of solutions). These bounds (\[eq:n1-apriori\]) and (\[eq:n2-apriori\]) will allow us to obtain the existence of the solution $u\in\widetilde{X}$ to (\[eq:gBO\]). In particular, using Fatou’s lemma, we can show $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{X}}\lesssim C(\|u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}).\end{aligned}$$
Now we prove the uniqueness of solution. Let $u$ and $\widetilde{u}$ be two solutions of (\[eq:gBO\]) with data $u_0$ and $\widetilde{u}_0$, respectively. By (\[eq:n2-apriori\]) (choose $T>0$ and $C_{high}$ smaller, if necessary), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|u-\widetilde{u}\|_{\widetilde{X}}\lesssim C_0(\|u_0\|_{H^{1/2}}+\|\widetilde{u}_0\|_{H^{1/2}})\|u_0-\widetilde{u}_0\|_{\widetilde{H}^{1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the solution is unique in $\widetilde{X}$, also in $X$.
The continuous dependence of solution on data is actually proven in the same way as in the proof of the existence of solution.
This concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm:k=2\]. [$\Box$]{}
[99]{}
L. Abdelouhab, J.L. Bona, M. Felland and J.-C. Saut, [*Nonlocal models for nonlinear, dispersive waves*]{}, Physica D, 40 (1989), 360-392.
T. B. Benjamin, [*Internal waves of permanent form in fluids of great depth*]{}, J. Fluid Mech., 29 (1967), 559–592.
H. A. Biagioni and F. Linares, [*Ill-posedness for the derivative Schrödinger and generalized Benjamin-Ono equations*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 353 (2001), 3649–3659.
N. Burq and F. Plandhon, [*On well-posedness for the Benjamin-Ono equation*]{}, preprint.
M. Christ and A. Kiselev, [*Maximal functions associated to filtrations*]{}, J. Funct. Anal., 179 (2001), 406–425.
R. R. Coifman and Y. Meyer, [*Commutateurs d’intégrales singuliéres et opérateurs multilinéaires.*]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier, 28 (1978), 177–202.
J. Colliander, C. E. Kenig and G. Staffilani, [*Local well-posedness for dispersion-generalized Benjamin-Ono equations*]{}, Differential Integral Equations, 16 (2003), 1441–1472.
J. Ginibre and G. Velo, [*Smoothing properties and existence of solutions for the generalized Benjamin-Ono equation*]{}, J. Diff. Equations, 93 (1991), 150-212.
J. Ginibre and G. Velo, [*Properties de lissage et existence de solutions pour l’equation de Benjamin-Ono generalisee*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. I. Math., 308 (1989), 309-314.
J. Ginibre and G. Velo, [*Commutator expansions and smoothing properties of generalized Benjamin-Ono equations*]{}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare, Phys. Theor., 51 (1989), 221-229.
A. D. Ionescu and C. E. Kenig, [*Global well-posedness of the Benjamin-Ono equation in low-regularity spaces*]{}, preprint.
R. J. Iorio, [*On the Cauchy problem for the Benjamin-Ono equation*]{}, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 11 (1986), 1031-1081.
C. E. Kenig, G. Ponce and L. Vega, [*Well-posedness and scattering results for the generalized Korteweg-de Vries equation via the contraction principle*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 46 (1993), 527–620.
C. E. Kenig, G. Ponce and L. Vega, [*Small solutions to nonlinear Schrödinger equations*]{}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire, 10 (1993), 255–288.
C. E. Kenig, G. Ponce and L. Vega, [*On the generalized Benjamin-Ono equation*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 342 (1994), 155–172.
C. E. Kenig and K. D. Koenig, [*On the local well-posedness of the Benjamin-Ono and modified Benjamin-Ono equations*]{}, Math. Res. Lett., 10 (2003), 879-895.
H. Koch and N. Tzvetkov, [*On the local well-posedness of the Benjamin-Ono equation in $H\sp s({\Bbb R})$*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2003, no. 26, 1449–1464.
L. Molinet and F. Ribaud, [*Well-posedness results for the generalized Benjamin-Ono equation with small initial data*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl., 83 (2004), 277-311.
L. Molinet and F. Ribaud, [*Well-posedness results for the generalized Benjamin-Ono equation with arbitrary large initial data*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2004, no. 70, 3757–3795.
H. Ono, [*Algebraic solitary waves in stratified fluids*]{}, J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 39 (1975), 1082–1091.
G. Ponce, [*On the global well-posedness of the Benjamin-Ono equation*]{}, Differential Integral Equations, 4 (1991), 527–542.
H. F. Smith and C. D. Sogge, [*Global Strichartz estimates for nontrapping perturbations of the Laplacian*]{}, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 25 (2000), 2171–2183.
E. M. Stein, Harmonic analysis, Real-variable methods, orthogonality, and oscillatory integrals, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1993).
H. Takaoka, [*Well-posedness for the one-dimensional nonlinear Schrödinger equation with the derivative nonlinearity*]{}, Adv. Differential Equations, 4 (1999), 561–580.
T. Tao, [*Spherically averaged endpoint Strichartz estimates for the two-dimensional Schrödinger equation*]{}, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 25 (2000), 1471–1485.
T. Tao, [*Global regularity of wave maps II. small energy in two dimensions*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys., 224 (2001), 443–544.
T. Tao, [*Global well-posedness of the Benjamin-Ono equation in $H^1(\Bbb R)$*]{}, J. Hyperbolic Differ. Equ., 1 (2004), 27–49.
Carlos E. Kenig, Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA
Hideo Takaoka, Department of Mathematics, Kobe University, Kobe 657-8501, Japan
[^1]: Also the equation with the nonlinearity of the form $-u^2u_x$ can be treated by our method.
[^2]: For the Benjamin-Ono equation, the equation is completely integrable, and in fact possesses an infinite number of conservation laws.
[^3]: This gauge transform is also inspired by the result in [@Tak]. In fact, when $u$ is a complex-valued function and the nonlinearity in (\[eq:gBO\]) is replaced by $|u|^2u_x$, we let $v_N(x,t)=e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x|P_{\ll N}u|^{2}}P_+P_Nu(x,t)$; which is modified from $v(t,x)=e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^x|u|^2}u(x,t)$ in [@Tak]. We also mention that if $v_N(x,t)=e^{-\frac{i}{2}\int^xP_{\ll N}u}P_+P_Nu(x,t)$, our method gives the $H^1$-wellposedness for the Benjamin-Ono equation [@Ta2].
[^4]: More precisely, we use the proof of Proposition \[prop:L\^2-spacetime\] and replace $(u^2)_x$ with $(P_{\le 1}uP_{1<\cdot\ll N}u)_x$ or $((P_{1<\cdot\ll N}u)^2)_x$.
[^5]: Incidentally, the estimate (\[eq:rrL\^2\]) holds without the last term $T^{1/2}\|u\|_X^2$ under the restriction $N_1\ll N_2$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'It has been shown that a water drop can bounce persistently, when thrown on a super-hydrophobic substrate. We present here scaling arguments which allow us to predict the maximal deformation and the contact time of the drop. This approach is completed by a model describing the flow inside the drop, and by original experimental data.'
author:
- 'K. Okumura, F. Chevy, D. Richard, D. Quéré and C. Clanet'
title: 'Water spring: a model for bouncing drops'
---
Introduction
============
A *liquid ball* is a drop which remains quasi-spherical when brought into contact with a solid surface. Different examples of such objects have recently been described: let us quote *pearl drops*, which result from the extreme hydrophobicity of the solid [@Kao; @KT; @JB; @text], *liquid marbles*, achieved by texturing the surface of the liquid [@LM; @6; @7], and (more classically) *Leidenfrost drops*, obtained by putting a small amount of volatile liquid on a very hot plate [@FR]. In such cases, quick transportation of tiny amounts of liquid becomes possible without any leak, which can be of great interest in microfluidics applications. At the same time these systems realize pure capillary “devices,” and are worth being studied for their original properties.
For example, a liquid ball (with a typical diameter 1 mm) impinging onto a solid substrate bounces off, as if it were a tennis ball hitting the ground [@leaf; @DD]. The rebounds are persistent (the restitution coefficient can be very high, of the order of 0.9), and observed in a large window of impact velocity. If the velocity is too small (typically smaller than a few centimeters per second), the drop gets stuck on the substrate. If too large (above around 1 m/s), the drop endures extreme deformation during the shock, and finally breaks into several pieces. In between, a more detailed analysis of the shock itself shows that the contact time of the drop with the substrate does not depend on the impact velocity $V$ over a large interval of velocity [@DR].
In this note, we discuss the maximal deformation of this sort of “water spring,” and also the value of the contact time during the shock, in particular in the limit of elastic impact (small impact velocity). These predictions are compared with original experimental data.
We shall mainly focus on the limit of small deformations where a drop of initial radius $R_{0}$ bounces back with a high restitution coefficient of the order of 0.9. This corresponds to kinetic energies smaller than surface energies, *i.e.* to small Weber numbers, where the latter quantity is defined as $$W=\rho R_{0}V^{2}/\gamma.\label{weber}%$$ This condition is achieved for small impact velocities, *i.e.* smaller than $V_{W}$: $$V_{W}=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{\rho R_{0}}}.\label{vw}%$$ For a millimetric water drop ($\gamma\sim72$ mN/m$,\rho=10^{3}$ kg/m$^{3}$), $V_{W}$ is of the order of 1 m/s. As seen in Fig. \[f1\], the drop at its maximal deformation looks like a flattened sphere for small impact velocities ($V<V_{W}$), or a pancake for larger velocities ($V\sim V_{W}$).
![Maximal deformation of a liquid ball impinging a solid at a small velocity (a: $R_{0}\sim0.4$ mm, $V=0.094$ m/s, $W\sim0.05$); or at a larger velocity (b: $R_{0}\sim0.4$ mm, $V=0.47$ m/s, $W\sim1.$). []{data-label="f1"}](f1.eps)
Scaling equations for a water spring ($V\ll V_{W}$)
===================================================
We start from the Euler’s equation:$$\rho\frac{Dv}{Dt}=-\nabla p+\rho g, \label{Euler}%$$ neglecting the effect of viscosity thanks to the high restitution coefficient. We consider the limit $V\ll V_{W}$, in which the drop is deformed by a quantity $X$ much smaller than the initial radius $R_{0}$ (see Fig. \[f1\].a); the characteristic time of deformation scales as $X/V$. On the other hand, the Laplace pressure gradient scales as $\gamma X/R_{0}^{3}$ (for example, assuming an ellipsoidal form for the drop, the pressure jump at the equator or the apex scales as $\Delta p\sim\gamma/R_{0}(1\pm X/R_{0})$ and changes over the length $R_{0}$). Thus, Eq. (\[Euler\]) can be dimensionally written as$$\rho V^{2}R_{0}^{3}\sim\gamma X^{2}-\rho gR_{0}^{3}X. \label{ec2}%$$ This equation also expresses the transfer of kinetic energy into the surface and gravitational terms associated with the drop deformation. If the velocity is zero, the drop is deformed by gravity by a quantity $\delta$, as first discussed by Mahadevan and Pomeau [@MP], which reads $$\delta\sim R_{0}^{3}/\kappa^{-2}, \label{delta}%$$ by use of the capillary length $\kappa^{-1}=\sqrt{\gamma/\left( \rho
g\right) }$, which is about 3 mm for water.
We first consider the case where capillarity dominates gravity ($X\gg\delta$). Then, we find from Eq. (\[ec2\]) that the maximal deformation scales as the velocity:$$X\sim\left( \rho R_{0}^{3}/\gamma\right) ^{1/2}V. \label{3}%$$ The contact time should be of the order of $X/V,$ and thus can be written as$$\tau\sim\left( \rho R_{0}^{3}/\gamma\right) ^{1/2}. \label{4}%$$ Eq. (\[4\]), which yields a $V$-independent contact time of about one millisecond, indeed corresponds to the plateau observed experimentally [@DR].
Eq. (\[3\]) allows us to make clear the limit of this regime. Since $X$ must be larger than $\delta$, we find that the velocity must be larger than a characteristic velocity,$$V_{c}\sim\left( gR_{0}^{3}\kappa^{2}\right) ^{1/2},$$ which is about a few cm/s. If $V$ approaches $V_{c}$, gravity cannot be neglected any more; we recast Eq. (\[ec2\]) as$$\rho V^{2}R_{0}^{3}+\gamma\delta^{2}\sim\gamma\left( X-\delta\right)
^{2}\label{spring}%$$ which expresses the energy conservation of an *imaginary* spring-mass system of initial velocity $V$ and initial elongation $\delta$.
![Analogy with a spring system: elongation $x$ is plotted as a function of time $t$. The circle ($t=0$) corresponds to the moment of impact and the square to the maximal deformation. The star thus indicates the moment of rebound. (a) general case. (b) small velocity limit. (c) large velocity limit.[]{data-label="f2"}](f2.eps)
Fig. \[f2\] may help to have an intuitive picture for Eq. (\[spring\]). The elongation $x$ of the imaginary spring is plotted as a function of time $t$, setting $t=0$ at the moment of impact. The left-hand side of Eq. (\[spring\]) is represented by a circle ($x=\delta,$ $\dot{x}=V$ at $t=0$) while the right-hand side by a square ($\dot{x}=0$ at $t=\tau/2$). The moment of taking off is marked by a star, and $\tau$ is compared in the plot with the period of the oscillator $T\sim\left( \rho R_{0}^{3}/\gamma\right) ^{1/2}$.
Thus, we can graphically deduce the contact time $\tau$. In the small velocity limit $V\ll V_{c}$ ($\rho V^{2}R_{0}^{3}\ll\gamma\delta^{2}$), we see in Fig. \[f2\].b that the contact time $\tau$ is equal to the vibration period $T.$ In contrast, in the interval commented above ($V_{c}\ll V\ll V_{W}$) and with increase in $V$, $\tau$ decreases from $T$ and approaches the plateau value $T/2$. The complete variation of the contact time $\tau$ as a function of the impact velocity $V$ will be calculated more precisely in the next section. Note finally that, as stated above, the maximal deformation, in the limit of extremely small impact velocities, tends towards the constant $\delta$, as seen from Eq. (\[spring\]): we logically recover the static deformation.
Local model
===========
The previous scaling arguments can be completed by considering local flows during the impact. We start from the incompressibility condition ($\nabla
\cdot\mathbf{v}=0$), which reduces to$$\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial rv_{r}}{\partial r}+\frac{\partial v_{z}}{\partial
z}=0,$$ in the cylindrical coordinate system ($r,\theta,z$) with $v_{\theta}=0$. Looking for a solution of the type $v_{r}=v_{r}(r)$ and $v_{z}=v_{z}(z)$ satisfying appropriate boundary conditions, and introducing the equatorial radius $R$ (see Fig. \[f1\].b), we find$$v_{r}=\frac{\dot{R}}{R}r,v_{z}=-2\frac{\dot{R}}{R}z, \label{vloc}%$$ setting $z=0$ at the substrate surface. The velocity potential $\phi$ defined by $\mathbf{v=}\nabla\phi$ can thus be written as $$\phi=\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\left( \frac{r^{2}}{2}-z^{2}\right) .$$ If the viscosity is neglected, the dynamics of $\phi$ is governed by Bernoulli’s equation: $$\rho\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t}+\frac{1}{2}\rho v^{2}+p+\rho
gz=\text{constant.} \label{Bern}%$$ Here, the pressure $p$ at the surface of the drop is given by the Laplace pressure, i.e. $p=\gamma C(r,z)$ where the local curvature is denoted $C$.
We evaluate Eq. (\[Bern\]) at the apex ($r=0,$ $z=h$) and at the equator ($r=R,$ $z\simeq h/2$), in the limit of small deformation ($\ddot{x}\gg\dot
{x}^{2}/R_{0}$) for which $h\simeq2R_{0}$. (Here, $x$ is defined as in Fig. \[f1\] but not necessarily at its maximal deformation; the maximum magnitude of $x$ is $X$.) To estimate the curvature difference $\Delta C=C\left(
0,h\right) -C\left( R,h/2\right) $, we take the value in the static limit since we are in the regime of small velocities; the condition of constant pressure inside the drop can be integrated numerically, which gives $\Delta
C=6.8x/R_{0}^{2}$. In this way, we obtain $$-7\rho R_{0}^{3}\ddot{x}/2+6.8\gamma x-\rho gR_{0}^{3}=0\label{adda1}%$$ Writing $\delta=\kappa^{2}R_{0}^{3}/6.8$ and $\omega^{2}=12.8\gamma/(7\rho
R_{0}^{3})$ (which gives as a plateau value for the contact time $T/2=2.3\sqrt{\rho R_{0}^{3}/\gamma}$), we find a general solution:$$x-\delta=x_{0}\cos\left( \omega t+\varphi\right) \label{addx}%$$ The initial conditions lead to the relations $\cos\varphi=\delta/x_{0}$ and $\sin\varphi=V/\left( \omega x_{0}\right) $, from which we get $x_{0}%
=\sqrt{\delta^{2}+V^{2}/\omega^{2}}$ and $X=\delta+x_{0}$. The time of rebound $\tau$ should be given by the equation, $\delta=x_{0}\cos(\omega\tau
+\varphi),$ with $\pi\leq\omega\tau+\varphi\leq2\pi$. Hence, we find $\omega\tau+\varphi=2\pi-\arccos\left( \delta/x_{0}\right) $ with $\varphi=\arccos(\delta/x_{0})$ ($0\leq\varphi\leq\pi$) or$$\tau=2\tau_{c}\left( 1-\frac{1}{\pi}\arccos\left( \frac{\delta}{x_{0}%
}\right) \right) \label{analytical}%$$ where$$\delta/x_{0}=\left( 1+\left( V/V_{c}\right) ^{2}\right) ^{-1/2}.$$ The analytical result Eq. (\[analytical\]) is plotted in Fig. \[f3\], and allows us to recover the predictions made *via* Fig. \[f2\]: the contact time decreases by a factor 2 when the impact velocity is increased from about $V_{c}$ to $V_{W}$.
Experiments
===========
We measured the contact time of bouncing drops at small impact velocities for millimetric water droplets hitting a super-hydrophobic substrate. Rebounds were sequentially recorded with a high-speed camera with a typical sampling time of 10$^{-4}$ s for a contact time around 10$^{-3}$ s, which gives a precision higher than 10 %. The results are plotted in Fig. \[f4\] for two drop sizes. We indeed observed that the contact time significantly increases at low impact velocity (in the range below 10 cm/s). In addition, the ratio between the largest and the shortest times is found to be very close to 2, for both sizes. Finally, the velocity above which a plateau is observed increases with the drop size.
All these observations are qualitatively in agreement with our predictions. A fully quantitative comparison would require a very accurate measurement of the drop radii (which determine the value of $V_{c}$), and also taking into account the possibility for the drop to stick at very small velocity: for $V\sim V_{c}$, it is observed that the drop does not bounce off but remains stuck to the solid. In contrast, the comparison between the model and the data becomes quite precise at higher speeds: the plateau value is well described by Eq. (\[4\]) with a numerical coefficient of 2.6$\pm0.1$ [@DR], in good agreement with 2.3, the value obtained above.
We also measured the maximal deformation $X$ of the drop during the impact as a function of the impact velocity $V$ (Fig. \[f5\]).
We found a linear behavior, in agreement with Eq. (\[3\]).
This first series of experiments confirms that the contact time of the bouncing drop deviates from its asymptotic value when we are in the regime of low impact velocity, *i.e.* in the linear regime of deformation. We interpreted this effect as due to gravity, and tried to confirm this interpretation thanks to a second series of experiments. There, we studied the bouncing with gravity working in the opposite direction (*inverted gravity*). Drops were dropped from centimetric heights onto a super-hydrophobic substrate slightly tilted. After bouncing off, they hit at a height close to their maximum rebound height on a second plate of the same nature and inclined by the same angle. We recorded the contact time for rebounds on this second plate. The data are plotted in Fig. \[f6\], as a function of the impact velocity. The error bars are there larger (because of the experimental resolution and the effects due to the vibrations induced by the first impact), but the data clearly indicate that the contact time *increases* with the impact velocity. This is in agreement with our theory: transforming $g$ into $-g$ (equivalently, $\delta$ into $-\delta$) in Eq. (\[analytical\]) makes $\tau$ increase with $V$ as plotted in dotted line in Fig. \[f3\]. Interestingly, here, the contact time can vary between $0$ and $\tau$ (between $\tau$ and 2$\tau$ in the previous experiments) which can be understood qualitatively using the construction suggested in Fig. \[f2\]. In the inverted gravity case, the whole sequence takes place below the line $x=0$, so that we recover that the contact time should vary between $0$ and $\tau$.
Perspectives
============
Interesting perspectives can be given in the regime of higher impact velocities ($V>V_{W}$) where the drop is highly deformed and makes some kind of (transient) pancake of radius $R_{0}+X\sim X$ and thickness $h$ (Fig. \[f1\].b). Since the drop crashes on the solid during a *crashing time* $R_{0}/V$, we expect the inertial term in the Euler’s equation to be of the order of $\rho V^{2}/R_{0}$. The Laplace pressure scales as $\gamma/h$ at the equator and it changes over the length $h$. The pressure gradient thus scales as $\gamma/h^{2}$. The gravity term can be neglected in this regime of large deformation, so that the Euler’s equation can be cast dimensionally into$$\rho R_{0}^{3}V^{2}\sim\gamma X^{4}/R_{0}^{2} \label{enrgcons2}%$$ *via* the conservation of the volume ($R_{0}^{3}\sim hR^{2}$). Thus, the maximal size of the pancake is deduced as$$X\sim R_{0}W^{1/4} \label{addlarge}%$$ where $W$ is defined in Eq. (\[weber\]). $X$ is indeed found to be larger than $R_{0}$ for $W>1$. We note that if the initial kinetic energy were transformed mainly into a surface term, namely, $$\rho R_{0}^{3}V^{2}\sim\gamma X^{2}, \label{hypo}%$$ we would find $X\sim R_{0}W^{1/2}$ instead of Eq. (\[addlarge\]).
Eq. (\[enrgcons2\]) is in striking contrast with the case of a small deformation where the kinetic energy was found to be stored in surface (and gravitational) energy during the shock as in Eq. (\[ec2\]). Namely, Eq. (\[enrgcons2\]) tells us that the initial energy is transferred primarily into other forms, identities of which (internal flow in the pancake, and possibly, the phonon energy of the substrate, etc.) remains to be clarified.
In this regime, the contact time can be regarded as the dewetting time of the pancake. In this inertial case, the dewetting velocity $V_{d}$ scales as $\sqrt{\gamma/\left( \rho h\right) }$ [@text], which corresponds to the retraction speed of a liquid sheet [@Taylor]. Thus, the contact time is given by $\tau\sim X/V_{d}$, which happens to result in Eq. (\[4\]). Indeed, the contact time was observed to be independent of $V$ and to increase as $R_{0}^{3/2}$ even for such high velocities [@DR]. This fact emphasizes that the drop is no longer in a linear-spring regime, for which Eq. (\[hypo\]) would hold, and the contact time would be given by $\tau\sim
X/V$. Note also that both $X/V_{d}$ and $X/V$ are certainly much longer than the crashing time $R_{0}/V$ in the present case ($W\gg1$), which justifies our previous estimation of the inertial term in Eq. (\[enrgcons2\]).
Conclusion
==========
In the limit of small deformations (*i.e.* for small impact velocities), a liquid ball thrown on a solid behaves as a quasi-ideal spring. This can be understood as a conventional spring-mass system with a stiffness given by surface tension and a mass given by that of the ball; the deformation of the small ball during the impact linearly depends on the impact velocity and the contact time scales as the period of this spring-mass system, as observed with high speed photographs. The contact time was found to *increase* (typically by a factor of 2) at small impact velocity, which can be interpreted as the result of the weight of the ball. This was confirmed by achieving a similar experiment in an inverted field of gravity, which indeed leads to a *decrease* of the contact time at small velocities.
In this system, the effect of viscosity could be ignored. This might be physically due to the absence of a contact line in a situation of non-wetting; most of viscous dissipation usually takes place near the contact. It would be interesting to see how our views would be modified when the viscosity of the liquid consisting the ball is increased. Extensions to similar (but different) systems such as gel balls [@Tanaka] or drops of surfactant solution would also be worth studying.
We thank Yoshimi Tanaka for useful discussions. K. O. is grateful to P.-G. de Gennes and members of his group for warm hospitality during his second and third stay in Paris. The second stay was financially supported by Joint Research Project between JSPS and CNRS while the third by Collège de France. This work is also supported by an internal grant of Ochanomizu University.
[99]{}
ONDA T., SHIBUICHI S., SATOH N. and TSUJII K. *Langmuir,* **12** (1996) 2125.
TADANAGA K., KATATA N. and MINAMI T. *J. Am. Ceram. Soc.,* **80** (1997) 1040.
BICO J., MARZOLIN C. and QUÉRÉ D., *Europhys. Lett.,* **47** (1999) 220.
DE GENNES P.-G., BROCHARD-WYART F. and QUÉRÉ D., *Gouttes, Bulles, Perles et Ondes* (Belin, Paris) 2002.
AUSSILLOUS P. and QUÉRÉ D., *Nature* (London), **411** (2001) 924.
MAHADEVAN L., *Nature* (London), **411** (2001) 895.
NATHAN P., RICHARD D., FOSTER W. and MAHADEVAN L. *Proc. R. Soc. Lond.* B, 02PB0036.1 (2002).
FROHN A. and ROTH R. *Dynamics of Droplets* (Springer Verlag) 2000, and references therein.
HARTLEY G.S. and BRUNSKILL R.T., in *Surface Phenomena in Chemistry and Biology*, J.F. Danielli Ed. (Pergamon Press, London, 1958), pp. 214-223.
RICHARD D. and QUÉRÉ D., *Europhys. Lett.,* **50** (2000) 769.
RICHARD D., CLANET C. and QUÉRÉ D., *Nature* (London), **417** (2002) 811.
MAHADEVAN L. and POMEAU Y. *Phys. Fluids,* **11** (1999) 2449.
TAYLOR G. I., *Proc. Roy. Soc.* A **259** (1960) 1.
TANAKA Y., YAMAZAKI, and OKUMURA K. Bouncing gel balls (2003, cond-mat/0302167).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
Viorel Barbu [^1],\
University Al. I. Cuza\
and\
Institute of Mathematics “Octav Mayer”, Iasi, Romania ,\
Giuseppe Da Prato [^2],\
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Italy\
and\
Michael Röckner [^3]\
Faculty of Mathematics, University of Bielefeld, Germany\
and\
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Purdue University,\
U. S. A.
title: Existence and uniqueness of nonnegative solutions to the stochastic porous media equation
---
[**Abstract**]{}. One proves that the stochastic porous media equation in $3$-D has a unique nonnegative solution for nonnegative initial data in $H^{-1}(\mathcal O)$ if the nonlinearity is monotone and has polynomial growth.
[**AMS subject Classification 2000**]{}: 76S05, 60H15.
[**Key words**]{}: Porous media equation, Stochastic PDEs, Yosida approximation.
Introduction
============
Let $\mathcal O$ be an open bounded domain of $\R^n$ with smooth boundary $\partial\mathcal O.$ We consider the linear operator $\Delta$ in $L^2(\mathcal O)$ defined on $H^2(\mathcal O)\cap H_0^1(\mathcal O).$ It is well known that $-\Delta$ is self-adjoint positive and anti-compact. So, there exists a complete orthonormal system $\{e_k\}$ in $L^2(\mathcal O)$ of eigenfunctions of $-\Delta$. In fact we have $e_k\in \cap_{p\ge 1}
L^p(\mathcal O)$ for all $k\in \N$. We denote by $\{\lambda_k\}$ the corresponding sequence of eigenvalues, $$\Delta e_k=-\lambda_k e_k,\quad k\in \N.$$ We shall consider a cylindrical Wiener process in $L^2(\mathcal O)$ of the following form $$W(t)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \beta_k(t)e_k,\quad t\ge 0,$$ where $\{\beta_k\}$ is a sequence of mutually independent standard Brownian motions on a filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\{\mathcal F_t\}_{t\ge 0},\P)$. To be more specific, we shall assume that $1\le n\le 3$.
In this work we consider the stochastic partial differential equation, $$\label{e1.1}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
dX(t)-\Delta\beta(X(t))dt=XdW(t),\quad t\ge 0,\\
\\
\beta(X(t))=0,\quad\mbox{\rm on}\; \partial \mathcal O,\quad t\ge 0,\\
\\
X(0,x)=x.
\end{array}\right.$$ Here $\beta$ is a continuous, differentiable, monotonically increasing function on $\R$ which satisfies the following conditions, $$\label{e1.2}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
|\beta'(r)|\le \alpha_1|r|^{m-1}+\alpha_2,\quad \forall\;r\in \R,\\
\\
\ds j(r)\colon=\int_0^r\beta(s)ds\ge\alpha_3|r|^{m+1}+\alpha_4r^2,\quad \forall\;r\in \R,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\alpha_i>0,\;i=1,2,3,4$ and $1\le m$. We note that since $\beta$ is increasing, the mean value theorem implies that $$\label{e1.3}
r\beta(r)\ge j(r),\quad r\ge 0.$$
Equation with additive noise was recently studied in [@BBDR],[@BDR],[@DRRW], [@DR1],[@DR2], see also [@BD]. In particular, in [@DRRW] was given an existence result under similar conditions on $\beta$. Here we consider a multiplicative noise (of a special form, but it would be possible to consider a more general noise $f(X)dW(t)$ with $f(0)=0$), which is needed in order to ensure positivity of solutions.
As was shown in [@PR] existence and uniqueness of solutions follow by the general results in [@PR] (see also [@RRW] for generalizations). In this paper we present an alternative proof, based on the Yosida approximation of $-\Delta\beta$, and prove the positivity of solutions for nonnegative initial data $x$.
As in deterministic case the Sobolev space $H^{-1}(\mathcal O)$ is natural for studying equation . Equation can be written in the abstract form $$\label{e1.4}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
dX(t)+AX(t)=\sigma(X(t))dW(t),\quad t\ge 0,\\
\\
X(0)=x,
\end{array}\right.$$ where the operator $A\colon D(A)\subset H^{-1}(\mathcal O)\to H^{-1}(\mathcal O)$ is defined by $$\label{e1.5}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
Ax=-\Delta\beta(x),\quad x\in D(A),\\
\\
D(A)=\{x\in H^{-1}(\mathcal O)\cap L^1(\mathcal O):\; \beta(x)\in H^{1}_0(\mathcal O) \},
\end{array}\right.$$ and where $$\label{e1.6}
\sigma(X)dW(t)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k Xe_kd\beta_k(t),\quad X\in H^{-1}(\mathcal O).$$ To give a rigorous sense to this noise term we first note that since $n\le 3$, by Sobolev embedding it follows that $$\label{e1.7}
\sup_{k\in \N}\frac1{\lambda_k}\;|e_k|_\infty<\infty.$$ Furthermore, troughout this paper we shall assume that $$\label{e1.8}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu^2_k \lambda^2_k=\colon C<\infty.$$ implies for some constant $c_1>0$ $$\label{e1.9}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu^2_k|xe_k|^2_{-1}\le c_1\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu^2_k\;\lambda^2_k\;|x|^2_{-1}\le c_1C|x|^2_{-1},\quad \forall\; x\in
H^{-1}(\mathcal O),$$ because $|xe_k|^2_{-1}\le c_1\lambda^2_k|x|^2_{-1}$ by an elementary calculation, since $n\le 3$ and due to .
Defining $$\label{e1.10}
\sigma(x)h:=\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k(h,e_k) xe_k,\quad x\in H^{-1}(\mathcal O),\;h\in L^2(\mathcal O),$$ we obtain by that $ \sigma(x)\in L_2(L^2(\mathcal O),H^{-1}(\mathcal O))$. Considering $(\beta_k)_{k\in \N}$ as a cylindrical Wiener process on $L^2(\mathcal O)$, it follows that is well defined. Note that since $\sigma$ is linear we have that $x\to \sigma(x)$ is Lipschitz from $H^{-1}(\mathcal O)$ to $L_2(L^2(\mathcal
O),H^{-1}(\mathcal O))$ (in particular [@KR], [@PR], [@RRW] really apply).
The plan of the paper is the following: main results are stated in §2 and proofs are given in §3.
The following notations will be used throughout in the following.
1. $H^1_0(\mathcal O),H^2(\mathcal O)$ are standard Sobolev spaces on $\mathcal O$ endowed with their usual norms denoted by $|\cdot|_{H^1_0(\mathcal O)}$ and $|\cdot|_{H^2(\mathcal O)}$ respectively.
2. $H$ is the space $H^{-1}(\mathcal O)$ (the dual of $H^1_0(\mathcal O)$) endowed with the norm $$|x|_H=|x|_{-1}=|-\Delta^{-1}x|_{H^1_0(\mathcal O)}.$$ (Here $(-\Delta)^{-1}x=y$ is the solution to Dirichlet problem $-\Delta y=x$ in $\mathcal O$, $y\in H^1_0(\mathcal O)$). The scalar product in $H$ is $$\langle x,z \rangle_{-1}=\int_\mathcal O(-\Delta)^{-1}\,x \,z \,d\xi,\quad \forall\; x,z\in H^1_0(\mathcal O).$$
3. The scalar product and the norm in $L^2(\mathcal O)$ will be denoted by $(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $|\cdot|_2$, respectively and the norm in $L^p(\mathcal O),\;1\le p\le \infty$ by $|\cdot|_p$.
4. For two Hilbert spaces $H_1$, $H_2$ the space of Hilbert-Schmidt operators from $H_1$ to $H_2$ is denoted by $L_2(H_1,H_2)$.
The main result
===============
To begin with let us define the solution concept we shall work with. Formally, a solution to (equivalently ) might be an $H$–valued continuous adapted process such that $X,AX\in C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))$ and $$\label{e2.1}
X(t)=x-\int_0^tAX(s)ds+\int_0^t \sigma(X(s))dW(s),\quad t\in [0,T].$$ (By $C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))$ we mean the Banach space of all the processes $X$ in $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\P)$ with values in $H$ which are adapted and mean square continuous, endowed with the norm $$\|X\|_{C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))}^2:=\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\E|X(t)|^2_H.$$ Spaces $L^p_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))$, $p\in [1,\infty]$, are defined similarly.)
However, such a concept of solution might fail to exist for equation and so we shall confine to a weaker one inspired by [@DRRW] and [@KR].
\[d2.1\] An $H$-valued continuous $\mathcal F_t$-adapted process $X$ is called a solution to on $[0,T]$ if $X\in
L^{m+1} (\Omega\times(0,T)\times \mathcal O )$ and $$\label{e2.2}
\begin{array}{lll}
(X(t),e_j)&=&\ds(x,e_j)+\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O\beta(X(s))\Delta e_j d\xi ds\\
\\
&&\ds +\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k\int_0^t(X(s)e_k,e_j)d\beta_k(s),\quad \forall\;j\in \N,\;t\in [0,T].
\end{array}$$
Taking into account that $-\Delta e_j =\lambda_j e_j $ in $\mathcal O$ we may equivalently write as follows $$\begin{array}{lll}
\langle X(t),e_j\rangle_{-1}&=&\ds\langle x,e_j\rangle_{-1}- \int_0^t\int_\mathcal O\beta(X(s))e_j d\xi ds\\
\\
&&\ds +\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k\int_0^t\langle X(s)e_k,e_j\rangle_{-1}d\beta_k(s),\quad \forall\;j\in \N,
\end{array}$$ i.e. $$d\langle X(t),e_j\rangle_{-1}+ (\beta(X(t)),e_j)dt
=\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k\langle X(s)e_k,e_j\rangle_{-1}d\beta_k(s).$$ Recalling we see that $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k(X(t)e_k,e_j)d\beta_k(t)=(\sigma(X(t))dW(t),e_j),\quad j\in \N.$$ We also note that since by assumption , $\beta(X)\in L^{\frac{m+1}m}((0,T)\times \Omega\times
\mathcal O)$, the integral arising in the right hand side of makes sense because $e_j\in
C^\infty(\overline{\mathcal O})$ for all $j\in \N$. Of course, one might derive a vector valued version of Definition \[d2.1\] as in [@DRRW]. Now we are ready to formulate the main results.
\[t2.2\] Assume that and hold. Then for each $x\in H^{-1}(\mathcal O)$ there is a unique solution $X$ to . Moreover, if $x\in L^p(\mathcal O)$ is nonnegative a.e. on $\mathcal O$ where $p\geq \max\{m+1,4\}$ is a natural number then $X\in
L^\infty_W(0,T;L^p(\Omega;L^p(\mathcal O)))$ and $X\ge 0$ a.e. on $(0,\infty)\times \mathcal O$, $\P$-a.s. If $x\in H^{-1}(\mathcal O)$ is such that $x\ge 0$, i.e. $x$ is a positive measure, then $X(t)\ge 0$ for all $t\ge 0$, $\P$-a.s.
The positivity of the solution $X$ to will be proven below by choosing an appropriate Lyapunov function.
Proof of Theorem \[t2.2\]
=========================
We mention that in our estimates in the sequel constants may change from line to line though we do not express this in our notation.
We recall that the operator $A$, defined by , is maximal monotone in $H$ (see e.g. [@B]). Then we consider the Yosida approximation $$A_\varepsilon(x)=\frac1\varepsilon\;(x-J_ \varepsilon (x))=A(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}(x),\quad \varepsilon>0,\;x\in H,$$ where $J_ \varepsilon (x)=(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}(x).$ The operator $A_\varepsilon$ is monotone and Lipschitzian on $H$. Then, by it follows by standard existence theory for stochastic equations in the Hilbert spaces (see e.g. [@DPZ1]) that the approximating equation $$\label{e3.1}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
dX_\varepsilon(t)+A_\varepsilon X_\varepsilon(t)dt=\sigma(X_\varepsilon(t))dW(t),\quad t\ge 0,\\
\\
X_\varepsilon(0)=x,
\end{array}\right.$$ has a unique solution $X_\varepsilon\in C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))$ such that $X_\varepsilon\in C([0,T];H), \P$-a.s. with $A_\varepsilon X_\varepsilon\in C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))$.
By Itô’s formula we have $$\label{e3.2}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \frac12\;d|X_\varepsilon(t)|^2_{-1}+\langle A_\varepsilon X_\varepsilon(t),
X_\varepsilon(t) \rangle_{-1}dt
\\
\\
\ds=\langle \sigma (X_\varepsilon(t))dW(t),
X_\varepsilon(t) \rangle_{-1}+\frac12\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k^2|X_\varepsilon(t) e_k|^2_{-1}dt.
\end{array}$$ This yields (see ) $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\frac12\;\E|X_\varepsilon(t)|^2_{-1}+\E\int_0^t\langle A_\varepsilon X_\varepsilon(s),
X_\varepsilon(s) \rangle_{-1}ds\\
\\
\ds \le\frac12\;|x|^2_{-1}+C\E\int_0^t|X_\varepsilon(s)|^2_{-1}ds
\end{array}$$ and therefore $$\label{e3.3}
\frac12\;\E|X_\varepsilon(t)|^2_{-1}+\E\int_0^t\langle A_\varepsilon X_\varepsilon(s),
X_\varepsilon(s) \rangle_{-1}ds\le C|x|^2_{-1},\quad\forall\;\varepsilon>0.$$ We set $Y_\varepsilon(t)=J_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon(t))$ (see ). Then $$\label{e3.4}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds\frac12\;\E|X_\varepsilon(t)|^2_{-1}+\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal Oj (Y_\varepsilon(s))ds d\xi\\
\\
\ds+\frac1\varepsilon\;\E\int_0^t|X_\varepsilon(s)-Y_\varepsilon(s)|^2_{-1}ds\le
C|x|^2_{-1},\quad\forall\;\varepsilon>0.
\end{array}$$ (Here we have used the equality $$\langle A_\varepsilon x,x \rangle_{-1}=\langle A J_\varepsilon x,J_\varepsilon x \rangle_{-1}+
\frac1\varepsilon\;|x-J_\varepsilon (x)|^2_{-1},$$ and .)
Now we fix $X\in C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega,H))$ and we consider the equation $$\label{e3.5}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
d\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(t)+A_\varepsilon \widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(t)dt=\sigma(X(t))dW(t),\quad t\ge 0,\\
\\
\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(0)=x.
\end{array}\right.$$ Equivalently, $$\label{e3.6}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
d\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(t)-\Delta\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(t))dt=\sigma(X(t))dW(t),\quad t\ge 0,\\
\\
\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(0)=x,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $$\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon=(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon.$$ On the other hand, for equation we have the same estimates as for . In fact by Itô’s formula we get (see ) $$\label{e3.7}
\begin{array}{lll}
\ds\E|\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(t)|^2_{-1} +\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal Oj (\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s))ds d\xi &+&\ds
\frac1\varepsilon\;\E\int_0^t|\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(s)-\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s)|^2_{-1}ds
\\
&\le&\ds C|x|^2_{-1}
+C\E\int_0^t|X(s)|^2_{-1},
\end{array}$$ (where we have used to estimate $\E\int_0^t\|\sigma(X (s))\|_{L_2(L^2(\mathcal O);H)}^2ds$). By virtue of assumption this implies that $$\E\int_0^T\int_\mathcal O
|\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s))|^{\frac{m+1}m}ds d\xi\le C(|x|^2_{-1}+1),\quad \varepsilon>0,$$ (because $|\beta(r)|\le \tilde\alpha_1|r|^m+\tilde\alpha_2,\;\tilde\alpha_1\ge 0$), and so along a subsequence, we have $$\label{e3.8}
\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon)\to \eta\quad\mbox{\rm weakly in}\;L^{\frac{m+1}{m}}((0,T)\times \Omega\times
\mathcal O).$$ On the other hand, we have by that for $t\in [0,T]$ $$\langle \widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(t),e\rangle_{-1}+\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s)) e d\xi ds
=\langle x,e\rangle _{-1}+\int_0^t\langle \sigma(X(s))dW(s),e\rangle _{-1}ds,$$ for all $e\in L^{m+1}(\mathcal O)$. We note that by there exists $X^*\in L^2_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))$ such that $$\label{e3.10}
\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon\to X^*\quad\mbox{\rm weakly in }\;L^2_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))$$ and by and we obtain that also $$\label{e3.10bis}
\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon\to X^*\quad\mbox{\rm weakly in }\;L^2_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))\cap
L^{m+1}(\Omega\times(0,T)\times\mathcal
O).$$ Hence along a subsequence $\varepsilon \to 0$ $$\E\langle \widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(t),e\rangle _{-1}\to \E\langle X^*(t),e\rangle _{-1}\quad \mbox{\rm weakly
in}\;L^2(0,T).$$ Then letting $\varepsilon$ tend to $0$ we get for a.e. $t\in [0,T]$ $$\label{e3.9}
\langle X^*(t),e\rangle _{-1} =\langle
x,e\rangle_{-1}-\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O\eta(s) ed\xi ds+\int_0^t\langle \sigma(X(s))dW(s),e\rangle _{-1}ds.$$
Taking into account -, to conclude the proof of existence it suffices to show that $$\label{e3.11}
\eta(t,\xi,\omega)=\beta(X^*(t,\xi,\omega))\quad\mbox{\rm a.e.}\;(\omega,t,\xi)\in
\Omega\times(0,T)\times\mathcal O.$$ Indeed, in such a case we may take in $e=\Delta e_j$ for $j\in \N$.
To this end we consider the operator $$F\colon L^{m}(\Omega\times(0,T)\times
\mathcal O)\to L^{\frac{m}{m+1}}(\Omega\times(0,T)\times
\mathcal O)=(L^{m}(\Omega\times(0,T)\times
\mathcal O))',$$ defined by $$(Fx)(t,\xi,\omega)=\beta(x(t,\xi,\omega))\quad\mbox{\rm a.e.}\;(\omega,t,\xi)\in \Omega\times(0,T)\times\mathcal O.$$ This operator is maximal monotone and more precisely, it is the subgradient of the convex function $\Phi:L^{m+1}(\Omega\times(0,T)\times \mathcal O)\to \R$ defined as, $$\Phi(x)=\E\int_0^T\int_\mathcal Oj(x(t,\xi))dt d\xi.$$ For each $Z\in L^{m+1}(\Omega\times(0,T)\times
\mathcal O)$ we have $$\Phi(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon)-\Phi(Z)\le \E\int_0^T\int_\mathcal O
\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(t,\xi))(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(t,\xi)-
Z(t,\xi)) dt d\xi$$ Letting $\varepsilon$ tend to $0$ we have by , , and by the weak lower semicontinuity of $\Phi$ $$\Phi(X^*)-\Phi(Z)\le \liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0}\E\int_0^T\int_\mathcal O
\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(t,\xi))\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(t,\xi) dt d\xi
-\E\int_0^T\int_\mathcal O\eta Z dt d\xi.$$ To prove by the uniqueness of the subgradient it suffices to show that $$\label{e3.12}
\liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0}\E\int_0^T\int_\mathcal O
\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(t,\xi))\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(t,\xi) dt d\xi\le
\E\int_0^T\int_\mathcal O\eta X^* dt d\xi.$$ To this end we come back to equation and note that by Itô’s formula we have $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\frac12\;\E|\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(t)|^2_{-1}+\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s))
\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(s)dsd\xi
\\
\\
\ds=\frac12\;|x|^2_{-1}+\frac12\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\E\int_0^t\mu_k^2|X(s)e_k|^2_{-1}ds.
\end{array}$$ Equivalently, $$\label{e3.12'}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds\frac12\;\E|\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(t)|^2_{-1}+\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s))
\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s)dsd\xi\\
\\
\ds+
\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s))
(\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(s)-\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s))dsd\xi
\\
\\
\ds=\frac12\;|x|^2_{-1}+\frac12\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\E\int_0^t\mu_k^2|X(s)e_k|^2_{-1}ds.
\end{array}$$ By - we have $$\int_\mathcal O\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s))
(\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(s)-\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s))d\xi=
\langle A_\varepsilon \widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(s),\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon
(s)-J_\varepsilon(\widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(s))
\rangle_{-1}
=\varepsilon|A_\varepsilon \widetilde{X}_\varepsilon(s)|^2_{-1}.$$ Fix $\varphi\in L^\infty(0,T)$, $\varphi\ge 0$. Then $\varphi X^*\in L^2_W(0,T;L^2(\Omega;H))$. Thus by - $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\E\int_0^T\varphi(t)|X^*(t)|^2_{-1}\;dt=\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\E\int_0^T\langle X^*(t),X_\varepsilon(t) \rangle_{-1}
\varphi(t)dt
\\
\\
\ds \le\left( \E\int_0^T\varphi(t)|X^*(t)|^2_{-1}\;dt\right)^{1/2}
\liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0}\left( \E\int_0^T\varphi(t)|X_\varepsilon(t)|^2_{-1}\;dt\right)^{1/2}.
\end{array}$$ Hence simplifying we obtain $$\E\int_0^T\varphi(t)|X^*(t)|^2_{-1}\;dt\le \liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0} \E\int_0^T\varphi(t)|X_\varepsilon(t)|^2_{-1}\;dt.$$ Hence , Fatou’s Lemma (see also ) and the arbitrariness of $\varphi$ implies that for a.e. $t\in [0,T]$ we obtain that $$\label{e3.13}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds\liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0}\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O
\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s)\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(s) ds d\xi+\frac12\;
\E|X^*(t)|^2_{-1}\\
\\
\ds\le
\frac12\;|x|^2_{-1}+\frac12\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\E\int_0^t\mu_k^2|X(s)e_k|^2_{-1}ds.
\end{array}$$ On the other hand, by we see via Itô’s formula (applied to the right hand side of , since the left hand side might not be continuous in $t$) that for all $j\in \N$ and a.e. $t\in
[0,T]$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds \frac12\;\E|\langle X^*(t),e_j \rangle_{-1}|^2+\E\int_0^t\langle\eta_s,e_j \rangle\langle X^*(s),e_j
\rangle_{-1} ds
\\
\\
\ds=\frac12\;\langle x,e_j \rangle^2_{-1}+\frac12\;\E\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k^2\int_0^t\langle X(s)e_k,e_j \rangle^2
ds
\end{array}$$ and dividing by $ |e_j|^2_{-1}$ and summing over $j$ we obtain $$\label{e3.14}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds\frac12\;\E|X^*(t)|^2_{-1}+\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O\eta(s)X^*(s) dsd\xi
\\
\\
\ds=\frac12\;|x|^2_{-1}+\frac12\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k^2\E\int_0^t|X(s)e_k|^2_{-1}ds.
\end{array}$$ We note that the integral in the left hand side makes sense since by , $X^*\in L^{m+1}((0,T)\times \Omega\times\mathcal O)$ while $\eta\in L^{\frac{m+1}m}((0,T)\times \Omega\times
\mathcal O)$.
Comparing and we infer that $$\liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0}\E\int_0^T\int_\mathcal O
\beta(\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(t))\widetilde{Y}_\varepsilon(t) dt d\xi\le
\E\int_0^T\int_\mathcal O\eta(t) X^*(t) dt d\xi,$$ as claimed. A formal problem arises, however, because $X^*(t)$ as constructed before might not be $H$-continuous. However, arguing as in [@KR], [@PR] we may replace it by an $H$-continuous version defined by $$\widetilde{X}^*(t)=x+\int_0^t\Delta\eta(s)ds+ \int_0^t\sigma(X(s))dW(s).$$ It follows that $X^*=\widetilde{X}^*$ a.e. and that $\widetilde{X}^*$ is also an $\mathcal F_t$-adapted process. Moreover, the Itô formula from ([@KR Theorem I-3-2]) holds. Hence $\widetilde{X}^*\in C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))\cap L^{m+1}((0,T)\times \Omega\times \mathcal O) $ is a solution (in the sense of Definition 2.1) to $$\label{e3.15}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
dX^*+AX^*dt=\sigma(X) dW\\
\\
X^*(0)=x.
\end{array}\right.$$
. Let $X^*_1,X^*_2$ be two solutions to equation for $X=X_i,\;i=1,2$. We have (see ) $$d\langle X^*_1-X^*_2,e_j\rangle _{-1}+\int_\mathcal O(\beta(X^*_1)-\beta(X^*_2))e_j d\xi dt=
\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k\langle (X_1-X_2)e_k,e_j\rangle _{-1}d\beta_k.$$ By Itô’s formula we obtain $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\frac12\;\E|\langle X^*_1(t)-X^*_2(t),e_j\rangle _{-1}|^2\\
\\
\ds+\E\int_0^t( \beta(X^*_1(s))-\beta(X^*_2(s)),e_j)\langle X^*_1(s)-X^*_2(s),e_j\rangle _{-1}ds
\\
\\
\ds=\frac12\;\E\int_0^t\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu^2_k\langle (X_1(s)-X_2(s))e_k,e_j\rangle ^2_{-1}ds
\end{array}$$ Dividing by $|e_j|^2_{-1}$ and summing over $j$ we see that $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\frac12\;\E|X^*_1(t)-X^*_2(t)|_{-1}^2+\E\int_0^t(\beta(X^*_1)-\beta(X^*_2),X^*_1(s)-X^*_2(s)\;ds
\\
\\
\ds=\frac12\;\E\int_0^t\sum_{j,k=1}^\infty\mu^2_k\langle (X_1(s)-X_2(s))e_k,|e_j|^{-1}_{-1}\,e_j\rangle ^2_{-1}ds.
\end{array}$$ Hence (see ) $$\label{e3.16}
\E|X^*_1(t)-X^*_2(t)|_{-1}^2\le CE\int_0^t|X_1(s)-X_2(s)|^2_{-1}ds,\quad\forall\;t\in[0,T]$$ Now we shall use the latter inequality to prove existence of a unique solution $$X\in C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))\cap L^{m+1}((0,T)\times \Omega\times\mathcal O)$$ to equation . Indeed the operator $X\to X^*$ is a contraction on the space $C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;H))$ if $T$ is sufficiently small and so, we have existence (and uniqueness) for $T>0$ small. By a standard unique continuation argument it follows existence and uniqueness on an arbitrary interval $[0,T]$.
[**Positivity**]{}. We shall assume now that $x\in L^p(\mathcal O)$, where $p\ge \max\{m+1,4\}$, and $x(\xi)\ge 0$ a.e. in $\mathcal O$. We shall prove that $$\label{e3.17}
X\ge 0 \quad\mbox{\rm a.e. in }\;(0,T)\times \mathcal O\times \Omega.$$ We shall first assume in addition that $\beta$ is strictly monotone, i.e. $$\label{e3.18}
(\beta(r)-\beta(\bar r))(r-\bar r)\ge \alpha(r-\bar r)^2,\quad\forall\;r,\bar r\in \R,$$ where $\alpha>0$. Below we shall use the following lemma.
\[l3.1\] Let $y\in D(A)$ and $g:\R\to \R$ Lipschitz and increasing. Then $$\langle\nabla\beta(y),\nabla g(y)\rangle_{\R^n} \ge 0,\quad\mbox{\it a.e. on }\;\mathcal O.$$
[**Proof**]{}. First note that by definition of $D(A)$ we have that $y,\beta(y)\in H^1_0(\mathcal O)$. Using a Dirac sequence we can find mollifiers $g_k\in C^1(\R)$, $g'_k\ge 0,\;k\in \N,$ such that $$\nabla g(y)=\lim_{k\to \infty}g'_k(y)\nabla y\quad\mbox{\rm in}\;L^2(\mathcal O).$$ So, it suffices to prove that $$\langle\nabla\beta(y), \nabla g(y)\rangle_{\R^n} \ge 0,\quad\mbox{\rm a.e. on}\;\mathcal O.$$ But $$\langle\nabla\beta(y), \nabla y\rangle_{\R^n}=\langle\nabla\beta(y), \nabla\beta^{-1}\beta(y)\rangle_{\R^n}.$$ Since $\beta$ is strictly monotone, $\beta^{-1}$ is Lipschitz, so applying the above mollifier argument with $\beta^{-1}$ replacing $g$, we prove the assertion. $\Box$
We shall use the approximating equation whose solution $X_\varepsilon$ is weakly convergent to $X$ in $L^2_W(\Omega;L^2(0,T;H))$. Namely, we have for $Y_\varepsilon(t):=J_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon(t))$, $t\ge 0$, $$\label{e3.19}
dX_\varepsilon(t)-\Delta\beta(Y_\varepsilon (t))dt=\sigma(X_\varepsilon(t))dW(t),\quad t\ge 0.$$ We note that equation can be equivalently written as $$\label{e3.20}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\ds dX_\varepsilon(t)+\frac1\varepsilon\; X_\varepsilon(t) dt=\frac1\varepsilon\; J_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon(t)) dt+
\sigma(X_\varepsilon(t))dW(t),\quad t\ge
0,\\
\\
X_\varepsilon(0)=x,
\end{array}\right.$$ Fix $x\in H$ and set $$y=J_\varepsilon(x)=(1-\varepsilon\Delta\beta)^{-1}x,$$ i.e. $$\label{e3.21}
y-\varepsilon\Delta\beta(y)=x$$ Then $y\in D(A)$. Since $\beta$ is strictly monotone, $\beta^{-1}$ is Lipschitz. Therefore, since $\beta(y)\in H^1_0(\mathcal O)$, also $y\in H^1_0(\mathcal O)$. Now assume $x\in L^p(\mathcal O)$. By multiplying both sides of by $\frac{y^{p-1}}{1+\lambda y^{p-2}}$ and integrating over $\mathcal O$ we get by Lemma \[l3.1\] $$\int_\mathcal O\frac{y^p}{1+\lambda |y|^{p-2}}\;d\xi\le\int_\mathcal O\frac{y^{p-1}x}{1+\lambda |y|^{p-2}}\;d\xi.$$ Then, letting $\lambda\to 0$ we find the estimate $$\label{e3.22}
|y|_p^p\le \int_\mathcal O y^{p-1}xd\xi\le |y|^{p-1}_p\;|x|_p.$$ Hence $$\label{e3.23}
|J_\varepsilon(x)|_{p}\le |x|_{p},\quad\forall\;x\in L^p(\mathcal O),$$ and therefore, $$|A_\varepsilon(x)|_{p}=\frac1\varepsilon\;|x-J_\varepsilon(x)|_p
\le \frac2\varepsilon\;|x|_p,\quad\forall\;x\in L^p(\mathcal O).$$ and imply that $J_\varepsilon$ is continuous from $L^p(\mathcal O)$ into itself.
\[l3.2\] For each $x\in L^2(\mathcal O)$ equation has a unique solution $X_\varepsilon\in C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;L^2(\mathcal O))).$
[**Proof**]{}. Let us first prove that $J_\varepsilon=(1-\varepsilon \Delta\beta)^{-1}$ is Lipschitz continuous in $L^2(\mathcal O)$. Indeed, by the equation $$J_\varepsilon(x)-\varepsilon\Delta\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))=x,\quad\mbox{\rm in}\;\mathcal O,$$ (taking into account that $\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))\in H^1_0(\mathcal O)$) we have for $x,\bar x\in
L^2(\mathcal O)$ $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_\mathcal O(J_\varepsilon(x)-J_\varepsilon(\bar x))(\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x)))d\xi
\\
\\
\ds +\varepsilon\int_\mathcal O|\nabla(\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|^2d\xi
\le \int_\mathcal O(x-\bar x)(\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x)))d\xi.
\end{array}$$ This yields, recalling $$\alpha |J_\varepsilon(x)-J_\varepsilon(\bar x)|^2_2+\varepsilon
|\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|^2_{H^1_0(\mathcal O)}\le
|x-\bar x|_2\; |\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|_2.$$ On the other hand, by the Poincaré inequality there exists $C>0$ such that $$|\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|^2_2\le C|\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|^2_{H^1_0(\mathcal O)}.$$ Therefore $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\alpha |J_\varepsilon(x)-J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|^2_2+\frac\varepsilon2\;
|\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|^2_{H^1_0(\mathcal
O)}+\frac\varepsilon{2C}\;|\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|^2_2\\
\\
\ds\le \frac{C}{2\varepsilon}\; |x-\bar x|^2_2\;
+\frac\varepsilon{2C}\;|\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|^2_2,
\end{array}$$ and consequently $$\alpha |J_\varepsilon(x)-J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|^2_2+\frac\varepsilon2\;
|\beta(J_\varepsilon(x))-\beta(J_\varepsilon(\bar x))|^2_{H^1_0(\mathcal
O)}\le\frac{C}{2\varepsilon}\; |x-\bar x|_2.$$ So, $J_\varepsilon$ is Lipschitz continuous in $L^2(\mathcal O)$ as claimed. Consequently $A_\varepsilon=\frac1\varepsilon\;(1-J_\varepsilon)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $L^2(\mathcal O)$ as well. Moreover, since $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\|\sigma(x)\|_{L_2(L^2(\mathcal O),L^2(\mathcal O))}\le \sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k^2|xe_k|^2_2 \le
\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k^2|e_k|^2_{L^\infty(\mathcal O)}\;|x|^2_2\le
C_1\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k^2\lambda_k^2\;|x|^2_2
\end{array}$$ we infer by standard existence theory for stochastic PDEs that for each $x\in L^2(\mathcal O)$ equation has a unique solution in $X_\varepsilon\in C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega;L^2(\mathcal O)))$ (see e.g. [@DPZ1]). $\Box$
For $R>0$ define $$K_R:=\{X\in L^\infty_W(0,T;L^p(\Omega\times \mathcal O)):\;e^{-4\alpha t}\E|X(t)|^p_p\le R^p\quad\mbox{\rm for a.e.}\;t\in [0,T]\}$$
\[l3.3\] Let $T>0$ and $x\in L^p(\mathcal O)$. Then for the solution $X_\varepsilon$ of (or equivalently ) we have $X_\varepsilon\in L^\infty_W(0,T;L^p(\Omega\times\mathcal O))$ and $X_\varepsilon$ is bounded in $L^\infty_W(0,T;L^p(\Omega\times\mathcal O))$
[**Proof**]{}. Obviously, $K_R$ is a closed subset of $L^\infty_W(0,T;L^p(\Omega\times\mathcal O)).$ Since by $X_\varepsilon$ is a fixed point of the map $$X\stackrel{F}{\mapsto}
e^{-\frac{t}{\varepsilon}}x+\frac1\varepsilon\;\int_0^te^{-\frac{(t-s)}{\varepsilon}} J_\varepsilon(X
(s))ds+\int_0^te^{-\frac{(t-s)}{\varepsilon}} \sigma(X (s))dW(s),\quad t\in [0,T],$$ obtained by iteration in $C_W(0,T;L^2(\Omega\times \mathcal O))$, it suffices to prove that this map leaves $K_R$ invariant for $R$ large enough. But for $X\in K_R$ we have by for $t\ge 0$ $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\left(e^{-p\alpha t}\E\left|e^{-\frac{t}{\varepsilon}}x+\frac1\varepsilon\;\int_0^te^{-\frac{(t-s)}{\varepsilon}}
J_\varepsilon(X (s))ds \right|_p^p \right)^{1/p}
\\
\\
\ds\le e^{-\alpha t}e^{-\frac{t}{\varepsilon}}|x|_p+e^{-\alpha t}\left(\E\left(\int_0^t
\frac1\varepsilon\;e^{-\frac{(t-s)}{\varepsilon}}
|J_\varepsilon(X (s))|_pds \right)^p\right)^{1/p}\\
\\
\ds\le e^{-(\frac1\varepsilon+\alpha) t} |x|_p+e^{-\alpha t}\Bigg(\int_0^t\cdots\int_0^t
\frac1\varepsilon\;e^{-\frac{(t-s_1)}{\varepsilon}}e^{\alpha s_1}\cdots \frac1\varepsilon\;e^{-\frac{(t-s_p)}{\varepsilon}}e^{\alpha s_p}\\
\\
\hspace{30mm}\times e^{-\alpha s_1}(\E|(|X(s_1)|_p^p)^{1/p}\cdots e^{-\alpha s_p}(\E|(|X(s_p)|_p^p)^{1/p}\;ds_1\cdots ds_p\Bigg)^{1/p}\\
\\
\ds \le e^{-(\frac1\varepsilon+\alpha) t} |x|_p+e^{-\alpha t}R\int_0^t\frac1\varepsilon\;e^{-\frac{(t-s)}{\varepsilon}}e^{\alpha s}ds\\
\\
\le
e^{-(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}+\alpha)t}|x|_p+\frac{R}{1+\alpha\varepsilon}.
\end{array}$$ Now we set $$Y(t)=\int_0^te^{-\frac{(t-s)}{\varepsilon}}X(s))dW(s),\quad t\ge 0.$$ Then $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\ds dY(t)+\frac1\varepsilon\;Y(t)dt=\sigma(X(t))dW(t),\quad t\ge 0,\\
\\
Y(0)=0.
\end{array}\right.$$ Let $\lambda>0$. Applying Itô’s formula to the function $$\Psi_\lambda(y):=\frac1p\;|(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}y|^p_p,\quad y\in L^p(\mathcal O),$$ (see the beginning of the proof of the next lemma for a detailed justification) we obtain via Hölder’s inequality that $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds \E[\Psi_\lambda(Y(t))]+\frac1\varepsilon\;\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O|(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}Y(s)|^pd\xi\,ds
\\
\\
\ds=\frac{p-1}2\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k^2\;\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O|(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}Y(s)|^{p-2}\\
\\
\ds\hspace{10mm} \times |(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}(X(s)e_k)|^2d\xi\,ds\\
\\
\ds\le C\E\int_0^t|(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}Y(s)|^2_p\;|X(s)|^2_pds\\
\\
\ds\le \frac1{2\varepsilon}\;\E\int_0^t|(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}Y(s)|^p_p ds+\frac{9C^2\varepsilon}{8}\;
\E\int_0^t |X(s)|^p_pds\\
\\
\ds\le \frac1{2\varepsilon}\;\E\int_0^t|(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}Y(s)|^p_p ds+\frac{9C^2\varepsilon(e^{4\alpha t}-1) }{32\alpha}\;R^p.
\end{array}$$ Then letting $\lambda\to \infty$, we see by Fatou’s lemma that for a.e. $t\in [0,T]$ we have for $C_1$ independent of $\varepsilon$ $$e^{-4\alpha t}\E|Y(t)|_p^p\le \frac{C_1\varepsilon}\alpha R^p ,\quad \forall\;t\in [0,T].$$ This means that for $\alpha$ large enough and $R>2|x|_p$ the map leaves $K_R$ invariant as claimed.
\[l3.4\] For $x\in L^p(\mathcal O))$ we have $$X_\varepsilon\to X\quad\mbox{\it strongly in}\;L^\infty_W(0,T;L^2(\Omega;H)),$$ $$X_\varepsilon\to X\quad\mbox{\it weakly in}\;L^\infty_W(0,T;L^p(\Omega;L^p(\mathcal O))),$$ where $X$ is the solution to .
[**Proof**]{}. By and Lemma \[l3.3\] we know that $\{X_\varepsilon\}$ is bounded in $$L^2_W(0,T;L^2(\Omega;H))\cap L^\infty_W(0,T;L^p(\Omega;L^p(\mathcal O)))$$ Subtracting equations and we get via Itô’s formula and because $\beta$ is increasing that $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\frac12\;\E|X_\varepsilon(t)-X(t)|^2_{-1}+\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O(\beta((1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X)-\beta(X))
(X_\varepsilon-X)ds d\xi
\\
\\
\ds\le c\E\int_0^t|X_\varepsilon(s)-X(s)|^2_{-1}ds,
\end{array}$$ and by Gronwall’s lemma we obtain $$\label{e3.24bis}
\E|X_\varepsilon(t)-X(t)|^2_{-1}\le
C\E\int_0^1\int_\mathcal O(\beta((1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X)-\beta(X))
(X_\varepsilon-X)ds \,d\xi.$$ On the other hand, it follows by that $$\int_{\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O}|(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X|^p \P(d\omega)
\,dt\, d\xi\le
\int_{\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O}|X|^p \P(d\omega)
\,dt \,d\xi,$$ while for $\varepsilon\to 0$ $$(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X\to X\quad\mbox{\rm in }\;L^1(\mathcal O)$$ for $(\omega,t)\in \Omega\times [0,T]$ (which is a consequence of the fact that the operator $A$ is $m$-accretive in $L^1(\mathcal O)$, cfr. [@Aubin]). Hence (at least along a subsequence) $$(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X\to X\quad\mbox{\rm a.e. on }\;\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O.$$ Hence $$(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X\to X\quad\mbox{\rm weakly in }\;L^p(\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O)$$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$ and according to the above inequality this implies that for $\varepsilon\to 0$, $|(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X|_{L^p}\to |X|_{L^p}$. Hence since $L^p(\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O)$ is uniformly convex, $$(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X\to X\quad\mbox{\rm strongly in }\;L^p(\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O),$$ see [@Aubin]. Next by assumption we have $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds|\beta((1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X)-\beta(X)|\\
\\
\ds \le\int_0^1\beta'(\lambda(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X)+(1-\lambda)
X)|(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X-X|d\lambda\\
\\
\le C\left(|(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X|^{m-1}+|X|^{m-1}+1\right) |(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X-X|.
\end{array}$$ This yields, via Hölder’s inequality $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\left|\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O(\beta((1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X)-\beta(X))(X_\varepsilon-X)ds\, d\xi\right|\\
\\
\ds \le C|X_\varepsilon-X|_{L^p(\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O)}
|(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X-X|_{L^p(\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O)}
\\
\\
\ds \times \left(|(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X|^{m-1}_{L^p(\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O)}+
|X|^{m-1}_{L^p(\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O)} +1 \right) \\
\\
\ds\le C_1|(1+\varepsilon A)^{-1}X-X|_{L^p(\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O)}\to 0,
\end{array}$$ because $\{X_\varepsilon\}$ is bounded in $L^p(\Omega\times [0,T]\times\mathcal O)$ and $(m-1)\frac{p}{p-2}\le p$. Now the assertion follows by .
Consider now the function $$\varphi(x)=\frac1p\;|x^-|^p_p.$$ For any $x\in L^p(\mathcal O)$, $\varphi$ is Gâteaux differentiable and its differential $D\varphi\colon
L^p(\mathcal O)\to L^{p/(p-1)}(\mathcal O)$ is given by $$D\varphi(x)=-(x^-)^{p-1},$$ while the second Gâteaux derivative $D^2\varphi(x)\in L(L^p(\mathcal O);L^{p/(p-1)}(\mathcal O))$ is given by $$(D^2\varphi(x)h,g)=(p-1)\int_\mathcal O h\,g\;|x^-|^{p-2} d\xi,\quad \forall\; h,g,x\in L^p(\mathcal O).$$
\[l3.5\] Let $n\le 3$. For each $x\in L^p(\mathcal O)$ we have $$\label{e3.24}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds\E[\varphi(X_\varepsilon(t))]+\E\int_0^t(A_\varepsilon X_\varepsilon(s),D\varphi(X_\varepsilon(s))ds
\\
\\
\ds=\varphi(x)+\frac{p-1}2\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu^2_k\,\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O
|X^-_\varepsilon(s)e_k|^2|X^-_\varepsilon(s)|^{p-2}dsd\xi.
\end{array}$$
[**Proof**]{}. We note first that since $X_\varepsilon\in L_W^\infty(0,T;L^p(\Omega;L^p(\mathcal O)))$ the above formula makes sense. Next we approximate $\varphi$ by $$\varphi_\lambda(x)=\varphi((1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}x),\quad A_0=-\Delta,\;\; D(A_0)=
H^2(\mathcal O)\cap H_0^1(\mathcal O),\;\lambda>0.$$ Since $\varphi\in C^2(C(\overline{\mathcal O}))$ and $(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}$ is linear continuous from $L^2(\mathcal O)$ to $C(\overline{\mathcal O})$ (due to our assumption $n\le 3$) we infer that $\phi_\lambda\in C^{2}(L^2(\mathcal O))$ and its first order and second order differentials are given, respectively, by $$D\varphi_\lambda(x)=D\varphi((1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}x))(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1},$$ $$(D^2\varphi_\lambda(x)h,k)=(D^2\varphi((1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}x))((1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}h,(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}k)$$ for $h,k\in L^2(\mathcal O),x\in L^2(\mathcal O).$ Note that if $x\in L^p(\mathcal O)$, then $$D\varphi_\lambda(x)=-(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}(((1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}x)^-)^{p-1}.$$ So, for $\lambda\to 0$ we have $\varphi_\lambda(x)\to\varphi(x)$ and $
D\varphi_\lambda(x)\to D\varphi(x)\quad\mbox{\rm in}\;L^{p/(p-1)}(\mathcal O).
$ Next we write Itô’s formula for $\varphi_\lambda$ in the space $L^2(\mathcal O)$ which makes sense by Lemma \[l3.2\].
We get $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\E[\varphi_\lambda(X_\varepsilon(t))]+\E\int_0^t(A_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon(s)),D\varphi_\lambda(X_\varepsilon(s)))ds
=\varphi_\lambda(x)
\\
\\
\ds+\frac{p-1}2\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu^2_k\,\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O |((1+\lambda
A_0)^{-1}(X_\varepsilon(s)e_k)|^2\;|((1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}X_\varepsilon(s))^-|^{p-2}d\xi\,ds.
\end{array}$$ This yields $$\label{e3.25}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds\E[\varphi_\lambda(X_\varepsilon(t))]-\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O(1+\lambda
A_0)^{-1}(A_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon(s)))
(((1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}X_\varepsilon(s))^-)^{p-1}d\xi ds
\\
\\
\ds=\varphi_\lambda(x)\\
\\
\ds+\frac{p-1}2\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu^2_k\,\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O |((1+\lambda
A_0)^{-1}X_\varepsilon(s))^-|^{p-2} |(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}(X_\varepsilon(s)e_k)|^2d\xi\,ds.
\end{array}$$
We know that for $\lambda\to 0$, $(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}X_\varepsilon
(s)\to X_\varepsilon(s)$ strongly in $L^p(\mathcal O)$ a.e. in $\Omega\times(0,T) $ and $$|(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}X_\varepsilon|_p
\le |X_\varepsilon|_p,\quad\mbox{\rm a.e. in}\;\Omega\times (0,T).$$ Then by the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem we have $$\label{e3.26}
\lim_{\lambda\to 0}(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}X_\varepsilon=
X_\varepsilon\quad\mbox{\rm strongly in}\;
L^p(\Omega\times (0,T)\times\mathcal O).$$ Similarly, since $A_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon)\in
L^p(\Omega\times (0,T)\times\mathcal O)$ we have for $\lambda\to 0$ $$(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}(A_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon))\to A_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon)
,\quad\mbox{\rm strongly in}\;L^p(\Omega\times (0,T)\times\mathcal O).$$ and $$((1+\lambda A_0)^{-1} X_\varepsilon)^-\to X^-_\varepsilon
,\quad\mbox{\rm strongly in}\;L^{p}(\Omega\times (0,T)\times\mathcal O).$$ This yields $$\label{e3.27}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds\lim_{\lambda\to 0}\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O(1+\lambda A_0)^{-1}(A_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon(s)))(((1+\lambda
A_0)^{-1}X_\varepsilon(s))^-)^{p-1}d\xi ds\\
\\
\ds=\int_0^t\int_\mathcal OA_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon(s))(X^-_\varepsilon(s))^{p-1}d\xi ds.
\end{array}$$ Then, if $x\in L^p(\mathcal O)$ letting $\lambda\to 0$ in we get (since by Fatou’s lemma $\E\varphi(X_\varepsilon(t))\le \liminf_{\lambda\to
0}\E\varphi_\lambda (X_\varepsilon(t)),\;\forall\;t\ge 0$) $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\E[\varphi(X_\varepsilon(t))]-\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O
A_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon(s))(X^-_\varepsilon(s))^{p-1} d\xi ds
\\
\\
\ds=\varphi (x)+\frac{p-1}2\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu^2_k\,
\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O
\ds|X_\varepsilon(s)e_k|^2\;|X^-_\varepsilon(s)|^{p-2}d\xi ds,
\end{array}$$ and so follows. $\Box$
We have by and the definition of $Y_\varepsilon$ that for $x\in L^p(\mathcal O), x\ge 0$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds \E[\varphi(X_\varepsilon(t))]+\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O\Delta\beta (Y_\varepsilon(s))
(X^-_\varepsilon(s))^{p-1} ds d\xi
\\
\\
\ds=\frac{p-1}2\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu^2_k\,
\E\int_0^t\int_\mathcal O |X^-_\varepsilon(s)e_k|^2\;|X^-_\varepsilon(s)|^{p-2}d\xi
ds\\
\\
\ds\le C\E\int_0^t|X^-_\varepsilon(s)|_p^p ds.
\end{array}$$ (Recall that $A_\varepsilon(X_\varepsilon)=-\Delta\beta(Y_\varepsilon)$.)
We therefore have, taking into account that $\Delta\beta(Y_\varepsilon)=
\frac1\varepsilon(Y_\varepsilon-X_\varepsilon)$, $$\label{e3.28}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \frac1p\;\E|X_\varepsilon^-(t)|^p_p+\frac1\varepsilon\;\E\int_0^t \int_\mathcal O
(Y_\varepsilon(s)-X_\varepsilon(s))(X^-_\varepsilon(s))^{p-1}d\xi ds\\
\\
\ds\le C\E\int_0^t|X^-_\varepsilon(s)|_p^p ds.
\end{array}$$ We have $$\label{e3.29}
|Y_\varepsilon^-(t)|^p_{p}\le \int_\mathcal OX_\varepsilon(t))(-Y^-_\varepsilon(t))^{p-1}d\xi,\quad \P\mbox{\rm-a.s.},$$ analogously to deriving , for $x\in L^p(\mathcal O)$. To see this multiply by $g(y)$ where $$g(y)\colon=\frac{-(y^-)^{p-1}}{1+\lambda(y^-)^{p-2}},$$ to get (after integration by parts) that $$\int_\mathcal O\frac{(y^-)^p}{1+\lambda(y^-)^{p-2}}\;d\xi+\varepsilon\int_\mathcal O\langle\nabla\beta(y), \nabla g(y)\rangle_{\R^n}\;d\xi
=\int_\mathcal O\frac{x^-(-y^-)^3}{1+\lambda(y^-)^2}\;d\xi.$$ Note that $g$ as a composition of two decreasing Lipschitz functions is Lipschitz and decreasing. So, we can apply Lemma \[l3.1\] to obtain $$\int_\mathcal O\frac{(y^-)^4}{1+\lambda(y^-)^2}\;d\xi\le \int_\mathcal O\frac{x^-(-y^-)^3}{1+\lambda(y^-)^2}\;d\xi$$ and follows by taking $\lambda\to \infty$. By we have $$-|Y_\varepsilon^-(t)|^p_{p}\ge \int_\mathcal O(X_\varepsilon^+(t)-X^-_\varepsilon(t))(Y^-_\varepsilon(t))^{p-1}d\xi
\ge - \int_\mathcal OX_\varepsilon^-(t)(Y^-_\varepsilon(t))^{p-1}d\xi$$ and therefore $
|Y_\varepsilon^-(t)|^p_{p}\le |X_\varepsilon^-(t)|_p\; |Y_\varepsilon^-(t)|_p^{p-1}.
$ Hence $|Y_\varepsilon^-(t)|_{p}\le |X_\varepsilon^-(t)|_{p}$ and so $$\int_\mathcal OY_\varepsilon^-(t)(X^-_\varepsilon(t))^{p-1}d\xi
\le
|X_\varepsilon^-(t)|^{p-1}_p\;|Y_\varepsilon^-(t)|_p\le |X_\varepsilon^-(t)|^p_p.$$ Inserting the latter into and taking into account that $Y_\varepsilon X^-_\varepsilon
\ge -Y^-_\varepsilon X^-_\varepsilon$ we see that $\E|X_\varepsilon^-(t)|^p_p=0$, a.e. $t\ge 0$ i.e, $X_\varepsilon^-(t)=0$ a.e. and therefore $X_\varepsilon(t)\ge 0$ a.e.. Taking into account Lemma \[l3.4\] we infer that $X\ge 0$. This completes the proof in the case when $\beta$ is strictly monotone. $\Box$
To treat the general case of $\beta$ satisfying we shall associate to the equation $$\label{e3.30}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
dX^\lambda(t)+A^\lambda X^\lambda(t)=\sigma(X^\lambda(t))dW(t),\quad t\ge 0,\\
\\
X^\lambda(0)=x,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $$A^\lambda(x)=-\Delta(\beta(x)+\lambda x),\quad \lambda>0$$ and $$D(A^\lambda)=\{x\in H^{-1}(\mathcal O)\cap L^1(\mathcal O):\;\beta(x)+\lambda x\in H_0^{1}(\mathcal O)\}$$ According to the first part of the proof, for each $x\in L^p(\mathcal O),x\ge 0$ and $\lambda>0$, equation has a unique strong solution $X^\lambda$ which is nonnegative a.e. on $\Omega\times (0,T)\times
\mathcal O$.
On the other hand, applying the Itô formula from [@KR Theorem I 3.2] to the equation $$d(X^\lambda(t)-X(t))+(A^\lambda X^\lambda(t)-AX(t))dt=(X^\lambda(t)-X(t))dW(t)$$ where $X$ is the solution to , we get after some calculations that $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\frac12\;\E|X^\lambda(t)-X(t)|^2_{-1}+\lambda\E\int_0^t\langle X^\lambda(s),X^\lambda(s)-X(s)\rangle_{-1} ds\\
\\
\ds\le\frac12\;\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu_k^2\,\E\int_0^t|(X^\lambda(s)-X(s))e_k|^2_{-1}ds.
\end{array}$$ This yields (see ), since $$\langle X^\lambda(s),X^\lambda(s)-X(s)\rangle_{-1}\ge \langle
X(s),X^\lambda(s)-X(s)\rangle_{-1},$$ $$\E|X^\lambda(t)-X(t)|^2_{-1}\le C\E\int_0^t|X^\lambda(s)-X(s)|^2_{-1}ds +\lambda^2\E\int_0^t |X(s)|_{-1}^2ds.$$ Since $X\in C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega,L^2(\mathcal O))$, we infer via Gronwall’s lemma that $$\lim_{X^\lambda\to 0}X^\lambda=X \quad\mbox{\rm in }\;C_W([0,T];L^2(\Omega,L^2(\mathcal O))$$ and so $X\ge 0$ a.e. in $\Omega\times (0,T)\times \mathcal O$ as claimed.
The final part of the assertion in Theorem \[t2.2\] follows by the continuity of sample paths, since $L^p(\mathcal
O)$ is dense in $H^{-1}(\mathcal O)$ and the continuity of solutions $X=X(t,x)$ with respect to the initial data $x$ (which follows via Itô’s formula in the proof of uniqueness). $\Box$
Concluding remarks
==================
Assumption $1\le n\le 3$ is unnecessarily strong and was taken for convenience only. As a matter of fact, under suitable conditions of the form we expect that Theorem \[t2.2\] can be established for any dimension $n$. This will be the subject of a forthcoming paper.
2\) Theorem \[t2.2\] and its proof remain valid for time–dependent nonlinear functions $\beta=\beta(t,x)$ where $\beta$ is monotonically increasing in $x$, satisfies uniformly with respect to $t$ and is continuous in $t$.
3\) One might speculate however that nonnegativity of $X(t,x)$ for $x\ge 0$ follows directly in $H^{-1}(\mathcal O)$ by taking instead of $\varphi(x)=\frac1p|x^-|^p_p$ a suitable $C^2$-function on $H^{-1}(\mathcal
O)$ which is zero on the cone of positive $x\in H^{-1}(\mathcal O)$ but so far we failed to find such a function.
[99]{}
D.G. Aronson, [*The porous medium equation,*]{} Lecture Notes Math. Vol. 1224, Springer, Berlin, 1–46, 1986.
V.Barbu, [*Analysis and Control of Infinite Dimensional Systems,*]{} Academic Press, 1993.
V. Barbu and G. Da Prato [*The two phase stochastic Stefan problem*]{}, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, [**124**]{}, 544–560, 2002.
V. Barbu, V.I. Bogachev, G. Da Prato and M. Röckner, [*Weak solution to the stochastic porous medium equations: the degenerate case,*]{} J. Functional Analysis, [**235**]{} (2), 430-448, 2006.
V.I. Bogachev, G. Da Prato and M. Röckner, [*Invariant measures of stochastic porous medium type equations*]{}, Doklady Math. Russian Acad. Sci. 396, 1, 7–11 (Russian), 2004.
H. Brézis, [*Operatéurs maximaux monotones*]{}, North-Holland, 1973.
G. Da Prato, M. Röckner, B. L. Rozovskii and Feng-Yu Wang, [*Strong Solutions of Stochastic Generalized Porous Media Equations: Existence, Uniqueness and Ergodicity*]{}, Comm. Partial Differential Equations [**31**]{}, no. 1-3, 277–291, 2006
G. Da Prato and M. Röckner, [*Weak solutions to stochastic porous media equations,*]{} J. Evolution Equ. 4, 249–271, 2004.
G. Da Prato and M. Röckner, [*Invariant measures for a stochastic porous medium equation,*]{} Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics 41, 2004. Stochastic Analysis and related topics, 13–29, 2004.
G. Da Prato and J. Zabczyk, [*Stochastic equations in infinite dimensions*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
N.V. Krylov and B.L. Rozovskii, [*Stochastic evolution equations,*]{} Translated from Itogi Naukii Tekhniki, Seriya Sovremennye Problemy Matematiki 14(1979), 71–146, Plenum Publishing Corp. 1981.
C. Prevot and M. Röckner, [*A concise course on stochastic partial differential equations,*]{} Monograph 2006, to appear in Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer.
J. Ren, M. Röckner and Feng-Yu Wang, [*Stochastic generalized porous media and fast diffusions equations*]{}, BiBoS-preprint 2006, to appear in J. Diff. Eqn.
[^1]: Supported by the CEEX Project 05 of Romanian Minister of Research.
[^2]: Supported by the research program “Equazioni di Kolmogorov” from the Italian “Ministero della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica”
[^3]: Supported by the DFG-Research Group 399, the SFB-701, the BIBOS-Research Center, the INTAS project 99-559, the RFBR project 04–01–00748, the Russian–Japanese Grant 05-01-02941-JF, the DFG Grant 436 RUS 113/343/0(R).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
-1.5cm = -1.3truecm
1truecm
[**SUPERALGEBRAS, THEIR QUANTUM DEFORMATIONS\
AND THE INDUCED REPRESENTATION METHOD**]{} [^1]\
([*On the occasion of the 30–th anniversary of the Vietnam Mathematical Society*]{}) 1.5truecm [**Nguyen Anh Ky**]{}\
Institute of Physics\
National Centre for Natural Science and Technology\
P.O. Box 429, Bo Ho, Hanoi 10000, Vietnam\
and\
International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy.
.5truecm
ABSTRACT
Some introductory concepts and basic definitions of the Lie superalgebras and their quantum deformations are exposed. Especially the induced representation methods in both cases are described. Based on the Kac representation theory we have succeeded in constructing representations of several higher rank superalgebras. When representations of quantum superalgebras are concerned, we have developed a method which can be applied not only to the one–parametric quantum deformations but also to the multi–parametric ones. As an intermediate step the Gel’fand–Zetlin basis description is extended to the case of superalgebras and their quantum deformations. Our approach also allows us to establish in consistent ways defining relations of quantum (super)algebras. Some illustrations are given.
2truecm
[*Running title*]{}: Superalgebras and quantum superalgebras.\
[*Mathematical subject classification 1991*]{}: 17A70, 81R50\
[*Key words*]{}: Superalgebras, quantum deformations, quantum superalgebras, induced representations, Gel’fand–Zetlin basis.
The symmetry principles [@elot; @wigner1; @wigner2], in particular, the supersymmetry idea [@susy1; @susy2; @susy3], occupy central places in constructions of different physics theories. They are described by (super) symmetry groups or infinitesimally by corresponding (super) algebras. Especially, superalgebras [@kac; @kac3; @kac4; @sch] play an important role in supersymmetry and supergravity theories [@susy6; @susy4; @susy5]. They have various applications in quantum physics, superdynamical symmetry (superquantum mechanics), nuclear physics, etc. Usually, as in the case of ordinary algebras, applications of superalgebras lead us to finding explicit expressions for matrix elements of their generators. Therefore, constructing representations of superalgebras is an actual topic. Unfortunately, the purely mathematical problem is solved only partially. Irrespective of the fact that all finite–dimensional irreducible representations of the basic classical Lie superalgebras are classified, the questions concerning indecomposable finite–dimensional representations and constructions of explicit (indecomposable and irreducible) representations are less understood and solved. Especially for the orthosymplectic superalgebras it is not known how to construct all such indecomposable representations and modules. These (indecomposable and irreducible) representations of the basic superalgebras and the structure of the corresponding modules were subjects of investigations of several authors, who succeeded in constructing explicit representations and modules only for lower rank superalgebras [@rowe; @pan; @ritt], while explicit representations of larger superalgebras were known very partially, besides some general expects [@rowe; @rowe2; @vander]. Later, some movements forward were made in Refs. [@k3; @k1; @k2; @neli] where all finite–dimensional representations and a wide class of infinite–dimensional representations of several higher rank superalgebras have already been investigated in detail and constructed explicitly.\
The quantum deformations [@drin; @fa; @jimbo; @jimbo1; @manin; @wor], originated from intensive investigations on the quantum scattering problems and Yang–Baxter equations, represent an extension of the symmetry concept. Since they became a subject of great interest, many algebraic and geometric structures and some representations of quantum (super-) groups and algebras have been obtained and understood (see in this context, for example, Refs. [@cele; @chari; @doeb; @drin; @fa; @jimbo; @jimbo1; @kass; @kulish; @manin; @man; @wz; @wor; @wor2; @yang]). In particular, the quantum algebra $U_{q}[sl(2)]$ is very well studied [@bieden; @kure; @macfa; @pas; @roche; @skl]. As in the non–deformed case for applications of quantum groups and algebras we often need their explicit representations. However, although the progress in this direction is remarkable the problem is still far from being satisfactorily solved. Especially, representations of quantum superalgebras [@chai; @hoker; @q-osc; @k4; @k6; @k7; @k8; @k5; @palev1; @zhang] are presently under development. Explicit representations are known mainly for quantum superalgebras of lower ranks and of particular types like $U_{q}[gl(n/1)]$, $U_{q}[osp(1/2)]$, etc., while for higher rank quantum superalgebras of nonparticular type, only some general structures [@zhang], q–oscillator representations (see, for example, Refs. [@hoker; @q-osc]) and a class of representations of $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$ (Ref. [@palev1]) have been well investigated. In general, representations, including the finite–dimensional ones, of quantum superalgebras have not been explicitly constructed and completely investigated (at neither generic $q$ nor $q$ being roots of unity). Recently, in Ref. [@k4] we proposed an induced representation method by which we can construct representations of higher rank quantum superalgebras such as $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$ for large $m,n$.\
Here, in the framework of this paper, more precisely in the next section, we shall make an introduction to the superalgebras and briefly describe the induced representation method which is based on the representation theory developed by Kac [@kac]. Then, in Sect. III, we give a construction procedure for finite–dimensional representations of the superalgebras $gl(m/n)$. The induced representation method allowed us to construct explicitly all finite–dimensional representations and a wide class of infinite–dimensional representations of several higher rank superalgebras like $gl(2/2)$, $gl(3/2)$ and $osp(3/2)$. Sect. IV is devoted to some introductory concepts of the quantum superalgebras. Due to the method proposed in Ref. [@k4] and described in Sect. V we succeeded for the first time in finding all finite–dimensional representations, including the irreducible ones, of a higher rank quantum superalgebra, namely $U_{q}[gl(2/2)]$ (see Refs. [@k4] and [@k5]). It is clear that our method is applicable not only to other one–parametric deformations but also to the multi–parametric ones [@k6; @k7; @k8].\
Let us list some of the abbreviations and notations which will be used throughout the present paper:
12345678=$V_{l}\otimes V_{r}$ – tensor product between two linear spaces $V_{l}$ and $V_{r}$= or a tensor product =fidirmod(s) – finite–dimensional irreducible module(s),\
GZ basis – Gel’fand–Zetlin basis,\
lin. env.{X} – linear envelope of X,\
$q$ – the deformation parameter,\
$[x]_{r}=(r^{x}-r^{-x})/(r-
r^{-1}), ~ r=r(q)$, where $x$ is some number or operator,\
$[x]\equiv [x]_{q}$,\
$[E,F\}$ – supercommutator between $E$ and $F$,\
$[E,F\}_{r}\equiv
EF\pm rFE$ – r-deformed supercommutator between $E$ and $F$,\
$[m]$ – a highest weight in a (GZ, for example,) basis $(m)$,\
$I_{k}^{q}$ – the maximal invariant subspace in $W^{q}([m])$, corresponding to the class $k$,\
$W^{q}_{k}([m])=W^{q}([m])/I_{k}^{q}$ – the class $k$ nontypical module,\
$(m)^{\pm ij}$ – a pattern obtained from $(m)$ by shifting $m_{ij}
\rightarrow
m_{ij} \pm 1$,\
Note that we must not confuse the quantum deformation $[x]\equiv [x]_{q}$ of $x$ with the highest weight (signature) $[m]$ in the GZ basis $(m)$ or with the notation $[ ~,~ ]$ for commutators.\
\
There exist several good references on Lie superalgebras and their representations (see, for example, Refs. [@kac; @kac3; @kac4] and [@sch]). Let us give here some introductory concepts and basic definitions from the topic. A Lie superalgebra (from now on, only superalgebras) $A$, endowed with a Z-gradation, by definition, is a vector space which\
1) is a direct sum of vector subspaces $A_{i}$, where $i \in {\bf Z}$:\
$$A = \bigoplus_{i\in{\bf Z}}A_{i},
\eqno(2.1)$$ and\
2) has a bilinear product (supercommutator) \[ , } such that
$$[x_{i},x_{j}\} := x_{i}x_{j} - (-1)^{ij}x_{j}x_{i} \in A_{i+j}, ~~ {\rm
for}~~ x_{i(j)} \in
A_{i(j)}, \eqno(2.2a)$$ $$[x,[y,z\}\} + [y,[z,x\}\} + [z,[x,y\}\} = 0. \eqno(2.2b)$$
One sees that the Lie superalgebra $A$ admits the following $Z_{2}$-graded structure decomposition:
$$A = A_{\bar{0}} \bigoplus A_{\bar{1}}, \eqno(2.3a)$$ where $$A_{\bar{0}(\bar{1})} = \bigoplus_{i=even(odd)}A_{i} \eqno(2.3b)$$ Here $A_{\bar{0}}$, called the even subalgebra of $A$, is an ordinary Lie algebra, while $A_{\bar{1}}$ is a subspace of the odd generators and represents an $A_{\bar{0}}$–module as the supercommutator (2.2) defines in $A_{\bar{1}}$ a homomorphism: $$A_{\bar{1}} \rightarrow A_{\bar{0}}\eqno(2.4)$$ We say the above $Z$–gradation is consistent with the $Z_{2}$–one.\
Rewriting the decomposition (2.1a) in the form:
$$A = A_{-} \bigoplus A_{0} \bigoplus A_{+} \eqno(2.1a')$$ where $$A_{-} = \bigoplus_{i<0}A_{i}, \hspace*{7mm} A_{+} = \bigoplus_{i>o}A_{i}
\eqno(2.1b')$$ we see that $A_{0}$, referred to as a stability subalgebra, is either the even algebra $A_{\bar{0}}$ or its subalgebra and $A_{i}$’s are the adjoint representation spaces of $A$ restricted to $A_{0}$ : $[A_{0},A_{i}]
\subseteq A_{i}$. The Cartan subalgebra is contained in $A_{0}$, while $A_{+}$ and $A_{-}$ are subspaces of the creation and annihilation generators, respectively. One can construct a representation of $A$ induced from a representation of the stability subalgebra $A_{0}$ by expressing the generators from $A_{i}$ in a basis of the corresponding $Ad(A_{0})$–module.\
Let us denote by $V_{B}$ a module of a subalgebra $B$ of $A$. This $B$–module $V_{B}$ can be extended to a $U(A)$–module, where $U(A)$ is the universal enveloping algebra of $A$. An $A$–module $\tilde{V} := Ind_{B}^{A}V_{B}$ induced from the $B$–module is a $Z_{2}$–graded space obtained from $U(A)
\otimes V_{B}$ factorized by all the elements of the form $ab\otimes v - a
\otimes
b(v)$, $a\in A$, $b\in B$, $v\in V_{B}$ and endowed with the structure $a(u
\otimes
v) = au \otimes v$, $a\in A$, $u\in U(A)$, $v\in V_{B}$.\
If $B = A_{0}\bigoplus A_{+}$ we can start from an $A_{0}$–module $V_{0}(\Lambda)$, where $\Lambda$ is a signature characterizing the corresponding representation of $A_{0}$ in $V_{0}$. The latter becomes a $B$–module $V_{B}(\Lambda)$ by setting $$A_{+}V_{0} = 0 \eqno(2.5)$$ The induced module $\tilde{V}(\Lambda) = Ind_{B}^{A}V_{B}$, in general, contains a (unique) maximal submodule $I(\Lambda)$.\
[**Definition 2.1**]{}: [*An irreducible representation of a Lie superalgebra $A$ with the signature $\Lambda$ is called the factor–module*]{} $$W(\Lambda) = \tilde{V}(\Lambda)/I(\Lambda,) \eqno(2.6)$$ [*where $I$ is the maximal submodule*]{}.\
Let
$$V = V_{\bar{0}} \bigoplus V_{\bar{1}} \eqno(2.7)$$ be a $Z_{2}$–graded vector space of the dimension $$dimV =(dimV_{\bar{0}},dimV_{\bar{1}}) =
(m,n)\eqno(2.8)$$ and $End(V)_{L}$ is a Lie superalgebra of endomorphism mappings $End(V)$ endowed with the multiplications (2.2).\
[**Definition 2.2**]{}: [*A linear representation of $A$ in $V$ is defined as a homomorphism*]{} $$\phi: A \rightarrow End(V)_{L} := gl(m/n).
\eqno(2.9)$$\
We call $gl(m/n)$ a general linear Lie superalgebra which is a super–analogue of the ordinary general linear Lie algebra $gl(m)$. Any superalgebra is a subalgebra of $gl(m/n)$ and has the following matrix representation:\
$$\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
{\bf A} ~~~ & ~~~ {\bf C} \\[4mm]
{\bf D} ~~~ & ~~~ {\bf B}
\end{array}
\right]
\eqno(2.10)$$ where [**A, B, C**]{} and [**D**]{} are matrices of dimensions $m\times m,~
n\times n,~ m\times n$ and $n\times m$ , respectively. The even subalgebra $A_{\bar{0}}$ is spanned by [**A**]{}$\oplus $[**B**]{} $\subseteq $ $gl(m)
\oplus gl(n)$, while [**C**]{} and [**D**]{} are respectively the spaces of the positive– and the negative odd root generators. For a basis of $gl(m/n)$ we can choose the Weyl matrices $e_{ij}$, $$(e_{ij})_{kl}=\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}, ~~~ i,j=1,2,...m+n, \eqno(2.11a)$$ satisfying the supercommutation relations:\
$$[e_{ij},e_{kl}\} = \delta_{jk}e_{il} -
(-1)^{[(i)+(j)][(k)+(l)]}\delta_{il}e_{jk}, ~~~ 1\leq i,j,k,l\leq m+n,
\eqno(2.11b)$$ where the gradation index $(i)$ is 0 for $1\leq i\leq m$ and 1 for $m+1\leq
i \leq
m+n$.\
\
Here we shall outline a construction procedure for a representation of the superalgebra $gl(m/n)$ induced from a representation of the even subalgebra $$A_{0}=gl(m/n)_{0}\equiv gl(m) \oplus gl(n)=A_{\bar{0}}\eqno(3.1)$$ in a module $V_{0}(\Lambda)$, where $\Lambda$ is some signature characterizing the considered representation and being a highest weight in the case of a finite–dimensional representation. The highest weight $\Lambda$ represents an ordered set $(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},...,\lambda_{m},\lambda_{m+1},...,\lambda_{m+n})$ of the eigen–values $\lambda_{i}$ of the Cartan generators $e_{ii}$, $i=1,2,..., m+n$, on the so–called highest weight vector $M(\Lambda)$ which is defined as a vector from $V_{0}(\Lambda )$ and annihilated by the creation generators $e_{ij}$, $1\leq
i<j\leq m$ or $m+1\leq i<j\leq m+n$, $$e_{ii}M=\lambda_{i}M, ~~~
\Lambda:=
(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},...,\lambda_{m},\lambda_{m+1},...,\lambda_{m+n}),
\eqno(3.2a)$$ $$e_{ij}M=0, ~~ {\rm for} ~~ 1\leq i<j\leq m ~~ {\rm or} ~~ m+1\leq i<j\leq m+n
\eqno(3.2b)$$
Identifying the subspaces $A_{\pm}$ as $$A_{+} = \{e_{ij} ~\|~ m+n\geq j>m\geq i\geq 1\}, \eqno(3.3a)$$ $$A_{-} =
\{e_{ij} ~\|~ m+n\geq i>m\geq j\geq 1\} \eqno(3.3b)$$ we demand the condition $$A_{+}V_{0}(\Lambda) = 0 \eqno(3.4)$$ which turns the module $V_{0}(\Lambda)$ in a $B$–module, where $$B =
gl(m)\oplus gl(n)\oplus A_{+}. \eqno(3.5)$$ The $gl(m/n)$–module $W(\Lambda)$ induced from the $gl(m) \oplus gl(n)$–module $V_{0}(\Lambda )$ is the factor–space $$W(\Lambda ) = (U \otimes V_{0}(\Lambda )/I(\Lambda )) \eqno(3.6)$$ where $U$ is the universal enveloping algebra of $gl(m/n)$, while $I(\Lambda )$ is the subspace $$I(\Lambda ) ={\rm lin. env.}\left\{ ub\otimes v -u\otimes bv ~\|~
u\in U, b\in B\subset U, v\in V_{0}(\Lambda )\right\} \eqno(3.7)$$ The Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem states that $U$ is a linear span of all the elements $$g = \prod_{e_{ij}\in A_{-}}(e_{ij})^{\theta_{ij}}b := a_{(-)}b,
\hspace*{6mm} b\in B,
\hspace*{4mm} \theta_{ij} = 0,1, \eqno(3.8)$$ where $$a_{(-)}:=\prod_{e_{ij}\in A_{-}}(e_{ij})^{\theta_{ij}}\eqno(3.9)$$ are ordered sequences of the odd generators belonging to $A_{-}$. Now, considering $g\otimes
v $ as an element of $W(\Lambda )$, from (3.9) we have $$g\otimes v = a_{(-)}b\otimes v
= a_{(-)}\otimes w, \hspace*{6mm} w=bv\in V_{0}(\Lambda )
\eqno(3.10)$$ Therefore $$W(\Lambda) = {\rm lin. env.}\left\{ \prod_{e_{ij}\in
A_{-}}(e_{ij})^{\theta_{ij}}\otimes
v ~\|~ v\in V_{0}(\Lambda )\right\},
\hspace*{6mm}
{\it \theta_{ij} = 0,1} \eqno(3.11a)$$ or $$W(\Lambda ) = T\otimes V_{0}(\Lambda) \eqno(3.11b)$$ where $$T = {\rm lin. env.}\left\{ \prod_{e_{ij}\in A_{-}}(e_{ij})^{\theta_{ij}}
~\|~
\theta_{ij}=0,1\right\}\subset U \eqno(3.12)$$ Since $T$, considered as an $Ad(A_{0})$–module, is $2^{mn}$–dimensional, the module $W$ can be decomposed in a direct sum of a number ($2^{mn}$, at most) of $A_{0}$–modules $V_{k}(\Lambda_{k})$ with highest weights $\Lambda_{k}$, $0\leq k\leq (2^{mn}-1)$, i.e., $$W(\Lambda ) = \bigoplus_{0}^{2^{mn}-
1}V_{k}(\Lambda_{k}).\eqno(3.13)$$ where the notation $$\Lambda_{0}\equiv \Lambda .\eqno(3.14)$$ is used. According to formulas (3.11), the vectors $$\left |\theta_{ij};(m,n)\right >:=\prod_{e_{ij}\in
A_{-}}(e_{ij})^{\theta_{ij}}({\bf
m},{\bf n})= a_{(-)}({\bf m},{\bf n}) \eqno(3.15)$$ altogether span a basis of $W(\Lambda)$, where $({\bf m},{\bf n})$ is a basis of $V_{0}(\Lambda)$. Therefore, when $V_{0}$ is finite–dimensional, the module $W$ and all other $gl(m/n)_{0}$–submodules $V_{k}$ are finite–dimensional, as well. For a basis of such a finite–dimensional $gl(m/n)_{0}$–module we can choose the Gel’fand–Zetlin (GZ) tableaux also called GZ (basis) vectors or patterns [@baird; @barut; @gz]:\
$$({\bf m,n})_{k}\equiv \left(\left[
\begin{array}{c}
{\bf m}_{1m} ~ {\bf m}_{2m} ~~~ ...
~~~ {\bf m}_{m-1m} ~ {\bf m}_{mm}\\
{\bf m}_{1m-1} ~ {\bf m}_{2m-1} ~~ ...
~~ {\bf m}_{m-1m-1}\\
\vdots \\
{\bf m}_{12} ~ {\bf m}_{22}\\
{\bf m}_{11}
\end{array}
\right]
\otimes
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
{\bf n}_{1n} ~ {\bf n}_{2n} ~~~ ... ~~~
{\bf n}_{n-1n} ~ {\bf n}_{nn}\\
{\bf n}_{1n-1} ~ {\bf n}_{2n-1} ~~ ...
~~ {\bf n}_{n-1n-1}\\
\vdots\\
{\bf n}_{12} ~ {\bf n}_{22}\\
{\bf n}_{11}
\end{array}
\right]\right)_{k},\\[4mm]
\eqno(3.16)$$ where ${\bf m}_{ij}$ and ${\bf n}_{ij}$ are complex numbers, satisfying the conditions: $${\bf m}_{ij}-{\bf m}_{kl} \in {\bf Z},~~ {\bf m}_{ij} \geq {\bf m}_{ij-1}
\geq {\bf m}_{i-
1j}\eqno(3.17a)$$ and $${\bf n}_{ij}-{\bf n}_{kl} \in {\bf Z},~~ {\bf n}_{ij} \geq {\bf n}_{ij-1}
\geq {\bf n}_{i-
1j},\eqno(3.17b)$$ as for $k=0$ we take $$({\bf m}, {\bf n})_{0}\equiv ({\bf m}, {\bf n}). \eqno(3.18)$$ When there does not exist any threat of degenerations, the other subscripts $k$ are also not necessary and therefore can be skipped. Thus, for every $V_{k}$ the highest weight (signature) is characterized by the first row in (3.16) $$\Lambda:=[\Lambda_{r},\Lambda_{l}]:= [{\bf m}_{1m}, {\bf m}_{2m}, ..., {\bf
m}_{mm}, {\bf n}_{1n}, {\bf
n}_{2n}, ..., {\bf n}_{nn}]:=[{\bf m},{\bf n}] \eqno(3.19)$$ combining the highest weights $$\Lambda_{r}:=[{\bf m}]= [{\bf m}_{1m}, {\bf m}_{2m}, ..., {\bf m}_{mm}]
\eqno(3.20a)$$ and $$\Lambda_{l}:=[{\bf n}]= [{\bf n}_{1n}, {\bf n}_{2n}, ..., {\bf n}_{nn}]
\eqno(3.20b)$$ of $gl(m)$ and $gl(n)$, respectively.\
As vectors from an $Ad(A_{0})$–module, $a_{(-)}$ can be expressed in terms of a $gl(m) \oplus gl(n)$–GZ basis: $$({\bf
m',n'})_{k}:=$$ $$\left(\left[
\begin{array}{c}
{\bf m'}_{1m} ~ {\bf m'}_{2m} ~~~ ...
~~~ {\bf m'}_{m-1m} ~ {\bf m'}_{mm}\\
{\bf m'}_{1m-1}~ {\bf m'}_{2m-1} ~~ ...
~~ {\bf m'}_{m-1m-1}\\ \vdots\\
{\bf m'}_{12} ~ {\bf m'}_{22}\\
{\bf m'}_{11}
\end{array}
\right]
\otimes
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
{\bf n'}_{1n} ~ {\bf n'}_{2n} ~~~ ... ~~~ {\bf n'}_{n-1n} ~ {\bf n'}_{nn}\\
{\bf n'}_{1n-1} ~ {\bf n'}_{2n-1} ~~ ... ~~ {\bf n'}_{n-1n-1}\\
\vdots\\
{\bf n'}_{12} ~ {\bf n'}_{22}\\
{\bf n'}_{11}
\end{array}
\right]\right)_{k}
\eqno(3.21)$$ Then, the basis (3.15) takes the form $$\left |\theta_{ij};(m,n)\right >=\cal{N}.({\bf m'}, {\bf n'})\odot ({\bf
m},{\bf
n})\eqno(3.22)$$ where $\cal{N}$ is a norm.
The induced representations obtained, in general, are reducible in the latter basis (3.22) referred to as an induced basis. In order to single out all its irreducible subrepresentations we have to pass to another basis, namely the reduced basis which is the union of all the GZ basis vectors (3.16) for $k$ running from 0 to $2^{mn}-1$. The reduced basis vectors (3.16) are connected with the induced basis ones (3.22) by the Clebsch–Gordan decompositions written formally as follows $$({\bf m}, {\bf n})_{k}=\sum_{(m,n),(m',n')}{\bf C}[(m,n)_{k}\|
(m',n');(m,n)]~({\bf
m'},{\bf n'})\odot ({\bf m},{\bf n})\eqno(3.23)$$ and vice versa $$({\bf m'},{\bf n'})\odot ({\bf
m},{\bf n})=\sum_{(m,n)_{k}}{\bf C}^{-1}[(m',n');(m,n)\|(m,n)_{k}]~({\bf
m}, {\bf
n})_{k}\eqno(3.24)$$ where ${\bf C}$ and ${\bf C^{-1}}$ are short hands for the Clebsch–Gordan coefficients and its invert expressions, respectively. The sums in (3.23) and (3.24) spread over the Gel’fand–Zetlin ranges (3.17) for all possible GZ patterns concerned. In Ref. [@k1] we proposed a modified GZ basis description which can be extended later to the case of quantum superalgebras [@k4; @k6; @k8; @k5].\
All matrix elements of $gl(m/n)$–generators in the induced basis or in the reduced basis can be obtained by using formulas (2.11), (3.15), (3.16), and (3.21)–(3.24). The main problem here is to find the Clebsch–Gordan coefficients which are not always known explicitly, especially for higher rank cases. For now, using the general method described above, we can find all finite–dimensional representations of the superalgebras $gl(2/2)$ and $gl(3/2)$, while the results for higher rank $gl(m/n)$ are still partial.\
As an example we can consider the superalgebra $gl(2/1)$ generated by the generators $e_{ij}$, $i,j=1,2,3$ satisfying (2.11) for $m=2,~ n=1$. Now the space $T$ in (3.12) takes the following form $$T= {\rm lin. env}
\left\{(e_{31})^{\theta_{1}}(e_{32})^{\theta_{2}},
\theta_{i}=0,1.\right\}\eqno(3.25)$$ Then the module $W(\Lambda) $ (3.13) induced from a finite–dimensional irreducible module (fidirmod) $V_{0}(\Lambda)$ of $gl(2/1)_0$ can be decomposed into four $gl(2/1)_0$–fidirmods $V_{k}$, $k=0,1,2,3$, $$W(\Lambda ) =
\bigoplus_{0}^{3}V_{k}(\Lambda_{k}).\eqno(3.26)$$ Now, the GZ basis (3.16)–(3.18) for a finite–dimensional $gl(2/1)_0$–module $V_{k}$ represents a tensor product $$\left[
\begin{array}{lcr}
\begin{array}{c}
m_{12}~~~m_{22}\\ m_{11}
\end{array}
;
\begin{array}{c}
m_{32}=m_{31}\\ m_{31}
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right]
\equiv
\left[
\begin{array}{lcr}
\begin{array}{c}
[m]_{2}\\ m_{11}
\end{array}
;
\begin{array}{c}
[m]_{1}\\ m_{31}
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right]
\equiv
(m)_{gl(2)}\otimes m_{31}\equiv (m)_{k}
\eqno(3.27a)$$ between the GZ basis $(m)_{gl(2)}$ of $gl(2)$ and the $gl(1)$–factors $m_{31}$, where $m_{ij}$ are complex numbers such that $$m_{12}-m_{11},~ m_{11}-m_{22}\in
{\bf Z_{+}}\eqno(3.27b)$$ and $$m_{32}=m_{31}.\eqno(3.27c)$$ Then $T$ as an $Ad(gl(2/1)_{0})$–module is spanned on the following basis vectors $$1=
\left[
\begin{array}{lcr}
\begin{array}{c}
0~~~0\\ 0
\end{array}
;
\begin{array}{c}
0\\ 0
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right],\eqno(3.28a)$$ $$e_{3i}=
(-1)^i\left[
\begin{array}{lcr}
\begin{array}{c}
0~~~-1\\ i-2
\end{array}
;
\begin{array}{c}
1\\ 1
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right], ~~ i=1,2,\eqno(3.28b)$$ $$e_{31}e_{32}=
\left[
\begin{array}{lcr}
\begin{array}{c}
-1~~~-1\\ -1
\end{array}
;
\begin{array}{c}
2\\2
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right].\eqno(3.28c)$$
Using (3.11), (3.23), (3.24), (3.27) and (3.28) we can describe all the basis vectors of the module $W$ and their transformations under the actions of $gl(2/1)$–generators and then we can investigate the irreducible and indecomposable structure of the module $W$. In such a way all finite-dimensional irreducible representations of $gl(2/1)$ are found. In order to make the present paper more compact we do not expose here these results which represent classical limits of those of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ when $q\rightarrow 1$. The structure of the $gl(2/1)$–module $W$ is similar to that of the module $W^q$ of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$. The latter quantum superalgebra and its representations will be considered (however, in a different approach) in section 5.\
As far as the orthosymplectic Lie superalgebras $osp(m/n)$ are concerned, the induced representation method is also applicable. However, this case has some specific features which deserve to be mentioned. The orthosymplectic Lie superalgebras $osp(m/n)$ which are a subclass of $gl(m/n)$ have various applications in superfield theories [@sufield; @susy6], superquantum mechanics [@suqm1; @suqm2; @suqm3; @suqm4; @suqm5], nuclear physics [@nphys; @nphys2], etc. Unfortunately, the mathematical problem to determine the representations (or, say, only the finite–dimensional representations) of the orthosymplectic Lie superalgebras is, at present, far from being solved. It is much less developed even in comparison to the other big class of the basis Lie superalgebras, namely $sl(m/n)$. Here, as an example, the superalgebra $osp(3/2)$ is taken [@k2].\
In Ref. [@k2] we constructed explicitly all finite–dimensional representations and a wide class of infinite–dimensional ones of $osp(3/2)$ induced from finite–representations of the stability algebra $A_{0}\equiv
so(3)\oplus gl(1)$ which is a subalgebra of the even subalgebra $so(3)\oplus sp(2)$. The method depending on the representations of the even algebras leads to an infinite–irreducible or indecomposable $osp(3/2)$–module $\bar{W}(p,q)$ labeled by a number pair ($p,q$). Any such module has, as mentioned above, a natural induced basis, in which one easily writes transformations under the actions of the generators. However, we need another basis, called reduced, in order to easily single out and describe the invariant subspace $\bar{W}_{inv}(p,q)$ of the module $W(p,q)$ carrying infinite–irreducible or indecomposable representations of $osp(3/2)$, the finite Kac module $\bar{W}_{Kac}=\bar{W}/\bar{W}_{inv}$ (also carrying an irreducible or indecomposable representation of $osp(3/2)$ and, finally, the irreducible $osp(3/2)$ submodule $W_{Kac}(p,q)$ (which differs from the Kac module only in the case of nontypical representations).\
\
As mentioned in the Introduction the quantum superalgebras and their representations are subjects of intensive investigations in both physics and mathematics. The quantum superalgebras as quantum deformations can be introduced and defined in different ways [@chai; @hoker; @drin; @fa; @q-osc; @jimbo2; @jimbo; @k4; @k6; @k7; @k8; @k5; @manin; @man2; @palev1; @wor; @wor2; @zhang].
Here, we shall give some introductory concepts and basic definitions exposed mostly in [@k4] where an induced representation method was proposed and showed to be useful in constructing explicit representations of quantum superalgebras [@k4; @k6; @k7; @k8; @k5]. Then, in the next section, for an illustration of our method we shall consider the quantum superalgebra $U{q}[gl(2/1)]$.\
Let $g$ be a rank $r$ (semi-) simple superalgebra, for example, $sl(m/n)$ or $osp(m/n)$. The quantum superalgebra $U_{q}(g)$ as a quantum deformation (q-deformation) of the universal enveloping algebra $U(g)$ of $g$, is completely defined by the Cartan-Chevalley canonical generators $h_{i}$, $e_{i}$ and $f_{i}$, $i=1,2,...,r$ which satisfy [@k4]\
1) [**the quantum Cartan–Kac supercommutation relations**]{}
11111111111111111111111111111112=$[h_{i},h_{j}]$ = . = 0012345678901234567890123456789 = $[h_{i},h_{j}]$ = 0,\
$[h_{i},e_{j}]$ = $a_{ij}e_{j}$,\
$[h_{i},f_{j}]$ = $-a_{ij}f_{j}$,\
$[e_{i},f_{j}\}$ = $\delta_{ij}[h_{i}]_{q_{i}^{2}}$,(4.1)
2\) [**the quantum Serre relations**]{} $$(ad_{q}{\cal E}_{i})^{1-\tilde{a}_{ij}}{\cal
E}_{j}=0,$$ $$(ad_{q}{\cal F}_{i})^{1-\tilde{a}_{ij}}{\cal
F}_{j}=0\eqno(4.2)$$ where $(\tilde{a}_{ij})$ is a matrix obtained from the non-symmetric Cartan matrix $(a_{ij})$ by replacing the strictly positive elements in rows with 0 on the diagonal entry by $-
1$, while $ad_{q}$ is the q–deformed adjoint operator given by the formula (4.8)\
and\
3) [**the quantum extra–Serre relations**]{} (for $g$ being $sl(m/n)$ or $osp(m/n)$) [@extra1; @extra3; @extra2] $$\{[e_{m-1},e_{m}]_{q^{2}},[e_{m},e_{m+1}]_{q^{2}}\}=0,$$ $$\{[f_{m-
1},f_{m}]_{q^{2}},[f_{m},f_{m+1}]_{q^{2}}\}=0,\eqno(4.3)$$ being additional constraints on the unique odd Chevalley generators $e_{m}$ and $f_{m}$. In the above formulas we denoted $q_{i} = q^{d_{i}}$ where $d_{i}$ are rational numbers symmetrizing the Cartan matrix $d_{i}a_{ij}=d_{j}a_{ji}$, $1\leq i,j\leq
r$. For example, in the case $g=sl(m/n)$ we have $$d_{i}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & ~~~~ {\rm if} ~~ 1\leq i\leq m,\\ -1 & ~~~~ {\rm if} ~~ m+1\leq i\leq
r=m+n-1.
\end{array}\right.
\eqno(4.4)$$
The above–defined quantum superalgebras form a subclass of a special class of Hopf algebras called by Drinfel’d quasitriangular Hopf algebras [@drin]. They are endowed with a Hopf algebra structure given by the following additional maps:\
1) [**coproduct**]{} $\Delta$ : $U$ $\rightarrow$ $U\otimes U$
11111111111111111111111111111=$\Delta(h_{i})$= $= h_{i}\otimes 1 +
1\otimes h_{i}$222222222222222123456789 = $\Delta(1)$ $=
1\otimes
1$,\
$\Delta(h_{i})$ $= h_{i}\otimes 1 + 1\otimes
h_{i}$,\
$\Delta(e_{i})$ $= e_{i}\otimes q_{i}^{h_{i}} +
q_{i}^{-
h_{i}}\otimes e_{i}$,\
$\Delta(f_{i})$ $= f_{i}\otimes
q_{i}^{h_{i}} +
q_{i}^{-h_{i}}\otimes f_{i}$,(4.5)
2\) [**antipode**]{} $S$ : $U$ $\rightarrow$ $U$
11111111111111111111111123456=$S(h_{i})$= $=
-h_{i}$22222222222222222= 12345678901201234= $S(1)$ $=
1$,\
$S(h_{i})$ $= -h_{i}$,\
$S(e_{i})$ $=
-q^{a_{ii}}_{i}e_{i}$,\
$S(f_{i})$ $=
-q^{-a_{ii}}_{i}f_{i}$ (4.6)
and\
3) [**counit**]{} $\varepsilon$ : $U$ $\rightarrow$ $C$
11111111111111111111111112345=$S(h_{i})$= $=
-h_{i}$1234567890123456789012345671234567 = $\varepsilon(1)$ $=
1$,\
$\varepsilon(h_{i})$ $=\varepsilon(e_{i})=\varepsilon(f_{i})=0$,(4.7)
Then the quantum adjoint operator $ad_{q}$ has the following form [@chai; @roso] $$ad_{q} = (\mu_{L} \otimes \mu_{R})(id \otimes S)\Delta\eqno(4.8)$$ with $\mu_{L}$ (respectively, $\mu_{R}$) being the left (respectively, right) multiplication: $\mu_{L}(x)y = xy$ (respectively, $\mu_{R}(x)y = (-1)^{degx.degy} yx$).\
A quantum superalgebra $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$ is generated by the generators $k_{i}^{\pm 1}\equiv q_{i}^{\pm E_{ii}}$, $e_{j}\equiv E_{j,j+1}$ and $f_{j}\equiv
E_{j+1,j}$, $i=1,2,...,m+n$, $j=1,2,...,m+n-1$ such that the following relations hold [@k4]\
1) [**the super–commutation relations**]{}
1234567891234567 =$k_{i}e_{j}k_{i}^{-1}$1=1 =$q_{i}^{(\delta_{ij}-
\delta_{i,j+1})}e_{j}$, =$k_{i}f_{j}k_{i}^{-1}$1=12 =$q_{i}^{(\delta_{ij+1}- \delta_{i,j})}f_{j}$, 12345678 =$k_{i}k_{j}$=$k_{j}k_{i}$ , $k_{i}k_{i}^{-1}$= $k_{i}^{-1}k_{i}$ = 1 ,\
$k_{i}e_{j}k_{i}^{-1}$=$q_{i}^{(\delta_{ij} - \delta_{i,j+1})}e_{j}$ , $k_{i}f_{j}k_{i}^{-1}$=$q_{i}^{(\delta_{ij+1} - \delta_{i,j})}f_{j}$ ,\
$[e_{i},f_{j}\}$= $\delta_{ij}[h_{i}]_{q^{2}_{i}}$, where $q_{i}^{h_{i}}$=$k_{i}k_{i+1}^{-1}$,(4.9)
2\) [**the Serre relations (4.2)**]{} taking now the explicit forms
1234567891234567.=$[e_{i},e_{j}]$= = $[f_{i},f_{j}]$ = = 0, if $|i-j|\neq 1$1232345678912345678 01234.=$[e_{i},e_{j}]$ = $[f_{i},f_{j}]$ = 0, if $|i-j|\neq 1$,\
$e_{m}^{2}$ = $f_{m}^{2}$ = 0,\
$[e_{i},[e_{i},e_{j}]_{q^{\pm 2}}]_{q^{\mp 2}}$ = $[f_{i},[f_{i},f_{j}]_{q^{\pm
2}}]_{q^{\mp 2}}$ = 0, if $|i-j|=1$(4.10)\
and\
3) [**the extra–Serre relations (4.3)**]{} $$\{[e_{m-1},e_{m}]_{q^{2}},[e_{m},e_{m+1}]_{q^{2}}\}~= 0,$$ $$\{[f_{m-
1},f_{m}]_{q^{2}},[f_{m},f_{m+1}]_{q^{2}}\}~= 0.\eqno(4.3)$$ Here, besides $d_{i}$, $1\leq i\leq r=m+n-1$ given in (4.4), we introduced $$d_{m+n}=-1.\eqno(4.11)$$ The Hopf structure on $k_{i}$ looks like
1234567891234567891234567891234=$\Delta(k_{i})$ = = =$k_{i}\otimes
k_{i}$123456789123456789123456789=$\Delta(k_{i})$ = $k_{i}\otimes k_{i}$,\
$S(k_{i})$ = $k_{i}^{-
1}$,\
$\varepsilon(k_{i})$ = 1.(4.12)
The generators $E_{ii}$, $E_{i,i+1}$ and $E_{i+1,i}$ together with the generators defined in the following way
1234567890123=$E_{i,j+1}$:= $[E_{ik}E_{kj}]_{q^{-2}}$x= $\equiv
E_{ik}E_{kj}~-~q^{-2}E_{kj}E_{ik}$, =$~~i<k<j$,123456789=$E_{ij}$:= $[E_{ik}E_{kj}]_{q^{-2}}$ $\equiv ~E_{ik}E_{kj}~-~q^{-
2}E_{kj}E_{ik}$,$~~i<k<j$,\
$E_{ji}$:= $[E_{jk}E_{ki}]_{q^{2}}$ $\equiv ~E_{jk}E_{ki}~-
~q^{2}E_{ki}E_{jk}$$,~$$~~i<k<j$, (4.13)
play an analogous role as the Weyl generators $e_{ij}$, $$(e_{ij})_{kl} =
\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}, ~ i,j=1,2,...,m+n\eqno(2.11a)$$ of the superalgebra $gl(m/n)$ whose universal enveloping algebra $U[gl(m/n)]$ represents a classical limit of $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$ when $q\rightarrow 1$.\
The quantum algebra $U_{q}[gl(m/n)_{0}]\cong U_{q}[gl(m)\oplus gl(n)]$ generated by $k_{i}$, $e_{j}$ and $f_{j}$, $i=1,2,...,m+n$, $m\neq j=1,2,...,m+n-1$, $$U_{q}[gl(m/n)_{0}] ~=~{\rm lin. env.}\{E_{ij}\|~ 1\leq i,j\leq m ~~and~~
m+1\leq
i,j\leq m+n\}\eqno(4.14)$$ is an even subalgebra of $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$. Note that $U_{q}[gl(m/n)_{0}]$ is included in the largest even subalgebra $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]_{0}$ containing all elements of $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$ with even powers of the odd generators.\
In Ref. [@k4] we describe the construction method for induced representations of $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$ and give in detail a procedure of how to construct all finite–dimensional representations of $U_{q}[gl(2/2)$ (see Refs. [@k4] and [@k5]). Let us briefly explain why and how we can use the proposed induced representation method, which can be applied not only to one–parametric deformations but also to multi–parametric ones [@k6; @k7; @k8].\
Indeed, our method is based on the fact [@lus; @roso2] that a finite–dimensional representation of a Lie algebra $g$ can be deformed to a finite–dimensional representation of its quantum analogue $U_{q}(g)$. In particular, finite–dimensional representations of $U_{q}[gl(m)\oplus
gl(n)]$ are quantum deformations of those of $gl(m)\oplus gl(n)$. This means that a finite–dimensional irreducible representation of $U_{q}[gl(m)\oplus gl(n)]$ is again highest weight. On the other hand, as we can see from (4.3), (4.9)–(4.11), (4.13) and (4.14), $U_{q}[gl(m)\oplus gl(n)]$ is the stability subalgebra of $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$. Therefore, we can construct representations of $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$ induced from finite–dimensional irreducible representations of $U_{q}[gl(m)\oplus gl(n)]$. Let $V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)$ be a $U_{q}[gl(m)\oplus gl(n)]$–fidirmod characterized by some highest weight $\Lambda$. The module $V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)$ represents a tensor product between a $U_{q}[gl(m)]$–fidirmod $V_{0,m}^{q}(\Lambda_{m})$ of a highest weight $\Lambda_{m}$ and a $U_{q}[gl(n)]$–fidirmod $V_{0,n}^{q}(\Lambda_{n})$ of a highest weight $\Lambda_{n}$ $$V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)=V_{0,m}^{q}(\Lambda_{m})\otimes
V_{0,n}^{q}(\Lambda_{n}) \eqno(4.15)$$ where $(\Lambda_{m})$ and $(\Lambda_{n})$ are defined respectively as the left and right components of $\Lambda$ $$\Lambda =[\Lambda_{m}, \Lambda_{n}].\eqno(4.16)$$ For a basis of each of $V_{0,m}^{q}(\Lambda_{m})$ and $V_{0,n}^{q}(\Lambda_{n})$, i.e., of $V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)$ we can choose the Gel’fand-Zetlin (GZ) tableaux [@barut; @baird; @gz], since the latter are invariant under the quantum deformations [@chere; @jimbo2; @lus; @roso2; @tolst; @ueno]. Therefore, the highest weight $\Lambda$ is described again by the first rows of the GZ tableaux called from now on as the GZ (basis) vectors.\
Demanding $$E_{m,m+1}V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)\equiv
e_{m}V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)=0\eqno(4.17)$$ i.e. $$U_{q}(A_{+})V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)=0 \eqno(4.18)$$ we turn $V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)$ into a $U_{q}(B)$-module, where $$A_{+} = \{E_{ij}\|~ 1\leq i\leq m < j\leq
m+n\},
\eqno(4.19)$$ $$B = A_{+}\oplus gl(m)\oplus gl(n). \eqno(4.20)$$ The $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$ -module $W^{q}$ induced from the $U_{q}[gl(m)\oplus gl(n)]$-module $V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)$ is the factor-space $$W^{q}=W^{q}(\Lambda) =
[U_{q} \otimes
V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)]/I^{q}(\Lambda)
\eqno(4.21)$$ where $U_{q}\equiv U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$, while $I^{q}(\Lambda)$ is the subspace $$I^{q}(\Lambda) = {\rm lin. env.} \left\{ ub\otimes v -u\otimes bv \|
~ u\in U_{q},~ b\in U_{q}(B)\subset U_{q},~ v\in V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)\right\}.
\eqno(4.22)$$
Any vector $w$ from the module $W^{q}$ has the form $$w=u\otimes v,~~~ u\in
U_{q},~~ v\in V_{0}^{q}\eqno(4.23)$$ Then $W^{q}$ is a $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$-module in the sense $$gw\equiv g(u\otimes v)=gu\otimes v\in W^{q}\eqno(4.24)$$ for $g$, $u\in U_{q}$, $w\in W^{q}$ and $v\in V_{0}^{q}$.\
As we can see from (4.17) the modules $W^{q}(\Lambda)$ and $V_{0}^{q}(\Lambda)$ have one and the same highest weight vector. Therefore, they are characterized by one and the same highest weight $\Lambda$.\
\
Although the general expressions of the finite–dimensional representations of the quantum superalgebra $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ can be found from [@palev2; @zhang] for $n=2$, the irreducible representations, however, have not yet been considered in detail. Now, as an illustration of the method described above [@k4], we investigate and construct explicitly all irreducible (i.e., typical and nontypical) finite–dimensional representations of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$. Here, we assume that the quantum deformation parameter $q$ is generic. It means that there does not exist any positive integer $N\in {\bf
Z^+}$ such that $q^{N}=1$. We can construct directly and explicitly representations of the quantum superalgebra $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ induced from some (usually, irreducible) finite–dimensional representations of the even subalgebra $U_{q}[gl(2)\oplus gl(1)]$. Since the latter is a stability subalgebra of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ we expect that the constructed induced representations of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ are decomposed into finite–dimensional irreducible representations of $U_{q}[gl(2)\oplus
gl(1)]$. For this purpose we shall introduce a $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–basis (i.e., a basis within a $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–module or shortly, a basis of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$) convenient for us in investigating the module structure. This basis (see (5.29)) can be expressed in terms of some basis of the even subalgebra $U_{q}[gl(2)\oplus gl(1)]$ which in turn represents a (tensor) product between a $U_{q}[gl(2)]$–basis and a $gl(1)$–factor. It will be shown that the finite–dimensional representations of $U_{q}[gl(2)]$, i.e., of $U_{q}[gl(2)\oplus gl(1)]$ can be realized in the Gel’fand–Zetlin (GZ) basis. The finite–dimensional representations of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ constructed are irreducible and can be decomposed into finite–dimensional irreducible representations of the subalgebra $U_{q}[gl(2)\oplus gl(1)]$.\
The quantum superalgebra $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ is completely defined through the Cartan–Chevalley generators $E_{12}$, $E_{21}$, $E_{23}$, $E_{32}$, and $E_{ii}$, $i=1,2,3$, satisfying the relations (4.9) and (4.10) which now read
12345678912345678912345678=$[E_{ii},E_{jj}]$123= =12= 0123 =$[E_{ii},E_{j,j+1}]$= = =$(\delta_{ij}-\delta_{i,j+1})E_{j,j+1}$1234567
1) [**the super–commutation relations**]{} ($1\leq i,i+1,j,j+1\leq
3$):\
$[E_{ii},E_{jj}]$ = 0,(5.1a)\
$[E_{ii},E_{j,j+1}]$ = $(\delta_{ij}-\delta_{i,j+1})E_{j,j+1}$, (5.1b)\
$[E_{ii},E_{j+1,j}]$ = $(\delta_{i,j+1}-\delta_{ij})E_{j+1,j}$, (5.1c)\
$[E_{12},E_{32}]$ = $[E_{21},E_{23}]~=~0$, (5.1d)\
$[E_{12},E_{21}]$ = $[h_{1}]$,(5.1e)\
$\{E_{23},E_{32}\}$ = $[h_{2}]$,(5.1f)\
$h_{i}$=$(E_{ii}-{d_{i+1}\over
d_{i}}E_{i+1,i+1}),$(5.1g)\
with $d_{1}=d_{2}=-d_{3}=1$,
2) [**the Serre–relations**]{}: $$E_{23}^{2}=E_{32}^{2}=0,$$ $$[E_{12},E_{13}]_{q}=0,$$ $$[E_{21},E_{31}]_{q}=0, \eqno(5.2)$$ respectively, where $$E_{13}:=[E_{12},E_{23}]_{q^{-1}}\eqno(5.3a)$$ and $$E_{31}:= -[E_{21},E_{32}]_{q^{-1}}. \eqno(5.3b)$$ are defined as new odd generators which have vanishing squares. Now the extra–Serre relations are not necessary, unlike higher rank cases [@extra1; @extra3; @k4; @k5; @extra2].\
As mentioned earlier, these generators $E_{ij}$, $i,j= 1,2,3$, are quantum deformation analogues (q–analogues) of the Weyl generators $e_{ij}$ $$(e_{ij})_{kl}=\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl},~~i,j,k,l=1,2,3,\eqno(5.4)$$ of the classical (i.e., non–deformed) superalgebra $gl(2/1)$ whose universal enveloping algebra $U[gl(2/1)]$ is a classical limit of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ when $q\rightarrow 1$.\
>From the relations (5.1)–(5.3) we see that every of the odd spaces $A_{\pm}$ $$A_{+}= {\rm lin. env.}\{E_{13},E_{23}\}, \eqno(5.5)$$ $$A_{-}= {\rm lin. env.}\{E_{31},E_{32}\},\eqno(5.6)$$ as always, is a representation space of the even subalgebra $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]\equiv U_{q}[gl(2)\oplus
gl(1)]$ which, generated by the generators $E_{12}$, $E_{21}$, and $E_{ii}$, $i=1,2,3$, is a stability subalgebra of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$. Therefore, we can construct representations of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ induced from some (usually, irreducible) representations of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$ which are realized in some representation spaces (modules) $V^{q}_{0}$ being tensor products of $U_{q}[gl(2)]$–modules $V^{q}_{0, gl_{2}}$ and $gl(1)$–modules (factors) $V^{q}_{0,gl_{1}}$. Following Ref. [@k4] we demand $$E_{23}V_{0}^{q}=0\eqno(5.7)$$ that is $$U_{q}(A_{+})V_{0}^{q}=0.\eqno(5.8)$$ In such a way we turn the $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$–module $V^{q}_{0}$ into a $U_{q}(B)$–module where $$B=A_{+}\oplus gl(2)\oplus gl(1).\eqno(5.9)$$ The $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–module $W^{q}$ induced from the $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$–module $V^{q}_{0}$ is the factor–space $$W^{q}=[U_{q}\otimes V_{0}^{q}]/I^{q}\eqno(5.10)$$ where $$U_{q}\equiv U_{q}[gl(2/1)],\eqno(5.11)$$ while $I^{q}$ is the subspace $$I^{q}={\rm lin. env.}\{ub\otimes v-u\otimes bv\| u\in U_{q}, b\in
U_{q}(B)\subset
U_{q}, v\in V_{0}^{q}\}.\eqno(5.12)$$
Any vector $w$ from the module $W^{q}$ is represented as $$w=u\otimes v,~~~~
u\in U_{q},~~~~ v\in V_{0}^{q}.\eqno(5.13)$$ Then $W^{q}$ is a $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–module in the sense $$gw\equiv g(u\otimes v)=gu\otimes
v\in W^{q}\eqno(5.14)$$ for $g,~u\in U_{q}$, $w\in W^{q}$ and $v\in V_{0}^{q}$.\
Using the commutation relations (5.1)–(5.2) and the definitions (5.3) we can prove the following analogue of the Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem\
[**Lemma 5.1**]{}: [*The quantum deformation $U_{q} := U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ is spanned on all possible linear combinations of the elements*]{} $$g =
(E_{23})^{\eta_{1}}(E_{13})^{\eta_{2}}(E_{31})^{\theta_{1}}
(E_{32})^{\theta_{2}}g_{0},\eqno(5.15)$$ [*where $\eta_{i}$, $\theta_{i}=0,1$ and $g_{0}\in U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]\equiv U_{q}[gl(2)\oplus gl(1)]$*]{}.\
Taking into account (5.10)–(5.12) and (5.15) we arrive at the following assertion\
[**Lemma 5.2**]{}: [*The induced $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–module $W^{q}$ is the linear span*]{} $$W^{q}={\rm
lin. env.}\{(E_{31})^{\theta_{1}}(E_{32})^{\theta_{2}}\otimes v\|v\in
V_{0}^{q},~~\theta_{1}, ~\theta_{2}=0,1\},\eqno(5.16)$$ [*and, consequently, all the vectors of the form*]{} $$\left |\theta_{1}, \theta_{2}; (m)\right > :=
(E_{31})^{\theta_{1}}(E_{32})^{\theta_{2}}\otimes (m), ~~ \theta_{1},~
\theta_{2}=0,1, \eqno(5.17)$$ [*constitute a basis in $W^{q}$, where $(m)$ is a (GZ, for example,) basis in $V_{0}^{q}$*]{}.\
Therefore, if $V_{0}^{q}$ is a finite–dimensional $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$–module, the $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–module $W^{q}$ is finite–dimensional, as well. Moreover, $W^{q}$ is a highest weight module due to the condition (5.7) imposed on $V_{0}^{q}$ which, as a finite–dimensional $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$–module, is always highest weight. Then, based on the latest [**Lema 5.2**]{} and the fact that $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$ is a stability subalgebra of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ we conclude that $W^{q}$ can be decomposed in a number of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$–modules which in turn are finite–dimensional and, therefore, highest weight. Such a highest weight module is characterized by a signature (referred otherwise to as a highest weight), being an ordered set of the eigen–values of the Cartan generators on the so–called highest weight vector defined as a vector annihilated by the creation generators (see (3.4) and (3.5)). Thus, the condition (5.7) means that $W^{q}$ and $V_{0}^{q}$ have one and the same highest weight vector, i.e., one and the same highest weight. Let $V_{0}^{q}$ be a finite-dimensional irreducible module (fidirmod) of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$.\
[**Lemma 5.3**]{}: [*The $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–module $W^{q}$ is decomposed into (4 or less) finite–dimensional irreducible modules $V_{k}^{q}$ of the even subalgebra $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$*]{} $$W^{q}([m])=\bigoplus _{0\leq k\leq 3}V_{k}^{q}([m]_{k}), \eqno(5.18)$$ [*where $[m]$ and $[m]_{k}$ are some signatures (highest–weights) characterizing the module $W^{q}\equiv W^{q}([m])$ and the modules $V_{k}^{q}\equiv V_{k}^{q}([m]_{k})$, respectively*]{}.\
The proof of this lemma follows from thr very construction of $W^q$ and the same argument used for deriving (3.13).\
Each of the fidirmods $V_{k}^{q}$, $0\leq k\leq 3$, is spanned on a basis, say $(m)_{k}$, which can be taken as a tensor product between a GZ basis of $U_{q}[gl(2)]$ and $gl(1)$–factors. In this case, we also call $(m)_{k}$ as a GZ basis. It is clear that $$(m)_{0}\equiv (m)\eqno(5.19a)$$ and $$[m]_{0}\equiv [m]\eqno(5.19b)$$ in our notations. We refer to the basis (5.17) as the induced $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–basis (or simply, the induced basis) in order to distinguish it from the reduced one introduced later in the next subsection.
[**5.a. Finite–dimensional representations of U$_{q}$\[gl(2/1)\]**]{}\
We can show that finite–dimensional representations of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$ can be realized in some spaces (modules) $V_{k}^{q}$ spanned by the (tensor) products $$\left[
\begin{array}{lcr}
\begin{array}{c}
m_{12}~~~m_{22}\\ m_{11}
\end{array}
;
\begin{array}{c}
m_{32}=m_{31}\\ m_{31}
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right]
\equiv
\left[
\begin{array}{lcr}
\begin{array}{c}
[m]_{2}\\ m_{11}
\end{array}
;
\begin{array}{c}
[m]_{1}\\ m_{31}
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right]
\equiv
(m)_{gl(2)}\otimes m_{31}\equiv (m)_{k}
\eqno(5.20a)$$ between the (GZ) basis vectors $(m)_{gl(2)}$ of $U_{q}[gl(2)]$ and the $gl(1)$–factors $m_{31}$, where $m_{ij}$ are complex numbers such that $$m_{12}-m_{11},~ m_{11}-m_{22}\in
{\bf Z_{+}}\eqno(5.20b)$$ and $$m_{32}=m_{31}.\eqno(5.20c)$$ Indeed, any finite–dimensional representation of (not only) $U_{q}[gl(2)]$ is always highest weight and if the generators $E_{ij}$, $i,j=1,2$ and $E_{33}$ are defined on (5.20) as follows $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E_{11}(m)_{k}& = &(l_{11}+1)(m)_{k},\\
E_{22}(m)_{k}& = &(l_{12}+l_{22}-l_{11}+2)(m)_{k},\\ E_{12}(m)_{k}& =
&\left([l_{12}-l_{11}][l_{11}-l_{22}]\right)^{1/2}(m)_{k}^{+11},\\
E_{21}(m)_{k}& =
&\left([l_{12}-l_{11}+1][l_{11}-l_{22}-1]\right)^{1/2}(m)_{k}^{-11},\\
E_{33}(m)_{k}& =
& (l_{31}+1)(m)_{k},
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(5.21a)\\[2mm] \end{aligned}$$ where $$l_{ij}=m_{ij}-(i-2\delta_{i,3}),\eqno(5.21b)$$ while $(m){_k}^{\pm ij}$ is a vector obtained from $(m)$ by replacing $m_{ij}$ with $m_{ij}\pm 1$, they really satisfy the commutation relations (5.1a)–(5.1e) for $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$. The highest weight described by the first row (signature) $$[m]_{k}=[m_{12},m_{22},m_{32}]\eqno(5.22)$$ of the patterns (5.20) is nothing but an ordered set of the eigen–values of the Cartan generators $E_{ii}$, $i=1,2,3$, on the highest weight vector $(M)_{k}$ defined as follows $$E_{12}(M)_{k}=0,\eqno(5.23)$$ $$E_{ii}(M)_{k}=m_{i2}(M)_{k}, \eqno(5.24)$$ The highest weight vector $(M)_{k}$ can be obtained from $(m)_{k}$ by setting $m_{11}=m_{12}$ $$(M)_{k}=\left[
\begin{array}{lcr}
\begin{array}{c}
m_{12}~~~m_{22}\\ m_{12}
\end{array}
;
\begin{array}{c}
m_{32}=m_{31}\\ m_{31}
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right].\eqno(5.25)$$ A lower weight vector $(m)_{k}$ can be derived [*vice versa*]{} from $(M)_{k}$ by the formula $$(m)_{k}=\left({[m_{11}-m_{22}]!\over
[m_{12}-m_{22}]![m_{12}-m_{11}]!}\right)^{1/2} (E_{21})^{m_{12}-
m_{11}}(M)_{k}.\eqno(5.26)$$ Especially, for the case $k=0$, instead of the above notations, we skip the subscript 0, i.e., $$(m)_{0}\equiv (m);~~ [m]_{0}\equiv [m];~~ (M)_{0}\equiv (M), \eqno(5.27)$$ putting $$m_{i2}=m_{i3},~~~ i=1,2,3,\eqno(5.28)$$ where $m_{i3}$ are some of the complex values of $m_{i2}$, therefore, $m_{13}-m_{11},~ m_{11}-m_{23}\in {\bf
Z_{+}}$. We emphasize that $[m]$ and $(M)$, because of (5.7), are also, respectively, the highest weight and the highest weight vector in the $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–module $W^{q}=W^{q}([m])$. Characterizing the latter module as the whole, $[m]$ and $(M)$ are, respectively, referred to as the global highest weight and the global highest weight vector, while $[m]_{k}$ and $(M)_{k}$ are, respectively, the local highest weights and the local highest weight vectors characterizing only the submodules $V_{k}^{q}=V_{k}^{q}([m]_{k})$.\
Following the arguments of Ref. [@k4], for an alternative with (5.17) basis of $W^{q}$, we can choose the union of all the bases (5.20) which are denoted now by the patterns $$\left[
\begin{array}{lcc}
m_{13}& m_{23}& m_{33} \\
m_{12}& m_{22}& m_{32}\\
m_{11}& 0 & m_{31}
\end{array}
\right]_{k}
\equiv
\left[
\begin{array}{lcr}
\begin{array}{c}
m_{12}~~~m_{22}\\ m_{11}
\end{array}
;
\begin{array}{c}
m_{32}=m_{31}\\ m_{31}
\end{array}
\end{array}
\right]_{k}\equiv (m)_{k}
,\eqno(5.29)$$ where the first row $[m]=[m_{13},m_{23},m_{33}]$ is simultaneously the highest weight of the submodule $V_{0}^{q}=V_{0}^{q}([m])$ and the whole module $W^{q}=W^{q}([m])$, while the second row $[m]_{k}=[m_{12},m_{22},m_{32}]$ is the local highest weight of some $U_{q}gl[(2/1)_{0}]$–module $V^{q}_{k}=V^{q}_{k}([m]_{k})$ containing the considered vector $(m)_{k}$. The basis (5.29) of $W^{q}$ is called the $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–reduced basis or simply the reduced basis. The latter representing a modified GZ basis description is convenient for us in investigating the module structure of $W^{q}$. Note once again that the condition $$m_{32}=m_{31}\eqno(5.20c)$$ has to be kept always.\
The highest weight vectors $(M)_{k}$, now, in notation (5.29) have the form
$$(M)_{k}=\left[
\begin{array}{lcc}
m_{13}& m_{23}& m_{33} \\
m_{12}& m_{22}& m_{32}\\
m_{12}& 0 & m_{31}
\end{array}
\right]_{k},
\eqno(5.30)$$ as for $k=0$ the notations (5.27) and (5.28) are also taken into account.\
[**Lemma 5.4**]{}: [*The highest weight vectors $(M)_{k}$ are expressed in terms of the induced basis (5.17) as follows*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (M)_{0}& = &a_{0}\left|0,0;(M)\right>,
~~~~a_{0}\equiv 1, \\[2mm]
(M)_{1}& = &a_{1}\left|0,1;(M)\right>, \\[2mm] (M)_{2}& =
&a_{2}\left\{\left|1,0,;(M)\right> +q^{2l}[2l]^{-1/2}
\left|0,1;(M)^{-11}\right>\right\},\\[2mm] (M)_{3}& =
&a_{3}\left\{\left|1,1;(M)\right>\right\},
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5.31a) \end{aligned}$$ [*where $a_{i}$, $i=0,1,2,3$, are some numbers depending, in general, on $q$, while $l$ is*]{} $$l={1\over 2}(m_{13}-m_{23}).\eqno(5.31b)$$ : Indeed, all the vectors $(M)_{k}$ given above satisfy the condition (3.4).\
From formulae (5.24) and (5.31) the highest weights $[m]_{k}$ can be easily identified
123456791234567891234567890= $[m]_{kk}$ = =x = $[m_{13}-
1,m_{23}-1,m_{33}+1,m_{43}+1]$,= $[m]_{0}$ = $[m_{13}, m_{23}, m_{33}]$,\
$[m]_{1}$ = $[m_{13},
m_{23}-1, m_{33}+1]$,\
$[m]_{2}$ = $[m_{13}-1, m_{23},
m_{33}+1]$,\
$[m]_{3}$ = $[m_{13},
m_{23}, m_{33}+2]$ (5.32)
Using the rule (5.26) we obtain all the basis vectors $(m)_{k}$: $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (m)_{0}& \equiv & \left[
\begin{array}{lcc}
m_{13}& m_{23}& m_{33} \\
m_{13}& m_{23}& m_{33}\\
m_{11}& 0 & m_{33}
\end{array}
\right]
=\left|0,0,;(m)\right>,\\[4mm]
(m)_{1}&\equiv &
\left[
\begin{array}{lcc}
m_{13}& m_{23}& m_{33} \\
m_{13}& m_{23}-1& m_{33}+1\\
m_{11}& 0 & m_{33}+1
\end{array}
\right] \\[4mm]
& = &a_{1}\left\{-\left(
{[l_{13}-l_{11}]\over
[2l+1]}\right)^{1/2}\left|1,0;(m)^{+11}\right>\right. \\ & &\left.
+q^{2(l_{11}-l_{13})}\left(
{[l_{11}-l_{23}]\over
[2l+1]}\right)^{1/2}\left|0,1;(m)\right>\right\}, \\[4mm]
(m)_{2}&\equiv &
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
m_{13}& m_{23}& m_{33} \\
m_{13}-1& m_{23}& m_{33}+1\\
m_{11}& 0 & m_{33}+1
\end{array}
\right] \\[4mm]
& = &a_{2}\left\{\left(
{[l_{11}-l_{23}]\over
[2l]}\right)^{1/2}\left|1,0;(m)^{+11}\right>\right. \\ & &\left.
+q^{l_{11}-l_{23}}\left(
{[l_{13}-l_{11}]\over
[2l]}\right)^{1/2}\left|0,1;(m)\right>\right\}, \\[4mm]
(m)_{3}&\equiv &
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
m_{13}& m_{23}& m_{33} \\
m_{13}-1& m_{23}-1& m_{33}+2\\
m_{11}& 0 & m_{33}+2
\end{array}
\right] \\[4mm]
&=& a_{3}\left|1,1;(m)\right>,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(5.33) \end{aligned}$$ where $l_{ij}$ and $l$ are given in (3.21b) and (5.31b), respectively. Here, we skip the subscript $k$ in the patterns given above since there are no degenerations between them. The formulae (5.33), in fact, represent the way in which the reduced basis (5.29) is written in terms of the induced basis (5.16). From (5.33) we can derive their invert relation $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \left|0,0;(m)\right>& = &(m)_{0}\equiv
(m)\\[2mm]
\left|1,0;(m)\right>& = &-{1\over a_{1}}q^{l_{11}-l_{23}-1}
\left({[l_{13}-l_{11}+1]\over
[2l+1]}
\right)^{1/2}(m)_{1}^{-11}\\[2mm] & & +{1\over a_{2}}q^{l_{11}-l_{13}-1}
{\left([l_{11}-
l_{23}-1][2l] \right)^{1/2} \over [2l+1]}(m)_{2}^{-11},\\[2mm]
\left|0,1;(m)\right>& = &{1\over a_{1}}
\left({[l_{11}-l_{23}]\over [2l+1]}
\right)^{1/2}(m)_{1}\\[2mm] & & +{1\over a_{2}}
{\left([l_{13}-l_{11}][2l]\right)^{1/2}
\over [2l+1]} (m)_{2},\\[2mm]
\left|1,1;(m)\right>& = &{1\over
c_{3}}(m)^{-11}_{3}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5.34) \end{aligned}$$
Now we are ready to compute all the matrix elements of the generators in the basis (5.29). As we shall see, the latter basis allows an evident description of a decomposition of a $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–module $W^{q}$ in irreducible $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$–modules $V^{q}_{k}$. Since the finite–dimensional representations of the $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ in some basis are completely defined by the actions of the even generators and the odd Weyl–Chevalley ones $E_{23}$ and $E_{32}$ in the same basis, it is sufficient to write down the matrix elements of these generators only. For the even generators the matrix elements have already been given in (5.21), while for $E_{23}$ and $E_{32}$, using the relations (5.1)–(5.3), (5.33) and (5.34) we have $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E_{23}(m) &=& 0,\\[2mm]
E_{23}(m)_{1} &=&a_{1}
\left({[l_{11}-l_{23}]\over [2l+1]}\right)^{1/2}[l_{23}+l_{33}+3] (m),\\[4mm]
E_{23}(m)_{2} &=&a_{2}
\left({[l_{13}-l_{11}]\over [2l]}\right)^{1/2}[l_{13}+l_{33}+3] (m),\\[4mm]
E_{23}(m)_{3} &=&a_{3}
\left\{{1\over a_{1}q}\left({[l_{13}-l_{11}]\over
[2l+1]}\right)^{1/2}[l_{13}+l_{33}+3](m)_{1}\right. \\[2mm] &&\left.
-{1\over a_{2}q}\left({[l_{11}-l_{23}]
[2l]}\right)^{1/2}{[l_{23}+l_{33}+3]\over [2l+1]}(m)_{2}\right\}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5.35a)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E_{32}(m) &=& {1\over
a_{1}}\left({[l_{11}-
l_{23}]\over [2l+1]}\right)^{1/2}(m)_{1}\\[2mm]
&&+{1\over a_{2}}
{\left([l_{13}-l_{11}][2l]\right)^{1/2}\over [2l+1]}(m)_{2}\\[4mm]
E_{32}(m)_{1} &=&{a_{1}\over
a_{3}}q
\left({[l_{13}-l_{11}]\over [2l+1]}\right)^{1/2} (m)_{3},\\[4mm]
E_{32}(m)_{2} &=&-{a_{2}\over a_{3}}q
\left({[l_{11}-l_{23}]\over [2l]}\right)^{1/2} (m)_{3},\\[4mm]
E_{32}(m)_{3} &=&0.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (5.35b)\end{aligned}$$ [**Lemma 5.5**]{}: [*The finite–dimensional representations (5.35) of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ are irreducible and called typical if and only if the condition*]{} $$[l_{13}+l_{33}+3][l_{23}+l_{33}+3]\neq 0\eqno(5.36)$$ [*holds*]{}.\
[*Proof*]{}: By the same argument useed in Ref. [k4]{} we can conclude that $W^{q}$ is irreducible if and only if $$E_{14}E_{23}E_{13}E_{31}E_{32}E_{41}\otimes (M)
\neq 0.$$ The latest condition in turn can be proved, after some elementary calculations, to be equivalent to $$[E_{11}+E_{33}+1][E_{22}+E_{33}](M)
\neq 0,$$ which is nothing but the condition (5.36).\
In case the condition (5.36) is violated, i.e. one of the following condition pairs $$[l_{13}+l_{33}+3]=0\eqno(5.37a)$$ and $$[l_{23}+l_{33}+3]\neq 0\eqno(5.37b)$$ or $$[l_{13}+l_{33}+3]\neq 0\eqno(5.38a)$$ and $$[l_{23}+l_{33}+3]=0\eqno(5.38b)$$ (but not both (5.37a) and (5.38b) simultaneously) holds, the module $W^{q}$ is no longer irreducible but indecomposable. However, there exists an invariant subspace, say $I_{k}^{q}$, of $W^{q}$ such that the factor–representation in the factor–module $$W_{k}^{q}:=W^{q}/I_{k}^{q}\eqno(5.39)$$ is irreducible. We say that is a nontypical representation in a nontypical module $W_{k}^{q}$. Then, as in Ref. [@k5], it is not difficult for us to prove the following assertions\
[**Lemma 5.6**]{}: $$V_{3}^{q}\subset I_{k}^{q},\eqno(5.40)$$ [*and*]{} $$V_{0}^{q}\cap I_{k}^{q}=\emptyset .\eqno(5.41)$$ >From (5.35)–(5.38) we can easily find all nontypical representations of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ which are classified in 2 classes.\
[**5.b. Nontypical representations of U$_{q}$\[gl(2/1)\]**]{}\
1) :\
This class is characterized by the conditions $(5.37a)$ and $(5.37b)$ which for generic $q$ take the forms $$l_{13}+l_{33}+3=0,\eqno(5.37x)$$ and $$l_{23}+l_{33}+3\neq 0,\eqno(5.37y)$$ respectively. In other words, we have to replace everywhere all $m_{33}$ by $-m_{13}-1$ and keep $(5.37y)$ valid. Thus we have\
[**Lemma 5.7**]{}: [*The class 1 maximal invariant subspace in*]{} $W^{q}$ [*is*]{} $$I_{1}^{q}=V_{3}^{q}\oplus V_{2}^{q}.\eqno(5.42)$$ [*Proof*]{}: Applying (5.37) to (5.35) we obtain (5.42).\
Then the class 1 nontypical representations in $$W_{1}^{q}=W_{1}^{q}([m_{13},m_{23},-m_{13}-1])\eqno(5.43)$$ are given through (5.35) by keeping the conditions (5.37) (i.e., $(5.37x)$ and $(5.37y)$) and replacing with 0 all vectors belonging to $I_{1}^{q}$: $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E_{23}(m)&=&0,\\[2mm]
E_{23}(m)_{1}&=&a_{1}
\left({[l_{11}-l_{23}]\over [2l+1]}\right)^{1/2}[l_{23}-l_{13}](m)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5.44a)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E_{32}(m)&=&{1\over a_{1}}\left({[l_{11}-l_{23}] \over
[2l+1]}\right)^{1/2}(m)_{1},\\[2mm]
E_{32}(m)_{1}&=&0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5.44b)\end{aligned}$$
2\) :\
For this class nontypical representations we must keep the conditions
$$l_{13}+l_{33}+3\neq 0,\eqno(5.38x)$$ and $$l_{23}+l_{33}+3= 0.\eqno(5.38y)$$ derived, respectively, from $(5.38a)$ and $(5.38b)$ when the deformation parameters $q$ are generic. Equivalently, we have to replace everywhere all $m_{33}$ by $-m_{23}$ and keep $(5.38x)$ valid.\
Now the invariant subspace $I_{2}^{q}$ is the following\
[**Lemma 5.8**]{}: [*The class 2 maximal invariant subspace in*]{} $W^{q}$ [*is*]{} $$I_{2}^{q}=V_{3}^{q}\oplus V_{1}^{q}.\eqno(5.45)$$ [*Proof*]{}: Using (5.38) in (5.35) we derive (5.45).\
The class 2 nontypical representations in $$W_{2}^{q}=W_{2}^{q}([m_{13},m_{23},- m_{23}])\eqno(5.46)$$ are also given through (5.35) but by keeping the conditions (5.38) (i.e., $(5.38x)$ and $(5.38y)$) valid and replacing by 0 all vectors belonging to the invariant subspace $I_{2}^{q}$: $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E_{23}(m)&=&0,\\[2mm]
E_{23}(m)_{2}&=&a_{1}
\left({[l_{13}-l_{11}]\over [2l]}\right)^{1/2}[2l+1](m)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5.47a)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E_{32}(m)&=&{1\over
a_{2}}{\left([l_{13}-l_{11}][2l]\right)^{1/2} \over [2l+1]}(m)_{2},\\[2mm]
E_{32}(m)_{2}&=&0.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (5.47b)\end{aligned}$$
We have just considered the quantum superalgebra $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ and constructed all its typical and nontypical representations leaving the coefficients $a_{i}$, $i=1,2,3$, as free parameters which can be fixed by some additional conditions, for example, the Hermiticity condition. As an intermediate step (which, however, is of an independent interest) we also introduced the reduced basis (5.29) which, as it is an extension of the Gel’fand–Zetlin basis to the present case, is appropriate for an evident description of decompositions of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$–modules in irreducible $U_{q}[gl(2/1)_{0}]$–modules. We can prove the following propositions\
[**Lemma 5.9**]{}: [*The class of the finite–dimensional representations determined in this paper (Subsects. 5.a and 5.b), contains all finite–dimensional irreducible representations of $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ and $U_{q}[sl(2/1)]$*]{}.\
and\
[**Lemma 5.10**]{}: [*The finite–dimensional representations of the quantum superalgebra $U_{q}[gl(2/1)]$ are quantum deformations of the finite–dimensional representations of the superalgebra $gl(2/1)$.*]{}\
The [**Lemma 5.9**]{} is proved by similar arguments as those used in the proofs of Proposition 9 and Proposition 10 in Ref. [@k5], while [**Lemma 5.10**]{} can be verified by direct computations.\
Since the nontypical representations have only been well investigated for a few cases of both classical and quantum superalgebras, the present results can be considered as a small step forward in this direction.\
\
Certainly, many questions remain unconsidered in the framework of the present paper but we hope that the latter gives relevant information about the classical and quantum superalgebras as well as an idea on their representations. Based on Kac’s representation theory for the superalgebras [@kac; @kac3; @kac4; @sch] we succeeded in finding all finite–dimensional representations and a wide class of infinite–dimensional representations of several higher rank superalgebras of nonparticular types [@k3; @k1; @k2; @neli]. Recently, extending that classical theory to the quantum deformation we worked out a method for explicit constructions of representations of quantum superalgebras [@k4; @k6; @k7; @k8; @k5]. Our method, avoiding the use of the Clebsch–Gordan coefficients which are usually unknown for higher rank (classical and quantum) algebras, is applicable not only to the one–parametric deformations but also to the multi–parametric ones (see, for example, Refs. [@k6; @k7; @k8]). Moreover, our approach may have an advantage as it is worthy to mention that the theory of representations and, especially, of the nontypical representations is far from being complete even for the nondeformed superalgebras. In particular, the dimensions of the nontypical representations are unknown unless the ones for $sl(1/n)$ computed recently in Ref. [@schlo]. Based on the generalizations of the concept of the GZ basis (see Refs. [@k4],[@k5] and [@palev3] and references therein) the matrix elements of all nontypical representations were computed only for superalgebras of lower ranks or of particular types like $sl(1/n)$ and $gl(1/n)$ in Ref. [@palev4; @palev6]. Later, the essentially typical representations of $gl(m/n)$ were also constructed [@palev5]. So far, however, the GZ basis concept was not defined and presumably cannot be defined for nontypical $gl(m/n)$–modules with $m,n \geq 2$. This was of why to try to describe the nontypical modules in terms of the basis of the even subalgebras. This approach, developed so far for classical superalgebras [@k3; @k1; @k2] and for quantum superalgebras [@k4; @k6; @k5]) turns out to be appropriate for explicit descriptions of all nontypical modules of $gl(2/2)$ (see Refs. [@k1; @neli]), $U_{q}[gl(2/2)]$ (see Refs. [@k4] and [@k5]) and multi–parametric quantum superalgebras [@k6; @k7; @k8]. Our approach in Refs [@k4; @k6; @k7; @k8; @k5], unlike some earlier approaches, avoids, however, the use of the Clebsch–Gordan coefficients which are not always known for higher rank (quantum and classical) algebras. Other extensions were made in Ref. [@palev2] for all finite-dimensional representations of $U_{q}[gl(1/n)]$ and in Ref. [@palev1] for a class of finite–dimensional representations of $U_{q}[gl(m/n)]$. To the best of our knowledge, we gave for the first time [@k3; @k1; @k4; @k6; @k2; @k5; @neli], explicit expressions for all finite–dimensional representations or a wide class of infinite–dimensional representations of several classical and quantum superalgebras including those of higher ranks.\
We hope that our approach allowing to establish in consistent ways defining relations of quantum (super)algebras [@k4; @k7; @k8] can be extended to the case of deformation parameters being roots of unity (for representations of quantum groups at roots of unity, see, for example, [@kac2]).\
\
I am grateful to Professor J. Tran Thanh Van and [*“Rencontres du Vietnam”*]{} for financial support and Professor S. Randjbar–Daemi for kind hospitality at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy. I would like to thank the organizers of the [*V–th National Mathematics Conference*]{} (Hanoi, 17–20 September 1997) for giving me the opportunity to report on the present topic.\
This work was also suported by the Vietnam National Basic Research Programme in Natural Science under the grant KT 4.1.5.\
G. Baird and L. Biedenharn, On the representations of the semisimple Lie groups. II, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**4**]{} (1963) 1449–1466. A. Balantekin, H. Schmitt and B. Barett, Coherent states for the harmonic oscillator representations of the orthosympletic group $OSp(1/2N, R)$, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**29**]{} (1988) 1634–1639. A. Barut and R. Raczka, [*Theory of Group Representations and Applications*]{}, Polish Scientific Publishers, Warszawa, 1980. J. Beckers and J. Cornwell, On the chains of an orthosympletic Lie algebras and the $n$-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillator, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**30**]{} (1989) 1655–1661. J. Beckers, D. Dehin and V. Hussin, On the Heisenberg and orthosympletic superalgebras of the harmonic oscillator, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**29**]{} (1988) 1705–1711. L. C. Biedenharn, The quantum group $SU_{q}(2)$ and a q–analogue of the boson operators, [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**22**]{} (1989) L873–878. E. Celeghini and M. Tarlini, eds, [*Italian workshop on quantum groups*]{}, Florence, February 3–6, 1993, hep–th/9304160. M. Chaichian and P. Kulish, Quantum Lie superalgebras and q–oscillators, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 234**]{} (1990) 72–80. V. Chari and A. Pressley, [*A guide to quantum groups*]{}, Cambridge univ. press, Cambridge, 1994). I.V. Cherednik, A new interpretation of Gel’fand–Tsetlin bases, [*Duke Math. Jour.*]{} [**5**]{} (1987) 363–377. N. Debergh, On the harmonic oscilator and its invariance, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**24**]{} (1991) 147–151. C. De Concini and V. Kac, Representations of quantum groups at roots of 1, in [*Operator Algebras, Unitary Representations, Enveloping Algebras and Invariant Theory*]{}, Progress in Math. [**92**]{} (1990) 471–506. M. de Crombrugghe and V. Rittenberg, Supersymmetric quantum mechanics, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**151**]{} (1983) 99-126. E. D’Hoker, R. Floreanini and L. Vinet, $q$–oscillator realizations of the metaplectic representation of quantum $osp(3,2)$, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**32**]{} (1991) 1427–1429. H. Doebner and J. Hennig, eds., [*Quantum groups*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 370, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1990. V. Drinfel’d, Quantum groups, in [*Proceeding of the International Congress of Mathematicians*]{} (Berkeley 1986), The American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1987, Vol. 1, 798–820. J. Elliott and P. Dawber, [*“Symmetry in Physics”*]{}, Vol. 1 and 2, The Macmillan Press Ltd, London, 1979. M. Englefield, Superalgebras and supersymmetric harmonic oscillators, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**21**]{} (1988) 1309–1639. L. Faddeev, N. Reshetikhin and L. Takhtajan, Quantization of Lie groups and Lie algebras, [*Alg. Anal.*]{} [**1**]{} (1987) 178. R. Floreanini, D. Leites and L. Vinet, On the defining relations of quantum superalgebras, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**23**]{} (1991) 127-131. R. Floreanini, V. Spiridonov and L. Vinet, $q$–oscillator realizations of the quantum superalgebras $sl_{q}(m,n)$ and $osp_{q}(m,2n)$, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**137**]{} (1991) 149–160. I. Gel’fand and M. Zetlin, Finite–dimensional representations of the group of unimodular matrices, [*Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR*]{}, [**71**]{} (1950) 825–828 (in Russian). Y. Gol’fand and E. Likhtman, An extension of Poincare group generators algebra and breaking of the P–invariance, [*Lett. J. Exp. Theor. Phys.*]{}, [**13**]{}, (1971) 452–455 (in Russian). M. Gunaygin and N. Warner, Unitary supermultiplets of $OSp(8/4,R)$ and the spectrum of the $S^7$ compactification of 11-dimensional supergravity., [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**272**]{} (1986) 99–124. M. Jimbo, Quantum R–matrix related to the generalized Toda system: an algebraic approach, in [*Field Theory, Quantum Gravity and Strings*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics [**246**]{}, Springer–Verlag, Berlin (1985) 335–361. M. Jimbo, A $q$–difference analogue of $U(\cal g)$ and the Yang–Baxter equation, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**10**]{} (1985) 63–69. M. Jimbo, A $q$–analogue of $U(gl(N+1))$, Hecker algebra and the Yang–Baxter equation, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**11**]{} (1986) 247–252. V. Kac, A sketch of Lie superalgebra theory, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**53**]{} (1977) 31–64. V. Kac, Lie superalgebras, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**26**]{} (1977) 8–96. V. Kac, in [*Representations of classical Lie superalgebras, Differential geometrical methods in mathematical physics II: proceedings, Bonn, July 13-16, 1977*]{} (Edited by K. Bleuler, H. Petry and A. Reetz), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1978, Vol. [**676**]{}, pp. 597–626. A. Kamupingene and Nguyen Anh Ky, [*Finite–dimensional representations of the superalgebra $gl(3/2)$. I.*]{}, preprint VITP 96 – 03. A. Kamupingene, Nguyen Anh Ky and T. Palev, Finite–dimensional representations of Lie superalgebra $gl(2/2)$.I. Typical representations, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**30**]{}, (1989) 553–570. Ch. Kassel, [*Quantum groups*]{} (Springer–Verlag, New York, 1995). S. M. Khoroshkin and V. N. Tolstoy, Universal R–matrix for quantized (super) algebras, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**141**]{} (1991) 599–617. P. Kulish, ed., [*Quantum groups*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1510, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1992. P. P. Kulish and N. Yu. Reshetikhin, Quantum linear problem for the sine–Gordon equation and higher representations, [*J. Soviet Math.*]{} [**23**]{} (1983) 2436–1441. Nguyen Anh Ky, Finite dimensional representations of the quantum superalgebra $U_q[gl(2/2)]$. I. Typical representations at generic $q$, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**35**]{} (1994) 2583–2606, hep-th/9305183. Nguyen Anh Ky, Two–parametric deformations $U_{p,q}[gl(2/1)]$ and its induced representations, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**29**]{} (1996) 1541–1550. Nguyen Anh Ky, On the algebraic relation between one–parametric and multi–parametric quantum superalgebras, in [*Proceedings of 22-th national workshop on theoretical physics, Doson, 3–5 August 1997*]{}, p. 24–28. Nguyen Anh Ky, [*Quantum superalgebra U$_{p,q}$\[gl(2/2)\] and its representations*]{}, in preparation. Nguyen Anh Ky, T. Palev and N. Stoilova, Transformations of some induced $osp(3/2)$ modules in an $so(3)\oplus sp(2)$ basis, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**33**]{} (1992) 1841–1863. Nguyen Anh Ky and N. Stoilova, Finite dimensional representations of the quantum superalgebra $U_q[gl(2/2)]$. II. Nontypical representations at generic $q$, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**36**]{} (1995) 5979–6003, hep-th/9411098. R. Le Blanc and D. Rowe, Highest weight representations for $gl(m/n)$ and $gl(m+n)$, [it J. Math. Phys.]{} [**30**]{} (1989) 1415–1432. R. Le Blanc and D. Rowe, Superfield and matrix realizations of highest weight representations for $osp(m/n)$, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**31**]{} (1990) 14–36. G. Lusztig, Quantum deformations of certain simple modules over enveloping algebras, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**70**]{} (1988) 273–249. A. J. Macfarlane, On q–analogues of the quantum harmonic oscillators and the quantum group $SU(2)_{q}$, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**22**]{} (1989) 4581–4588. Yu. Manin, [*Quantum groups and non–commutative geometry*]{}, Centre des Recherchers Mathématique, Montréal, 1988. Yu. Manin, Multiparameter quantum deformation of the general linear supergroup, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**123**]{} (1989) 163–175. Yu. Manin, [*Topics in non–commutative geometry*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1991. T. Palev, Finite-dimensional representations of the Lie superalgebra $sl(1/n)$. I. Typical representations, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**28**]{}, (1987) 2280–2303. T. Palev, Finite-dimensional representations of the Lie superalgebra $sl(1/n)$. II. Nontypical representations, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**29**]{} (1988) 2589–2598. T. Palev, Irreducible finite-dimensional representations of $gl(1/n)$ in a Gel’fand-Zetlin basis, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**30**]{} (1989) 1433–1442. T. Palev, Essentially typical representations of the Lie superalgebras $gl(n/m)$ in a Gel’fand-Zetlin basis, [*Funkt. Anal. Prilozh.*]{} [**23**]{} (1989) 69–70 (in Russian), [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**23**]{} (1989) 141–142 (English translation). T. Palev and N. Stoilova, Finite–dimensional representations of Lie superalgebra $gl(2/2)$.II. Nontypical representations, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**31**]{} (1990) 953–998. T. Palev, N. Stoilova and J. Van der Jeugt, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**166**]{} (1994) 367–387. T. Palev and V. Tolstoy, Finite–dimensional irreducible representations of the quantum superalgebra $U_{q}(gl(n/1))$, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**141**]{} (1991) 549–558. F. Pan and Y. Cao, Matrix representation of $OSp(2,2)$ in the $U(1/1)$ basis, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**24**]{} (1991) 603–612. V. Pasquier and H. Saleur, Common structure between finite systems and conformal field theories through quantum groups, [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**330**]{} (1990) 523–556. P. Roche and D. Arnaudon, Irreducible representations of quantum analogue of $SU(2)$, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**17**]{} (1989) 295–300. M. Rosso, Finite dimensional representations of the quantum analog of the enveloping algebra of a complex simple Lie algebra, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**117**]{} (1987) 581–593. M. Rosso, An analogue of P.B.W. theorem and the universal R–matrix for $U_{h}sl(N+1)$, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**124**]{} (1989) 307–318. M. Scheunert, [*The theory of Lie superalgebras*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol.[**716**]{}, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1979. M. Scheunert, Serre–type relations for Special Linear Lie superalgebras, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**24**]{} (1992) 173–181. M. Scheunert, W. Nahm and V. Rittenberg, Irreducible representations of the $OSp(2,1)$ and $Spl(2,1)$ graded Lie algebras, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**18**]{} (1977) 155–162. H. Schmitt, P. Halse, A. Balantekin and B. Barett, Noncompact orthosympletic supersymmetry in $^61Ni$ and $^62Ni$, [*Phys. Rev. C*]{} [**39**]{} (1989) 2419–2425. E. K. Sklyanin, Some algebraic structures connected with the Yang–Baxter equation, [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**16**]{} (1982) 263–270. H. Schlosser, Atypical representations of the Lie superalgebra $sl(1,n)$, [*Seminar Sophus Lie*]{} [**3**]{} (1993) 15–24. V. Tolstoy, Extremal projectors for quantized Kac–Moody superalgebras and some of their applications, in [*Quantum groups*]{} (H.-D. Doebner and J.-D. Hennig, eds.), Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 370, Springer–Berlin, 1990, pp. 118–125. K. Ueno, T. Takebayashi and Y. Shibukawa, Gel’fand–Zetlin basis for $U_{q}(gl(N+1))$ modules, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**18**]{} (1989) 215–221. J. Van der Jeugt, Finite– and infinite–dimensional representations of the orthosympletic superalgebra $OSP(3,2)$, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**25**]{} (1984) 3334–3349. P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Supergravity, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**68**]{} (1981) 189–398. D. Volkov and Y. Akulov, On possible universal interactions of neutrino, [*Lett. J. Exp. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**16**]{} (1972) 621–623 (in Russian), 438–440 (in English). J. Wess and J. Bagger, [*Supersymmetry and supergravity*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1983. P. West, [*Introduction to supersymmetry and supergravity*]{}, World Scientific, Singapore, 1986. J. Wess and B. Zumino, Supergauge transformations in 4 dimensions, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B70**]{} (1974) 39–50. J. Wess and B. Zumino, Covariant differential calculus on the quantum hyperplane, [*Nucl. Phys.B Proc. Suppl.* ]{} [**18**]{} (1990) 302–312. E. Wigner, Relativistic invariance and quantum phenomena, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**29**]{} (1957) 255–268. E. Wigner, [*Group theory and its applications to the quantum mechanics of atomic spectra*]{}, Academic Press, New York, 1959. S. Woronowicz, Compact matrix pseudogroups, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**111**]{} (1987) 613–665. S. Woronowicz, Differential calculus on compact matrix pseudogroups (quantum groups), [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**122**]{} (1989) 125–170. C. Yang and M. Ge, eds., [*Braid groups, knot theory and statistical mechanics*]{}, World Scientific, Singapore, 1989. R. Zhang, Finite–dimensional irreducible representations of the quantum supergroups $U_{q}(gl(m/n))$, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**34**]{} (1993) 1236–1254.
[^1]: Work based on preprint IC/96/130 and an invited talk given at the “[*V–th National Mathematics Conference*]{}” (Hanoi, 17–20 September 1997).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In a classical measurement the Shannon information is a natural measure of our ignorance about properties of a system. There, observation removes that ignorance in revealing properties of the system which can be considered to preexist prior to and independent of observation. Because of the completely different root of a quantum measurement as compared to a classical measurement conceptual difficulties arise when we try to define the information gain in a quantum measurement using the notion of Shannon information. The reason is that, in contrast to classical measurement, quantum measurement, with very few exceptions, cannot be claimed to reveal a property of the individual quantum system existing before the measurement is performed.'
---
Introduction
============
In classical physics information is represented as a binary sequence, i.e a sequence of bit values, each of which can be either $1$ or $0$. When we read out information that is carried by a classical system we reveal a certain bit value that exists even before the reading of information is performed. For example, when we read out a bit value encoded as a pit on a compact disk, we reveal a property of the disk existing before the reading process.
This means that in a classical measurement the particular sequence of bit values obtained can be considered to be physically defined by the properties of the classical system measured[^1]. The information read is then measured by the Shannon measure of information [@shannon] which can operationally be defined as the number of binary questions (questions with ”yes” or ”no” answers only) needed to determine the actual sequence of 0’s and 1’s.
In quantum physics information is represented by a sequence of qubits, each of which is defined in a two-dimensional Hilbert space. If we read out the information carried by the qubit, we have to project the state of the qubit onto the measurement basis $\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}$ which will give us a bit value of either 0 or 1. Only in the exceptional case of the qubit in an eigenstate of the measurement apparatus the bit value observed reveals a property already carried by the qubit. Yet in general the value obtained by the measurement has an element of irreducible randomness and therefore cannot be assumed to reveal the bit value or even a hidden property of the system existing before the measurement is performed.
This implies that in a sequence of measurements on qubits in a superposition state $a|0\rangle + b|1\rangle$ $(|a|,|b| \neq
\{0,1\})$ the particular sequence of bit values 0 and 1 obtained cannot, not even in principle[^2], be considered in any way to be defined before the measurements are performed. The non-existence of well-defined bit values prior to and independent of observation suggests that the Shannon measure, as defined by the number of binary questions needed to determine the particular [*observed*]{} sequence 0’s and 1’s, becomes problematic and even untenable in defining our uncertainty as given [*before*]{} the measurements are performed.
Here we will critically analyze the applicability of the axiomatic derivation of the Shannon measure for the case of quantum measurement. We will also show that Shannon information is not useful in defining the information content in a quantum system. In fact we will see that when we try to apply Shannon’s postulate in quantum measurements or when we try to define the information content by the Shannon information a certain element emerges that escapes complete and full description in quantum mechanics. This element is always associated with the objective randomness of individual quantum events and with quantum complementarity. In the end we will briefly discuss a novel and more suitable measure of information [@caslav]. Yet at first we will return to a discussion in more detail of the operational definition of Shannon information to quantum measurements.
Discussion of the Operational Definition for a Sequence of Measurements
=======================================================================
For classical observations Shannon’s measure of information can conceptually be motivated through an operational approach to the question. We will follow the introduction of Shannon’s measure of information as given by Uffink [@uffink]. Consider an urn filled with N colored balls. There are $n_1$, $n_2$, ..., $n_m$ balls with various different colors: black, white, ..., red. Now the urn is shaken, and we draw one after the other all balls from the urn. To what extent can we predict the particular color sequence drawn?
Certainly, if all the balls in the urn are of the same color, we can completely predict the color sequence. On the other hand, if the various colors are present in equal proportions and if we have no knowledge about the arrangement of the balls after shaking the urn, we are maximally uncertain about the color sequence drawn. As noticed in [@uffink] one can think of these situations as extreme cases on a varying scale of predictability. For example, for N=4, there is only one color sequence $\circ$$\circ$$\circ$$\circ$ if all balls are white, 4 possible color sequences $\bullet$$\circ$$\circ$$\circ$, $\circ$$\bullet$$\circ$$\circ$, $\circ$$\circ$$\bullet$$\circ$, $\circ$$\circ$$\circ$$\bullet$, if there are three black and one white ball in the urn, yet 6 possible color sequences $\bullet$$\bullet$$\circ$$\circ$, $\bullet$$\circ$$\bullet$$\circ$, $\bullet$$\circ$$\circ$$\bullet$, $\circ$$\bullet$$\bullet$$\circ$, $\circ$$\bullet$$\circ$$\bullet$ and $\circ$$\circ$$\bullet$$\bullet$ if there are two black and two white balls in the urn. This suggest that the uncertainty we have before drawing about the particular color sequence that will be drawn is defined by the total number of different possible color sequences that are in accordance with the given number of balls with their respective colors in the urn.
Consider now a situation where a long sequence of N balls are drawn from an infinite “sea” of balls with proportions $p_1$, $p_2$, ..., $p_m$ for the different colours in the sea. Then a long sequence contains with high probability about $p_1N$ balls of the first colour, $p_2N$ balls of the second colour etc. (such a sequence is called typical sequence). The probability to obtain a particular typical sequence (particular colour sequence) is given by [@shannon] $$p(sequence) = p_1^{p_1N} p_2^{p_2N} ... p_m^{p_mN} =
\frac{1}{2^{NH}}$$ where $$H=-\sum_{i=1}^{m} p_i \log p_i \label{who}$$ is the Shannon information expressed in bits with the logarithm taken to base 2. Consequently, the total number of distinct typical sequences is given by $$W \simeq 2^{N H}. \label{christ}$$
Suppose now that one wishes to identify a specific color sequence of the drawn balls from the complete set of possible color sequences by asking questions to which only ”yes” or ”no” can be given as an answer. Of course, the number of questions needed will depend on the questioning strategy adopted. In order to make this strategy the most optimal, that is, in order that we can expect to gain maximal information from each yes-or-no question, we evidently have to ask questions whose answers will strike out always half of the possibilities.
Since there are $W=2^{NH}$ possible different (typical) color sequences (all of them have equal probability to be drawn), the minimal number of yes-no questions needed is just $NH$. Or equivalently, the Shannon information expressed in bits is the minimal number of yes-no questions necessary to determine which particular sequence of outcomes occurs, divided by $N$ [@feinstein; @uffink; @blabla]. A particular color sequence is specified by writing down, in order, the yes’s and no’s encountered in traveling from the root to the specific leaf of the tree as schematically depicted in Fig. \[generalbaum\] for an explicit example with an urn containing black and white balls only.
If instead of balls with pre-assigned colors we consider quantum systems whose individual properties are not defined before the measurements are performed, does the Shannon measure of information still define the information gain in the measurements appropriately? More precisely, we ask here the question whether the total number $W=2^{NH}$ of different possible (typical) sequences of outcomes is suitable as a measure of our uncertainty before the sequence of quantum measurements is performed.
In classical physics the behavior of the whole ensemble follows from the behavior of its intrinsic different individual constituents which can be thought of as being defined to any precision. This is not the case in quantum mechanics. The principal indefiniteness, in the sense of fundamental nonexistence of a detailed description of and prediction for the individual quantum event resulting in the particular measurement result, implies that the particular sequence of outcomes specified by writing down, in order, the yes’s and no’s encountered in a row of yes/no questions asked is not defined before the measurements are performed. No definite outcomes exists before measurements are performed and therefore the number of different possible sequence of outcomes does not characterize our uncertainty about the individual system given before measurements are performed.
However, once the sequence of quantum measurements is performed and the measurement results are obtained, the measure of information needed to specify the particular sequence of outcomes realized is defined appropriately by the Shannon measure. In the sense that an individual quantum event manifests itself only in the measurement process and is not precisely defined before measurement is performed, we may speak of ”generation” of that specific information in the measurement.
Inapplicability of Shannon’s Postulates in Quantum Measurements {#zika}
===============================================================
As observed by Uffink [@uffink], an important reason for preferring the Shannon measure of information lies in the fact that it is uniquely characterized by Shannon’s intuitively reasonable postulates. This has been expressed strongly by Jaynes [@jaynes] : ”One ... important reason for preferring the Shannon measure is that it is the only one that satisfies ... \[Shannon’s postulates\]. Therefore one expects that any deduction made from other information measures, if carried far enough, will eventually lead to contradiction.” A good way to continue our discussion is by reviewing how Shannon, using his postulates, arrived at his famous expression. He writes [@shannon]:
”Suppose we have a set of possible events whose probabilities of occurrence are $p_1,p_2,...,p_n$. These probabilities are known but that is all we know concerning which event will occur. Can we find a measure of how much ”choice” is involved in the selection of the event or how uncertain we are of the outcome?
If there is such a measure, say $H(p_1,p_2,...,p_n)$, it is reasonable to require of it the following properties:
1. $H$ should be continuous in the $p_i$.
2. If all the $p_i$ are equal, $p_i=\frac{1}{n}$, then $H$ should be a monotonically increasing function of $n$. With equally likely events there is more choice, or uncertainty, when there are more possible events.
3. If a choice be broken down into two successive choices, the original $H$ should be the weighted sum of the individual values of $H$. The meaning of this is illustrated in Fig. \[choicefig\]. At the left we have three possibilities $p_1=\frac{1}{2}$, $p_2=\frac{1}{3}$, $p_3=\frac{1}{6}$. On the right we first choose between two possibilities each with probability $\frac{1}{2}$, and if the second occurs make another choice with probabilities $\frac{2}{3}$, $\frac{1}{3}$. The final results have the same probabilities as before. We require, in this special case, that $$H\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{6}\right) =
H\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) + \frac{1}{2}
H\left(\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3}\right).$$ The coefficient $\frac{1}{2}$ is the weighing factor introduced because this second choice occurs half the time.”
Shannon then shows that only the function (\[who\]) satisfies all three postulates. It is the third postulate which determines the logarithm form of the function and, as we will argue, it is this postulate which leads to problems when quantum measurements are involved.
We now turn to the discussion of Shannon’s postulates. While the first two postulates are natural for every meaningful measure of information, the last postulate might deserve more justification The third Shannon postulate originally formulated as an example was reformulated as an exact rule by Faddeev [@faddeev; @uffink]: For every $n\geq 2$ $$H(p_1,..,p_{n-1},q_1,q_2)\!= \!H(p_1,..,p_{n-1},p_n)\! +\! p_n
H\!\left(\frac{q_1}{p_n},\frac{q_2}{p_n}\right), \label{popmilo}$$ where $p_n=q_1+q_2$.
Without physical interpretation the recursion postulate (the name was suggested in [@uffink]) (\[popmilo\]) is merely a mathematical expression which is certainly necessary for the uniqueness of the function (\[who\]) but has no further physical significance. We adopt the following well-known interpretation [@uffink; @jaynes0.5]. Assume the possible outcomes of the experiment to be $a_1,...,a_n$ and $H(p_1,...,p_n)$ to represent the amount of information that is gained by the performance of the experiment. Now, decompose event $a_n$ into two distinct events $a_n \wedge b_1$ and $a_n \wedge b_2$ (”$\wedge$” denotes ”and”, thus $a \wedge b$ denotes a joint event). Denote the probabilities of outcomes $a_n \wedge b_1$ and $a_n \wedge b_2$ by $q_1$ and $q_2$, respectively. Then the left-hand side $H(p_1,...,p_{n-1},q_1,q_2)$ of Eq. (\[popmilo\]) represents the amount of information that is gained by the performance of the experiment with outcomes $a_1,...,a_{n-1},a_n \wedge b_1,a_n
\wedge b_2 $.
When the outcome $a_n$ occurs, the conditional probabilities for $b_1$ and $b_2$ are $\frac{q_1}{p_n}$ and $\frac{q_2}{p_n}$ respectively and the amount of information gained by the performance of the conditional experiment is $H\left(\frac{q_1}{p_n},\frac{q_2}{p_n}\right)$. Hence the recursion requirement states that the information gained in the experiment with outcomes $a_1,...,a_{n-1}, a_n \wedge b_1, a_n
\wedge b_2 $ equals the [*sum*]{} of the information gained in the experiment with outcomes $a_1,...,a_n$ and the information gained in the conditional experiment with outcomes $b_1$ or $b_2 $, given that the outcome $a_n$ occurred with probability $p_n$.
This interpretation implies that the third postulate can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
&H&(p(a_1),...,p(a_{n-1}),p(a_n \wedge b_1),p(a_n \wedge b_2))
\label{popciro} \\ &=& H(p(a_1),...,p(a_{n-1}),p(a_n)) +
p(a_n)H(p(b_1|a_n),p(b_2|a_n))\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&p&(a_n) = p(a_n \wedge b_1) + p(a_n \wedge b_2)\nonumber \\
&p&(a_n\wedge b_1)= p(a_n) p(b_1|a_n) \mbox{ and } \\ &p&(a_n
\wedge b_2) = p(a_n) p(b_2|a_n). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $p(b_i|a_n ) $ $i=1,2$ denotes the conditional probability for outcome $a_n$ given the outcome $b_i$ occurred and $ p(a_n
\wedge b_i)$ denotes the joint probability that outcome $a_n
\wedge b_i$ occurs.
If we analyze the generalized situation with $n$ outcomes $a_i$ of the first experiment $A$, $m$ outcomes $b_j$ of the conditional experiment $B$ and $m n$ outcomes $a_i \wedge b_j$ of the joint experiment $A \wedge B$, we may then rewrite the recursion postulate in a short form as $$H(A \wedge B) = H(A) + H(B|A) \label{hannah}$$ where $H(B|A) = \sum_j^{n} p(a_j) H(b_1|a_j,...,b_m|a_j)$ is the average information gained by observation $B$ given that the conditional outcome $a_j$ occurred weighted by probability $p(a_j)$ for $a_j$ to occur.
It is essential to note that the recursion postulate is inevitably related to the manner in which we gain information in a classical measurement. In fact, in classical measurements it is always possible to assign to a system simultaneously attributes corresponding to all possible measurements, here $a_i$, $b_j$ and $a_i \wedge b_j$. Also, the interaction between measuring apparatus and classical system can be thought to be made arbitrarily small so that the experimental determination of $A$ has no influence on our possibility to predict the outcomes of the possible future experiment $B$. In conclusion, the information expected in a classical experiment from the joint experiment $A
\wedge B$ is simply the sum of the information expected from the first experiment $A$ and the conditional information of the second experiment $B$ with respect to the first, as expressed in Eq. (\[hannah\]).
Therefore, only for the special case of commuting, i.e. simultaneously definite observables, the axiomatic derivation of the Shannon measure of information is applicable and the use of the Shannon information is justified to define the uncertainty given before quantum measurements are performed. However, in general, if $A$ and $B$ are noncommuting observables, the joint probabilities on the left-hand side of Eq. (\[popciro\]) cannot in principle be assigned to a system simultaneously, and consequently Shannon’s crucial third postulate which is necessary for the uniqueness of Shannon’s measure of information ceases to be well-defined.
Having seen that the third Shannon postulate in general is not applicable in quantum measurements we next introduce two requirements that are immediate consequences of Shannon’s postulates and in which all the probabilities that appear are well-defined in quantum mechanics. We will show that the two requirements are violated by the information gained in quantum measurements implying that the Shannon measure loses its preferential status with respect to alternative expressions when applied to define information gain in quantum measurements.
1. [*Every new observation reduces our ignorance and increases our knowledge.*]{} In his work Shannon [@shannon] offers a list of properties to substantiate that $H$ is a reasonable measure of information. He writes: ”It is easily shown that $$H(A\wedge B) \leq H(A) + H(B)$$ with equality only if the events are independent (i.e., $p(a_i
\wedge b_j)=p(a_i)p(b_j))$. The uncertainty of a joint event is less than or equal to the sum of the individual uncertainties”. He continues further in the text: ”... we have $$H(A) + H(B) \geq H(A \wedge B)= H(A) + H(B|A).$$ Hence, $$H(B) \geq H(B|A). \label{mrgo}$$ The uncertainty of $B$ is never increased by knowledge of $A$. It will be decreased unless $A$ and $B$ are independent events, in which case it is not changed” (we have changed Shannon’s notation to coincide with that of our work).
2. [*Information is indifferent on the order of acquisition.*]{} The total amount of information gained in successive measurements is independent of the order in which it is acquired, so that the amount of information gained by the observation of $A$ followed by the observation of $B$ is equivalent to the amount of information gained from the observation of $B$ followed by the observation of $A$ $$H(A) + H(B|A) = H(B) + H(A|B). \label{blondie}$$ This is an immediate consequence of the recursive postulate which can be obtained when we write the recursion postulate in two different ways depending on whether the observation of $A$ is followed by the observation of $B$ or vice versa. An explicit example for a sequence of classical measurements is given in Fig. \[balls1\].
Are these two requirements satisfied by information gained in quantum measurements? Consider a beam of randomly polarized photons. Filters $F_{\updownarrow}$, $F_{45^\circ}$ and $F_{\leftrightarrow}$ are oriented vertically, at $+45^{\circ}$, and horizontally respectively, and can be placed so as to intersect the beam of photons (Fig. \[filters\]). If we insert filter $F_{\updownarrow}$ the number of photons observed at the detection plate will be approximately half of the number in the incoming beam. The outgoing photons now all have vertical polarization. Notice that the function of filter $F_{\updownarrow}$ cannot be explained as a ”sieve” that only lets those photons pass that are [*already*]{} of vertical polarization in the incoming beam. If that were the case, only a certain small number of the randomly polarized incoming photons would have vertical polarization, so we would expect a much larger attenuation of the beam of photons as they pass the filter.
Denote with $A$ and $B$ properties of the photon to have polarization at $+45^{\circ}$ and horizontal polarization, respectively. If $F_{\leftrightarrow}$ is inserted behind the filter $F_{\updownarrow}$ we are certain that none of the photons will pass through (Fig. \[filters\]a). For a photon with vertical polarization we have complete knowledge of the property $B$, i.e. $H(B)=0$. Notice that a ”sieve” model could explain this behaviour. If we now insert $F_{45^\circ}$ between $F_{\updownarrow}$ and $F_{\leftrightarrow}$ we observe an effect which cannot be explained by a sieve model where the filter does not change the object. However we now observe a certain number of photons at the detection plate (about $\frac{1}{4}$ of the number of photons in the beam passed through $F_{\updownarrow}$) as shown in Fig. \[filters\]b. In this case our knowledge of the property $B$ is not complete anymore.
The acquisition of information about property $A$ therefore leads to a decrease of our knowledge about property $B$, i.e. $H(B|A) >
0$. Note that on the photons absorbed by the filter $F_{45^\circ}$ we cannot measure property $B$ subsequently. However already for the subensemble of the photons passing through the filter our uncertainty about property $B$ becomes larger than 0 implying $0=H(B)< H(B|A)$ which clearly violates requirement (\[mrgo\]). Another example of sequence of quantum measurements where requirement (\[blondie\]) is violated is given in Fig. \[qballs\]. Clearly, violation of the requirements (\[mrgo\]) and (\[blondie\]) occurs when the corresponding operators $A$ and $B$ do not commute.
What is the origin of the violation of the requirements (\[mrgo\]) and (\[blondie\]) in quantum measurements? In contrast to a classical measurement which just adds some new knowledge to our knowledge at hand from the previous measurements, in a quantum measurement the gain of the new knowledge is always at the expense of irrecoverable loss of complementary classes of knowledge. This originates from the distinction between ”total” and ”complete” information in quantum physics. In classical physics the total information about a system is complete. In quantum physics the total information of a system, represented by the state vector, is never complete in the sense that all possible future measurement results are precisely defined[^3]. In fact, the total information of a quantum system suffices to specify the eigenstate of one nondegenerate (with one-dimensional eigenspaces only) observable only.
For example, the state of a photon passing through filter $F_{\updownarrow}$ is specified by the complete knowledge about the property $A$ of vertical polarization. If we let a photon in this state pass through filter $F_{45^\circ}$ as given in Fig. \[filters\]b, our knowledge of the photon changes, and therefore its representation, the quantum state, also changes. The total information of a photon in the new state is completely exhausted in specifying property $B$ of polarization at $45^\circ$ and no further information is left to also specify property $A$, thus implying unavoidable loss of the previous knowledge about this property. This further implies that the set of future probabilistic predictions specified by the new projected state is indifferent to the knowledge collected from the previous measurements in the whole history of the system. Such a view was assumed by Pauli [@pauli] who writes[^4]: ”Bei Unbestimmtheit einer Eigenschaft eines Systems bei einer bestimmten Anordnung (bei einem bestimmten Zustand des Systems) vernichtet jeder Versuch, die betreffende Eigenschaft zu messen, (mindestend teilweise) den Einflu[ß]{} der früheren Kenntnisse vom System auf die (eventuell statistischen) Aussagen über spätere mögliche Messungsergebnisse.” This clearly makes possible to violate requirements (\[mrgo\]) and (\[blondie\]) in quantum measurements.
Here a certain misconception might be put forward that arises from a certain practical point of view. According to that view, for example, complementarity between interference pattern and information about the path of the particle in the double-slit experiment is considered to arise from the fact that any attempt to observe the particle path would be associated with an uncontrollable disturbance of the particle. Such a disturbance in itself would then be the reason for the loss of the interference pattern. In such of view it would be possible to define Shannon’s information for all attributes of the system simultaneously, and the third Shannon postulate, as well as the requirements (\[mrgo\]) and (\[blondie\]), would be violated because of the unavoidable disturbance of the system occurring whenever the subsequently measured property $B$ is incompatible with the previous one $A$. Yet, this is a misconception for two reasons.
Firstly, as theorems like those of Bell [@bell] or Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger [@ghz] show, it is not possible, not even [*in principle*]{}, to assign to a quantum system simultaneously observation-independent properties which in order to be in agreement with special relativity have to be local. We therefore cannot speak of a ”disturbance” in the measurement process if there are no objective properties to disturb.
Secondly, over the last few years experiments were considered and some already performed, where the reason why no interference pattern arises is not due to any uncontrollable disturbance of the quantum system or the clumsiness of the apparatus. Rather the lack of interference is due to the fact that the quantum state is prepared in such a way as to permit path [*information*]{} to be obtained, in principle, independent of whether the experimenter cares to read it out or not. One line of such research considers the use of micromasers in atomic beam experiments [@scully], another one concerns experiments on correlated photon states emerging from nonlinear crystals through the process of parametric-down conversion [@horne].
The view that complementarity must be based on the much more fundamentally property of mutual exclusiveness of different classes of information of a quantum system was assumed by Pauli [@pauli] in the analysis of the uncertainty relations[^5]: ” ... diese Relationen enthalten die Aussage, da[ß]{} jede genaue Kenntnis des Teilchenortes zugleich eine prinzipielle Unbestimmtheit, nicht nur Unbekanntheit des Impulses zur Folge hat und umgekehrt. Die Unterscheidung zwischen (prinzipieller) [*Unbestimmtheit*]{} und [*Unbekanntheit*]{} und der Zusammenhang beider Begriffe sind für die ganze Quantentheorie entscheidend.”
Difficulties in Defining the Information Content of a Quantum System
====================================================================
To define the information content of a physical system one might consider different measures of information. However only those measures of information have physical significance according to which the defined information content of the system possesses properties which naturally follow from the physical situation considered. These properties are, for example, invariance under changes of the modes of observation of the system and conservation in time if there is no information exchange with an environment. We show now that the information content of a quantum system, if it is assumed to be measured by the Shannon measure of information, cannot be defined in any way to have these properties.
The classical world appears to be composed of particles and fields, and the properties of each one of these constituents could be specified quite independently of the particular phenomenon discussed or of the experimental procedure a physicist chooses to determine these properties. In other words the properties of constituents of the classical world are noncontextual.
In particular, the total lack of information about a classical pointlike system (with no rotational and internal degrees of freedom) defined as Shannon’s information associated with the probability distribution over the phase space is independent of the specific set of variables chosen to describe the system completely (such as position and momentum, or bijective functions of them) and conserved in time if there is no information exchange with an environment (i.e. if the system is dynamically independent from the environment and not exposed to a measurement)[^6]. Operationally the total information content of a classical system can be obtained in the joint measurement of position and momentum, or in successive measurements in which the observation of position is followed by the observation of momentum or vice versa[^7].
Contrary to the classical concepts most quantum-mechanical concepts are limited to the description of phenomena within some well-defined experimental context, that is, always restricted to a specific experimental procedure the physicist chooses. In particular the amount of information gained in an individual quantum measurement depends strongly on the specific experimental context. In the optimal experiment when the measurement basis $|i\rangle$ coincides with the eigenbasis of the density matrix $\hat{\rho}$ of the system: $\hat{\rho} |i\rangle=w_i|i\rangle$ the amount of information gained is maximal (See for example [@peres]). Since in the basis corresponding to the optimal experiment the density operator is represented by a diagonal matrix with elements $w_i$, the information gain defined by the Shannon measure equals the von Neumann entropy as given by[^8] $$H = -\sum_i w_i \log w_i = -Tr(\hat{\rho} \log \hat{\rho}).
\label{klasik}$$ This has the important property to be invariant under unitary transformations $\hat{\rho} \rightarrow \hat{U}\hat{\rho}
\hat{U}^+$. The invariance under unitary transformations implies invariance under the change of the representation (basis) of $\hat{\rho}$ and conservation in time if there is no information exchange with an environment. The later precisely means that if we perform the optimal experiments both at time $t_0$ and at some future time $t$, Shannon’s information measures associated to the optimal experiments at the two times will be the same, i.e. $$H(t)= -\sum_i w_i(t) \log w_i(t) = -\sum_i w_i \log w_i = H(t_0).$$ Here, the eigenvalues of the density matrix at time $t$ are $w_i(t)=w_i$.
However, without the [*additional*]{} knowledge of the eigenbasis of the density matrix $\hat{\rho}$ we cannot find the optimal experiment and obtain directly the Shannon information associated. Also, all the statistical predictions that can be made for the optimal measurement are the same as if we had an ordinary (classical) mixture, with fractions $w_i$ of the systems giving with certainty results that are associated to the eigenvectors $|i\rangle$. In this sense the optimal measurement is a classical type measurement and therefore in this particular case, and only then, Shannon’s measure defines the information gain in a measurement appropriately[^9]. Considering also our previous discussion it is therefore not surprising that Shannon’s measure is useful only when applied to measurements which can be understood as classical measurements.
Which set of individual measurements should we perform and how to combine individual measures of information obtained in the set in order to arrive at the information content of a quantum system if we do not know the eigenbasis of the density matrix? Quantum complementarity implies that the total information content of the system might be partially encoded in different mutually exclusive (complementary) observables. These have the property that complete knowledge of the eigenvalue of any one of the observables excludes [*any*]{} knowledge about the eigenvalues of all other observables. Such a set of observables for a spin-1/2 particle can for example be spin components along orthogonal directions.
We consider now a quantum system described in $n$ dimensional Hilbert space and we denote a complete set of $m$ mutually complementary observables[^10] by $\{\hat{A}, \hat{B}, ...\}$. The property of mutual expansiveness implies that if the system is in an eigenstate of one of the observables, for example, in the eigenstate $|a_j\rangle$ of the observable $\hat{A}$ and we measure any other observable from the set, say $\hat{B}$, projecting the system onto states $\{|b_1\rangle,...,|b_i\rangle,...,|b_n\rangle\}$, the individual outcome is completely random (all measurement results are equally probable) $$|\langle
a_j|b_i\rangle|^2 = \frac{1}{n} \hspace{0.7cm} \forall i,j.
\label{goja}$$
It was shown in [@ivanovic] that the density matrix of the system can fully be reconstructed if one performs a complete set of mutually complementary observations. This suggest that the total information content of a quantum system represented by a density matrix $\hat{\rho}$ is [*all*]{} obtainable from a complete set of mutually complementary measurements. To obtain the total information one however cannot perform the set of measurements successively because, unlike the classical case, the information obtained in successive quantum measurements depends on the order of its acquisition (see Fig. \[qballs\] and discussion above). Instead it seems that any attempt to obtain the total information content of a quantum system has to be related to the complete set of mutually complementary experiments performed on systems that are all in the same quantum state.
We suggest that it is therefore natural to require that the total information content in a system in the case of quantum systems is [*sum*]{} of the individual amounts of information over a complete set of $m$ mutually complementary observables. As already mentioned above, for a spin-1/2 particle these are three spin projections along orthogonal directions. If we define the information gain in an individual measurement by the Shannon measure the total information encoded in the three spin components is given by $$H_{total}:=H_1(p^+_x,p^-_x)+H_2(p^+_y,p^-_y)+H_3(p^+_z,p^-_z).
\label{tic1}$$ Here, e.g. $p^+_x$ is the probabilities to find the particle with spin up along direction $x$.
Considering now an explicit example we will show that the total information $H_{total}$ based on the Shannon measure is in general [*not*]{} invariant under unitary transformations. We calculate (\[tic1\]) for a spin-1/2 particle in the state $|\psi \rangle =
\cos\theta/2 |z+\rangle + \sin\theta/2 |z-\rangle$ and we find that $$\begin{aligned}
&H&_{total} = \\ &-& \frac{1-\sin\theta}{2} \log
\frac{1-\sin\theta}{2} - \frac{1+\sin\theta}{2} \log
\frac{1+\sin\theta}{2}\nonumber \\ &-&\cos^2\!\frac{\theta}{2}
\log\left(\cos^2 \frac{\theta}{2}\right) - \sin^2\frac{\theta}{2}
\log\left(\sin^2\!\frac{\theta}{2}\right) +1 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ depends on the parameter $\theta$, thus being not invariant under unitary transformations. This associates a number of highly counter-intuitive properties to $H_{total}$: 1) it can be different for states of the same purity (e.g. it takes its maximal value of 2 bits of information for $\theta=0$ and it takes its minimal value of 1.36 bits for $\theta=\pi/4$); 2) it changes in time even for a system completely isolated from the environment where no information can be exchanged with environment; 3) it can take different values for different sets of the three orthogonal spin projections. These unnatural properties we see again as a strong indications for inadequacy of the Shannon measure to define the information gain in an individual quantum measurement.
A Suggested Alternative Measure of Information
==============================================
We suggest that it is natural to require that the information content of the quantum system defined as a sum of individual measures over a complete set of mutually complementary measurements is invariant under unitary transformations. Having shown that this cannot be achieved with the Shannon measure of information we now introduce a new measure of information that differs both mathematically and conceptually from Shannon’s measure of information and according to which the information content has invariance property.
The new measure of information is a quadratic function of probabilities[^11] $$I(p_1,...,p_n) = \sum_{i=1}^{n}
\left(p_i-\frac{1}{n}\right)^2, \label{junko}$$ and it takes into account that for quantum systems the only features known before an experiment is performed are the probabilities for various events to occur (See [@caslav] for discussion; there a specific normalization factor in expression (\[junko\]) was used resulting in maximally $k$ bits for $n=2^k$ possible outcomes). The measure $I(p_1,...,p_n)$ takes its maximal value of $(n-1)/n$ if one $p_i=1$ and it takes its minimal value of 0 when all $p_i$ are equal.
The important property of the new measure of information is that the total information defined with respect to it is [*invariant*]{} under unitary transformations. Using Eq. (\[goja\]) one obtains that the sum over individual measures of information of mutually complementary observations results in [@phd] $$\begin{aligned}
I_{total}&:=& \sum_{j=1}^{m} I(p^j_1,...,p^j_n) \label{ljubav}
\\&=& \sum_{j=1}^{m} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left(p^j_i -
\frac{1}{n}\right)^2 = Tr\hat{\rho}^2 -\frac{1}{n},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for a system described by the density matrix $\hat{\rho}$. Here $p^j_i$ denotes the probability to observe the $i$-th outcome of the $j$-th observable. The total information content of the system therefore might all be encoded in one single observable or, alternatively it might be partially encoded in all $m$ mutually complementary observables. For a composite system in a product state the total information can all be encoded in individual systems constituting the composite system or, alternatively in the extreme case of maximally entangled states it can all be encoded in joint properties of the systems with no information left in individual systems [@caslav].
Independent of the various possibilities to encode information the total information content of the system cannot fundamentally exceed the maximal possible amount of information that can be encoded in an individual observable $[=(n-1)/n]$. This upper limit is reached when the system is in the pure state. When the system is in a completely mixed state the total information takes its minimal value of $0$.
The property of invariance under unitary transformations implies that the total information content of the system does not dependent of the particular set of mutually complementary observables; it is a characterization of the state of the system alone, not of the specific reference set of complementary observables. Furthermore, since evolution in time is described by a unitary operation the total information of the system is conserved in time if there is no information exchange with the environment.
We would like to note that the total information (\[ljubav\]) was used in [@lee] to study the transfer of entanglement and information for quantum teleportation of an unknown entangled state through noisy quantum channels. The total information (\[ljubav\]) belongs to the set of quantum counterparts of nonextensive entropies finding its application in increasing number of problems in quantum physics, e.g. description and controlling of laser cooling [@tannor], a non-extensive approach to the decoherence problem [@vidiella], description and quantifying of entanglement, and deducing criterions for separability of density matrices [@horodecki; @rajagopal].
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
In this work we have stressed some conceptual difficulties arising when Shannon’s notion of information is applied to define information gain in a quantum measurement. In particular we find that the axiomatic derivation of Shannon’s measure of information is not applicable in quantum measurements in general. We also show that the information content of a quantum system defined according to Shannon’s measure possesses some strongly non-physical properties. We argue that these difficulties in defining the information gain in quantum measurement by the Shannon measure of information arise whenever it is not possible, not even [*in principle*]{}, to assume that attributes observed are assigned to the quantum system before the observation is performed.
Having critized Shannon’s measure of information as being not appropriate for identifying the information gain in quantum measurement we proposed a new measure of information in quantum mechanics that both mathematically and conceptually differs from Shannon’s measure of information. While Shannon’s information is applicable when measurement reveals a preexisting property, the new measure of information takes into account that for quantum systems the only features known before an experiment is performed are the probabilities for various events to occur. In general, which specific event occurs is objectively random.
The total information content of a quantum system defined according to the new measure of information as the sum of the individual measures of information for mutually complementary observations is invariant under unitary transformations. This implies that the total information content of the system is invariant under transformation from one complete set of complementary variables to another and is conserved in time if there is no information exchange with an environment.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
In the previous version we did not make proper full reference to the work of J. Uffink [@uffink]. We would like to thank J. Uffink for pointing out this inadequancy as well as an error in our previous Eq. (1). We also thank C. Simon for helpful comments and discussions. This work has been supported by the Austrian Science Foundation FWF, Project No. F1506 and the US National Science Foundation NSF Grant No. PHY 97-22614.
[99]{}
C. E. Shannon, Bell Syst. Tech. J. [**27**]{}, 379 (1948). A copy can be found at www.math.washington.edu/$^\sim$hillman/\
Entropy/infcode.html S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, J. Math. and Mech. **17, 59 (1967). A. Peres, [*Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods*]{}, (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995). Č. Brukner and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3354 (1999), quant-ph/0005084 A. Feinstein, [*Foundation of Information Theory*]{}\
(McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 1958) p. 17. J. Uffink, *Measures of Uncertainty and the Uncertainty Principle, PhD thesis (Utrecht, 1990). As suggested in [@uffink] this should be contrasted to the cases where the notion of information refers to knowledge about an unknown parameter in a probability distribution (R. A. Fisher, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., [**22**]{}, 700 (1925), reprinted in R. A. Fisher, [*Contributions to Mathematical Statistics*]{}, Wiley, N.Y., 1950), or the information for discriminating between two probability distributions (S. Kullback, [*Information Theory and Statistics*]{}, Wiley, N.Y., 1959), or the information that one event provides about another event (I. M. Gelfand and A. M. Yaglom in [*Arbeiten zur Informationstheorie II*]{}, edited by H. Grell, Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1957 p. 7. Russian original in Uspekhi Mat. Nauk., [**11**]{}, 3, 1957). E. T. Jaynes, Phys. Rev. **106, 620 (1957). D. K. Faddeev in [*Arbeiten zur Informationstheorie I*]{}, edited by H. Grell (Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1957) p. 88. Russian original in Uspekhi Mat. Nauk., [**11**]{}, 227 (1956). E. T. Jaynes, [*Probability Theory: The Logic Of Science*]{}. To our knowledge this book is only available on the web: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob.html E. Schrödinger, Naturwissenschaften [**23**]{}, 807 (1935). Translation published in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. [**124**]{}, 323 and in [*Quantum Theory and Measurement*]{} edited by J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, (Princeton University Press, New Jersay, 1983). A copy can be found at: www.emr.hibu.no/lars/eng/cat W. Pauli, Die allgemeinen Prinzipien der Wellenmechanik in [*Handbuch der Physik*]{}, Band V, 1 (Hrsg. S. Flügge, Springer-Verlag, 1990). J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) 1 (1964) 195. D. M. Greenberger, M. Horne, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Am. J. Phys. [**58**]{}, 1131 (1990). M. O. Scully, B. G. Englert and H. Walther, Nature [**351**]{}, 111 (1991). M. A. Horne, A. Shimony and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2209 (1989). T. J. Herzog, P. G. Kwiat, H. Weinfurther and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 3034 (1995). E. T. Jaynes, Information Theory in [*Statistical Physics*]{}, Brandeis Summer Institute (W.A. Benjamin inc, New York, 1962). P. Hausladen, R Jozsa, B. Schumacher, M. Westmoreland, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 1869 (1996). I. Ivanovic, J. Phys. A [**14**]{}, 3241 (1981). W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields, Ann. of Phys. [**191**]{}, 363 (1989). G. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. Pólya [*Inequalities*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1952). C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. [**52**]{}, 479 (1988). A. Ránya, [*Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung mit einem Anhang über Informationstheorie*]{} (Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaft, 1962). Č. Brukner, [*Information in Individual Quantum Systems*]{}, PhD Thesis (Vienna, 1999) J. Lee and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 4236 (2000); J. Lee, M. S. Kim, Y. J. Park, and S. Lee, quant-ph/0003060 A. Bartana, R. Kosloff and D. J. Tannor, J. Chem. Phys. [**106**]{}, 14358 (1997); D. J. Tannor and A. Bartana, J. Phys. Chem. [**103**]{}, 10359 (1999). A. Vidiella-Barrenco and H. Moya-Cessa, quant-ph/0002071. R. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 1838 (1996). R. Horodecki , P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. A [**210**]{}, 377 (1996). S. Abe and A. K. Rajagopal, Physica A [**289**]{}, 157 (2001); Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals, [**13**]{}, 431 (2002), C. Tsallis, S. Lloyd, and M. Baranger, e-print: quant-ph/0007112.*****
[^1]: \[crv\] Even in these cases where classical physics instead of definite measurement results predicts these results with certain probabilities, it is still possible at least in principle, to consider an ensemble of statistically distributed measurement results as revealing corresponding statistically distributed properties of the ensemble of classical systems.
[^2]: As theorems like those of Kochen-Specker [@kochen] show, it is fundamentally not possible to assign to a quantum system (noncontextual) properties corresponding to all possible measurements. The theorems assert that for a quantum system described in a Hilbert space of dimension equal to or larger than three, it is possible to find a set of $n$ projection operators which represent the yes-no questions about an individual system, such that none of the $2^n$ possible sets of answers is compatible with the sum rule of quantum mechanics for orthogonal decomposition of identity [@peres] (i.e. if the sum of a subset of mutually commuting projection operators is the identity one and only one of the corresponding answers ought to be ”yes”). This means that it is not possible to assign a definite unique answer to every single yes-no question represented by a projection operator independent of which subset of mutually commuting projection operators one might consider it with together. If there are no definite (context-independent) answers to all possible yes-no questions that can be asked about the system then the operational concept of the Shannon measure of information itself, defined as the number of yes-no questions needed to determine the particular answers the system gives, becomes highly problematic.
[^3]: Yet, we do not hesitate to emphasize that it certainly is complete in the sense that it is not possible to have more information about a system than what can be specified in its quantum state. In fact, the state vector represents that part of our knowledge about the history of a system which is necessary to arrive at the maximum possible set of probabilistic predictions for all possible future observations of the system. For example, a set of complex amplitudes of a $\psi$-function is a specific representation of the catalog of our knowledge of the system. This view was assumed by Schrödinger [@schroedinger] who wrote: ”Sie ((die $\psi$-Funktion )) ist jetzt das Instrument zur Vorausage der Wahrscheinlichkeit von Ma[ß]{}zahlen. In ihr ist die jeweils erreichte Summe theoretisch begründeter Zukunfterwartungen verkörpert, gleichsam wie in einem [*Katalog*]{} niedergelegt. Translated: ”It (the $\psi$-function) is now the means for predicting the probability of measurement results. In it is embodied the momentarily attained sum of theoretically based future expectation, somewhat as laid down in a [*catalog.”*]{}
[^4]: In translation: ”In the case of indefiniteness of a property of a system for a certain experimental arrangement (for a certain state of the system) any attempt to measure that property destroys (at least partially) the influence of earlier knowledge of the system on (possibly statistical) statements about later possible measurement results.”
[^5]: In translation:”... these relations contain the statement that any precise knowledge of the position of a particle implies a fundamental indefiniteness, not just an unknownness, of the momentum for a consequence and vice versa. The distinction between (fundamental) [*indefiniteness*]{} and [*unknownness*]{}, and the relation between these two notions is decisive for the whole quantum theory.”
[^6]: Given the probability distribution $\rho(\vec{r},\vec{p},t) $ over the phase space the total lack of information of a classical system is defined as [@jaynes1] $$H_{total}(t) =-\int d^3 \vec{r} d^3 \vec{p}
\rho(\vec{r},\vec{p},t) \log \frac{\rho(\vec{r},\vec{p},t)}
{\mu(\vec{r},\vec{p})}, \label{dupe}$$ where a background measure $\mu(\vec{r},\vec{p})$ is an additional ingredient that has to be added to the formalism to ensure invariance under change of variables when we consider continuous probability distributions. The conservation of $H_{total}$ in time for a system with no information exchange with an environment is implied by the Hamiltonian evolution of a point in phase space.
[^7]: In full analogy with (\[blondie\]) we may write $H_{total}(\vec{r},\vec{p}) = H(\vec{r}) + H(\vec{p}|\vec{r})=
H(\vec{p}) + H(\vec{r}|\vec{p})$.
[^8]: For a [*given*]{} density matrix $\hat{\rho}$ the von Neumann entropy $$S(\hat{\rho}) = -Tr(\hat{\rho} \log \hat{\rho})$$ is widely accepted as a suitable definition for the information content of a quantum system. For a system described in $N$-dimensional Hilbert space this ranges from $\log N$ for a completely mixed state to 0 for a pure state. The von Neumann entropy has the important property to be invariant under unitary transformations. However, we observe that any function of the form $Tr(f(\hat{\rho}))$ (the operator $f(\hat \rho)$ is identified by having the same eigenstates as $\hat{\rho}$ and the eigenvalues $f(w_j)$, equal to the function values taken at the eigenvalues $w_j$ of $\hat{\rho}$.) possesses this invariance property. We also observe that the von Neumann entropy is a property of the quantum state as a whole without explicit reference to information contained in individual measurements.
[^9]: Consider a situation where instead using of single systems to send information to the receiver a sender uses a sequence of $N$ systems where each individual system is drawn from an ensemble of pure states $\{|\psi_1\rangle, ..., |\psi_n\rangle\}$, with frequency of occurrence $ \{w_1,...,w_n\}$ respectively. It was shown in [@hausladen] that for sufficiently large $N$ there are $2^{N
S(\hat{\rho})}$ highly distinguishable sequences of pure states which become mutually orthogonal as $N \rightarrow \infty$. Here $S(\hat{\rho})=-Tr(\hat{\rho} \log \hat{\rho})$ is the von Neumann entropy and $\hat{\rho} = \sum^n_i w_i |\psi_i\rangle \langle
\psi_i|$. This means that if the sender uses a sequence consisting of a choice of states that respects the a priori frequencies $w_i$, and the receiver distinguishes whole sequences rather than individual states, then the (Shannon) information transmitted per system can be made arbitrary close to $S(\hat{\rho})$. Here again the total density matrix $\hat{\rho}^N$ of $N$ systems can be made arbitrary close to the one as if we had a classical mixture of the $2^{N S(\hat{\rho})}$ sequences of states.
[^10]: To specify a system described by a $n \times n$ density matrix completely one needs $n^2-1$ independent real numbers. Any individual, complete measurement (we consider here only complete measurements, i.e., where operators associated to the measurements are without degeneracy) with $n$ possible outcomes defines $n-1$ independent probability values (the sum of all probabilities for all possible outcomes in an individual experiment is one). Therefore, just on the basis of counting the number of independent variables, we expect that the number of different measurements we need in order to determine the density matrix completely is $\frac{n^2-1}{n-1}=n+1$. Ivanovic [@ivanovic], and Wootters and Fields [@wootters] demonstrated the existence of exactly $n+1$ mutually complementary observables by an explicit construction in the cases of $n$ prime and $n=2^k$.
[^11]: Expressions of the general type of Eq. (\[junko\]) were studied in detail by Hardy, Littlewood and Pólya [@hardy]. They introduced a general class of mathematical expressions $$M_\alpha = \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} p^\alpha_i \right)^{\alpha-1}
\mbox{ for } 0 \leq \alpha \leq \infty$$ that from the point of view of information theory all can be assumed to quantify information properly. These expressions are also closely related to Tsallis’s [@tsallis] nonextensive entropy $S_{\alpha}= \frac{1}{1-\alpha} \sum_{i=1}^{n} (p^\alpha_i
-1)$ and Rányi’s [@ranyi] entropy $H_{\alpha} =
\frac{1}{1-\alpha} \log \sum_{i=1}^{n} p^\alpha_i.$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We calculated the influence of the limb-darkened finite disk correction factor in the theory of radiation-driven winds from massive stars. We solved the 1-D m-CAK hydrodynamical equation of rotating radiation-driven winds for all three known solutions, i.e., fast, $\Omega$-slow and $\delta$-slow. We found that for the fast solution, the mass loss rate is increased by a factor $\sim 10\%$, while the terminal velocity is reduced about $10\%$, when compared with the solution using a finite disk correction factor from a uniformly bright star. For the other two slow solutions the changes are almost negligible. Although, we found that the limb darkening has no effects on the wind momentum luminosity relationship, it would affect the calculation of synthetic line profiles and the derivation of accurate wind parameters.'
author:
- 'M. Curé'
- 'L. Cidale'
- 'D. F. Rial'
bibliography:
- 'citas.bib'
title: 'Limb-Darkened Radiation-Driven Winds from Massive Stars'
---
Introduction
============
The CAK theory [@cas75] describes the mass loss due to radiation force in massive stars. This theory is based on a simple parameterization of the line force ($\alpha$ and $k$) which represents the contribution of the spectral lines to the radiative acceleration by a power law distribution function. @abb82 improved this theory calculating the line force considering the contribution of the strengths of the hundreds of thousands of lines. He also included a third parameter ($\delta$) that takes into account the change in ionization throughout the wind. Despite this immense effort to give a more realistic representation of the line force, evident discrepancies still remained. Further improvements to this theory done by @fri86 and @pau86 (hereafter m-CAK model) relaxed the point star approximation with the introduction of the finite disk correction factor, assuming a uniform bright spherical source of radiation. From then on, this model has succeeded in describing both, wind terminal velocities ($v_{\infty}$) and mass-loss rates ($\dot{M}$) from very massive stars. As a result of the radiation force, the properties of the stellar winds must somehow reflect the luminosities of the stars. This relationship can be obtained from the line driven wind theory [@kud95; @kud99] and, nowadays, it is known as the Wind Momentum–Luminosity Relationship (WM–L). It predicts a strong dependence of wind momentum rate on the stellar luminosity with $\alpha$ [@pul96].
The m-CAK hydrodynamical solution (hereafter the fast solution) is characterized by an exponential growth at the base of the wind that matches very quickly a $\beta$-law profile when the velocity reaches some few kilometers per second, with a $\beta$ index in the range 0.8 to 1.0.
However, in the last decade, @cur04 and @cur11 found two new physical solutions from the 1-D non-linear m-CAK hydrodynamics equation that describe the wind velocity profile and mass loss rates from rapidly rotating stars (the $\Omega$-slow solution) and from slowly rotating A- and late B-type supergiants (the $\delta$-slow solution). The $\Omega$-slow solution only exists when the star’s rotational speed is larger than $\sim$ 3/4 of the breakup speed. This $\Omega$-slow solution posses a larger mass loss rate (the higher the rotational speed, the higher the mass loss rate) and reaches a terminal velocity which is about 1/3 of the fast solution’s terminal speed. On the other hand, the $\delta$-slow solution is found when the line-force parameter $\delta$ is slightly larger than $\sim$ 0.25. High values of $\delta$ are expected in hydrogen rich environments; for a pure hydrogen gas @pul00 demonstrated that $\delta$ is $1/3$. This last solution, where the Abbott $\delta$ factor represents changes in the ionization of the wind with distance, reaches a slow terminal velocity, similar to the $\Omega$-slow solution, but with a much lower mass loss rate.
In the m-CAK model, the calculation of the radiation force is often carried out assuming a uniform bright finite-sized spherical star. The rapid rotation, however, changes the shape of the star to an oblate configuration [@co95; @pel00] and induces gravity darkening [@vz24] as function of (co)-latitude. In both cases, a rotating and non-rotating star, the decrease of the temperature outwards the photosphere produces a limb darkening effect which also modifies the finite disk correction factor. The theoretical formalism for computing the self-consistent radiation force for non-spherical rotating stars, including the effects of stellar oblateness, limb darkening and gravity darkening, was developed by @co95. However, to disentangle the effects of each one of these competing processes upon the wind structure, these authors present a semi-quantitative analysis and estimated that the limb darkening effect could increase the mass loss rate ($\dot{M}$) in an amount of $\sim 11\%$ to $\sim 13\%$ over the uniformly bright models. However, that larger mass loss would imply a reduction in the wind terminal speed. @oud04 carried out (for the fast solution) a perturbation analysis of the effects of the gas pressure on the mass loss rate and wind terminal velocity in terms of the ratio of sound speed to escape speed ($a/v_{\mathrm{esc}}$). They showed that for finite-disk-corrected spherical wind, typical increases in mass-loss rate are 10%–20%, with comparable relative decreases in the wind terminal speed.
Then, considering that the radiative flux does not change significantly when the limb darkening is taken into account, an enhancement of $\sim 10\%$ in the mass loss rate might lead not only to a lower terminal speed ($v_{\infty}$) but also to a change in the theoretical WM–L. An accurate determination of the WM-L relationship for A and B supergiants (Asgs and Bsgs) is important because it would allow the use of these stars as extragalactic distance indicators [@bre04].
In this work, we present an analytical expression for the limb darkening finite disk correction factor and solve the 1-D hydrodynamical equation for all three known solutions for radiation driven winds; i.e., fast, $\Omega$-slow and $\delta$-slow solutions. These results are compared with the wind solutions computed with the finite disk correction factor assuming a uniform bright star, finding that the effects of the limb darkening are only important for fast solution.
In §2 we briefly describe the 1-D momentum equation of the wind, in §3 we present an analytical expression for the limb-darkened finite disk correction factor and in §4 we solve numerically the hydrodynamics equations for model parameters corresponding to the fast, $\Omega$-slow, $\delta$-slow and $\Omega\delta$-slow solutions. Finally, in §5, we discuss the results, conclusions and future work.
The m-CAK hydrodynamic model \[HYD\]
====================================
The m-CAK model for radiation driven winds considers one dimensional component isothermal fluid in a stationary regime with spherical symmetry. Neglecting the effects of viscosity, heat conduction and magnetic fields [@cas75], the equations of mass conservation and radial momentum read: $$4\pi\, r^{2}\rho\, v=\dot{M}, \label{2.0}$$
[and]{}
$$v\,\frac{dv}{dr}=-\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{{dp}}{dr}-\frac{GM\,(1-\Gamma )}{r^{2}}+
\frac{v_{\phi }^{2}(r)}{r}+g^{line}\,(\rho,dv/dr,n_{E}). \label{2.1}$$
Here $v$ is the fluid velocity and $dv/dr$ its gradient. All other variables have their standard meaning (see @cur04 for a detailed derivation and definitions of variables, constants and functions). We adopted the standard parametrization for the line force term, given by @abb82, @fri86, @pau86: $$g^{line}=\frac{C}{r^{2}}\;f_{\mathrm{\,D}}\,(r,v,dv/dr)\;\left( r^{2}\,v\,\frac{dv}{dr}
\right) ^{\alpha }\;\left( \frac{n_{E}}{W(r)}\right) ^{\delta } \label{2.2},$$ where the coefficient $C$ depends on $\dot{M}$, $W(r)$ is the dilution factor and $f_{\mathrm{\,D}}$ is the finite disk correction factor.\
Introducing the following change of variables $u =-R_{\ast }/r$, $\,w =v/a$ and $\,w'=dw/du$, where $a$ is the isothermal sound speed and $a_{\mathrm{rot}}=v_{\mathrm{rot}}/a$, where $v_{\mathrm{rot}}$ is the equatorial rotation speed at the stellar surface, the momentum equation becomes: $$F(u,w,w^\prime) \equiv \left( 1-\frac{1}{w^{2}} \right)
w\,\frac{dw}{du}+A+\frac{2}{u}+a_{\mathrm{rot}}^{2}\,u-C^{\prime }
\;f_{\mathrm{\,D}}\;g(u)\,(w)^{-\delta }\left( w\,\frac{dw}{du}\right) ^{\alpha
}\ = 0.
\label{2.5}$$
The standard method for solving this non-linear differential equation (\[2.5\]) together with the constant $C^{\prime }(\dot{M})$ (eigenvalue of this problem) is imposing that the solution passes through a singular (or critical) point.\
Critical points are defined at the roots of the singularity condition, namely: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial w^{\prime}}\,F(u,w,w^{\prime}
)=0. \label{2.6}$$ At this specific point and in order to find a physical wind solution, a regularity condition must be also imposed, i.e., $$\frac{d }{du}\,F(u,w,w^{\prime}) =\frac{\partial F}{\partial u}+\frac{\partial
F}{\partial w}\,w^{\prime}=0. \label{2.7}$$
In order to solve this equation we need to know the behaviour of the finite disk correction factor $f_{\mathrm{\,D}}$. To disentangle limb darkening from rotational effects (gravity-darkening and oblateness) we will analize them independently. A discussion on the effects of the oblate finite disk correction factor on the velocity profile and mass loss rate was presented by @ara11. Therefore, in this work we mainly discuss the importance of the limb darkening on radiation driven winds.
Limb-darkened finite disk correction factor
===========================================
@co95 derived an integral expression for the limb-darkened finite disk correction factor ($f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$), based in a simple linear gray atmosphere, namely: $$f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}\,(r,v,dv/dr)=\frac{r^2}{R_{\ast}^2 \,(1+\sigma)^\alpha} \int_{\mu_{\ast}}^{1}
(1+\sigma \mu^{\prime 2})^\alpha
\times \left(1 + \frac{3}{2} \sqrt{\,\frac{\mu^{\prime 2} -\mu_{\ast}^2}{1-\mu_{\ast}^2}} \right)
\,\mu^\prime d\mu^\prime,
\label{2.8}$$ where $\sigma \equiv (d\ln{v}/d\ln{r})-1$ and $\mu_{\ast}=\sqrt{1-R_{\ast}^2/r^2}$.\
The integration of eq. \[2.8\] gives the following analytical expression : $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}\,(r,v,dv/dr)&=& \frac{1}{2\, \sigma\, (\alpha +1)} \times
\left(\frac{\sigma
+1}{-\frac{\sigma
}{r^2}+\sigma
+1}\right)^{\alpha } \times \nonumber \\
& & \left[\, \sigma \,
(\alpha +1)
\; _2\- F_1\left(\frac{3}{2
},-\alpha
,\frac{5}{2},-\frac{\sigma
}{r^2\, (\sigma +1)-\sigma
}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
& &\left.+r^2\,(\sigma +1)
\left(\left(\frac{\sigma
+1}{-\frac{\sigma
}{r^2} +\sigma
+1}\right)^{\alpha
}-1\right)+\sigma \right]
\label{2.9}
\end{aligned}$$ where $_2 F_1$ is the Gauss Hypergeometric function.
Figure \[fig1\] compares the run of both uniformly bright and limb-darkened finite disk correction factors as function $u$, using two different $\beta$-law velocity profiles ($\beta$ = 0.8 and 2.5) and a typical value of the $\alpha$ line-force parameter equals 0.6. This figure clearly shows that at the base of the wind the factor $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ (shown in gray-dashed line) is about $\sim 10\%$ larger than the one obtained for a uniform bright stellar disk, $f_{\mathrm{\,D}}$ (continuous line), increasing, the value of the mass loss rate. Instead, at larger distances from the stellar surface, both correction factors have the same behaviour as a function of $u$.
Mathematically, $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ can be considered as a small perturbation of $f_{\mathrm{\,D}}$, as it is shown in Figure \[fig1\], even for different $\beta$-law index. Thus, based on the standard theory of dynamical system [see, e.g., @PDM82], we expect no large differences when considering velocity profiles from the equation of motion (eq. \[2.5\]), for the cases where uniformly bright or limb–-darkened finite disk correction factors are used. This is a consequence of the theorem of the continuous dependence of the solutions of the ordinary differential equations (ODE) on their parameters [@HS74].
Therefore, the scope of this paper is limited to the study of the numerical 1-D stationary solutions of eq. \[2.5\], leaving a theoretical topological analysis (and also a time–dependent one) for a future work.
Results \[results\]
====================
We are now in conditions to solve the non-linear differential equation (eq. \[2.5\]) considering the factor $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ given by eq. \[2.9\]. The calculation of all partial derivatives of $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}\,(u,w,w')$ are given in Appendix \[A\]. These derivatives are needed in order to evaluate the singularity and regularity conditions (Eqs. \[2.6\] and \[2.7\], respectively). Depending on the selected parameter-space, each type of solution explains the wind of a different kind of massive object, i.e., fast solution describes the wind of hot stars, the $\Omega$-slow solution explains the wind of rapid rotators such as Be stars, and the $\delta$-slow solution characterizes the wind of A-type supergiants. In the following subsections we will adopt a prototype star for each one of these three known physical solutions, in order to analyse the effects of the limb darkening on the m–CAK hydrodynamical model.
Fast Solution
-------------
For the standard fast solution we selected, as in @cur04, a typical O5V star with the following stellar and line-force parameters: $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ = 45000 K, $\log\,g$ = 4.0, $R/R_{\sun}$ = 12, $v_{\mathrm{rot}}$ = 0, $k$ = 0.124, $\alpha$ = 0.64 and $\delta$ = 0.07 [@lam99]. The numerical code we used to solve the momentum equation is described in @cur04. Figure \[fig2\] (left panel) shows the velocity profile for the standard case, where a uniform bright star disk (continuous line) and the limb-darkened one (gray-dashed line) are used. Figure \[fig2\] (right panel) displays the difference in the velocity, $\Delta v = v_{\mathrm{un}} - v_{\mathrm{LD}}$ (where $v_{\mathrm{un}}$ is the velocity profile when the uniform finite disk correction factor is taken into account, while $v_{\mathrm{LD}}$ is the wind solution obtained using $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$). The $v_{\mathrm{\,LD}}(u)$ profile is always smaller than the $v_{\mathrm{un}}(u)$ one, with a monotonically increasing difference. The effect of the limb-darkened finite disk correction factor changes the behaviour of the velocity field in the most external layers, it reaches a smaller terminal velocity by about $10\%$ of the $v_{\infty}$ value of the standard m-CAK case. There is no significant change of the velocity field at the base of the wind. Therefore, the location of the singular point is almost the same in both cases. Our calculations confirmed the predictions of @co95 [@oud04] based on the behaviour of the $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ at the base of the wind, i.e., that the mass loss rate is increased a factor of about $\sim 10\%$. Concerning to the WM-L relationship, the value of $D_{\mathrm{mom}}=(\dot{M}\, v_{\infty} \sqrt{R_{\ast}/R_{\sun}})$ shows almost no change due to a compensation of the increase in the mass loss rate and the decrease of the terminal velocity, as shown in Table \[tab1\]. Although the value of $D_{\mathrm{mom}}$ seems to remain unaltered, we would expect minor differences in the synthetic spectra when they are computed with the two different velocity profiles.
$f_{\mathrm{\,D}}$ $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$
------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------
$\dot{M}$ ($10^{-6}$ $M_{\sun}\,yr^{-1}$) 2.206 2.449
$v_{\infty}$ ($km\, s^{-1}$) 3384 3071
$r_{\rm{singular}}$ $(R_{\ast})$ 1.027 1.031
EigenValue ($C^{\prime}$) 40.89 38.53
$\log\,D_{\mathrm{mom}}$ (cgs) 29.21 29.22
These results show that the correction to the line radiation force due to the limb darkening effect leads to lower mass loss rates and higher wind terminal velocities, both in approximately 10%, when compare with the contribution of a uniformly bright star disk radiation source.
$\Omega$-Slow Solution {#o-slow}
----------------------
The $\Omega$-slow solution is present when the star is rotating at velocities near the breakup rotational speed. Therefore, to study the effects of the limb darkening in the radiation force we select, the case of a typical B1V star with high rotational speed ($\Omega$ = $v_{\mathrm{rot}}/v_{\mathrm{breakup}}$ = 0.9) and the following stellar parameters: $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ = 25000 K, $\log\,g$ = 4.03, $R/R_{\sun}$ = 5.3. The corresponding line force parameters: $k$ = 0.3, $\alpha$ = 0.5 and $\delta$ = 0.07 were taken from @abb82.
$f_{\mathrm{\,D}}$ $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$
------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------
$\dot{M}$ ($10^{-6}$ $M_{\sun}\,yr^{-1}$) 4.22 $10^{-3}$ 4.22 $10^{-3}$
$v_{\infty}$ ($km\,s^{-1}$) 446.8 446.5
$r_{\rm{singular}}$ $(R_{\ast})$ 26.14 26.14
EigenValue ($C^{\prime}$) 78.31 78.27
$\log D_{\mathrm{mom}}$ (cgs) 25.44 25.44
The resulting velocity profiles with uniform and limb-darkened correction factors and the corresponding differences in the velocities are shown in Figure \[fig4\]. These plots show clearly that the effect of $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ in the velocity profile is minima. The influence of the $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ on the mass loss rate and other wind quantities are shown in Table \[tab3\], together with the comparison of the velocity profile using the uniform correction factor. All the changes in these quantities are minimal or even negligible. There is an important dominance of the centrifugal force term in the momentum equation (\[2.5\]).
$\delta$-Slow Solution
----------------------
For the calculation of the $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ correction factor in the parameter-space of the $\delta$-slow solution, we select an A-type supergiant star with the following fundamental parameters: $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ = 10000 K, $\log\,g$ = 2.0, $R/R_{\sun}$ = 60, $v_{\mathrm{rot}}$ = 0, and line-force parameters: $k$ = 0.37, $\alpha$ = 0.49 and $\delta$ =0.3 [model W03 from @cur11].
Similar to the $\Omega$-slow wind solution, the effect of the limb darkening is negligible in both, the velocity profile and mass loss rate (see Figure \[fig3\] and Table \[tab2\]).
Concerning the influence of the limb darkening on the WM-L relationship, there is no substantial effect.
$f_{\mathrm{\,D}}$ $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$
-------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------
$\dot{M}$ ($10^{-6}$ $M_{\sun}\, yr^{-1}$) 7.22 $10^{-4}$ 7.36 $10^{-4}$
$v_{\infty}$ ($km\,s^{-1}$) 203 200
$r_{\rm{singular}}$ $(R_{\ast})$ 11.06 11.06
EigenValue ($C^{\prime}$) 63.78 63.54
$\log\, D_{\mathrm{mom}}$ (cgs) 24.85 24.86
$\Omega \delta$-Slow Solution
-----------------------------
Here we investigate the particular case when $\Omega$ and $\delta$ take higher values. We selected the same test star as in §\[o-slow\] but with a different value of the $\delta$ parameter ($\delta$ = 0.25). The computed hydrodynamic solutions for uniformly bright and limb-darkened correction factors are almost the same, as it shown in Figure \[fig5\] and Table \[tab4\].
$f_{\mathrm{\,D}}$ $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$
------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------
$\dot{M}$ ($10^{-6}$ $M_{\sun}\,yr^{-1}$) 8.63 $10^{-4}$ 8.64 $10^{-4}$
$v_{\infty}$ ($km\, s^{-1}$) 367.8 367.5
$r_{\rm{singular}}$ $(R_{\ast})$ 38.17 38.17
EigenValue ($C^{\prime}$) 113.9 113.9
$\log\, D_{\mathrm{mom}}$ (cgs) 24.66 24.66
When we compare the velocity profiles between the $\Omega$-slow solution computed with $\delta$ = 0.07 (see figure \[fig3\] left panel) and $\delta$ = 0.25 (see figure \[fig5\] left panel), we find that both profiles have the same behaviour as a function of $r$. Therefore, the centrifugal term due to the high dominates over the $\delta$-factor in $g^{line}$. Nevertheless, the influence of the $\delta$-factor is not negligible, it reduces the mass loss rate in $\sim 80\%$ and the terminal velocity in $\sim 20\%$.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
In this work we improved the description of the radiation force taking into account the correction factor due to a limb-darkened disk. In particular, we derived an analytical formula to compute this contribution. Then, we solved the 1-D non-linear momentum equation for radiation driven winds and analized the influence of $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ for all the three known solutions, namely: the fast, the $\Omega$-slow and the $\delta$-slow solutions, as well as, the case of a high $\Omega$ and $\delta$ parameter, the $\Omega$ $\delta$-slow solution.
We selected the appropriate stellar parameters of massive stars that are representative of each possible hydrodynamical solution and evaluated the velocity profile as function of the radial coordinate.
We found a significant impact of $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ in the radiation driven-wind of massive stars that are described by the fast solution. Due to the effect of a limb-darkened disk the mass loss rate increased in an amount of $\sim 10\%$ while the terminal velocity is reduced about the same factor. Therefore, the limb darkening effect should be considered always in the calculation of the hydrodynamics fast solution.
On the other hand, the influence of $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ on the $\Omega$-slow and $\delta$-slow solutions is minimal. The maximum difference obtained in the velocity profile computed with uniformly bright and limb-darkened disk radiation sources is less than 3 $km\,s^{-1}$ for the $\Omega$-slow solution, 7 $km\,s^{-1}$ for the $\delta$-slow solution and 1.5 $km\,s^{-1}$ for the case when both parameter $\delta$ and $\Omega$ are high (the $\Omega \delta$-slow solution). Therefore, the limb darkening effect is negligible when computing the wind parameters. However, rotational effects like the star’s oblateness should be considered, since it modifies the wind in the polar direction [see @ara11] being much faster than the spherical one. Moreover, the slow solutions predict even slower and denser flows than the spherical ones.
The influence of $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ on radiation driven winds can be interpreted in terms of the resulting velocity profile. The mayor differences between the uniformly bright and limb-darkened finite disk correction factors are in the region just above the stellar photosphere, as Figure \[fig1\] shows. In this region the velocity from all the models described in section \[results\] are small, however the value of the velocity gradient from the fast-solution is 5 to 10 times larger than the values from any slow-solution. Figure \[fig6\] shows the normalized velocity gradient $dw/du$ as function of $u$ for the different types of solutions. Is this dependence on the velocity gradient, specifically in the finite disk correction factor, that makes a significant difference in the terminal velocity and the mass loss rate [*[only]{}*]{} for the fast solution and not for the slow ones.
Concerning the WM-L relationship, the limb-darkened correction factor has no effects. The increase produced by the fast solution on $\dot{M}$ is compensated by a similar decrease of $v_{\infty}$. Considering the importance of having a theoretical WM-L relationship for B- and A- type supergiants the effect of the star’s oblateness and gravity-darkening should be explored, together with the calculation of the synthetic line spectrum in order to derive accurate wind parameters.
MC acknowledges financial support from Centro de Astrofísica de Valparaíso and from CONICYT, Departamento de Relaciones Internacionales “Programa de Cooperación Científica Internacional” CONICYT/MINCYT 2011-656. LC acknowledges financial support from the Agencia de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (BID 1728 OC/AR PICT 0885), from CONICET (PIP 0300), and the Programa de Incentivos G11/109 of the Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina. DR acknowledges financial support from CONICET (PIP 112200901000637).
Partial derivatives of $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}$ {#A}
==========================================
In order to find the location of the singular point, we need to evaluate the singularity condition given by eq. \[2.6\] and, then, impose the regularity condition given by eq. \[2.7\]. To perfom this calculation we need to know all the partial derivatives of $f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}\,(u,w,w')$; i.e., $\partial f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}/\partial u$, $\partial f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}/\partial w$ and $\partial f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}/\partial w'$.\
Defining the following auxiliary variables: $$\begin{aligned}
Z &=& w/w' \\
\lambda &=&u \,(u+Z)\end{aligned}$$ Thus, in terms of $\lambda$, the finite disk correction factor for a uniformly bright spherical star $f_{\mathrm{D}}$ reads, $$f_{\mathrm{D}}\,(\lambda)=\frac{1}{(1+\alpha)}\,\frac{1}{\lambda}\, \left[1-\left(1-\lambda
\right)^{\,(1+\alpha)} \right],$$ while the limb-darkened finite disk correction factor $f_{\mathrm{LD}}$ is: $$f_{\mathrm{LD}}\,(\lambda)=\frac{\left(1-\lambda\right)^{\alpha }\,
\left[\left(1-\lambda\right)^{-\alpha }+ \lambda\, (\alpha +1)
\,\, _2F_1\left(\frac{3}{2},-\alpha
,\frac{5}{2},\frac{\lambda }{\lambda
-1}\right)+\lambda -1\right]}{2\,\lambda\,(\alpha
+1)}$$ Defining now $e\,(\lambda)=\partial f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}\,(\lambda)/ \partial \lambda $, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
e\,(\lambda)& =& \frac{\left(1-\lambda\right)^{\alpha }}{4\,(\alpha +1)\,(\lambda -1)\, \lambda ^2} \times\, \left[ (2-(3 \alpha +5)\,\lambda )
\left(1-\lambda\right)^{-\alpha} +\right. \nonumber \\
& &\left. +2\, (\lambda -1)\,(\alpha \lambda+1)+(\alpha +1)\,\lambda\,(2 \alpha \lambda +3) \, {}_2F_1\left(\frac{3}{2},-\alpha
,\frac{5}{2},\frac{\lambda}{\lambda-1}\right) \right]\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, all the partial derivatives can be calculated using the chain rule, getting, $$e\,(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2\,u + w/w'} \,\frac{\partial f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}}{\partial
u} = \frac{w'}{u} \,\frac{\partial f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}}{\partial w}=-\frac{w^{\prime\,2}}{u\, w} \, \frac{\partial f_{\mathrm{\,LD}}}{\partial w^{\prime}}.$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'As reliance on power networks has increased over the last century, the risk of damage from geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) has become a concern to utilities. The current state of the art in GIC modelling requires significant geophysical modelling and a theoretically derived network response, but has limited empirical validation. In this work, we introduce a probabilistic engineering step between the measured geomagnetic field and GICs, without needing data about the power system topology or the ground conductivity profiles. The resulting empirical ensembles are used to analyse the TVA network (south-eastern USA) in terms of peak and cumulative exposure to 5 moderate to intense geomagnetic storms. Multiple nodes are ranked according to susceptibility and the measured response of the total TVA network is further calibrated to existing extreme value models. The probabilistic engineering step presented can complement present approaches, being particularly useful for risk assessment of existing transformers and power systems.'
author:
-
title: 'Probabilistic Analysis of Power Network Susceptibility to GICs [^1] '
---
Geomagnetically induced currents (GICs),\
empirical distributions, network risk modelling
Introduction
============
Geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) in power networks are driven by variation in the geomagnetic field (). This is the final link in a chain of coupled systems with their root in solar disturbances [@Albertson1974]. GIC modelling has two distinct steps, namely the geophysical step and the engineering step. The geophysical step aims to model the entire chain from Sun to ground conductivity and estimate the induced geoelectric field (E-field), which ultimately drives GICs. The engineering step uses the estimated E-field as input and models the network response, taking into account network specific factors such as topology and resistances, with transformer-level modelling being the state of the art [@Divett2018]. Recently, the geophysical step has been the subject of intense research in the space weather and geophysics communities, with strong focus on accurate E-field estimates based on detailed ground conductivity modelling [@Sun2019; @Lucas2019]. However, even with a very detailed and accurate E-field, the engineering step [@Gaunt2007; @NERC] remains challenging as many factors regarding the network response are not known or are over simplified.
The approach we describe in this work does away with the two-step process, empirically linking concurrent B-field and GIC measurements, implicitly absorbing all driving factors without making the assumptions required by analytical GIC modelling [@Lehtinen1985]. Such analytical modelling has attempted to model the geophysical step as accurately as possible but does not make provision for probability distributions or uncertainty in parameters, particularly in the engineering step. Previous probability based analysis has been confined to B-field or data, linked to GIC estimates purely through analytical modelling, and has focused mostly on extreme value analysis of possible GIC risk [@Thomson2011; @Lucas2019; @Pulkkinen2012] or hazard analysis [@Oughton2018]. Instead, a novel and practical method is used to analyse the susceptibility of a network to GICs by utilising (usually very limited) measured data sets in a way that provides probabilistic rather than exact estimates of the engineering step.
![TVA HV network map with the substations analysed indicated.[]{data-label="fig:TVA"}](TVA.png){width="3.4in"}
Measured GIC data used in this paper is from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) network (see Figure \[fig:TVA\]). Such typical mid-latitude networks are susceptible to GICs, as seen during the Halloween Storm of 2003 where there was limited damage in high-latitude regions but large accumulated transformer damage in mid-latitude southern African networks [@Gaunt2007].
The rest of the paper is laid out as follows: Section \[sec:factor\] describes the chain of events leading to GICs, and in Section \[sec:network\] we lay out our novel approach to GIC modelling, which results in probabilistic estimates for network parameters. In Section \[sec:analysis\], the data used is described and results of analysis in the TVA network during 5 geomagnetic storms is presented. Finally, in Section \[sec:discuss\] we discuss further implications of analysis in the TVA network and extrapolate exposure to extreme event scenarios.
Factor Chain Driving GICs {#sec:factor}
=========================
[![A simplified factor flow for GICs in mid-latitude networks.[]{data-label="fig:flow"}](flow_lite.png "fig:"){width="3.4in"}]{}
In Figure \[fig:flow\], the chain of events from solar activity to GIC is depicted, with emphasis on factors with large effects at mid-latitudes. Solar activity occurs in an 11-year [*solar cycle*]{}. During active periods, eruptions of plasma from the Sun known as coronal mass ejections (CMEs) expel plasma across space, impacting the near-Earth environment and causing geomagnetic storms. Geoeffectivity of plasma impacts are determined by the (i) position of the eruption on the solar disk, (ii) the conditions in the prevailing [*solar wind*]{}, and (iii) the [*‘solar wind-magnetosphere-ionosphere’ (SMI) coupling*]{}. If the near-Earth environment is still disturbed after a previous event, the effects from a follow-up event may be more intense than for otherwise quiet conditions. The [*B-field*]{} perturbations measured by mid-latitude observatories on the ground are due to the dynamics of near-Earth [*current systems*]{}. At mid-latitudes it is largely the east-west magnetospheric ring current that generates storm time perturbations [@deVilliers2017] for which the (or lower resolution Dst) index is a coarse proxy. Ground perturbations in the [*B-field*]{} induce an [*E-field*]{}, modulated by the [*frequency weighted ground conductivity*]{} of the region [@Oyedokun2019]. The induced [*E-field*]{} then drives low-frequency [*GICs*]{}, which are ultimately dependent on the wider [*network*]{} characteristics, often defined by network parameters. An alternative method of modelling GICs is to use a transfer function between the B-field and GIC, absorbing ground conductivity and network parameter effects [@Ingham2017].
In a probabilistic model of typical GIC exposure in a mid-latitude network, each link in the space physics chain could be assigned a probability distribution. For a coarse susceptibility estimate at mid-latitudes, the distribution is representative of the driving geomagnetic storms. Cumulative SYM-H has further been linked to derived cumulative E-field activity in bulk extreme value studies [@Lotz2017]. In reality, further fine adjustments affect the local E-field and resulting GICs. Ground inhomogeneities and the coastal effect enhance the E-field along a geophysical strike. Local time plays a role, with the response to storm sudden commencement (SSC) and geomagnetic storm peak being different in different local time sectors. SYM-H however merges all these effects into a single proxy that characterises geomagnetic storms and can be calibrated against.
Empirical Modelling of Network Factors {#sec:network}
======================================
After taking into account all the geophysical factors and deriving an E-field, the majority of current GIC modelling assumes a simplistic network model under dc driving [@Lehtinen1985]. Besides errors from the geophysical step propagating into this coarse approximation, the network also plays an active part in the GIC chain, with nodes influencing each other and even transformers influencing each other within nodes [@Divett2018]. Other factors include complex grounding, split driving in different transmission lines due to topology, quasi-ac driving and the general state of the system. Furthermore, there are medium-term temporal sensitivities as a network under stress from recent geomagnetic activity would have increased sensitivity to subsequent storms. This makes consecutive storms or moderate, but long duration events particularly dangerous.
GIC at a node at time $t$ can be modelled as, $$GIC(t)=\alpha E_x(t) + \beta E_y(t), \label{eq:gic}$$ with the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ network parameters having units of \[Akm/V\] [@Lehtinen1985]. These network parameters scale the northward ($E_x$) and eastward ($E_y$) components of the respectively, absorbing any errors in the geophysical modelling of the E-field and the network response. Assuming the E-field is perfectly aligned to the network, the absolute network parameter scaling would be $\sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta^2}$. Larger network parameters result in larger GICs for particular E-field components. A time series of simultaneous GIC and E-field measurements can be used to create an ensemble of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ estimates using pairwise combinations of linear equations represented by . The resulting parameter ensembles define the effective network response, taking into account the entire network, non-trivially weighted. The TVA measurements, coupled with derived data for the same region, provide a suitable dataset representative of a HV network under moderate GIC driving.
This approach differs to previous modelling that assumes a single network parameter value. Coupled with the representative SYM-H distribution, we now have a coarse framework for susceptibility at a node. In this paper, for each event a random set of time instances above the median GIC level was chosen to produce an ensemble with a million estimates. Due to all combinations being used, only around time instances are needed to produce the ensembles. Final estimates for nodal network parameters take the mean of multiple runs of different event ensembles, ensuring convergence. An example for the WEAK node in Mar 2015 is shown in Figure \[fig:ens\]. For each ensemble, the most probable estimate is associated with the central peak, defined by the median of the distribution due to the distribution’s heavy tails. The spread or variance in estimates is defined by the interquartile range and is driven by unmodelled aspects or errors in the modelling chain.
![WEAK network parameter ensembles for the March 2015 geomagnetic storm, with the interquartile range defining the spread. Lower panel shows the effective network directionality with a local corner resulting in a SSE/SE peak.[]{data-label="fig:ens"}](ens.png){width="3.38in"}
For each estimate of the network parameters, a further effective network directionality can be calculated, $$\theta = \arctan{(\alpha/\beta)}. \label{eq:dir}$$ The bearing $\theta$ takes into account the entire network and is the effective network direction that when aligned with the creates the largest GICs, i.e. it modulates the driving E-field. No matter how large the , if alignment is limited then so is the resulting GIC. An example of a directionality ensemble is shown for the WEAK node in Figure \[fig:ens\]. Here two incident lines at a local corner contribute to the majority of the effective directionality, but the entire network is taken into account [@Overbye2013]. Since GICs are measured by a Hall-effect sensor on the transformer neutral, polarity is dependent of the set-up.
Measured GIC Analysis in TVA Network {#sec:analysis}
====================================
GICs affect a network in two distinctly different ways. The impulsive effect from large peak GICs can result in thermal heating in transformers and possible voltage control maloperation. This effect has long been known and has been the topic of most GIC research and modelling, recently being the focus of the NERC benchmark for utility planning [@NERC]. A further effect not often taken into account is the cumulative damage from low-level driving, which can occur from GICs as low as 6 A [@Gaunt2007; @Moodley2017]. Over an 11-year solar cycle, such accumulated damage is guaranteed – ultimately resulting in accelerated ageing of transformers and premature failure. The state of the system, maintenance, age of existing equipment and previous GIC stress can all add to the impact of accumulated damage. In the scenario of a system operating above its capacity with excessive voltage control required, as is the case with loadshedding, susceptibility increases.
Data {#subsec:data}
----
GIC data from substations in the TVA network have been used for large scale empirical validation. Such network-wide analysis differs from both full-network modelling, typically with no measured validation of the modelling, and the small scale validation of measurements at single nodes often done. The 2 s cadence GIC data have been cleaned for transient spikes and diurnal variation due to temperature. B-field data sampled at 1 s cadence from the nearest geomagnetic observatory (Fredericksburg) were resampled to 2 s cadence for consistency and used to derive the E-field using a global average conductivity profile [@Sun2015]. A global profile is not perfect but reproduces the relative frequency scaling expected when inhomogeneities in the ground conductivity are averaged over the induction footprint of the network [@Sun2019], without any further modelling or measurement required. Such an approach is critical for utilities in regions with limited previous electromagnetic surveys. Any errors in the fine structure of the should be consistent across the network with relative susceptibility still accurate, and more importantly comparable.
Geomagnetic Events {#subsubsec:event}
------------------
To determine the baseline GIC exposure in the TVA network, 5 different geomagnetic storms have been analysed. The first 3 are CME driven storms and are impulsive in nature, associated with peak GIC values. The last 2 events are co-rotating interaction region (CIR) driven storms, not often regarded due to their low-level of peak GIC activity but which may nevertheless lead to cumulative exposure. The characteristics of the events in terms of impulsive peak GIC exposure are summarised in Table \[tab:events\], and cumulative sustained GIC exposure in Table \[tab:events\_cum\].
[m[.25-2-1.3333]{} |m[.16-2-1.3333]{} |m[.17-2-1.3333]{} |m[.16-2-1.3333]{} |m[.12-2-1.3333]{} |m[.13-2-1.3333]{}]{} **Date\
(Type)** & **SYM-H Min** & **SYM-H Min** & **E-field Max**\
$E_x$ *and*\
$E_y$ & **GIC Max** & **TVA Node**\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-13/09/2014\
(CME) & -97 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23:03 12/09 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
93.48\
**131.56** & 24.47 & PARA\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-22/03/2015\
(CME) & -234 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22:47 17/03 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
89.80\
**113.97** & 14.12 & MONT$^{\mathrm{a}}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22-29/06/2015\
(CME) & -208 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
04:24 23/06 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
74.16\
**168.14** & 16.04 & PARA\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
05-09/10/2015\
(CIR) & -124 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22:23 07/10 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**44.66**\
37.88 & 9.19 & PARA\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15-18/02/2016\
(CIR) & -60 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
00:28 18/02 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**36.08**\
35.14 & 8.03 & PARA\
\[tab:events\]
[m[.25-2-1.3333]{} |m[.14-2-1.3333]{} |m[.16-2-1.3333]{} |m[.19-2-1.3333]{} |m[.12-2-1.3333]{} |m[.14-2-1.3333]{}]{} **Date and\
Duration\
** & **SSC Onset** & **SYM-H RMS\
** & **E-field RMS**\
\
& **GIC\
RMS\
** & **TVA Node**\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-13/09/2014\
41.7 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15:53\
12/09 & 25.52 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.82\
**5.73** & 0.77 & PARA\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-22/03/2015\
138.6 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
04:45 17/03 & 71.65 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.54\
**6.03** & 1.34 & MONT$^{\mathrm{a}}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22-29/06/2015\
166.1 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18:33 22/06 & 68.38 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.83\
**6.03** & 1.83 & PARA\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
05-09/10/2015\
83.5 & N/A$^{\mathrm{b}}$ & 51.29 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.06\
**4.34** & 1.55 & PARA\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15-18/02/2016\
69 & N/A$^{\mathrm{b}}$ & 35.20 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**3.76**\
3.23 & 0.75 & PARA\
\
\[tab:events\_cum\]
The span of each storm is defined as the period from sudden impulse, when an interplanetary shock hits the magnetosphere, through to when the magnetosphere recovers to quiet time levels, i.e. when SYM-H recovers to greater than -20 nT after having reached a minimum value at the peak of the storm [@Lotz2017]. The cumulative value of SYM-H is taken as the minutely RMS of the storm to allow for comparisons between storms of different lengths. Multiplying the RMS by the duration gives an idea of the total exposure for a single storm. To avoid noise levels, the GIC and E-field RMS values are defined as the 2 s cadence RMS above the median level for each.
To contextualise the 5 geomagnetic events, a complimentary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) is defined using all geomagnetic storms with minimum SYM-H $<-50$ nT between 1981 and 2018, identified according to the algorithm described by [@Lotz2017]. Figure \[fig:symh\_rms\] shows the CCDF of SYM-H RMS. The 5 events analysed are indicated with vertical lines and their probabilities are listed in the legend. The probability associated with each event indicates the fraction of events (totalling 981 in the 38 year interval) with RMS SYM-H smaller than the event. For example, 0.15 (15%) of all events will be less intense than the weak cumulative Sep 2014 event, i.e. we expect about 0.85 or 241 events to be larger over the course of an average solar cycle, modulated by the peak occurrence at solar maximum and declining phase [@Echer2011]. For the most intense cumulative event, Jun 2015, roughly 11 larger events can be expected over a solar cycle. For the weakest event in terms of minimum reached, Feb 2016, we expect around 210 larger events to occur per solar cycle. For Mar 2015, the most intense impulsive event at -234 nT, we expect roughly 10 more intense events per solar cycle.
![Complimentary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of SYM-H RMS for all storms with minimum SYM-H$<-50$ nT for 3.5 solar cycles.[]{data-label="fig:symh_rms"}](symh.png){width="3.38in"}
Measured Results and Risks {#subsec:measured}
--------------------------
Using measured GIC data, the susceptibility of the various nodes in the TVA network can be ranked in terms of impulsive and cumulative exposure. In Figure \[fig:max\_stns\], the maximum measured GIC at each node is shown per storm, with the CME storms having larger peak GICs. PARA, a terminal north-south node, is the most susceptible, having the entire network southward act as a catchment area. Other local corner nodes such as WEAK and WCRK are also more affected. Adjacent nodes can also be associated with the larger GIC flows at terminal nodes, as seen at MONT and RCCN. When a series capacitor is present, a line is effectively removed. Network information is needed to confirm such cases in the TVA network.
The cumulative exposure seen in Figure \[fig:cul\_stns\], similarly shows PARA as the most susceptible node. Of interest is the difference in storm response, where the Sep 2014 storm is highly impulsive with large a peak GIC, the Jun 2015 storm has a larger cumulative effect. This may be due partly to a period of sustained long-period pulsation driving. Over all events, there is no clear or consistent pattern, suggesting the local network and the finer structure of a geomagnetic storm need to be taken into account. SYM-H identifies geomagnetic storms well, but no two storms are the same.
![Peak GIC measured in the TVA network for 5 geomagnetic storms.[]{data-label="fig:max_stns"}](gicmax_stns.png){width="3.38in"}
![Cumulative GIC exposure in the TVA network, as defined by the RMS of GIC above the median GIC level for each geomagnetic storm.[]{data-label="fig:cul_stns"}](gicrms_stns.png){width="3.38in"}
Ensemble Modelled Results and Risk Ranking {#subsec:ens}
------------------------------------------
In order to characterise the network in finer detail, the network parameter ensembles defined in Section \[sec:network\] are used. In order to minimise low-level noise at certain substations, the GIC and E-field data used for ensemble estimation (and trend fitting later in Figure \[fig:max\_rel\]) were resampled to 4 s cadence and only data above the median level used. The resulting network parameter scaling and effective directionality for each node given the event coverage is summarised in Table \[tab:results\].
[m[.17-2-1.3333]{} |m[.14-2-1.3333]{} |m[.14-2-1.3333]{} |m[.08-2-1.3333]{} |m[.17-2-1.3333]{} m[.17-2-1.3333]{} |m[.13-2-1.3333]{}]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Node$^{\mathrm{a}}$**\
(Risk & **Geog.\
Lat.** & **Geog.\
Lon.** & ***n***$^{\mathrm{b}}$ & & **Bearing**\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank) & & & & $\boldsymbol\alpha$ & $\boldsymbol\beta$ & $\boldsymbol\theta$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**PARA**\
(1.00) & 37.3$^\circ$& -87.0$^\circ$ & 4 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-241.05\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 254.66 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-8.72\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 383.88 & 182$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**WEAK**\
(0.50) & 36.3$^\circ$ & -88.8$^\circ$ & 4 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-94.69\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 117.44 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
73.27\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 146.45 & 142$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**MONT**\
(0.48) & 36.6$^\circ$ & -87.2$^\circ$ & 5 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-111.14\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 118.58 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
35.20\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 165.46 & 162$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**WCRK**\
(0.44) & 34.9$^\circ$ & -85.7$^\circ$ & 5 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
72.45\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 118.60 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
78.74\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 123.81 & 47$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
***BULL***\
(0.41) & 36.1$^\circ$ & -84.0$^\circ$ & 3 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-59.84\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 113.50 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-79.15\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 110.04 & 233$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**SHEL**\
(0.26) & 35.4$^\circ$ & -89.8$^\circ$ & 4 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-62.97\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 141.23 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.73\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 177.28 & 177$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**RCCN**\
(0.22) & 35.1$^\circ$ & -85.4$^\circ$ & 3 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-42.37\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 67.48 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-31.70\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 73.77 & 217$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
***BRAD***\
(0.19) & 35.1$^\circ$ & -84.9$^\circ$ & 5 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-44.54\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 62.52 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.95\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$85.13 & 169$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
***RFRD***\
(0.14) & 35.8$^\circ$ & -86.6$^\circ$ & 3 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.67\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 132.55 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-33.63\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 144.25 & 271$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
***EPNT***\
(0.12) & 34.2$^\circ$ & -86.8$^\circ$ & 1 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-25.79\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 37.46 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-14.35\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 52.88 & 209$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
***SULL***\
(0.09) & 36.4$^\circ$ & -82.3$^\circ$ & 4 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.22\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 82.64 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.17\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 85.25 & 0$^\circ$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
***SHVN***\
(0.01) & 35.0$^\circ$ & -90.1$^\circ$ & 4 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.80\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 184.68 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-3.00\
$\scriptscriptstyle\pm$ 184.24 & 301$^\circ$\
\
\
\[tab:results\]
In general terms, larger network parameters relate to larger susceptibility. PARA is the most susceptible node at around 241 Akm/V, with a defined risk rank of 1.0. This is twice as much as the next highest node, MONT, with a relative risk rank of 0.5. The ratio of the average network parameter spread and total network scaling gives an indication of the certainty of the estimate and complexity of the local network. WEAK has the most certainty in its network parameter ensemble, followed by BULL and WCRK. Italicised cases in Table \[tab:results\] indicate nodes that have multiple lines influencing GIC exposure. The network parameters choose the most efficient and representative of these contributions, but in the directionality ensemble multiple peaks are evident and a larger spread in the network parameters ensembles is expected. Typically, these nodes are at complex or interior parts of the network and the multiple paths allow GICs to dissipate to non-critical levels, minimising susceptibility as seen in the relative risk ranking.
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
From Tables \[tab:events\] and \[tab:events\_cum\], it is evident that apart from general GIC activity, the global SYM-H index is not always representative of the peak or cumulative GIC in a local network. A more local E-field is more appropriate for fine scale characterisation, as can be seen in the Sep 2014 event where the largest peak GIC ranks as smallest in terms of peak SYM-H, but largest in peak $E_x$ across events. Since PARA is a north-south effective node and the most susceptible in the TVA network, the large $E_x$ produces the peak GIC. More directly linked to SYM-H is the general east-west E-field tendency (modulated by local ground conductivity) of the ring current drivers in both impulsive and cumulative proxies. This difference between E-field components is particularly apparent in CME storms, when the ring current is most affected, with differences during CIR storms small in comparison.
Taking into account the ring current driving at mid-latitudes, with its most probable east-west E-field, risk is increased if the effective directionality of a node is east-west. From Table \[tab:results\], in the TVA network only RFRD is east-west. RFRD is an interior node with only a short transmission line and as such is low risk. WCRK and RCCN both have significant NE and SW contributions from the same part of the network and appear to link to the stronger east-west driving E-field during the Sep 2014 event, even though their network parameters are smaller than other nodes less affected during this event.
Making use of the empirical network parameters that absorb errors in the geophysical modelling and network assumptions, the GIC response at a node can be related to more general parameters. Specifically, the network parameters allow for the effective direction to be determined and the scaled effective E-field contributions to be defined, $$E_{\text{eff}}=\cos{(\theta)}E_x+\sin{(\theta)}E_y. \label{eq:eff}$$ Such a relation can be derived at a node for both peak and cumulative GIC and E-field exposure, as in Figure \[fig:max\_rel\].
![Linear trend between the peak and cumulative effective E-field and measured GIC at WCRK, which allows for extrapolation to other events.[]{data-label="fig:max_rel"}](rel.png){width="3.38in"}
The relation in both is linear, similar to the assumed linear network parameters that link E-field and GIC. Variance may arise from the maxima of the E-field components and GIC not occurring at the same time. At WCRK, Figure \[fig:max\_rel\] shows this trend is nevertheless consistent over all 5 events with the slopes of both cumulative and peak exposure relating to the absolute network scaling seen in Table \[tab:results\], i.e. $m\approx107$. The peak driving slope is larger than the RMS driving slope due to it only considering the largest contributions. Bulk analysis of more events will result in more accurate relations. In the case of a large deviation from the relation for an event, the most likely cause would be a network change such as line switching. A possible further cause may be a distinctly different structure of the geomagnetic storm. The Sep 2014 event is an example of such an outlier, with a particularly large impulsive peak and significantly smaller cumulative driving in comparison.
The relations between GIC and effective E-field being consistent, they can be used to extrapolate the local network exposure to existing extreme value analysis for the E-field in North America [@Lucas2019]. Similar analysis has been done using the time $dB/dt$ in New Zealand [@Rodger2017]. Using the 1-in-100 year E-field threshold of roughly 1 V/km estimated for the TVA region [@Lucas2019], Table \[tab:results\] can be interpreted as the resulting GIC in Amperes for the extreme E-field in the north and east directions respectively, with the peak exposure at the most susceptible node (PARA) being around 240 A. One step further is linking E-field to SYM-H [@Lotz2017] or its low-resolution twin, Dst [@Love2020], and calibrating the local network exposure to a longer and more global dataset. More GIC event coverage is needed to validate such bulk relations locally.
Besides the extreme value exposure, given a typical solar cycle there are specific nodes that are susceptible in the TVA network. The most susceptible node is PARA, followed by WCRK, MONT, WEAK and RCCN that have elevated risk. These local edge nodes should be taken into account given mitigation efforts, with other nodes having negligible exposure. Similar cumulative damage risk is seen at PARA, WEAK, MONT and WCRK, which should inform maintenance scheduling. Any maintenance or mitigation efforts should take into account peak periods of geomagnetic storm activity, expected at solar maximum and the declining phase of the solar cycle [@Echer2011]. During these periods the associated GIC driving is able to initiate or accelerate accumulated damage.
Although this paper has focussed on mid-latitudes, where the bulk of power networks lie, a similar probabilistic network parameter ensemble approach can be applied to the more geomagnetically complicated high-latitudes.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
The probabilistic approach presented in this work is able to inform network-wide geomagnetic risk analysis without the need for in-depth network information or complex ground conductivity modelling. Network parameter ensembles are derived using limited measured GIC and B-field data and form distributions, rather than typical transformer-level or extreme value modelling that use single value network parameters in the engineering step. Given the FERC directive for utilities to collect measured GIC data [@FERC], the approach employed is widely applicable. Nodal and network vulnerability can be identified and calibrated through a general E-field. The resulting calibration in the TVA network is extrapolated to extreme value E-fields and given a 1-in-100 year scenario, GICs of over 200 A at a single node and around 100 A at four others may be experienced. Using the empirical calibration of the engineering step, a probability distribution of GIC magnitude for an existing node can possibly be derived directly from a probability distribution of storm severity.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The authors acknowledge the Tennessee Valley Authority for measured GIC data. Geomagnetic field data were collected at Fredericksburg. We thank the USGS for supporting the operation of this geomagnetic observatory and INTERMAGNET for promoting high standards of magnetic observatory practice ([www.intermagnet.org](www.intermagnet.org)). The SYM-H index is provided by NASA/GSFC Space Physics Data Facility’s OMNIWeb service ([omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov](omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov)). SSC onsets are part of the calculated SC index, made available by Observatori de l’Ebre, Spain, from data collected at magnetic observatories. We thank the involved national institute and ISGI ([isgi.unistra.fr](isgi.unistra.fr)).
[18]{} V. Albertson, J. Thorson and S. Miske, “The Effects of Geomagnetic Storms on Electrical Power Systems”, *IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems*, PAS-93(4), pp. 1031–1044, 1974. T. Divett et al.,“[Transformer-Level Modeling of Geomagnetically Induced Currents in New Zealand’s South Island]{},” *Space Weather*, 16(6), pp.718–735, 2018. R. Sun and C. Balch, “Comparison Between 1-D and 3-D Geoelectric Field Methods to Calculate Geomagnetically Induced Currents: A Case Study”, *IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery*, 34(6), pp. 2163–2172, 2019. G. Lucas, J. J. Love, A. Kelbert, P. A. Bedrosian and E. J. Rigler, “A 100-year Geoelectric Hazard Analysis for the U.S. High-Voltage Power Grid”, *Space Weather*, 18(2), 2020. C. T. Gaunt and G. Coetzee, “Transformer failures in regions incorrectly considered to have low GIC-risk”, *2007 IEEE Lausanne Power Tech.*, pp. 807–812, 2007. NERC TPL-007-1: Establish requirements for Transmission system planned performance during geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) events. North American Reliability Corp., 2017. M. Lehtinen and R. J. Pirjola, “Currents produced in earthed conductor networks by geomagnetically-induced electric fields”, *Annales Geophysicae*, 3(4), pp. 479–484, 1985. A. W. P. Thomson, E. B. Dawson and S. J. Reay, “Quantifying extreme behavior in geomagnetic activity”, *Space Weather*, 9(10), pp. 1–12, 2011. A. Pulkkinen et al., “Generation of 100-year geomagnetically induced current scenarios”, *Space Weather*, 10(4), 2012. E. J. Oughton et al., “A Risk Assessment Framework for the Socioeconomic Impacts of Electricity Transmission Infrastructure Failure Due to Space Weather: An Application to the United Kingdom”, *Risk Analysis*, 39(5), pp. 1022–1043, 2019. J. S. de Villiers et al., “Influences of various magnetospheric and ionospheric current systems on geomagnetically induced currents around the world”, *Space Weather*, 15(2), pp. 403–417, 2017. D. T. O. Oyedokun, M. J. Heyns, P. J. Cilliers and C. T. Gaunt, “Frequency Components of Geomagnetically Induced Currents for Power System Modelling”, *2020 IEEE SAUPEC*, 2020. M. Ingham et al., “Assessment of GIC Based On Transfer Function Analysis”, *Space Weather*, 15(12), pp. 1615–1627, 2017. S. I. Lotz and D. W. Danskin, “[Extreme Value Analysis of Induced Geoelectric Field in South Africa]{},” *Space Weather*, 15(10), pp. 1347–1356, 2017. T. J. Overbye, K. S. Shetye, T. R. Hutchins, Q. Qiu and J. D. Weber, “[Power Grid Sensitivity Analysis of Geomagnetically Induced Currents]{},” *IEEE Transactions on Power Systems*, 28(4), pp. 4821–4828, 2013. N. Moodley and C. T. Gaunt, “Low Energy Degradation Triangle for power transformer health assessment”, *IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation*, 24(1), pp 639–646, 2017. J. Sun, A. Kelbert and G. D. Egbert, “[Ionospheric current source modeling and global geomagnetic induction using ground geomagnetic observatory data]{}”, *Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth*, 120(10), pp. 6771–6796, 2015. E. Echer, W. D. Gonzalez and B. T. Tsurutani, “Statistical studies of geomagnetic storms with peak Dst$\leq$-50nT from 1957 to 2008”, *Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics*, 73(11–12), 2011. C. J. Rodger et al., “Long-Term Geomagnetically Induced Current Observations From New Zealand: Peak Current Estimates for Extreme Geomagnetic Storms”, *Space Weather*, 15(11), pp. 1447–1460, 2017. J. J. Love, “Some Experiments in Extreme‐Value Statistical Modeling of Magnetic Superstorm Intensities”, *Space Weather*, 18(1), 2020. “Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Reliability Standard for Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events.” Order 830, Sep 2016. Washington DC.
[^1]: This work was supported in part by an Open Philanthropy Project grant.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we derive the first order approximate symmetries for the Harry Dym equation by the method of approximate transformation groups proposed by Baikov, Gaszizov and Ibragimov [@1], [@2]. Moreover, we investigate the structure of the Lie algebra of symmetries of the perturbed Harry Dym equation. We compute the one-dimensional optimal system of subalgeras as well as point out some approximately differential invarints with respect to the generators of Lie algebra and optimal system.'
author:
- 'Mehdi Nadjafikhah, Parastoo Kabi-Nejad'
title: Approximate symmetries of the Harry Dym equation
---
Introduction
============
The following nonlinear partial differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1}
u_t=-\frac{1}{2}u^3u_{xxx}.\end{aligned}$$ is known as the Harry Dym equation [@7]. This equation was obtained by Harry Dym and Martin Kruskal as an evolution equation solvable by a spectral problem based on the string equation instead of Schrödinger equation. This result was reported in [@9] and rediscovered independently in [@16], [@17]. The Harry Dym equation shares many of the properties typical of the soliton equations. It is a completely integrable equation which can be solved by inverse scattering transformation [@3], [@18], [@19]. It has a bi-Hamiltonian structure and an infinite number of conservation laws and infinitely many symmetries [@11], [@12].
In this paper, we analyze the perturbed Harry Dym equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:22}
u_t+\frac{1}{2}u^3u_{xxx}+\varepsilon u_x=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon$ is a small parameter, with a method which was first introduced by Baikov, Gazizov and Ibragimov [@1], [@2]. This method which is known as “approximate symmetry” is a combination of Lie group theory and perturbations. There is a second method which is also known as “approximate symmetry” due to Fushchich anf Shtelen [@6] and later followed by Euler et al [@4], [@5]. For a comparison of these two methods, we refer the interested reader to the papers [@13], [@15]. our paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we present some definitions and theorems in the theory of approximate symmetry. In section 3, we obtain the approximate symmetry of the perturbed Harry Dym equation. In section 4, we discuss on the structure of its Lie algebra. In section 5, we construct the one-dimensional optimal system of subalgebras. In section 6, we compute some approximately differential invarints with respect to the generators of Lie algebra and optimal system. In section 7, we summarize our results.
Notations and Definitions
=========================
In this section, we will provide the background definitions and results in approximate symmetry that will be used along this paper. Much of it is stated as in [@8]. If a function$f(x,\varepsilon)$ satisfies the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2}
\lim \dfrac{f(x,\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon^p}=0,\end{aligned}$$ it is written $f(x,\varepsilon) = o(\varepsilon^p)$ and f is said to be oforder less than $\varepsilon^p$. If $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3}
f(x,\varepsilon)-g(x,\varepsilon)=o(\varepsilon^p),\end{aligned}$$ the functions $f$ and $g$are said to be approximately equal (with an error $o(\varepsilon^p)$) and written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:4}
f(x,\varepsilon)=g(x,\varepsilon)+o(\varepsilon^p),\end{aligned}$$ or or, briefly $f\approx g$ when there is no ambiguity. The approximate equality defines an equivalence relation, and we join functions into equivalence classes by letting $f(x,\varepsilon)$ and $g(x,\varepsilon)$ to be members of the same class if and only if $f\approx g$. Given a function $f(x,\varepsilon)$, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:5}
f_o(x) +\varepsilon f_l(x) +\cdots+\varepsilon^p f_p(x)\end{aligned}$$ be the approximating polynomial of degree p in $\varepsilon$ obtained via the Taylor series expansion of $f(x,\varepsilon)$ in powers of $\varepsilon$ about $\varepsilon= 0$. Then any function $g\approx f$ (in particular, the function $f$ itself) has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:6}
g(x,\varepsilon)=f_o(x) +\varepsilon f_l(x) +\cdots+\varepsilon^p f_p(x)+o(\varepsilon^p).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently the expression (\[eq:5\]) is called a canonical representative of the equivalence class of functions containing $f$· Thus, the equivalence class of functions $g(x,\varepsilon) f(x,\varepsilon)$ is determined by the ordered set of $p+1$ functions $f_0(x), f_l(x),\cdots, f_p(x)$. In the theory of approximate transformation groups, one considers ordered sets of smooth vector-functions depending on $x$’s and a group parameter $a$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:7}
f_0(x,a), f_l(x,a),\cdots, f_p(x,a),\end{aligned}$$ with coordinates $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:8}
f_0^i(x,a), f_1^i(x,a), ... ,f_p^i(x,a),\,\, i= 1, ... ,n.\end{aligned}$$ Let us define the one-parameter family G of approximate transformations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:9}
\bar{x}^i \approx f_0^i(x,a)+\varepsilon f_1^i(x,a)+\cdots+\varepsilon^p f_p^i(x,a),\,\, i= 1,\cdots ,n\end{aligned}$$ of points $x = (x^1,\cdots,x^n )\in \mathbb{R}^n$ into points $\bar{x}= (\bar{x}^1,\cdots,\bar{x}^n)\in\mathbb{R}^n$ as the class of invertible transformations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:10}
\bar{x}= f(x,a,\epsilon),\end{aligned}$$ with vector-functions $f=(f^1,\cdots,f^n)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:11}
f^i(x,a,\epsilon)\approx f_0^i(x,a) + \epsilon f_1^i(x, a) +\cdots+\varepsilon^p f_p^i~(x,a),\,\, i = 1,\cdots ,n.\end{aligned}$$ Here $a$ is a real parameter, and the following condition is imposed: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:12}
f(x,0,\epsilon) \approx x.\end{aligned}$$
#### Definition
The set of transformations (\[eq:9\]) is called a one-parameter approximate transformation group if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:13}
f(f(x,a,\varepsilon),b,\epsilon) \approx f(x,a+b,\varepsilon)\end{aligned}$$ for all transformations (\[eq:10\]).
#### Definition
Let $G$ be a one-parameter approximate transformation group: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:14}
\bar{z}^i \approx f(z,a,\varepsilon) \equiv f_0^i(z,a)+\varepsilon f_1^i (z,a),\,\, i =1,\cdots,N.\end{aligned}$$ An approximate equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:15}
F(z,\varepsilon)\equiv F_0(z)+\varepsilon F_1(z)\approx 0\end{aligned}$$ is said to be approximately invariant with respect to $G$, or admits $G$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:16}
F(\bar{z},\varepsilon) \approx F(f(z,a,\varepsilon),\varepsilon)=o(\varepsilon)\end{aligned}$$ whenever $z = (z^l,\cdots,z^N)$ satisfies Eq. (\[eq:15\]). If $z = (x,u,u_{(1)},\cdots,u_{(k)})$ then (\[eq:15\]) becomes an approximate differential equation of order $k$, and $G$ is an approximate symmetry group of the differential equation.
#### Theorem
Eq. (\[eq:15\]) is approximately invariant under the approximate transformation group (\[eq:14\]) with the generator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:17}
X=X_0+\varepsilon X_1\equiv \xi_0^i(z)\frac{\partial}{\partial z^i}+\varepsilon \xi_1^i\frac{\partial}{\partial z^i},\end{aligned}$$ if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:18}
[X^{(k)}F(z,\varepsilon)]_{F \approx0}=o(\varepsilon),\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:19}
[X_0^{(k)}F_0(z)+\varepsilon(X_1^{(k)}F_0(z)+X_0^{(k)}F_1(z))]_{(2.5)}=o(\varepsilon).\end{aligned}$$ where $X^{(k)}$ is the prolongation of $X$ of order $k$. The operator (\[eq:17\]) satisfying Eq. (\[eq:19\]) is called an infinitesimal approximate symmetry of, or an approximate operator admitted by Eq. (\[eq:15\]). Accordingly, Eq. (\[eq:19\]) is termed the determining equation for approximate symmetries.
#### Theorem
If Eq. (\[eq:15\]) admits an approximate tramformation group with the generator $X=X_0+ \varepsilon X_1$, where $X_0\neq 0$, then the operator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:20}
X_0=\xi_0^i(z)\frac{\partial}{\partial z^i}\end{aligned}$$ is an exact symmetry ofthe equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:21}
F_0(z) =0.\end{aligned}$$
#### Definition
Eqs. (\[eq:21\]) and (\[eq:15\]) are termed an unperturbed equation and a perturbed equation, respectively. Under the conditions of Theorem 2.3, the operator $X_0$ is called a stable symmetry of the unperturbed equation (\[eq:21\]). The corresponding approximate symmetry generator $X=X_0+ \varepsilon X_1$ for the perturbed equation (\[eq:15\]) is called a deformation of the infinitesimal symmetry $X_0$ of Eq. (\[eq:21\]) caused by the perturbation $\varepsilon F_1(z)$. In particular, if the most general symmetry Lie algebra of Eq. (\[eq:21\]) is stable, we say that the perturbed equation (\[eq:15\]) inherits the symmetries of the unperturbed equation.
Approximate symmetries of the perturbed Harry Dym equation
==========================================================
Consider the perturbed Harry Dym equation $$\begin{aligned}
u_t+\frac{1}{2}u^3u_{xxx}+\varepsilon u_x=0.\end{aligned}$$ By applying the method of approximate transformation groups, we provide the infinitesimal approximate symmetries (\[eq:17\]) for the perturbed Harry Dym equation (\[eq:22\]).
Exact symmetries
----------------
Let us consider the approximate group generators in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:23}
X =X_0 +\varepsilon X_1 = (\xi_0+\varepsilon\xi_1)\frac{\partial}{\partial x} +(\tau_0+\varepsilon\tau_1)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+
(\phi_0+\varepsilon\phi_1)\frac{\partial}{\partial u} \end{aligned}$$ where $r\xi_i, \tau_i$ and $\phi_i$ for $i=0,1$ are unknown functions of$x, t$ and $u$. Solving the determining equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:24}
X_0^{(3)}(u_t-\frac{1}{2}u^3u_{xxx})\mid_{u_t-\frac{1}{2}u^3u_{xxx}=0}=0,\end{aligned}$$ for the exact symmetries $X_0$ of the unperturbed equation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:25}
\xi_0&=&(A_1+A_2x+\frac{A_3}{2}x^2),\nonumber \\
\tau_0&=&(A_4+3A_5t),\\
\phi_0&=&(A_2-\frac{1}{3A_5}+xA_3)u,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $A_1 ,\cdots, A_5$ are arbitrary constants. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:26}
X_0=(A_1+A_2x+\frac{A_3}{2}x^2)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+(A_4+3A_5t)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+(A_2-\frac{1}{3A_5}+xA_3)u)\frac{\partial}{\partial u}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the unperturbed Harry Dym equation, admits the five-dimensional Lie algebra with the basis $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:27}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle X_0^1=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle X_0^2=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle X_0^3=x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+u\frac{\partial}{\partial u},
\end{array} \qquad
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle X_0^4=3t\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-u\frac{\partial}{\partial u}, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle X_0^5=2x^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+xu\frac{\partial}{\partial u}.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
Approximate symmetries
----------------------
At first, we need to determine the auxiliary finction $H$ by vitue of Eqs. (\[eq:18\]), (\[eq:19\]) and (\[eq:15\]), i.e., by the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:28}
H=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}[X_0^{(k)}(F_0(z)+\varepsilon F_1(z))\mid_{F_0(z)+\varepsilon F_1(z)=0}]\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the expression (\[eq:26\]) of the generator $X_0$ into Eq. (\[eq:28\]) we obtain the auxiliary function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:29}
H=u_x(A_5-A_2)+A_3(u-xu_x)\end{aligned}$$ Now, calculate the operators $X_1$ by solving the inhomogeneous determining equation for deformations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:30}
X_1^{(k)} F_0(z)\mid_{F_0(z)=0}+H=0.\end{aligned}$$ So, the above determinig equation for this equation is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:31}
X_1^{(3)}(u_t+\frac{1}{2}u^3u_{xxx})\mid_{u_t+\frac{1}{2}u^3u_{xxx}=0}+u_x(A_5-A_2)+A_3(u-xu_x)=0, \end{aligned}$$ solving the determining equation yields, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:32}
\xi_1&=&(A_5-A_2)t-A_3xt+C_4x-C_5+\frac{C_3}{2}x^2, \nonumber \\
\tau_1&=&(C_1t+C_2), \\
\phi_1&=&(-A_3t+C_4+C_3x+\frac{C_1}{3})u, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $C_1 ,\cdots, C_5$ are arbitrary constants.
Thus, we derive the following approximate symmetries of the perturvbed Harry Dym equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:33}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mathbf{v_1}=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_2=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_3=x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+u\frac{\partial}{\partial u},\\[2mm]
\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_4=3t\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-u\frac{\partial}{\partial u},
\end{array} \qquad
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_5=2x^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+xu\frac{\partial}{\partial u},\\[2mm]
\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_6=\varepsilon\frac{\partial}{\partial x}, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_7=\varepsilon\frac{\partial}{\partial t}, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_8=\varepsilon (x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+u\frac{\partial}{\partial u}),
\end{array} \qquad
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_9=\varepsilon(3t\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-u\frac{\partial}{\partial u}), \\[2mm]
\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_{10}=\varepsilon(2x^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+xu\frac{\partial}{\partial u}).
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ The following table of commutators, evaluated in the first-order of precision, shows that the operators (\[eq:33\]) span an ten-dimensional approximate Lie algebra , and hence generate an ten-parameter approximate transformations group.
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{c|cccccccccc} &\mathbf{v_1}&\mathbf{v}_2&\mathbf{v}_3&\mathbf{v}_4&\mathbf{v}_5&\mathbf{v}_6&\mathbf{v}_7&\mathbf{v}_8&\mathbf{v}_9&\mathbf{v}_{10}\\\hline\ &&&&&& \\[-3mm]
\mathbf{v_1}&0 &0 &\mathbf{v_1} &0 &2\mathbf{v}_3 &0 &0 &\mathbf{v}_6 &0 &2\mathbf{v}_8\\
\mathbf{v}_2&0 &0 &0 &12\mathbf{v}_2 &0 &0 &0 &0 &3\mathbf{v}_7 &0\\
\mathbf{v}_3&-\mathbf{v}_1 &0 &0 &0 &\mathbf{v}_5 &-\mathbf{v}_6 &0 &0 &0 &\mathbf{v}_{10} \\
\mathbf{v}_4&0 &-12\mathbf{v}_2 &0 &0 &0 &0 &-3\mathbf{v}_7 &0 &0 &0\\
\mathbf{v}_5&-2\mathbf{v}_3 &0 &-\mathbf{v}_5 &0 &0 &-2\mathbf{v}_8 &0 &-\mathbf{v}_{10} &0 &0\\
\mathbf{v}_6&0 &0 &\mathbf{v}_6 &0 &2\mathbf{v}_8 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0\\
\mathbf{v}_7&0 &0 &0 &3\mathbf{v}_7 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 \\
\mathbf{v}_8&-\mathbf{v}_6 &0 &0 &0 &\mathbf{v}_{10} &0 &0 &0 &0 &0\\
\mathbf{v}_9&0 &-3\mathbf{v}_7 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0\\
\mathbf{v}_{10}&-2\mathbf{v}_8 &0 &-\mathbf{v}_{10} &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
#### Remark.
Equations (\[eq:33\]) show that all symmetries (\[eq:27\]) of Eq. (\[eq:1\]) are stable. Hence, the perturbed equation (\[eq:22\]) inherits the symmetries of the unperturbed equation (\[eq:1\]).
The structure of the Lie algebra of symmetries
==============================================
In this section, we determine the structure of the Lie algebra of symmetries of the perturbed Harry Dym equation. The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is non-solvable, since $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:34}
\mathfrak{g}^{(1)}&=&[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]=\mathrm{Span}_\mathbb{R}\{\mathbf{v}_1, \mathbf{v}_2, \mathbf{v}_3, \mathbf{v}_5,
\mathbf{v}_6,\mathbf{v}_7, \mathbf{v}_8,\mathbf{v}_{10}\}\nonumber\\
\mathfrak{g}^{(2)}&=&[\mathfrak{g}^{(1)},\mathfrak{g}^{(1)}]=\mathrm{Span}_\mathbb{R}\{\mathbf{v}_1, \mathbf{v}_3, \mathbf{v}_5,
\mathbf{v}_6, \mathbf{v}_8,\mathbf{v}_{10}\}\\
\mathfrak{g}^{(3)}&=&[\mathfrak{g}^{(2)},\mathfrak{g}^{(2)}]=\mathfrak{g}^{(2)}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a Levi decomposition as the following semi-direct product $\mathfrak{g}=r\propto s$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:35}
r=\mathrm{Span}_\mathbb{R}\{\mathbf{v}_2, \mathbf{v}_4, \mathbf{v}_6, \mathbf{v}_7, \mathbf{v}_8, \mathbf{v}_9, \mathbf{v}_{10}\}\end{aligned}$$ is the radical of $\mathfrak{g}$ (the largest solvable ideal contained in $\mathfrak{g}$) and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:36}
s=\mathrm{Span}_\mathbb{R}\{\mathbf{v}_1, \mathbf{v}_3, \mathbf{v}_5\}\end{aligned}$$ is a semi-simple subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}$.
The radical $r$ is solvable with the following chain of ideals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:37}
r^{(1)}\supset r^{(2)}\supset r^{(3)}=\{0\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:38}
r^{(1)}&=&\mathrm{Span}_\mathbb{R}\{\mathbf{v}_2, \mathbf{v}_4, \mathbf{v}_6, \mathbf{v}_7, \mathbf{v}_8, \mathbf{v}_9, \mathbf{v}_{10}\}, \nonumber \\
r^{(2)}&=&\mathrm{Span}_\mathbb{R}\{\mathbf{v}_2,\mathbf{v}_7\}.\end{aligned}$$ The semi-simple subalgebra $s$ of $\mathfrak{g}$ is isomorphic to the Lie algebra $A_{3,8}$ of the classification of three dimensional Lie algebras in [@14], by the following isomorphism. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:39}
\mathfrak{T}:\{\mathbf{v}_1,\mathbf{v}_3, \mathbf{v}_5 \}\rightarrow \{\mathbf{v}_1, -\mathbf{v}_2, -\mathbf{v}_3\}\end{aligned}$$
Optimal system for perturbed Harry Dym equation
===============================================
#### Definition
Let $G$ be a Lie group. An optimal system of $s$-parameter subgroups is a list of conjugacy inequivalent $s$-parameter subgroups with the property that any other subgroup is conjugate to precisely one subgroup in the list. Similarly, a list of $s$-parameter subalgebras forms an optimal system if every $s$-parameter subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}$ is equivalent to a unique member of the list under some element of the adjoint representation: $ \tilde{\mathfrak{h}}=\mathrm{ Ad} g(\mathfrak{h})),\, g\in G$.
#### Proposition
Let $H$ and $\tilde{H}$ be connected, $s$-dimensional Lie subgroups of the Lie group $G$ with corresponding Lie subalgebras $\mathfrak{h}$ and $\tilde{\mathfrak{h}}$ of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of $G$. Then $\tilde{H} = gHg^{-1}$ are conjugate subgroups if and only if $\tilde{\mathfrak{h}} =\mathrm{Ad}g(\mathfrak{h}) $are conjugate subalgebras.(Proposition 3.7 of [@12])
Actually, the proposition says that the problem of finding an optimal system of subgroups is equivalent to that of finding an optimal system of subalgebras. For one-dimensional subalgebras, this classification problem is essentially the same as the problem of classifying the orbits of the adjoint representation, since each one-dimensional subalgebra is determined by a nonzero vector in $\mathfrak{g}$. To compute the adjoint representation we use the Lie series $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:40}
\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(\mu \mathbf{v}_i))\mathbf{v}_j=\mathbf{v}_j-\mu[\mathbf{v}_i,\mathbf{v}_j]+\frac{\mu^2}{2}
[[\mathbf{v}_i,[\mathbf{v}_i,\mathbf{v}_j]]-\cdots.\end{aligned}$$ where $[\mathbf{v}_i,\mathbf{v}_j], \, i,j=1,\cdots, 10$ is the commutator for the Lie algebra and $\mu$ is a parameter. In this manner, we construct the table with the $(i, j)$-th entry indicating $\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(\mu \mathbf{v}_i))\mathbf{v}_j$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{c|cccccccccc}\mathrm{Ad}
&\mathbf{v}_1&\mathbf{v}_2&\mathbf{v}_3&\mathbf{v}_4&\mathbf{v}_5 \\\hline\ &&&&&& \\[-3mm]
\mathbf{v}_1 & \mathbf{v}_1 & \mathbf{v}_2 &\mathbf{v}_3-\mu \mathbf{v}_1 &\mathbf{v}_4 &\mathbf{v}_5-2\mu\mathbf{v}_3+\mu^2\mathbf{v}_1 \\
\mathbf{v}_2 & \mathbf{v}_1 &\mathbf{v}_2 &\mathbf{v}_3 &\mathbf{v}_4-12\mu \mathbf{v}_2 &\mathbf{v}_5 \\
\mathbf{v}_3 & e^\mu\mathbf{v}_1 & \mathbf{v}_2 &\mathbf{v}_3 &\mathbf{v}_4 &e^{-\mu}\mathbf{v}_5 \\
\mathbf{v}_4 & \mathbf{v}_1 &e^{12\mu}\mathbf{v}_2 &\mathbf{v}_3 &\mathbf{v}_4 &\mathbf{v}_5 \\
\mathbf{v}_5&\mathbf{v}_1+2\mu \mathbf{v}_3+\mu^2 \mathbf{v}_5&\mathbf{v}_2 &\mathbf{v}_3+\mu \mathbf{v}_5 &\mathbf{v}_4 &\mathbf{v}_5 \\
\mathbf{v}_6& \mathbf{v}_1 &\mathbf{v}_2 &\mathbf{v}_3-\mu \mathbf{v}_6 &\mathbf{v}_4 &\mathbf{v}_5-2\mu\mathbf{v}_8 \\
\mathbf{v}_7&\mathbf{v}_1 &\mathbf{v}_2 &\mathbf{v}_3 &\mathbf{v}_4-3\mu\mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_5 \\
\mathbf{v}_8&\mathbf{v}_1+\mu\mathbf{v}_6 &\mathbf{v}_2 &\mathbf{v}_3 &\mathbf{v}_4 &\mathbf{v}_5-\mu\mathbf{v}_{10} \\
\mathbf{v}_9&\mathbf{v}_1 &\mathbf{v}_2+3\mu\mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_3 &\mathbf{v}_4 &\mathbf{v}_5 \\
\mathbf{v}_{10}&\mathbf{v}_1+2\mu\mathbf{v}_8& \mathbf{v}_2& \mathbf{v}_3+\mu\mathbf{v}_{10}& \mathbf{v}_4& \mathbf{v}_5
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{c|cccccccccc}\mathrm{Ad}
&\mathbf{v}_6 & \mathbf{v}_7&\mathbf{v}_8&\mathbf{v}_9&\mathbf{v}_{10}\\\hline\ &&&&&& \\[-3mm]
\mathbf{v}_1 & \mathbf{v}_6 & \mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_8-\mu \mathbf{v}_6 &\mathbf{v}_9 &\mathbf{v}_{10}-2\mu \mathbf{v}_8+\mu^2 \mathbf{v}_6\\
\mathbf{v}_2 & \mathbf{v}_6 &\mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_8 &\mathbf{v}_9-3\mu \mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_{10}\\
\mathbf{v}_3 & e^\mu\mathbf{v}_6 &\mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_8 &\mathbf{v}_9 &e^{-\mu}\mathbf{v}_{10} \\
\mathbf{v}_4 & \mathbf{v}_6 &e^{3\mu}\mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_8 &\mathbf{v}_9 &\mathbf{v}_{10}\\
\mathbf{v}_5 & \mathbf{v}_6+2\mu \mathbf{v}_8 +\mu^2 \mathbf{v}_{10} &\mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_8+\mu+\mathbf{v}_{10} &\mathbf{v}_9 &\mathbf{v}_{10}\\
\mathbf{v}_6 & \mathbf{v}_6 &\mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_8 &\mathbf{v}_9 &\mathbf{v}_{10}\\
\mathbf{v}_7 & \mathbf{v}_6 &\mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_8 &\mathbf{v}_9 &\mathbf{v}_{10} \\
\mathbf{v}_8 & \mathbf{v}_6 &\mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_8 &\mathbf{v}_9 &\mathbf{v}_{10}\\
\mathbf{v}_9 & \mathbf{v}_6 &\mathbf{v}_7 &\mathbf{v}_8 &\mathbf{v}_9 &\mathbf{v}_{10}\\
\mathbf{v}_{10} & \mathbf{v}_6& \mathbf{v}_7& \mathbf{v}_8& \mathbf{v}_9& \mathbf{v}_{10}
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
#### Theorem
An optimal system of one-dimensional approximate Lie algebras of the perturbed Harry Dym equation is provided by
$$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-17mm}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{v}^1=\mathbf{v}_8, \\
\mathbf{v}^2=\mathbf{v}_7+a\mathbf{v}_8, \\
\mathbf{v}^3=\mathbf{v}_6+\mathbf{v}_8,
\end{array} \qquad
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{v}^4=\mathbf{v}_6-\mathbf{v}_7+\mathbf{v}_8, \\
\mathbf{v}^5=\mathbf{v}_6+\mathbf{v}_7+\mathbf{v}_8,\\
\mathbf{v}^6=\mathbf{v}_2+a\mathbf{v}_8,
\end{array} \qquad
\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{v}^7=\mathbf{v}_2-\mathbf{v}_6+a\mathbf{v}_8, \\
\mathbf{v}^8=\mathbf{v}_2+\mathbf{v}_6+a\mathbf{v}_8, \\
\mathbf{v}^9=\mathbf{v}_1+a\mathbf{v}_2+b\mathbf{v}_7
\end{array} \\
\mathbf{v}^{10}\!\!&=&\!\!a\mathbf{v}_1+b\mathbf{v}_2+\mathbf{v}_5+c\mathbf{v}_6+d\mathbf{v}_7,\\
\mathbf{v}^{11}\!\!&=&\!\!a\mathbf{v}_1+b\mathbf{v}_2+\mathbf{v}_3+c\mathbf{v}_5+d\mathbf{v}_7+e\mathbf{v}_8,\nonumber\\
\mathbf{v}^{12}\!\!&=&\!\!a\mathbf{v}_1+b\mathbf{v}_3+\mathbf{v}_4+c\mathbf{v}_5+d\mathbf{v}_6+e\mathbf{v}_8,\nonumber\\
\mathbf{v}^{13}\!\!&=&\!\!a\mathbf{v}_1+b\mathbf{v}_3+c\mathbf{v}_4+d\mathbf{v}_5+e\mathbf{v}_6+f\mathbf{v}_8+\mathbf{v}_9,\nonumber\\
\mathbf{v}^{14}\!\!&=&\!\!a\mathbf{v}_1-\mathbf{v}_2+b\mathbf{v}_3+c\mathbf{v}_4+d\mathbf{v}_5+e\mathbf{v}_6+f\mathbf{v}_8+\mathbf{v}_9,\nonumber\\
\mathbf{v}^{15}\!\!&=&\!\!a\mathbf{v}_1+\mathbf{v}_2+b\mathbf{v}_3+c\mathbf{v}_4+d\mathbf{v}_5+e\mathbf{v}_6+f\mathbf{v}_8+\mathbf{v}_9,\nonumber\\
\mathbf{v}^{16}\!\!&=&\!\!a\mathbf{v}_1+\mathbf{v}_2+b\mathbf{v}_3+c\mathbf{v}_4+d\mathbf{v}_5+e\mathbf{v}_6+f\mathbf{v}_8+\mathbf{v}_9.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Proof. Consider the approximate symmetry algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of the unperturbed Harry Dym equation, whose adjoint representation was determined in the table 2. Given a nonzero vector $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}=\sum_{i=1}^{10} a_i\mathbf{v_i},\end{aligned}$$ our task is to simplify as many of the coefficients ai as possible through judicious applications of adjoint maps to $\mathbf{v}$.
Suppose first that $a_{10}\neq 0$. Scaling $\mathbf{v}$ if necessary, we can assume that $a_{10} = 1$. Referring to table (3.24), if we act on such a $\mathbf{v}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}'&=&\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a_8}{2} \mathbf{v}_8))\mathbf{v}\\&=&
a_1^{'} \mathbf{v}_1+a_2\mathbf{v}_2+a_3^{'} \mathbf{v}_3+a_4\mathbf{v}_4+a_5\mathbf{v}_5+a_6^{'} \mathbf{v}_6+a_7\mathbf{v}_7+a_9\mathbf{v}_9+\mathbf{v}_{10},\end{aligned}$$ we can make the coefficient of $a_8$ vanish. The remaining one-dimensional subalgebras are spanned by vectors of the above form with $a_{10}=0$. If $a_9\neq 0$, we scale to make $a_9=1$, and then act on $\mathbf{v}$ to cancel the coefficient of $a_7$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}'&=&\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a_7}{3} \mathbf{v}_2))\mathbf{v}\\&=&
a_1^{'} \mathbf{v}_1+a_2\mathbf{v}_2+a_3^{'} \mathbf{v}_3+a_4\mathbf{v}_4+a_5\mathbf{v}_5+a_6\mathbf{v}_6+a_8\mathbf{v}_8+\mathbf{v}_9.\end{aligned}$$ We can further act on $\mathbf{v}'$ by the group generated by $\mathbf{v}_4$; this has the net effect of scaling the coefficients of $\mathbf{v}_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}''&=&\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(\mu \mathbf{v}_4))\mathbf{v}\\&=& a_1 \mathbf{v}_1+ e^{12\mu}a_2 \mathbf{v}_2+
a_3 \mathbf{v}_3+a_4 \mathbf{v}_4+a_5 \mathbf{v}_5+a_6\mathbf{v}_6+a_8 \mathbf{v}_8+\mathbf{v}_9.\end{aligned}$$ So, depending on the sign of $a_2$, we can make the coefficient of $\mathbf{v}_2$ either $+1, -1$ or $0$. If $a_{10}=a_9=0$ and $a_4\neq 0$, we scale to make $a_4=1$. So, the non-zero vector $ \mathbf{v}$ is equivalent to $ \mathbf{v}'$ under adjoint maps: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}'&=&\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a_7}{3} \mathbf{v}_7))\circ\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a_2}{12} \mathbf{v}_2))\mathbf{v}\\&=&
a_1\mathbf{v}_1+a_3\mathbf{v}_3+\mathbf{v}_4+a_5\mathbf{v}_5+a_6\mathbf{v}_6+a_8\mathbf{v}_8\end{aligned}$$ If $a_{10}=a_9=a_4=0$ and $a_3\neq 0$, by scaling $\mathbf{v}$, we can assume that $a_3=1$. Referring to the table, if we act on such a $\mathbf{v}$ by the following adjoint map, we can arrange that the coefficients of $a_6$ vanish. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}'&=&\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(a_6\mathbf{v}_6))\mathbf{v}\\&=&
a_1 \mathbf{v}_1+a_2 \mathbf{v}_2+\mathbf{v}_3+a_5\mathbf{v}_5+a_6 \mathbf{v}_6+a_7\mathbf{v}_7+a_8^{'}\mathbf{v}_8.\end{aligned}$$ If $a_{10}=a_9=a_4=a_3=0$ and $a_5\neq 0$, we scale to make $a_5=1$. Thus, $\mathbf{v}$ is equivalent to $\mathbf{v}'$ under the adjoint representations: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}'&=&\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a_8}{2} \mathbf{v}_6))\mathbf{v}\\&=&
a_1\mathbf{v}_1+a_2\mathbf{v}_2+\mathbf{v}_5+a_6\mathbf{v}_6+a_7\mathbf{v}_7.\end{aligned}$$ If $a_{10}=a_9=a_4=a_3=a_5=0$ and $a_1\neq 0$, we scale to make $a_1=1$. So, we can make the coefficients of $a_6, a_8$ zero by using the following adjoint maps: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}'&=&\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(-\frac{a_8}{2}\mathbf{v}_{10}))\circ\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(-a_6\mathbf{v}_8))\mathbf{v}\\
&=&\mathbf{v}_1+a_2\mathbf{v}_2+a_7\mathbf{v}_7.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ If $a_{10}=a_9=a_4=a_3=a_5=a_1=0$ and $a_2\neq 0$, by scaling $\mathbf{v}$, we can assume that $a_2=1$. Therefore, we can arrange that the coefficients of $a_7$ vanish by simplifying the non-zero vector $\mathbf{v}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}'&=&\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(-\frac{a_7}{3}\mathbf{v}_9))\mathbf{v}\\
&=&\mathbf{v}_2+a_6\mathbf{v}_6+a_8\mathbf{v}_8,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We can further act on $\mathbf{v}'$ by the group generated by $\mathbf{v}_3$; $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}''&=&\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(\mu \mathbf{v}_3)\mathbf{v}\\
&=&\mathbf{v}_2+ e^{\mu}a_6 \mathbf{v}_6+
a_8\mathbf{v}_8.\end{aligned}$$ So, depending on the sign of $a_6$, we can make the coefficient of $\mathbf{v}_6$ either $+1, -1$ or $0$. If $a_{10}=a_9=a_4=a_3=a_5=a_1=a_2=0$ and $a_6\neq 0$, by scaling $\mathbf{v}$, we can assume that $a_6=1$. We can act on such a $\mathbf{v}$ by the group generated by $\mathbf{v}_4$; So, depending on the sign of $a_7$, we can make the coefficient of $\mathbf{v}_7$ either $+1, -1$ or $0$. The remaining cases $a_{10}=a_9=a_4=a_3=a_5=a_2=a_1=a_3=0$ and $a_7\neq 0$, no further simplifications are possible. The last remaining cace occurs when $a_{10}=a_9=a_4=a_3=a_5=a_1=a_2=a_4=a_6=a_7=0$ and $a_8\neq 0$, for which our earlier simplifications were unnecessary. Since, the only remaining vectors are the multiples of $\mathbf{v}_8$, on which the adjoint representation acts trivially.
Approximately differential invariants for the perturbed Harry Dym equation
==========================================================================
In this section, we compute some approximately differential invariants of the perturbed Harry Dym equation with respect to the optimal system. Consider the operator $\mathbf{v}^2$. To determine the independent invariants $I$, we need to solve the first order partial differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:41}
(\varepsilon \frac{\partial}{\partial t}+a\varepsilon x \frac{\partial}{\partial x}+a\varepsilon u \frac{\partial}{\partial u})(I(x,t,u))=0,\end{aligned}$$ that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:42}
\varepsilon \frac{\partial I}{\partial t}+a\varepsilon x \frac{\partial I}{\partial x}+a\varepsilon u \frac{\partial I}{\partial u}=0,\end{aligned}$$ which is a first order homogeneous PDE. The solution can be found by integrating the corresponding characteristic system of ordinary differential equation, which is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:43}
\frac{d x}{a\varepsilon x}= \frac{d t}{\varepsilon}=\frac{d u}{a\varepsilon u}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the independent approximately differntial invariants are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:44}
y=\frac{u}{x}, \quad v=\frac{\ln x-at}{a}.\end{aligned}$$ In this manner, we investigate some independent approximately differential invariants with respect to the optimal system which are listed in Table 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_1 $ $ \displaystyle t, u$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_2 $ $ \displaystyle x,u$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_3 $ $ \displaystyle t, \frac{u}{x}$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_4 $ $ \displaystyle x, ut^{1/3}$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_5$ $ \displaystyle t, \frac{u}{x^2}$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_7+a\mathbf{v}_8 $ $ \displaystyle -\frac{\ln x}{a}+t, \frac{u}{x}$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_6+\mathbf{v}_8$ $ \displaystyle t, \frac{u}{x+1}$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_6-\mathbf{v}_7+\mathbf{v}_8 $ $ \displaystyle \ln(x+1)+t, \frac{u}{x+1}$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_6+\mathbf{v}_7+\mathbf{v}_8 $ $ \displaystyle -\ln(x+1)+t, \frac{u}{x+1}$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_2+a\mathbf{v}_8 $ $ \displaystyle -\frac{\ln x}{a\varepsilon}+t,\frac{u}{x}$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_2-\mathbf{v}_6+a\mathbf{v}_8 $ $ \displaystyle -\frac{\ln (ax-1)}{a\varepsilon}+t, \frac{u}{ax-1}$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_2+\mathbf{v}_6+a\mathbf{v}_8 $ $ \displaystyle -\frac{\ln (ax+1)}{a\varepsilon}+t, \frac{u}{ax+1}$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle \mathbf{v}_1+a\mathbf{v}_2+b\mathbf{v}_7 $ $ \displaystyle -b\varepsilon x-a\varepsilon+t, u$
\[2mm\] $\displaystyle a\mathbf{v}_1+ b\mathbf{v}_2+ \mathbf{v}_5+ c\mathbf{v}_6+ d\mathbf{v}_7$ $\displaystyle \frac{-d \varepsilon-b}{\sqrt{c\varepsilon +a}}\arctan\Big(\frac{x}{\sqrt{c\varepsilon +a}}\Big)+t, \frac{u}{x^2+c\varepsilon+a}$
\[4mm\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Approximately differential invariants for the perturbed Harry Dym equation
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we investigate the approximate symmetry of the perturbed Harry Dym equation and discuss on the structure of its Lie algebra. Moreover, we compute optimal system of one-dimensional approximate Lie algebras of the perturbed Harry Dym equation and derive some approximately differential invarints with respect to the generators of Lie algebra and optimal system.
V.A. Baikov, R.K. Gazizov and N.H. Ibragimov, Approximate symmetries of equations with a small parameter, Math. Sb. 136 (1988), 435-450 (English Transl. in Math . USSR Sb. 64 (1989), 427-441). V.A. Baikov, R.K. Gazizov and N.H Ibragimov, Approximate transformation groups and deformations of symmetry Lie algebras, Chapter 2, in CRC Handbook of Lie Group Analysis of Differential Equation, Vol. 3, Editor N.H. Ibragimov, Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, 1996. F. Calogero and A. Degasperis, Spectral Transform and Solitons 1, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982. N. Euler, M.W. Shulga, W.H. Steeb, Approximate symmetries and approximate solutions for a multidimensional LandauGinzburg equation, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 25 (1992), 1095-1103. M. Euler, N. Euler, A. K¨ohler, On the construction of approximate solutions for a multidimensional nonlinear heat equation, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 27 (1994), 2083-2092. W.I. Fushchich, W.H. Shtelen, On approximate symmetry and approximate solutions of the non-linear wave equation with a small parameter, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 22 (1989), 887-890. W. Hereman, P. P. Banerjee and M. R. Chatterjee, Derivation and implidt solution of the Harry Dym equation and its connections with the Korteweg–de Vries equation, J. Phys. A, 22:241-255, 1989. N.H. Ibragimov and V.F. Kovalev, Approximate and Renormgroup Symmetries. Beijing (P.R.China): Higher Education Press, 2009. In Series: Nonlinear Physical Science, Ed. Albert C.J Luo and N.H Ibragimov. M. D. Kruskal, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 38, 310-354, Springer, Berlin, 1975. F. Magri, 1978, A simple model of the integrable Hamiltonian equation, J. Math. Phys. 19 1156-1162. P.J. Olver, Application of Lie Groups to Differential Equations, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993. M. Pakdemirli, M. Y¨ur¨usoy, ˙I.T. Dolap¸ci, Comparison of approximate symmetry methods for differential equations, Acta. Appl. Math. 80 (2004) 243-271. Patera, J., Sharp, R. T., and Winternitz, P., Invariants of real low dimensional Lie algebras, JMP vol 17, No 6, June 1976, 966–994. R.J. Wiltshire, Two approaches to the calculation of approximate symmetry exemplified using a system of advection-diffusion equations, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 197 (2006) 287-301. P. C. Sabatier, On some spectral problems and isospectral evolutions connected with the classical string problem II, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 26:477-483, 1979. L. Yi-Shen, Evolution Equations Associated with the Eigenvalue Problem Based on the Equation $\varphi_{xx} = [\upsilon(x) -
\kappa^2\rho^2(x)]\varphi$, Lett.Nuovo Cimento 70 B:1-12, 1982. M. Wadati, Y. H. Ichikawa and T. Shimizu, Cusp Soliton of a New Integrable Nonlinear Evolution Equation, Prog. Theor. Phys. 64:1959-1967, 1980. M. Wadati, K. Konno and Y. H. Ichikawa, New Integrable Nonlinear Evolution Equations, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 47: 1698-1700, 1979.
Mehdi Nadjafikhah\
*Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak-16, Tehran, Iran*\
*E-mail:* m\_nadjafikhah@iust.ac.ir
Parastoo Kabi-Nejad\
*Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak-16, Tehran, Iran*\
*E-mail:* parastoo\_kabinejad@iust.ac.ir
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |